Agreed, so why agree to lower pay and benefits to try and stop it?
RIF dates
- Thread starter iluvaa
- Start date
Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
This whole thing is like Nancy Pelosi telling everyone they just have to vote for the healthcare overhaul to find out what's in it.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
I would say that is a valid comparison.
Plenty of people who are old enough to retire cant retire thanks to all the concessions we've taken, the fact that their former employer liquidated after years of concessions and the fact that we wont have medical.
We asked the question on the retiree medical, The company refused to answer that and said they will only discuss it with the 1114 committee. I think their plan is to split the difference, use our money to make it look like they are having mercy on retirees. The retirees will take whatever the company offers them because they really have no choice. When you retire early the fund is drawn down in 10 equal payments, the company match portion reverts to the company right away and after 10 years or at 65 its all gone but you still get medigap coverage with a lifetime cap of $50k. They have no claim after that and the company can terminate the plan. As I said before their hope is to numerically use our funds to pay the $10k early out incentive, my guess it costs them around $5million but if it gets them up to the 50% +1 they would get access to M&Rs $57 million. Thats what they are shooting for. Thats why its important that we get as wide of a margin as possible, if its close they will tweek it a little bit and throw it out there again. We dont just need a "NO" we need a "HELL NO".
Do people get to stay if enough people take retirement? Maybe, till the next rif. The company admitted that they dont have places to send out the work, so it will take time for them to send work out. Rifs will not be a one shot deal, whenever they can find someone who will do the work cheaper they can send it out as long as they stay under the 45%(55%) cap. UAL shows that these caps are hard to enforce, so its really a free for all.. So they may be safe through the first rif but then if they find someone who can do the work cheaper get hit by the next, or the next, or the next. Thats what we are agreeing toi if we vote YES. They will be able to outsource whatever they want.
Here is one way of looking at it. If they abrogate they can pretty much do anything they want but they have no agreement in place and it would likely lead to disruptions to the operation and pressure from the creditors to get an agreement (especially if the operation deteriorates). It will take AA at least 18 months to outsource all they say they want to outsource, so they would not be able to operate if there is a strike this summer. That gives us leverage.
If we agree it gives them 6 years to maximize outsoucing and to see if its cost effective. They will maintain operations in Tulsa for the same reason that SWA maintains operations in Dallas, to use as leverage against the vendors. Tulsa workers will be under the constant threat that if they do not produce the company will outsource it, and now they would have the language to back it up. In addition to that they would have the lowest labor unit costs in the industry for maintenence by a wide margin. Tulsa workers will be conditioned to compare themselves to workers at TIMCO and AAR instead of UAL and SWA. In the next contract, since they will not be able to attract workers on the line the company will split the contracts.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
This is the part we disagree.
I believe there still is an agreement in place, it is just a modified agreement.
But approval of a plan to ermerge will not happen until consensual agreement is reached.
This is why negotiations begin after abrogation, not becuase there is no contract.
You really need to get a clear understanding of this becuase I feel you are being mislead on this issue.
Or I need a clear understanding of the purpose of the 1113 changes of 2005.
My understanding is that the changes of 2005 were to prevent not having an agreement in place and the distruptions that would take place while still under C11 protection you speak about.
I did find this interest PDF
http://www.restructuringamr.com/documents/1113_oal_outcomes_chart_4.16.12.pdf
Each of these list "consensual" agreement.
I still say without consensual agreements the court plan approval to emerge is not going to happen and that is where the leverage is for us and all Unions.
I do not see where you will have the right to strike during any of this.
If there is a strike (wildcat or other), AA will cease to exist.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Interim relief is available upon a heightened showing that the requested changes are essential to avoid liquidation or irreparable damage.
Only once the union has refused the debtor's proposal without good cause may the debtor reject the CBA and impose
new terms.
Rejection does not alter the union's status as the employees' authorized representative—the debtor is obligated to bargain with the union in accordance with applicable labor laws following rejection.
Non-airline unions governed by the NLRA are generally free to
strike post-rejection; under the RLA, airline unions are not, absent a manifestation of bad faith
by the debtor.
Only once the union has refused the debtor's proposal without good cause may the debtor reject the CBA and impose
new terms.
Rejection does not alter the union's status as the employees' authorized representative—the debtor is obligated to bargain with the union in accordance with applicable labor laws following rejection.
Non-airline unions governed by the NLRA are generally free to
strike post-rejection; under the RLA, airline unions are not, absent a manifestation of bad faith
by the debtor.
2ndGENAMT
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2011
- 818
- 497
Informer, I believe your understanding is quite clear.. I have tried to tell people in my shop that abrogation isn't the end of the negotiation process (not sure if they believe)... How long will the interim relief process take? will the court rule immediately or is there a separate hearing??
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
I believe that without a consensual agreement between company and union that the court would never approve a plan to emerge.
This is the only Union Leverage left in this situation.
Unless of course you pay your monthly dues to the most docile union in the industry. Then you will be force fed fear and emergency voting without clear understanding of what the vote outcome actually means.
I believe judge Lane at best will give AA interim relief and then there should be time for binding arbitration.
AA claimed there wasn't time for binding arbitration. If they were to be given interim relief there would be time.
All three unions offered binding arbitration, which AA rejected.
Judge Lane should rule for interim relief and then order all parties to embark upon the offered binding arbitration.
I have no idea why the TWU has placed this deadline upon themselves. Other than just plain ignorance, or worse the TWU and James C Little really are company unionized and we are all just pawns.
Nothing would be more fair in this situation than binding arbitration outside of the emergency of Bankrutcy procedures.
In the event of more time needed, Judge Lane has that in hiw power to extend. With interim relief given time is no longer the issue.
This would resolve the pending hostile merger attacks, and resolve the fairness issues for employees.
All three Unions should diligently fight the term sheets in front of the court, and at the same time respectfully request that if Judge Lane rules in favor of the company that bench ruling be an interim order and he order all parties into binding arbitration since all Unions agreed to that earlier.
Upon completion of the binding Arbitrations, the Union Labor issue will be resolved. Meanwhile, the courts can proceed with the other unresolved issues at hand.
How fair is that?
- Banned
- #55
Section 1113C is not interim relief, its permanent.
Section 1113E is interim/emergency relief.
If your CBA is abrogated and the term sheet imposes the modification, there wont be any new negotiations, your new amendable date is in 2018.
Go ask Sharon Levine, the premiere bankruptcy attorney under the RLA.
You wont be in Section 6 negotiations and there will be no binding arbitration, AA all ready rejected that, dont you remember?
The bankruptcy judge does not have the authority under the law to make the parties submit to binding arbitration.
You guys are pulling stuff out of the air.
Section 1113E is interim/emergency relief.
If your CBA is abrogated and the term sheet imposes the modification, there wont be any new negotiations, your new amendable date is in 2018.
Go ask Sharon Levine, the premiere bankruptcy attorney under the RLA.
You wont be in Section 6 negotiations and there will be no binding arbitration, AA all ready rejected that, dont you remember?
The bankruptcy judge does not have the authority under the law to make the parties submit to binding arbitration.
You guys are pulling stuff out of the air.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Do you think the court will approve any plan to emerge without Union Consensual Agreements?
Do you honestly believe AA even wants that? AA is using this process to extract concessions not destroy the Airline
Can you name a case that approval to emerge was granted without consensual agreements in place?
- Banned
- #57
Once the CBA is agreed to or imposed, the Judge's job is done in regards to labor. The agreements dont have to be consensual.
He will approve the POR, if the Creditor's Committee approves it and your term sheets go through the committee also.
Workers talk big, but the majority will show up to work, I have seen it happen over and over.
Once again the judge doesnt care about labor, he cares about the creditors getting paid and the company emerging from chapter 11 protection.
He will approve the POR, if the Creditor's Committee approves it and your term sheets go through the committee also.
Workers talk big, but the majority will show up to work, I have seen it happen over and over.
Once again the judge doesnt care about labor, he cares about the creditors getting paid and the company emerging from chapter 11 protection.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Check out this PDF
Click Here
See United Airlines (2002-2005)
Flight Attendants
1113C Motion 2002-2003
Concensual INTERIM Relief
Pilots
1113C Motion 2002-2003
Concensual INTERIM Relief
You might also note the same at Northwest Airlines - Consenual Interim Relief from an 1113c motion.
If the 1113C motion does not allow for consenual interim relief then why did that happen?
It appears to me that Interim Relief was indeed granted during an 1113c motion.
Sure Consensual implies NOT ORDERED by Judge but still worth a shot in my view.
Again, Can you name one case that approval to emerge was granted without consensual labor terms in place?
Click Here
See United Airlines (2002-2005)
Flight Attendants
1113C Motion 2002-2003
Concensual INTERIM Relief
Pilots
1113C Motion 2002-2003
Concensual INTERIM Relief
You might also note the same at Northwest Airlines - Consenual Interim Relief from an 1113c motion.
If the 1113C motion does not allow for consenual interim relief then why did that happen?
It appears to me that Interim Relief was indeed granted during an 1113c motion.
Sure Consensual implies NOT ORDERED by Judge but still worth a shot in my view.
Again, Can you name one case that approval to emerge was granted without consensual labor terms in place?
- Banned
- #59
Interim is not temporary.
If you say it is then why is the new amendable date 2018?
I never said it doesnt provide for consensual relief, that is what the negotiation process is under Section 1113c to try to come to a consensual agreement, if you dont then the court can impose the company's motion and term sheet.
If you say it is then why is the new amendable date 2018?
I never said it doesnt provide for consensual relief, that is what the negotiation process is under Section 1113c to try to come to a consensual agreement, if you dont then the court can impose the company's motion and term sheet.
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
From RLA information I have been reading from another thread you posted after the company imposes terms that eliminates the status quo that action triggers Section2 Duty to make new agreements to make a new status quo but the problem is I see no forced timeline to make it happen. Now under the Section2 Duty it refers to a reasonable effort to negotiate terms but with uncertain contours (?) and goes on to say that the Duty under Section2 does not compel agreement between the employer and employees. So with this, how do you say they must have an agreement with the unions before the company can emerge from bankruptcy? Maybe you should bring your info and opinion to the big meeting to be held next Saturday, if your argument is true, it should be considered.
