U Files To Reject Labor Agreements

[USA320Pilot]

Digenes:

Digenes said: "WTF are the powers-that-be going to do? Go to every employees' house on the first day of a strike, put a gun to their head and MAKE them go to work?"

USA320Pilot comments: If "self help" occured after a judge issed a court order to prevent such action, the union and its members could be held in contempt of court. The union, its officers, and its members could be subject to civil fines and even jail time. If an employee stays home and is not legitmately sick then they can be terminated.

A recent case that comes to memory is APA violating a back to work order and receiving a $45 million fine, plus individual fines against the officers.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[Bear96]

A recent case that comes to memory is APA violating a back to work order and receiving a $45 million fine, plus individual fines against the officers.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="200515"][/post]​

That's an example of a union's members receiving jail time for an illegal work action?

 

[deano]

Digenes:

Digenes said: "WTF are the powers-that-be going to do? Go to every employees' house on the first day of a strike, put a gun to their head and MAKE them go to work?"

USA320Pilot comments: If "self help" occured after a judge issed a court order to prevent such action, the union and its members could be held in contempt of court. The union, its officers, and its members could be subject to civil fines and even jail time. If an employee stays home and is not legitmately sick then they can be terminated.

A recent case that comes to memory is APA violating a back to work order and receiving a $45 million fine, plus individual fines against the officers.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="200515"][/post]​

You are off the deep end. If all employees stand united you and your love affair with management will come to an abrupt end at the same time the company ceases to exist....

 

[700UW]

The APA at AA was not a contract abrogation case, it was a sickout with a legitimate contract in place.

Once a contract is abrogatged you are no longer covered so you are free to seek self-help.

And please show us where any member of APA was jailed for the sickout.

Compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

And the officers were not fined personally, stop with the false information.

Judge Fines APA

 

[D M G]

USA320Pilot comments: If "self help" occured after a judge issed a court order to prevent such action, the union and its members could be held in contempt of court. The union, its officers, and its members could be subject to civil fines and even jail time.

[post="200515"][/post]​

The Judge didn't grant the companies request to contract out work in case of a job action during the 1113(e), like the ALPA advisors said he would, and he can't stop self help if/when the contracts are thrown out.

You continually post this BS in the hopes of scaring people, but it won't work.

There won't be any calls from the IAM leaders for sickouts or slowdowns, but what occured this past Sunday in PHL is a perfect example of what could continue to happen seven days a week. It's apparent that FSAs in PHL are getting restless and there's nothing that you, the Judge, or any of the morons in CCY can do about it.

 

[usfliboi]

There will be no strike, The bottom line try it! As Donald say, "Yur fired!" 700 you make no lodgical sense.... You need to get involved with your union higher up! The lav blues have gotton to you !

 

[OldGuyinPA]

usflyboi....

again I say a strike is emminent. how soon......soon,


get over it....we have.....

 

[jimntx]

A recent case that comes to memory is APA violating a back to work order and receiving a $45 million fine, plus individual fines against the officers.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="200515"][/post]​

How do you live with yourself? You should be a used car salesman considering that you lie so glibly and openly. No wait, that is an insult to used car salesmen everywhere.

The APA was not fined for violating a back to work order. It was NOT A STRIKE. Their contract HAD NOT BEEN ABROGATED as is proposed at UAIR. The APA pilots pulled a sickout while a valid contract was in force.

 

[700UW]

Jim,

He never lets the facts get in his way.

He can never even admit when he is shown to be wrong.

 

[diogenes]

Digenes:

Digenes said: "WTF are the powers-that-be going to do? Go to every employees' house on the first day of a strike, put a gun to their head and MAKE them go to work?"

USA320Pilot comments: If "self help" occured after a judge issed a court order to prevent such action, the union and its members could be held in contempt of court. The union, its officers, and its members could be subject to civil fines and even jail time. If an employee stays home and is not legitmately sick then they can be terminated.

A recent case that comes to memory is APA violating a back to work order and receiving a $45 million fine, plus individual fines against the officers.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="200515"][/post]​

Dude, work on your deductive reasoning.

IF the contract is abrogated,

THEN agents are employees at will.

IF one is an employee at will,

THEN there is no legal action to compel him to work.


Let us fantasize your hypothesis. There is an intact union after abrogation, and its membership is not at work - call it strike, or a seymour, if you wish. How are you, realistically, going to compel them to work?

Not gonna happen.

Just sit back and enjoy the ride, captain.

In the end, I hope labor and management come to mutually agreeable terms. But, I didn't bet the farm on it.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

There will be no strike, The bottom line try it! As Donald say, "Yur fired!" 700 you make no lodgical sense.... You need to get involved with your union higher up! The lav blues have gotton to you !

[post="200533"][/post]​

Read up

Self help

CODE

Dated March 2003 ref:
The bankruptcy courts seem generally sympathetic to debtor-employers and grant rejection rather liberally. Furthermore, most courts that grant rejection simply issue orders “approving†the employer’s rejection, without discussing the possibility of protecting post-rejection employee rights. To date, no court has addressed the application of the Railway Labor Act after Section 1113 rejection. The most sensible result appears to entail some sort of bargaining impasse doctrine, leaving the carrier free to implement modifications necessary for the Chapter 11 reorganization, but granting employees the right to strike (and limiting the employer’s discretion to exact further concessions). However, there is no explicit basis for this result in the statute, nor is there judicial precedent directly on point.


Also:
Whatever position the court may take with respect to its remedial rejection powers, the federal labor laws will ultimately govern the parties’ post-rejection relationship. The Bankruptcy Code may briefly usurp certain aspects of the NLRA and RLA during the rejection process, but it does not do so on a permanent basis.34 Thus, even if the Bankruptcy Court’s power were limited to approving a rejection, the parties would not necessarily acquire discretion to engage in unlimited self-help.

There is no precedent to guide the court’s decision regarding the parties’ post-rejection obligations under the RLA. A number of possibilities present themselves. First, the effects of rejection may be similar to the consequences of an amendable date clause – thus compelling the parties to maintain the status quo and exhaust the Section 6 process of negotiations, mediation and “cooling off†before engaging in self-help.35 Second, rejection may bring the parties to an equivalent of the Section 6 impasse, allowing immediate self-help measures. Finally, the rejection process may be considered a total bypass of Section 6, leaving the parties with only their Section 2(First)36 duties to bargain, which would perhaps entail some sort of obligation to maintain the status quo through a specialized impasse doctrine.

Conclusion: The Right to Strike Preserved

When it enacted Section 1113, Congress relieved employers of their Section 6 responsibilities – it provided employers with a shortcut to unilateral implementation. While nothing explicit was directed towards the right to strike, it seems almost absurd to suggest that Congress intended to (1) relieve employers of their responsibilities under an otherwise valid collective bargaining agreement, (2) permit debtors to unilaterally implement terms of employment without first adhering to Section 2(First) and Section 6, while at the same time (3) compelling employees to accept the employer’s proposals and (4) prohibiting the peaceful exercise of their right to strike without resorting to the RLA procedures they were denied in the first place.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

There will be no strike, The bottom line try it! As Donald say, "Yur fired!" 700 you make no lodgical sense.... You need to get involved with your union higher up! The lav blues have gotton to you !

[post="200533"][/post]​

It wouldn't surprise me one bit to read in the papers soon the headline: "Male Flight Attendant Locked In Lavatory For Irritating Crewmembers."

 

[firstamendment]

It wouldn't surprise me one bit to read in the papers soon the headline: "Male Flight Attendant Locked In Lavatory For Irritating Crewmembers."

[post="200559"][/post]​

And what makes you think that hasn't already happened?

 

[USA320Pilot]

Jimntx:

USA320Pilot said: “A recent case that comes to memory is APA violating a back to work order and receiving a $45 million fine, plus individual fines against the officers.â€￾

Jimntx said: The APA was not fined for violating a back to work order. It was NOT A STRIKE.

USA320Pilot comments: With all due respect, APA was ordered back to work for an illegal job action. If the court issues an order preventing self help and any union or member violates the order, they could be held in contempt and either receive a civil fine or possibly jail time.

DMG said: There won't be any calls from the IAM leaders for sickouts or slowdowns, but what occurred this past Sunday in PHL is a perfect example of what could continue to happen seven days a week.

USA320Pilot comments: There were high level meetings this week in Crystal City dealing with PHL. Separately, I understand that if people do not perform their job employees will simply be terminated and then the Company will deal with the grievance process. I personally find it despicable that some people damage aircraft, call in a sick when they are not to obtain time off (that’s lying), and do not provide a 100% effort while at work.

Meanwhile, the company's S.1113© motion is compelling and I believe US Airways' contract proposals will only get worse, if history keeps repeating itself. It's to bad, but the "hardliners" keep hurting the union membership, but that's their choice. Judge Mitchell will likely rule in favor of the company again, prevent self help, and give the company the relief it needs to survive. In fact, it would not surpirse me if the pay cuts are deeper than 21% after S.1113© "imposition".

See order

Tic...Toc...Tic....Toc...

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

I personally find it despicable that some people damage aircraft, call in a sick when they are not to obtain time off (that’s lying), and do not provide a 100% effort while at work.

As an outside observer without a dawg in this fight, I find it equally despicable that someone could defend a company that freely entered into contracts with employee groups, promised employees (in these contracts) of certain wages, benefits, and pensions, and then, through sheer mismanagement (which they have tried to pass off as 'new economic realities in the marketplace') have chosen to toss the contracts - to which they agreed - in the dustbin of history.

The fact that the company has acted legally, IAW all appropriate bankruptcy laws...doesn't make their behavior any less nauseating. I am also really skeptical of this bankruptcy judge. But no matter.

Once upon a time...and some places it still it...a man's word was his bond. You could take it to the bank. People who use the law to try and justify screwing employees are no less crooked and no less unethical. The only thing lower than people who do those sorts of things...are the people who defend them.