TWU negotiations.........what?

[enough already]

Clarification before this vote and accurate information should be in our hands.

You are out of order, Brother!

 

[TWU informer]

We never reached a consensual agreement. The judge abrogated our CBA and held the motion in abeyance and we voted on the last and final offer and it was ratified by the membership.

I know the FAs at NW has their CBA abrogated also.

Uh last I checked, ratification indicates consensual agreement.

Once again, you expose yourself as true an uninformed wannabe.

Ratification is in legal terms a consensual agreement of the imposed term no matter how you look at it.

Just as if we vote YES on the Last Best Offer, we are considered in consensual agreement in the eye of the court.

Once you ratify, the Judge and Company both smile and move on. Fail to ratify, and they both frown and keep working on a plan to emerge.

Question:
Did you ratify before or after restructuring plan approval by the court to emerge from BK Protection?
This makes all the difference in the world if you ask my opinion. Which is not worth much more than yours.

 

[TWU informer]

My point is that I highly doubt that AA will be given a confirmation of restructing by the courts as long as all three unions are still in imposed and not consensual status.

How could any Judge approve a plan to emerge with All Three Labor Groups still lurking in non agreement status with the terms?

Sure the Judge can abborgate and impose, but will he approve and confirm the emergence without Union ratification of some agreement?

I don't think so. Too much potential to fail.

This is a long process and hard game to play. TWU has already tapped out. And it is still the first round.

 

[eolesen]

My point is that I highly doubt that AA will be given a confirmation of restructing by the courts as long as all three unions are still in imposed and not consensual status.

How could any Judge approve a plan to emerge with All Three Labor Groups still lurking in non agreement status with the terms?

Sure the Judge can abborgate and impose, but will he approve and confirm the emergence without Union ratification of some agreement?

My opinion... I don't think it matters if the outcome is consenual or imposed. The term sheet has a proposed duration of six years.

If the terms of the CBA are modified by court order to those of the term sheet, why would't the duration also be modified?

That says to me you'd be stuck until 2018. To Dave's point above, no uncertainty whatsoever.


I'm also going to openly question something I keep seeing appear: where does it say that upon abrogation, you'd wind up back in Section 6 negotiations?

 

[Birdman]

I'm also going to openly question something I keep seeing appear: where does it say that upon abrogation, you'd wind up back in Section 6 negotiations?

Does the RLA demand consensual agreement? Even the TWU recognizes we will be back in sec 6 , "which can go on indefinitely".

 

[Bob Owens]

My opinion... I don't think it matters if the outcome is consenual or imposed. The term sheet has a proposed duration of six years.

If the terms of the CBA are modified by court order to those of the term sheet, why would't the duration also be modified?

That says to me you'd be stuck until 2018. To Dave's point above, no uncertainty whatsoever.


I'm also going to openly question something I keep seeing appear: where does it say that upon abrogation, you'd wind up back in Section 6 negotiations?

Well you are wrong, the Judge does not impose agreements or modify the terms, he either grants the motion to abrogate or he doesnt and the agreement stays in place. So there is no "6 year term" because there is no agreement.

Read the decision on the NWA vs AFA case for your answer as far as Section 6.

If you know of a unionized carrier that has left BK with an imposed agreement on a union let us know.

Hopefully the lawyers will get around to revealing what this is all about.
AA expects its workers to cough up $1.25 billion so they can make $3billion a year in profits, thats more than the top eight carriers combined made in 2010. On Wednesday a senior member of management admitted during negotiations that what they were asking M&R to accept was "rediculously bad" . What we would be getting in 2018 is less than what UAL is getting now.

 

[Bob Owens]

We never reached a consensual agreement. The judge abrogated our CBA and held the motion in abeyance and we voted on the last and final offer and it was ratified by the membership.

I know the FAs at NW has their CBA abrogated also.

You never reached a TA, once you ratified the company final offer that made it consensual.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob Owens, I have a question concerning the Prefunding Reserves.

Earlier you had pointed out that if we were to consensually agree to terms that eliminate the prefunding when we only get our contributions plus interest.

If the Judge abbrogates and the prefunding is elminated, do we get the company match from the reserves?

I called last week, my balance was just under $8,000.00

This could mean by voting yes, we would not get the company match which would double that balance.

There is a TWU stooge running around Tulsa saying there is a letter of agreement that states we will never get the company match regardless of how the plan in elminated.

Clarification before this vote and accurate information should be in our hands.

IMO, and all the lawyers I've spoken to, if we agree to opt out of the plan, or the companys proposal to let the 1114 committee decide, the company keeps the match, or more accurately the company gets to use the funds to pay benefits instead of taking the funds out of its accounts to pay for them, same result, it indirectly adds to their bottom line. If we vote YES to anything that does not specifically say that we get the money we lose it. The plan does not specify how we recieve those matching funds, that the TWU will decide, roll it over to a HSA or something but the company is not supposed to get them or use them to pay their obligations. They have already atempted to swindle us by saying things like "the funds will be used for the benefit of TWU members only" but what they are really saying is "we will use those funds to meet the companys obligations to TWU members".

The documents describing the plan are on the Local 562 website.

Prefunding is basically a type of VEBA, those funds, all of them, are outside the company and the BK process. Agreeing to anything where we turn those funds over to the company would be foolish, it would be no different than five years from now agreeing to allow the company to take back the match, and all the interest on the match for the 401K.

 

[amtide]

Well you are wrong, the Judge does not impose agreements or modify the terms, he either grants the motion to abrogate or he doesnt and the agreement stays in place. So there is no "6 year term" because there is no agreement.

Read the decision on the NWA vs AFA case for your answer as far as Section 6.

If you know of a unionized carrier that has left BK with an imposed agreement on a union let us know.

Hopefully the lawyers will get around to revealing what this is all about.
AA expects its workers to cough up $1.25 billion so they can make $3billion a year in profits, thats more than the top eight carriers combined made in 2010. On Wednesday a senior member of management admitted during negotiations that what they were asking M&R to accept was "rediculously bad" . What we would be getting in 2018 is less than what UAL is getting now.

Can anybody explain how section 6 negotiations work.

 

[TWU informer]

Well you are wrong, the Judge does not impose agreements or modify the terms, he either grants the motion to abrogate or he doesnt and the agreement stays in place. So there is no "6 year term" because there is no agreement.

Read the decision on the NWA vs AFA case for your answer as far as Section 6.

If you know of a unionized carrier that has left BK with an imposed agreement on a union let us know.

This is interesting.

So if the three Unions really want the merger with US, the best plan of action is to never agree to any imposed agreement, and then AA will never be allowed to emerge unless the Unions get their merger and then approve a labor deal. Talk about leverage. My goodness.

Sounds like the Unions carry the decision making, regardless of the rest of the UCC's opinions.
But why has James C. Little already tapped out of the fight?

Now I see Hortons plan. If he can get the Unions to fold, good for him, if not then he will accept the merger and move on. It's a good o'le Mexican Standoff so to speak.

In financial circles, the Mexican Standoff is typically used to connote a situation where one side wants something, like a concession of some sort, and is offering nothing of value, and the other side sees no value in agreeing to any changes so refuses to negotiate. Although both sides can benefit from the change, neither side can agree to a compensation value for agreeing to the change, and nothing is accomplished.

 

[TWU informer]

Can anybody explain how section 6 negotiations work.

Unless you have the strength to ask for a release and get one, apparently section 6 doesn't work that well either.
That is what we were involved in before we got here.

In financial circles, the Mexican Standoff is typically used to connote a situation where one side wants something, like a concession of some sort, and is offering nothing of value, and the other side sees no value in agreeing to any changes so refuses to negotiate. Although both sides can benefit from the change, neither side can agree to a compensation value for agreeing to the change, and nothing is accomplished.

 

[eolesen]

So there is no "6 year term" because there is no agreement.

I've read NWA vs AFA a few times, Bob, and it really only addresses whether or not the union is entitled to self-help. I don't see where it explicitly defines what obligation there is to revert to Section 6 negotiating once new conditions are imposed following abrogation.

NWA was willing to continue negotiating post-implementation of the revised terms, so the appeals court never addressed the issue of what should happen if NWA had not been willing to continue discussions.

I suspect that is a possibility you may need to face with AMR.

Labor has already seen case law established covering a good chunk of the grey area where S.1113 and the RLA intersect. If abrogation goes forward and terms are imposed, it's quite likely that there will need to be new case law established to pick up where NWA left off.

 

[AV1]

If the company can offer better terms in their Last Best Offer and then to choose to implement a worse agreement if it is voted down, that's absolutely pathetic! If they have a last best offer, that should be it. Don't threaten us with voting yes by offering a worse agreement if it is voted down. If you make an offer, stick to it. I might not have a billion dollars in the bank, but at least I have some moral high grounds. This is a yes voter on the T/A last year to definately a NO voter on this POS. I will be fine without working here and at least will have some dignity intact, and I haven't resorted to bankruptcy.

 

[Duke787]

If the company can offer better terms in their Last Best Offer and then to choose to implement a worse agreement if it is voted down, that's absolutely pathetic! If they have a last best offer, that should be it. Don't threaten us with voting yes by offering a worse agreement if it is voted down. If you make an offer, stick to it. I might not have a billion dollars in the bank, but at least I have some moral high grounds. This is a yes voter on the T/A last year to definately a NO voter on this POS. I will be fine without working here and at least will have some dignity intact, and I haven't resorted to bankruptcy.

I have a feeling that the term sheet will be more of a headache for AA then for the union members. Can you imagine AA management without an excuse when things don't go right.

 

[TWU informer]

I have a feeling that the term sheet will be more of a headache for AA then for the union members. Can you imagine AA management without an excuse when things don't go right.

BINGO!