Tim Nelson
Veteran
The company going to the BK Judge is what all IAM members should have wanted. In essence, the IAM is 'rooting out' your company's position regarding the change of control. Some of you have emailed me with real questions so I'll post some replies here.
1. Why is the company going to the BK judge and shouldn't we do a job action?
The company did not offer a reasonable offer to the IAM [according to IAM documents] so the IAM has effectively 'held its cards' and decided to pursue the greivance. This action proved me wrong but I give points to the IAM for not laying down the cards and accepting a less than fair agreement.
Any job action would be damaging and unfair to the workers, company, and the process. It would be asinine as the things that are happening are just procedual.
Didn't the company catch the IAM off guard by going to the Bankruptcy judge and won't this have damaging effects to workers?
When the IAM held its cards, it affectively rolled the dice and [for the first time] called the company's bluff. This forced your company to lay down its cards so everyone knows what card the company is playing. This will at least be publically embarassing for the company and will also let the workers know how much money is at stake.
The IAM was not caught off guard and has very capable attorneys that were fully aware that things may go through legal procedures, possibly including appeals which may become lengthly. All Labor is watching as the IAM now has a chance to create a new paradigm for labor which has a much greater scope than just the US AIRWAYS property. Within the industry alone, it will force a new industry wage trend.
In this case, the workers won't be damaged. This is exactly what the workers should have wanted. Now everyone can see what cards are laid on the table and the They are actually getting what they are paying for by having a union actually stick to its guns and advocating for things that the workers fought long and hard for. This is a grievance....not negotitions. One must separate the two to rightly see what's going on.
What is the company contention in this case?
The company is basically saying the grievance should have been a 'claim' in the BK proceedings. If the Judge allows a broad definition of 'claim' then the case has merit. I am not an attorney and I don't know what the final determination will be, but in essence what the company is saying is that the IAM should have argued this grievance before the violation occured. Also, part of the company's contenion is based on what the IAM 'didn't do', ie., things of ommision.
I do not believe the IAM was olbigated to make this grievance a claim before it was birth, but I'm not the judge.
Secondly the company's contention about the IAM recognition of 'pay cuts' during its objections is weak at best and one need not be an attorney to label it weak.
Nonetheless, the company's best argument pretty much stands on the definition of 'claim'.
What does this mean for workers?
One word...."Jackpot".
First off, let's be clear, this is not negotiations...it is a greivance. The language is in the contract and it is Non Negotiable. In essence, this is the equivalent of 7,000 people [Mechanic & Fleet] pooling and holding a ticket for the Mega Million $439 million lottery [$627 million once 'westies' are included]. AND such a ticket has a 50%+ chance of winning. R U Kiddn me????
I don't know about you, but if I'm one of these 7,000 holding a ticket with an over $439 million payout with great odds then I say 'proceed' and "Let's get this thing done" and I would most certainly be willing to wait out the legal maneuvering. And if it isn't the winning number then you have lost nothing.
What is the Legal Process involved?
The judge can order an injunction and call for hearings and/or make a determination at a later date. We have seen this before. Don't expect this to be a one day thingy, especially with such a huge "Jackpot".
Likely Outcome?
Dunno, but where have we seen this before? It may be a stage that both your company and union have created to come to an agreement. In this case, the union's action would prove me right as it will sell out the workers.
What I'm saying is that we should expect the Judge to make a determination 'over time' and not overnight. For instance, he could say he will determine the outcome in 30 days. Under similar situations during the bankruptcy proceedings, the IAM folded its cards and went to the workers and explicitly said they should take an enhanced agreement before a Judge's determination date. I do not claim to have any knowledge of what the IAM's intentions are but hopefully this isn't a 'cooling off' period manufactured by the company, through pending legal determinations, to position the IAM more gracefully in persuading "East" workers to accept an unfair agreement through fear of what a Judge may or may not do. We've seen it before so who can fault the company for settting this up back in the BK court?
How much 'lov'n' would each "East" fleet employee get?
I'm not a math whiz but if a Class one station was $17 and should have been 2003 pay parity [$20.08] then the retro bonus checks for each full-time employee to 'make you whole' could be $12,000 and change for a two year period of May 2005-May 2007. A class 2 employee's should be a retro check in the amount of $18,500 [more since class 2 pay has only been $15.60]. Essentially what Bob Barker sez, " A new Car".
Tack on future wage rates based on the "give me some 4.5% lovn" for years 2009, 2010, and 2011 could be:
2009: $20.91
2010: $21.85
2011: $22.83
What does this mean for Pilots, Stews, Customer service?
My understanding is that the change of control grievance is IAM exclusive as the CWA/IBT sold its members out in return for a seamless voluntary recognition that didn't need a union vote.
But then again who knows which way the IAM will go on this. If it pursues this then it could make the papers in every city and provide the much needed and overdue impetus for Labor. A new paradigm for Labor could be established and this could be the shot heard from coast to coast that will create a culture shift in favor of labor, but at least the industry.
Again, the attorneys and other players will help determine the outcome of this Judge's determination.
regards
1. Why is the company going to the BK judge and shouldn't we do a job action?
The company did not offer a reasonable offer to the IAM [according to IAM documents] so the IAM has effectively 'held its cards' and decided to pursue the greivance. This action proved me wrong but I give points to the IAM for not laying down the cards and accepting a less than fair agreement.
Any job action would be damaging and unfair to the workers, company, and the process. It would be asinine as the things that are happening are just procedual.
Didn't the company catch the IAM off guard by going to the Bankruptcy judge and won't this have damaging effects to workers?
When the IAM held its cards, it affectively rolled the dice and [for the first time] called the company's bluff. This forced your company to lay down its cards so everyone knows what card
The IAM was not caught off guard and has very capable attorneys that were fully aware that things may go through legal procedures, possibly including appeals which may become lengthly. All Labor is watching as the IAM now has a chance to create a new paradigm for labor which has a much greater scope than just the US AIRWAYS property. Within the industry alone, it will force a new industry wage trend.
In this case, the workers won't be damaged. This is exactly what the workers should have wanted. Now everyone can see what cards are laid on the table and the They are actually getting what they are paying for by having a union actually stick to its guns and advocating for things that the workers fought long and hard for. This is a grievance....not negotitions. One must separate the two to rightly see what's going on.
What is the company contention in this case?
The company is basically saying the grievance should have been a 'claim' in the BK proceedings. If the Judge allows a broad definition of 'claim' then the case has merit. I am not an attorney and I don't know what the final determination will be, but in essence what the company is saying is that the IAM should have argued this grievance before the violation occured. Also, part of the company's contenion is based on what the IAM 'didn't do', ie., things of ommision.
I do not believe the IAM was olbigated to make this grievance a claim before it was birth, but I'm not the judge.
Secondly the company's contention about the IAM recognition of 'pay cuts' during its objections is weak at best and one need not be an attorney to label it weak.
Nonetheless, the company's best argument pretty much stands on the definition of 'claim'.
What does this mean for workers?
One word...."Jackpot".
First off, let's be clear, this is not negotiations...it is a greivance. The language is in the contract and it is Non Negotiable. In essence, this is the equivalent of 7,000 people [Mechanic & Fleet] pooling and holding a ticket for the Mega Million $439 million lottery [$627 million once 'westies' are included]. AND such a ticket has a 50%+ chance of winning. R U Kiddn me????
I don't know about you, but if I'm one of these 7,000 holding a ticket with an over $439 million payout with great odds then I say 'proceed' and "Let's get this thing done" and I would most certainly be willing to wait out the legal maneuvering. And if it isn't the winning number then you have lost nothing.
What is the Legal Process involved?
The judge can order an injunction and call for hearings and/or make a determination at a later date. We have seen this before. Don't expect this to be a one day thingy, especially with such a huge "Jackpot".
Likely Outcome?
Dunno, but where have we seen this before? It may be a stage that both your company and union have created to come to an agreement. In this case, the union's action would prove me right as it will sell out the workers.
What I'm saying is that we should expect the Judge to make a determination 'over time' and not overnight. For instance, he could say he will determine the outcome in 30 days. Under similar situations during the bankruptcy proceedings, the IAM folded its cards and went to the workers and explicitly said they should take an enhanced agreement before a Judge's determination date. I do not claim to have any knowledge of what the IAM's intentions are but hopefully this isn't a 'cooling off' period manufactured by the company, through pending legal determinations, to position the IAM more gracefully in persuading "East" workers to accept an unfair agreement through fear of what a Judge may or may not do. We've seen it before so who can fault the company for settting this up back in the BK court?
How much 'lov'n' would each "East" fleet employee get?
I'm not a math whiz but if a Class one station was $17 and should have been 2003 pay parity [$20.08] then the retro bonus checks for each full-time employee to 'make you whole' could be $12,000 and change for a two year period of May 2005-May 2007. A class 2 employee's should be a retro check in the amount of $18,500 [more since class 2 pay has only been $15.60]. Essentially what Bob Barker sez, " A new Car".
Tack on future wage rates based on the "give me some 4.5% lovn" for years 2009, 2010, and 2011 could be:
2009: $20.91
2010: $21.85
2011: $22.83
What does this mean for Pilots, Stews, Customer service?
My understanding is that the change of control grievance is IAM exclusive as the CWA/IBT sold its members out in return for a seamless voluntary recognition that didn't need a union vote.
But then again who knows which way the IAM will go on this. If it pursues this then it could make the papers in every city and provide the much needed and overdue impetus for Labor. A new paradigm for Labor could be established and this could be the shot heard from coast to coast that will create a culture shift in favor of labor, but at least the industry.
Again, the attorneys and other players will help determine the outcome of this Judge's determination.
regards
