TWU and the Company reached a Tentative Agreement

[Realityck]

The shortage is here people. just remember 1995 when we had to sit on the sidelines as the country went through one of the biggest economic expansions ever while we were tied to a 6 year 6% concessionary deal thank to Ed Koziatek. We had a ME TOO clause then as well.


As I recall, in 1995 our top AMT rate was $2.50 above the UAL rate (It may have been due to a wage cut), and $7.00 above the TWA rate. The APA (Pilots in case you forgot that too Bob) also had a 6yr agreement with the same wage freeze as we did. They added a 7th year for a 2% wage increase. The me-too language in our 95 contract required AA to offer it to us, they did and the President's Council rejected it in order to open asap. I always believed that was a good move on their part. The 95 agreement also expanded job security to include all AMTs on payroll hired prior to August 15, 1995. The early-out option in the agreement also allowed the recall of close to 1,000 AMTs, all of who got job security when they returned to payroll.

I know you're just doing your sales pitch, but try to be a little more accurate. It hurts your image when you start having memory lapses.

 

[1AA]

Nope. I worked on the A300B4 before I worked for AA.

You are paying attention. I like that!

The A300 did fly out of DFW under AA colors for a very short time. It even flew out of LAX for a short time as well.

 

[Bob Owens]

Yes it is...
I am willing to see this through till the end..
But the biggest IF i am concerned with is IF the judge abbrogates, can the 6 year duration be imposed...
I know all about the " we continue to negotiate" language...

But what IF the term of duration is imposed as well?
.

According to everything thats been said the judge does not impose, he abrogates and allows the company to impose new terms. The appelate court ruled that the contract never existed so there is no contract, no contract-no six year term, that would be as if a non-union company went union and the company telling its employees prior to recognizing the union that all workers have to agree to 20 year non collectively bargained contracts with the company and then when the union is recognized by the NMB telling both the NMB and the union to come back in 20 years, so if the company said they refused to negotiate with the Union, under the RLA the NMB would have to release us to self help.

So IMO the answer is NO. The company can not unilaterally impose a six year term. The only body that can do that is Congress, if a PEB is rejected.

 

[Flying low]

No contract, no work rules?

 

[Bob Owens]

The shortage is here people. just remember 1995 when we had to sit on the sidelines as the country went through one of the biggest economic expansions ever while we were tied to a 6 year 6% concessionary deal thank to Ed Koziatek. We had a ME TOO clause then as well.


As I recall, in 1995 our top AMT rate was $2.50 above the UAL rate (It may have been due to a wage cut), and $7.00 above the TWA rate. The APA (Pilots in case you forgot that too Bob) also had a 6yr agreement with the same wage freeze as we did. They added a 7th year for a 2% wage increase. The me-too language in our 95 contract required AA to offer it to us, they did and the President's Council rejected it in order to open asap. I always believed that was a good move on their part. The 95 agreement also expanded job security to include all AMTs on payroll hired prior to August 15, 1995. The early-out option in the agreement also allowed the recall of close to 1,000 AMTs, all of who got job security when they returned to payroll.

I know you're just doing your sales pitch, but try to be a little more accurate. It hurts your image when you start having memory lapses.

I think you are having mirages.
.
UAL had bought into the ESOP. They were deferring pay to buy the company,(bad deal, thought so then) but I dont think they were $2.50 below us. They may have taken a $2.50 cut for the ESOP but I dont think they were ever $2.50 below us accept for maybe after the 2001 contract . Those who left the company before the crash did well, those who stayed and held on to their stock took a bath.

Have no idea on the TWA rate but it was clear to all it was a dying airline like Pan AM.

If the pilots had a 6 year wage freeze in 95 then how did they go on strike in 97??

Presidents Council rejected the ME Too? Thats a new one. Have any documentation on that? Open ASAP? We opened in 2000, a year early and didnt settle until late 2001.

The Early out stuck us with a 6.5% raise over 6 years, plus it was end loaded,when inflation was running at around 3% per year (so 18% over the term). In real terms we lost 12% of our buying power during that contract, most other workers fared much, much better..

The guys on layoff would have been recalled anyway.

 

[Bob Owens]

In Jan 2004 Wedoff granted UA's 1113e motion to immediately cut pay rates and modify specific parts of the CBA. Beginning of 2004 to the end of 2011 is eight years in real years not Owens years.

Slow down Overspin, you are forgetting what you wrote.

You are comparing the UA wage negotiated eight years after emerging from BK

UAL emerged in 2005, just like I said, and negotiated a new deal the end of 2011, you do the math.

Pay cuts were 17.5% Bob not 25%.

Vacation, Sick time, Holidays and Health Benefits (even though I did not include that because its variable) are all part of your pay. Cmon, you know that!! You also know that 25% was what the company was demanding, when the committee said to take it all in the form of a wage cut the company said no, they demanded that some of it be in benefit cuts which compound over time, and for the International means a smaller hit to the dues flow.

I don't remember us giving up our pension, retiree medical, and outsourcing all of airframe overhaul in 2003 Bob. Need to stop cherry picking facts to fit your perception of reality.

Not Cherry Picking, you are using your Fox News Hannity style misinformation techniques to try and blurr the facts. The comparasion was between DOS of the Modified Last Best Offer and what UAL currently has. In the MLBO we lose the pension, retiree medical. Are you spinning so fast you didnt see that?

40%? Really? I'd like to see the breakdown on that. The rate of inflation from 2003 to 2012 is only 3.75% (CAGR) over that period.

I should have put the word "real" in, my mistake, but yes in real terms the buying power we have from our wgaes has declined by 40%.

25%for the cut, yes we got 7% increase back on the wages, nothing else, but all of that was consumed by the Medical between higher rates, copays and deductibles. The Pilots got back 9% the first year. 3.75%-your number not mine- seems high to me but ok, 3.75 x 9 years = 33.75% (without factoring in compounding) so going by your numbers its more like 58%. My property taxes alone nearly doubled. I know the CPI does not include taxes but if we are talking buying power Taxes and many other things they leave out should be otherwise its not an accurate reflection on the loss of buying power. I use the standrd 30 year average of 3%, before the government altered the formula to include 'value" such as advances in technology that keep prices for electronics steady while offering more computing power for the same price. The new formula counts that as a reduction in price even if thats the only replacement available.

 

[Raptorman49]

According to everything thats been said the judge does not impose, he abrogates and allows the company to impose new terms. The appelate court ruled that the contract never existed so there is no contract, no contract-no six year term, that would be as if a non-union company went union and the company telling its employees prior to recognizing the union that all workers have to agree to 20 year non collectively bargained contracts with the company and then when the union is recognized by the NMB telling both the NMB and the union to come back in 20 years, so if the company said they refused to negotiate with the Union, under the RLA the NMB would have to release us to self help.

So IMO the answer is NO. The company can not unilaterally impose a six year term. The only body that can do that is Congress, if a PEB is rejected.

That's what I thought too Bob until Lee seeham the Labor Lawyer for AMFA said at the Informational meeting today that the judge can impose a 6 year contract as part of the companies modification .... my jaw dropped to the floor when he said that, I assumed that a contract was an Agreement between two or more parties, that is the definition in Websters, Agreement meaning the parties agree not forced but he said the judge could completely Abrogate or just abrogate parts of the contract whichever the company asks for & could impose the term sheet complete with a duration like the company is asking for .... Ugh ! that's a bit scary I will admit, he said that the Union can appel any decision to the appelate court but if losing there not sure what else could be done, I believe in the truth being out there so everyone can make a informed decision.

 

[1AA]

According to everything thats been said the judge does not impose, he abrogates and allows the company to impose new terms. The appelate court ruled that the contract never existed so there is no contract, no contract-no six year term, that would be as if a non-union company went union and the company telling its employees prior to recognizing the union that all workers have to agree to 20 year non collectively bargained contracts with the company and then when the union is recognized by the NMB telling both the NMB and the union to come back in 20 years, so if the company said they refused to negotiate with the Union, under the RLA the NMB would have to release us to self help.

So IMO the answer is NO. The company can not unilaterally impose a six year term. The only body that can do that is Congress, if a PEB is rejected.

NO CONTRACT??? That means no union dues. This is why the TWU rigged the vote on the last T/A proposal. There is no way that the TWU will allow Abrogation. So if we vote NO on this next LBO from the company will the TWU sign off on it anyway? TWU can not be trusted anymore. We pay them to screw us over. Are we that stupid?

 

[Bob Owens]

That's what I thought too Bob until Lee seeham the Labor Lawyer for AMFA said at the Informational meeting today that the judge can impose a 6 year contract as part of the companies modification .... my jaw dropped to the floor when he said that, I assumed that a contract was an Agreement between two or more parties, that is the definition in Websters, Agreement meaning the parties agree not forced but he said the judge could completely Abrogate or just abrogate parts of the contract whichever the company asks for & could impose the term sheet complete with a duration like the company is asking for .... Ugh ! that's a bit scary I will admit, he said that the Union can appel any decision to the appelate court but if losing there not sure what else could be done, I believe in the truth being out there so everyone can make a informed decision.

The Judge has stated on numerous occasions that his job is to either abrogate or not. He stated that no matter what he does we have to negotiate. Different courts have different opinions on the law, thats nothing new but he already told us his.

There is no precident for a BK Judge to impose a six year term, some may get that confused with an 1113e motion where the judge can impose temporary terms. Seeham should consult with a BK attorney first. Like I said if he could impose a six term on us then what is stopping him from imposing a six year contract on Exxon to sell the company jet fuel at $1/gallon?

 

[Raptorman49]

The Judge has stated on numerous occasions that his job is to either abrogate or not. He stated that no matter what he does we have to negotiate. Different courts have different opinions on the law, thats nothing new but he already told us his.

There is no precident for a BK Judge to impose a six year term, some may get that confused with an 1113e motion where the judge can impose temporary terms. Seeham should consult with a BK attorney first. Like I said if he could impose a six term on us then what is stopping him from imposing a six year contract on Exxon to sell the company jet fuel at $1/gallon?

I don't know if he was correct or not even Lawyers can be wrong of course, he also said that most often contracts are not completely abrogated but only parts of the contract are abrogated because that is usually what the companies ask for, he said they rarely ask for complete abrogation but can if they choose to. we already know that the company is only asking for partial abrogation because of their term sheet.

He seems like a pretty sharp Lawyer, they taped the meeting.

 

[Bob Owens]

NO CONTRACT??? That means no union dues.

Thats a question that has not been answered yet. If there is no CBA with the union, only terms that the company presented to the court that they would impose, including many of the terms in the abrogated CBA if the court grants their motion for abrogation then what is the legality of Union Security?Technically its a unilateral deal, thats why all other unions can go on strike upon abrogation, the appelate court says we cant because the contract never existed and we return to the section 6 process as if this was our first ever contract. Normally members are not subject to Union security clauses until they get their first CBA, until then they are voluntary. Absent a CBA these are essentailly company terms, and how can a company impose mandatory dues payment absent a CBA? I believe thats illegal because of the protections that were put in place to ban mandatory membership in Company Unions.

To me, pay the dues, its not worth the risk of an unfavorable court ruling for some temporary relief. Sooner or later you would be paying again anyway and all it tells the company is you dont support your local leaders regardless of how you feel about the International, but it would be interesting to see how a court would rule.

The NWA decision really created a mess and I would like nothing better to mess it up even more to expose them for the crooks they are.

 

[Raptorman49]

NO CONTRACT??? That means no union dues.

Well according to Seeham after abrogation the company can choose to only throw out the parts it wants to throw out & keep the parts it wants to keep so more than likely it would keep the Union dues part for the TWU this BK stuff is very complicated even for the Lawyers & things are changing all the time so the truth is nobody really know's what will happen, all we can do is guess & make the best decision we can, there are always risks to fighting but some things are worth fighting for of course.

 

[Raptorman49]

Thats a question that has not been answered yet. If there is no CBA with the union, only terms that the company presented to the court that they would grant if the court grants their motion for abrogation then what is the legality of Union Security? Absent a CBA these are essentailly company terms, and how can a company impose mandatory dues payment absent a CBA? I believe thats illegal because of the protections that were put in place to ban mandatory membership in Company Unions.

To me, pay the dues, its not worth the risk of an unfavorable court ruling for some temporary relief. Sooner or later you would be paying again anyway and all it tells the company is you dont support your local leaders.

I would agree better off to pay the dues that risk a court decision, it's kind of like taking a chance you can get away with not paying your taxes through some loop whole in the tax law, better off to just pay, many have tried & lost that battle.

 

[2ndGENAMT]

Well according to Seeham after abrogation the company can choose to only throw out the parts it wants to throw out & keep the parts it wants to keep so more than likely it would keep the Union dues part for the TWU this BK stuff is very complicated even for the Lawyers & things are changing all the time so the truth is nobody really know's what will happen, all we can do is guess & make the best decision we can, there are always risks to fighting but some things are worth fighting for of course.

No matter what parts they choose to keep or do away with we still do not have a CBA after abrogation...

Why keep any of it? Why not impose minimum wage and no benefits?

 

[Raptorman49]

No matter what parts they choose to keep or do away with we still do not have a CBA after abrogation...

That's what I thought too but from what Seeham said i'm not so sure about that, not to many contracts have been abrogated to test the law, I think there should be another Informational meeting in Tulsa so we can ask our BK Lawyers that specific question & if they know for sure what the answer is, The pilots Lawyers are already telling them that there is some untested water that even they can only speculate what would happen.