Strike Not A Good Idea

[goingboeing]

I'm curious as to how you want the laws to be changed?

Section 1113 was enacted to provide employees with considerably GREATER protections than they had otherwise. Before S 1113 was added to the Bankruptcy Code, an company could treat an employment contract like any other contract with a vendor-- once it filed for Ch.11, the employer could basically unilaterally choose to not honor the CBA.

S 1113 gives employees and their CBAs much GREATER protection than other, non-employment contracts in BK. Under S 1113, it is much harder for a company to not honor / reject CBAs than it is for it to reject other contracts. It was largely enacted to PROTECT EMPLOYEES. Otherwise, management would have instituted whatever changes it wanted to the moment it went into Ch.11. (And the unions would have been free to strike, and U would have shut down permanently, and y'all would have been without a job and paycheck for all those months now.)

So I am curious what you want to see the laws changed to? That a broke employer on the brink of going out of business NEVER be allowed to change ANY employment contracts at all, period, even if it means those continued high labor costs lead to the shut-down of the company once the $$$ runs out? Is that realistic, or even a good solution for employees?

[post="200681"][/post]​

To avoid a long discourse I'll say that I agree with Robert Crandall and his views how chapter 11 has damaged the airline business.He recently testified before the Senate Aviation Sub-Committee and it was on C-Span.[Probably will be replayed several times].He preached it for years when he was CEO at AA and nothing was ever done to fix it.

 

[deano]

Dea

[post="200646"][/post]​

Both of your posts would make perfect sense in world where corruption and lies are an alien concept, where everything is truly based on the needs of everyone and not self, but we live in a real world where talking things out in a slanted court system that run by laws created by corporation’s money, that is where we live.

Striking is the only resistance left and if you don't even do that then what will become of the remaining labor force in this country when corporate America sees how easy it was to take everything away and ride off into the sunset fat dumb and happy? Unions will lose the little leverage they have left if they no longer have the fortitude to give them the middle finger when it was long over due.

We don't live in a perfect world, these corporate hacks are no damn good, they are only interested in self and could care less about your family. Sitting home and watching football while the place goes to hell, which is right where "they" had it pointed is what I say we do, playing Mr. Nice, not

That is my take, the hell with Mr. nice guy! Mr. nice guy finishes last, have you noticed?

 

[PITbull]

Trin,

Your post is truth.

Company imposes contracts, we will all stand together.

 

[Bear96]

To avoid a long discourse I'll say that I agree with Robert Crandall and his views how chapter 11 has damaged the airline business.He recently testified before the Senate Aviation Sub-Committee and it was on C-Span.[Probably will be replayed several times].He preached it for years when he was CEO at AA and nothing was ever done to fix it.

[post="200682"][/post]​

I think we may be talking about two different things here.

Crandall was talking about the Ch.11 concept in its entirety-- how having a competitor able to take advantage of certain things while in Ch.11 creates an uneven playing field with those not in Ch.11.

I took goingboeing's comments to be referreing more specifically to the S 1113 (and 1114) part of the Ch.11 laws dealing with employee CBAs.

But, you do bring up an interesting point. Are you saying you agree with Crandall's ideas to the extent that there should be no Ch.11 protection for companies unable to pay their debts? The alternative (and the way it was before Ch.11) was basically if you can't pay your bills, you start selling off assets in order to do so at the command of your creditors (i.e., liquidation). In other words, if there were no Ch.11 protection, U would have liquidated long ago, when it entered BK #1. And UA would have been gone for almost two years now as well.

How would THAT have helped the U and UAL employees? (It would, however, have helped the employees at other airlines, like AA, which is part of Crandall's point-- though I am sure he will be singing a different tune once AA is forced to file Ch.11 as well.)

 

[AP Tech]

[quote=Industry Observer,Nov 14 2004,
. Most of my union brothers in Hangar 5 aren't ready to give up their jobs and won't even think about a strike.


You must be working in a different Hgr 5 than most..........Have you read the contract proposal?????? If it goes through YOU will not be there!!!!!!Everyone but a few left on the line will be farmed out!!! And if you believe different...well????I do not wish to give up my job but I refuse to vote myself out of a job. Do I want a strike....no....will I strike if forced to ...yes....is it going to happen...very,very likely!!

 

[repeet]

Thank-you AP Tech.
I was beginning to think that there was another Hanger 5 somewhere in an alternate universe.

 

[madders]

Hey people if the judge approve contracts to be voided you have no protection therefore you are an at-will employee which means if you strike you will be fired and replaced.
If you call in sick more than 3 days in a row if you do not have a letter from a doctor its means you have abandoned your employment and you will be fired and replaced ...

So strike at your own peril and yeh the judge not going to force you to work that has been mention on other post on this forum but if you do not like the judge's decision you can either eat it or quit ...

 

[700UW]

Hey people if the judge approve contracts to be voided you have no protection therefore you are an at-will employee which means if you strike you will be fired and replaced.
If you call in sick more than 3 days in a row if you do not have a letter from a doctor its means you have abandoned your employment and you will be fired and replaced ...

So strike at your own peril and yeh the judge not going to force you to work that has been mention on other post on this forum but if you do not like the judge's decision you can either eat it or quit ...

[post="200817"][/post]​

You still have union representation and if you call in sick for three days it is not job abandonment, it is when you do not show up for three days in a row without calling.

Keep trying.

 

[goingboeing]

I think we may be talking about two different things here.

Crandall was talking about the Ch.11 concept in its entirety-- how having a competitor able to take advantage of certain things while in Ch.11 creates an uneven playing field with those not in Ch.11.

I took goingboeing's comments to be referreing more specifically to the S 1113 (and 1114) part of the Ch.11 laws dealing with employee CBAs.

But, you do bring up an interesting point. Are you saying you agree with Crandall's ideas to the extent that there should be no Ch.11 protection for companies unable to pay their debts? The alternative (and the way it was before Ch.11) was basically if you can't pay your bills, you start selling off assets in order to do so at the command of your creditors (i.e., liquidation). In other words, if there were no Ch.11 protection, U would have liquidated long ago, when it entered BK #1. And UA would have been gone for almost two years now as well.

How would THAT have helped the U and UAL employees? (It would, however, have helped the employees at other airlines, like AA, which is part of Crandall's point-- though I am sure he will be singing a different tune once AA is forced to file Ch.11 as well.)

[post="200701"][/post]​

How would you like to show up to play a football game and the other team has 50 points on the scoreboard before the game even starts?This is what happens in chapter 11 protection as the team in BK has a big advantage over the teams that have to play the game outside of chapter 11.
Robert Crandall was looking for time limits to be imposed on operating in chapter 11 instead of being open-ended.I think CAL flew under chapter 11 protection for 4-5 years in the 1980's or 1990's.This is nuts and it damages ALL airlines trying to play by the rules outside of chapter 11. Enough said.

 

[aerosmith]

seven years of college down the drain.

 

[Bear96]

How would you like to show up to play a football game and the other team has 50 points on the scoreboard before the game even starts?This is what happens in chapter 11 protection as the team in BK has a big advantage over the teams that have to play the game outside of chapter 11.
Robert Crandall was looking for time limits to be imposed on operating in chapter 11 instead of being open-ended.I think CAL flew under chapter 11 protection for 4-5 years in the 1980's or 1990's.This is nuts and it damages ALL airlines trying to play by the rules outside of chapter 11. Enough said.

[post="200838"][/post]​

OK then help me connect the dots.

A four-day strike over Thanksgiving by all airline employees would solve this problem--- how, exactly?

 

[eolesen]

OK then help me connect the dots.

A four-day strike over Thanksgiving by all airline employees would solve this problem--- how, exactly?

[post="200875"][/post]​

We're not in France.... Besides the fact that it would be a stupid move, a strike by all airline employees would still leave some airlines flying -- not everyone is unionized...

 

[UseYourHead]

I agree Dea,

We all have a stake in this, and we should all pull the rope in the same direction.

Doing anything other than that is counter-productive...and driven by anger, etc. It gets you no-where, that is a no-brainer.

I understand how everyone's feeling so angry and frustrated, cheated and abused, but I don't think a strike at this time is a good idea. I think it would be playing into management's hand....In the meanwhile, we should all continue to give the best service we can. Let's not give management the grounds to say it's our fault.

Dea

[post="200646"][/post]​

 

[firstamendment]

whether or not you can strike and the legal consequences would be moot when the company ceases operations due to a huge lack of personell to operate it.i'm sure some would try to work and the judge would probably attempt to arrest union leaders...but it would domino rather quickly.
just remember our fate is in our hands and thats the one thing the company can't take from us.
are you with me?

[post="200672"][/post]​

Bravo DD!! Again, another funny one!!

 

[Dea Certe]

Folks,

Good posts all! And I appreciate the civility and thoughtful attitudes.

First, let me be very clear, I would never cross a picket line. Even if it was in front of the ladies room and my morning coffee/bran muffin kicked in. I'd rather soil my pants than dirty my soul. I was proud to support the IAM in '92. I'll be proud to support the CWA, I think our Customer Service people have taken the biggest beatings of them all. They've been slapped around by management, hampered from doing true customer service by limitations imposed by policies that aren't clear to the customer *and* they get hammered by the customers for things over which agents have no control. And I continue to be amazed at the grace they show under all that pressure.

Let's all remember that the agents were not unionized until 1992, I believe. Up to then, they'd been treated OK enough to not want a union. It takes a lot to make people want to join a union and even more to make them mad enough to want to strike in such overwhelming numbers.

What concerns me is that it appears management is playing chess while the unions are playing poker. The unions are not bluffing but I think we are being manipulated.

I can't imagine any employee left on the property doesn't have some kind of Plan B by now. I don't want people walking away with bitterness. I'd hope people will leave with a sense of accomplishment, knowing we've done our best for ourselves and our professions. Capitulation isn't our best by any stretch. Whatever happens, we need to continue to pressure our government for better laws protecting Labor and our national economy.

Keep in mind that NAFTA contains some meager labor protection, like requiring a small level of sanitation (toilets) that Corporate America finds too onerous to bear. That's why the outsourcing is going to Asia and India. Pretty sad, huh?

One last thing about olives: anecdotal research taught me olives may not have been the culprit of my misery Saturday morning. Seems like ice or those small, pearl onions can have the same side effects when consumed immoderately. Interesting, don't you think?


Dea