TWU and the Company reached a Tentative Agreement
- Thread starter devil505
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 7,319
- Reaction score
- 1,555
I was there also Raptorman has stated what was said by Seeham. Anyone who is concerned about representation for the mechanics and the potential court actions should view the video when it is done.
Raptorman49
Veteran
So you heard Seeham say the same things I did then .... a little un-nerving when he said they could modify to a 6 year contract, i wanted to ask him more about that but things were moving fast & I knew I needed to leave soon so didn't.
He isn't a BK Lawyer he's a Labor Lawyer so he probably isn't an expert on BK, would really like to ask our BK Lawyers about it.
bet you weren't wearing an AMFA shirt hugh ? 🙄
I only saw two, Dan & Steve .... can't help but wonder why AMFA supporters don't want to show their allegiance by proudly wearing the logo like the Teamster supporters.
The question there is did they inform the court of that? You have to remember that every move they make has to be cleared by the Judge.They told the court that these were the terms they wanted to put in place, the Judge made his decision to abrogate based in part on that, if they impose something different than what the Judge based his decision on how would the court react to that? Well if the whole place went to crap, sick outs, slow downs etc I suspect the BK Judge would get fired up at the company while the other courts go after the Unions with TROs etc. I think the BK Judge would cite that they told him that they were planning on imposing abc, and if he had known that they in fact were planning on imposing xyz he would have ruled against the motion because of what was now occurring on the ramp. IMO in short order he would demand that the company stay within the parameters of what they presented to the court and the TROs would be used to try and restore peace.
If the company could simply do as they please upon abrogation then why not just a petition to abrogate? Why bother to even have them submit a term sheet?
Then again if they imposed different terms and things went smoothly that would simply be the new rule for airlines, just as the NWA decision where Airline workers, and airline workers alone can not strike upon abrogation (despite the fact that in 1983 they did) because for airlines its now an annulment, has become accepted, at least until someone brings it to the Supreme Court. What happens in the courtroom depends on how they think reaction will be outside the courtroom. The best thing that could happen for all airline workers is for the Pilots, Mechanics and Flight Attendants to all reject the concessions. Then if the Judge abrogates , which I do not think he would do if all three groups stood together against the concessions, file for a restraining order stopping the company from imposing the new terms until we settle the issue as far as our right to strike and say that if the order is not granted all three groups will stike anyway. We need to secure the same rights as every other creditor , as every other worker, in C-11. If not then roll us into 1167 like Railroad workers.
Allowing the NWA decision to stand, where Airline workers, and only Airline workers workers can be put in the position of being held to the restrictions of the RLA while at the same time being stripped of the protections of the RLA is a fight worth fighting because as it stands there really is no reason to be in a Union in the Airline industry if all an airline needs to do is file C-11 and impose whatever they want and we have no legal recourse as far as protecting our interests. AA has over $5 billion in the bank, and fuel prices have declined, they stand to make huge profits and dont need a penny from us to be profitable, maybe they wont make $3 billion but nobody in this industry makes $3billion.
Like I said if the Judge can just impose new permanent deals on workers whats stopping them from setting terms for any other creditor? $1/gallon fuel, $1/month rents etc etc? Some say the workers can quit if they dont like it, well the contract is not an individual contract, its a CBA so it must be looked at like other creditors agreements. Just as workers can quit if they dont like the CBA shareholders could sell their shares if they dont like the terms imposed on the corporation. Clearly its easier for a shareholder to get out of a company where he does not like the deal imposed on it than it is for a worker to quit his job because he does not like the deal imposed through the CBA. The fact that individual workers can quit, as long as they dont do it all at once under the leadership and guadance of the Union, does not justify making CBAs inferior contracts under the law. If the members choose to reject then they should have the same right to withdraw their labor collectively as corporations, acting in the collective interests of its shareholders can decide to terminate providing goods and services if they do not agree to the terms. A Judge should have no right to determine against the workers right to say that they collectively reject the companies offer just as he has no right to force Exxon, or the Airport Authority and its shareholders to accept a price that they do not agree to. The arguement that a bad job is better than no job would be no different than saying $1/month rent is better than zero $ per month rent. Its not the courts right to determine whats better for the owner, whether its a shareholder or a Union Member, based upon the desires or greed or even needs of a debtor.
2ndGENAMT
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2011
- Messages
- 818
- Reaction score
- 497
can't help but wonder why AMFA supporters don't want to show their allegiance by proudly wearing the logo like the Teamster supporters.
Maybe people wearing IBT colors aren't accused of dual unionism due to the fact that they are one in the same.. Yeah thats what we need!!
Go with AMFA!!
The teamsters are here to dilute the vote so that there will be NO election between anyone and TWU will remain in power..
Maybe people wearing IBT colors aren't accused of dual unionism due to the fact that they are one in the same.. Yeah thats what we need!!
Go with AMFA!!
The teamsters are here to dilute the vote so that there will be NO election between anyone and TWU will remain in power..
Raptorman49
Veteran
Like Buck said if they make the AMFA video available un-edited & I will know if it is because that part will still be in it then it would be interesting to watch, also as I said I know Seeham is not a BK Lawyer he is a Labor Lawyer, he does seem to know a lot about BK laws though, what did the Pilots letter say there are knowns & unknowns & known unknowns ...LOL or something of that nature., truth is we just don't know what will happen .... not even the Lawyers it's all speculation.
Raptorman49
Veteran
Really so you think that is why they don't wear them ..... Hmmm interesting theory, never bothered me when I wore my AMFA shirt, the Teamster supporters don't seem worried about that, nothing wrong with a little dual unionism in my opinion unless your planning on being a TWU officer.
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby!
If the pilots had a 6 year wage freeze in 95 then how did they go on strike in 97??
- They went on Strike for a short time, the President called for a PEB, and the Pilots not only ended up with a 6 year deal (freeze & all) but the PEB granted the Company the relief they were seeking on the RJ's (Regional Jets) the major issue in the APA negotiations as I recall.
A. Presidents Council rejected the ME Too? Thats a new one. Have any documentation on that? B. Open ASAP? We opened in 2000, a year early C. and didnt settle until late 2001.
A. Why don't you ask one of the Presidents that was there?
B. They didn't want to wait for an additional year (7th year like the APA got for 2%)
C. And here all along I thought we were under a 6 year contract (1995 to 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..
- Did you forget the 2% lump sum or profit sharing payout whichever was higher on 3/96, 3/97, and 3/98. You're not complaining about the 2001 contract too are you?
The guys on layoff would have been recalled anyway.
- I'm sure the Tulsa AMTs who were recalled would have appreciated your forecast that they would have been recalled eventually anyway
If the pilots had a 6 year wage freeze in 95 then how did they go on strike in 97??
- They went on Strike for a short time, the President called for a PEB, and the Pilots not only ended up with a 6 year deal (freeze & all) but the PEB granted the Company the relief they were seeking on the RJ's (Regional Jets) the major issue in the APA negotiations as I recall.
A. Presidents Council rejected the ME Too? Thats a new one. Have any documentation on that? B. Open ASAP? We opened in 2000, a year early C. and didnt settle until late 2001.
A. Why don't you ask one of the Presidents that was there?
B. They didn't want to wait for an additional year (7th year like the APA got for 2%)
C. And here all along I thought we were under a 6 year contract (1995 to 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..
- Did you forget the 2% lump sum or profit sharing payout whichever was higher on 3/96, 3/97, and 3/98. You're not complaining about the 2001 contract too are you?
The guys on layoff would have been recalled anyway.
- I'm sure the Tulsa AMTs who were recalled would have appreciated your forecast that they would have been recalled eventually anyway
Raptorman49
Veteran
That's what you think, that isn't what the Teamster supporters think, they don't like the TWU anymore than you do.
2ndGENAMT
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2011
- Messages
- 818
- Reaction score
- 497
This IBT push will keep the TWU in power!!!
Raptorman49
Veteran
Dude their gonna stay in power anyway their was no IBT push back in 2003 & we didn't get an Election then either, the mechanics at AA are to diversified & can't get on the same page on anything, that's why we don't change Unions & contracts are close etc. would it be nice to see it happen heck yeah, is it likely to happen, the last 50+ years answers that question quite well, I play the stock market & have learned that betting against the odds rarely works out well.
By the way the Teamster supporters say the same thing about AMFA ..... Imagine that.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 7,319
- Reaction score
- 1,555
Were you not at TUL when the shirt fiasco started? I cannot remember the exact time frame, but Dave Kruse was the boss. The TWU tried to make the company force either a shirt removal, an inside out or go home. There is a LAS poster that goes by the "The Dissident " here occasionally he was one of those that pushed back. The TWU loss that one.
Raptorman49
Veteran
Yes I was in Tulsa then & it happened to Dan at AFW, he was in the same Isle as me but at the front, I have the whole grievance report actually, it was not for wearing a regular AMFA shirt & you know it.
We both know what he was wearing & what all transpired.
Oh & I push back often against everything ..... LOL
I'm a rebel. B)
You said they had a 6 year deal in 95, well they went on strike in 97 after rejecting a deal and getting released, yes it lasted only 6 minutes but there would have been no Strike, and No PEB in 97 if they had a six year deal in 95.
The rest of your jibberish is even less worthy of a response.
