THOUGHTS ON A NO VOTE

[ITRADE]

This is what Chip posted:

and the union/its members could be saddled to pay the company millions of dollars in damages.

It is not necessarily an exclusive. I read it as an either-or. And the membership sends in money to the union coffers every month.

 

[repeet]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/9/2002 11:42:10 AM ITRADE wrote:

This is what Chip posted:

----------------
[/blockquote]
Chip is a Pilot and a Columnist, he is not a lawyer.

I can't say to my coworker ...and if you vote no the judge will require you to write checks to the company because CHIP SAID SO.

I need a law, a precedent, or a legal opinion as a credible arguing point.

I think that the judge will draw the line at making the rank and file write checks to the company, and that is MY OPINION.

 

[ITRADE]

And the operative in his post was could be saddled with could being the point. Again, not an absolute.

As to illegal work actions, again I refer you to the APA sickout.

 

[pitguy]

Yes chip I feel that it is worth taking. Granted the express mechanics make less, but it is not that great of gap. I think all mainline jobs pay better than express though. I guess it matters none at this point, but for us all to prepare for another no vote. Most mechanics are getting ready for some closure.

 

[repeet]

Ok chip I need your source.

If my union brothers vote this proposal down, and,
if the judge grants punitive damages, then
under what rule or precedent does the membership have to pony up cash out of their pockets to pay an administrative fine?

 

[chipmunn]

Repeet:

Repeet asked: If my union brothers vote this proposal down, and, if the judge grants punitive damages, then under what rule or precedent does the membership have to pony up cash out of their pockets to pay an administrative fine?

Chip answers: Repeet, a few years ago the AA pilots held an illegal sick out. AMR management obtained an emergency court order to prevent pilots from calling in sick. But, the pilots did not accept the order and continued to call in sick. AMR went back to court and APA, the pilots union, was found in contempt and were given a $48 million fine.

The issue before the CWA & IAM-M is that the company has filed a legal brief with the bankruptcy court for the Section 1113 hearing.

The Legal Brief states, the company will seek to abrogate the contract(s), have the court prevent a strike, and force the CWA to pay $2.4 million per month for six months ($14.4 million) and the IAM $5.1 million per month for six months ($30.6 million), for any union who does not ratify the restructuring agreements.

Therefore, if Judge Mitchell agrees with the company's motion, he can order damages to be paid to US Airways by the union(s). The problem for IAM & CWA members is that the union does not have an extra $30 million and $14 million, respectively, in the budget. Union income comes from its membership dues and the union is made up of its members. Ultimately, the members are responsible for the actions of its leaders and if there is a monetary shortfall, the union would have no option but to access its membership to pay any court ordered damages or negotiate a settlement with the company.

If a union member votes no and even quits the company, the member could still be assessed the penalty.

Chip

 

[repeet]

ITRADE,

That is exactly my question.

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/9/2002 11:31:50 AM ITRADE wrote:

the union had to empty a good portion of its coffers as damages.
----------------
[/blockquote]
When did the membership have to mail in personal checks?

 

[ITRADE]

The AA sickout was an example where the union had to empty a good portion of its coffers as damages. And, two of the senior APA execs received personal fines.

 

[chipmunn]

Repeet:

Repeet asked: [/]When did the membership have to mail in personal checks?[/i]

Chip answers: If the union has the money available to pay for damages, individual members would not be responsible. However, if the union does not have the funds available or the union leadership votes to access its members, the rank-and-file could be required by the IAM to pay the union all or a portion of the damages, which would then be forwarded to the company.

The company's motion will be filed against the IAM, but ultimately the IAM Local Lodge is made up of its members and in its most basic form, the union is the membership.

Chip

 

[Bob Owens]

Chip answers: Repeet, a few years ago the AA pilots held an illegal sick out. AMR management obtained an emergency court order to prevent pilots from calling in sick. But, the pilots did not accept the order and continued to call in sick. AMR went back to court and APA, the pilots union, was found in contempt and were given a $48 million fine.

The issue before the CWA & IAM-M is that the company has filed a legal brief with the bankruptcy court for the Section 1113 hearing.

The Legal Brief states, the company will seek to abrogate the contract(s), have the court prevent a strike, and force the CWA to pay $2.4 million per month for six months ($14.4 million) and the IAM $5.1 million per month for six months ($30.6 million), for any union who does not ratify the restructuring agreements.

Therefore, if Judge Mitchell agrees with the company's motion, he can order damages to be paid to US Airways by the union(s). The problem for IAM & CWA members is that the union does not have an extra $30 million and $14 million, respectively, in the budget. Union income comes from its membership dues and the union is made up of its members. Ultimately, the members are responsible for the actions of its leaders and if there is a monetary shortfall, the union would have no option but to access its membership to pay any court ordered damages or negotiate a settlement with the company.

If a union member votes no and even quits the company, the member could still be assessed the penalty.

Lets look at this. First of all there are a lot of ifs. If this, if that. If the sky should fall ... .As you stated the pilots action was illegal.The pilots were fined because they disobeyed the orders of a judge- This has no relevance to whats going on at USAIR and there is nothing illegal about expressing your preference in an election. This is a pure bluff. There is no precedence. The breif was obviously prepared for the consumption of the mechanics, not the judge. Show us one applicable example where union members were fined on the basis of the outcome of a legal vote? The fact is you cant. There is no law against this nor is there any legal obligation on the part of the mechanics to accept a pay cut just because the company is in bankruptcy. Its never happened in this country and I hope to God that it never does. USAIR can submit a breif that if the mechanics reject the agreement they get to take away all their assets. And IF the judge agrees it would happen, but how likely is that? The fact is that all of the above statements you posted are either not applicable or improbable. The mechanics best bet is to hold out. Contract law is on their side despite all the hype. The fact is once this breif gets ruled upon the company loses credibility for even making such a request. The company is obvoiusly banking on the hopes that the breif in itself will be enough to scare the mechanics into a yes vote.You can be reletively certain that these requests will be withdrawn after the mechanics vote NO again.

 

[Bob Owens]

Chip answers: Repeet, a few years ago the AA pilots held an illegal sick out. AMR management obtained an emergency court order to prevent pilots from calling in sick. But, the pilots did not accept the order and continued to call in sick. AMR went back to court and APA, the pilots union, was found in contempt and were given a $48 million fine.

The issue before the CWA & IAM-M is that the company has filed a legal brief with the bankruptcy court for the Section 1113 hearing.

The Legal Brief states, the company will seek to abrogate the contract(s), have the court prevent a strike, and force the CWA to pay $2.4 million per month for six months ($14.4 million) and the IAM $5.1 million per month for six months ($30.6 million), for any union who does not ratify the restructuring agreements.

Therefore, if Judge Mitchell agrees with the company's motion, he can order damages to be paid to US Airways by the union(s). The problem for IAM & CWA members is that the union does not have an extra $30 million and $14 million, respectively, in the budget. Union income comes from its membership dues and the union is made up of its members. Ultimately, the members are responsible for the actions of its leaders and if there is a monetary shortfall, the union would have no option but to access its membership to pay any court ordered damages or negotiate a settlement with the company.

If a union member votes no and even quits the company, the member could still be assessed the penalty.

Lets look at this. First of all there are a lot of ifs. If this, if that. If the sky should fall ... .As you stated the pilots action was illegal.The pilots were fined because they disobeyed the orders of a judge- This has no relevance to whats going on at USAIR and there is nothing illegal about expressing your preference in an election. This is a pure bluff. There is no precedence. The breif was obviously prepared for the consumption of the mechanics, not the judge. Show us one applicable example where union members were fined on the basis of the outcome of a legal vote? The fact is you cant. There is no law against this nor is there any legal obligation on the part of the mechanics to accept a pay cut just because the company is in bankruptcy. Its never happened in this country and I hope to God that it never does. USAIR can submit a breif that if the mechanics reject the agreement they get to take away all their assets. And IF the judge agrees it would happen, but how likely is that? The fact is that all of the above statements you posted are either not applicable or improbable. The mechanics best bet is to hold out. Contract law is on their side despite all the hype. The fact is once this breif gets ruled upon the company loses credibility for even making such a request. The company is obvoiusly banking on the hopes that the breif in itself will be enough to scare the mechanics into a yes vote.You can be reletively certain that these requests will be withdrawn after the mechanics vote NO again.

 

[repeet]

Ok,(deep breath) you've got me curious now.
Just what illegal job actions would you be referring to. I'm simply tying to realize the consequences of voting No on our next ballot.

 

[cavalier]

You can be reletively certain that these requests will be withdrawn after the mechanics vote NO again.


Wow, lots of power in that word, relatively.

Talk about a crapshoot, but what if the dice are loaded. . . .

 

[chipmunn]

Bob Owens:

Let me be perfectly clear:

If either the CWA or IAM-M restructuring agreement is not ratified the company will ask Judge Mitchell to:

1. Terminate any union contract that has not been voluntarily restructured. If this occurs the company will be free to impose deeper cuts in pay, work rules, and benefits.

2. Provide an order preventing any union to strike.

3. Agree to the company’s request that the IAM-M and its members be forced to pay US Airways $5.1 million per month and the CWA $2.1 million per month for six months.

Bob, the company has no choice but to follow though on its threat because they cannot allow the credit facility and loan guarantee to not be obtained.

As Lakeguy67 said, So far US Airways is batting 100% in having every motion they have filed granted to them.

Bob, a no vote is a vote to cancel the contract, receive deeper cuts, and expose oneself to have to pay damages, period. These are the legal hurdles facing every CWA or IAM-M represented employee, which from my perspective, should be very disconcerting since the hometown judge has agreed to every company request and the credit facility and loan guarantee require voluntary or court-ordered IAM-M & CWA cuts. I believe it may not be in any CWA or IAM-M member’s best interest to go in front of the judge because by all indications it appears the unions will pay dearly for this decision.

Chip

 

[UAL777flyer]

t-man,

Your union would not permit the company to merely conduct a poll to see what part of the T/A the members didn't like. To do so would completely undermine the authority and work of your union negotiating committee. Do you honestly think your union is going to allow that? Also, even if they did, how much time do you think would be wasted trying to get an accurate consensus on what parts of the T/A the members didn't like? Everyone has their own likes and dislikes. Unfortunately, it's up to your union NC to go to bat for you. The issues you have with the T/A should be taken up with them, not the company.