Ual Mechs Vote No, Authorize Strike
- Thread starter PHL
- Start date
mrfish3726
Veteran
- Jul 7, 2004
- 931
- 0
700UW says "You can't temporary Strike under section 1113e, I suggest you stick to fixing airplanes instead of practicing law, and the membership has not gonads to fight the company."
They had the nads to vote down the TA unlike you folks at USAIR! At leat AMFA didn't blow smoke up their back side and tell them that they didn't understand the vote and that they ought to do it AGAIN like the IAM is famous for! I believe that they do have the nads to bring UAL to a grinding hault! Wayt to go you guys you all have proven that AMFA is a members union. And I truly believe that NO ONE can make you work without a bargaining agreement!
They had the nads to vote down the TA unlike you folks at USAIR! At leat AMFA didn't blow smoke up their back side and tell them that they didn't understand the vote and that they ought to do it AGAIN like the IAM is famous for! I believe that they do have the nads to bring UAL to a grinding hault! Wayt to go you guys you all have proven that AMFA is a members union. And I truly believe that NO ONE can make you work without a bargaining agreement!
casual rat
Senior
- Aug 25, 2002
- 413
- 3
mrfish3726 said:
WHAT???? Someone please decipher for me what Chum is saying...The Rosetta Stone currently resides in the British Museum--or is it some type of 'Pig Latin'? :unsure:
goingboeing
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2004
- 584
- 1
700UW said:
I don't care what section 1113e states,If a labor group does not want to show up for work they don't have to.
What is President Bush going to do?Try sending federal agents to your home to handcuff you and MAKE you come to work?
The judges can impose a fine all they want to but the union can still refuse to work.
I'm glad the UAL mechanics have the backbone to stand up and fight against management and political tyranny against its workers.
If all airline union employees stand by the wayside and do nothing then we DESERVE the sorry compensation that the management will impose on us.AMT's will be earning $10-15.00/hr in a few years if we don't fight now.
By allowing this to happen we are saying that we never were worth $35-40.00/hr.
The TWU-IAM-Teamsters are interested in PROTECTING THEIR CORPORATE EMPIRES. They don't care if an AMT earns $15.00/hr or $35.00/hr they still get DUES to support their empire.All they want is QUANTITY not QUALITY.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #52
Fly said:
I guess if a Wharton professor says US is going under, then it must be a gonner. Hmmmmm. I think CO was in BK twice back in the early 90's. I guess this professor hasn't taken a look at UA's current position with it's union negotiations and debt obligations, either. He probably didn't read the recent Forbes article that doesn't give UA a very good outlook without the labor concessions detailing all the financial details of what's coming due, and how they can't pay it without the agreements. Then the creditors send in the repo man. I don't care how good their prized routes are. If they aren't making money as a whole, then that really doesn't matter. Pan Am had some really great routes, too.
U on the other hand, has the labor agreements in place. It's about to commence the new mini-hub in FLL that we hope will generate some more high yield traffic to hot spots at a time when NE travel is not as 'hot'. If U makes it through June, there will be 2 additional European routes, as well. My outlook(although I'm not Michael Boyd or a Wharton professor) is that U now has a better chance than UA of making it through the year.
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
mrfish3726 said:
700UW said:
Mr 700 How more hypocritical can you be? How many times have you blatantly said the membership of Usairways had no gonads? How many times can you put your foot in mouth trying to put someone down? Or is that a play on words Gonads and Nads are two different things?
spacewaitress
Senior
- Aug 27, 2002
- 468
- 0
Losing 664 million is a victory...How?Fly said:
spacewaitress
Senior
- Aug 27, 2002
- 468
- 0
I have always thought that this incredibly dysfunctional organization (UAL) would self destruct and implode one day. It sure does seem to be happening. So many many years of resentments and distrust.
Trust a business school professor, that's rich. If these guys truly knew business they would be in the business world, making real money. See any episodes of this season's "The Apprentice"? It is school smarts (college grads) vs. street smarts (high school grads). The high school grads, it turns out, have a combined salary three times higher than their school smart counterparts. One reason discussed in another thread of why many big industries have so many problems is that their leadership may have fancy degrees (like Seigel's MBA), but they are trained to see everything as black and white numbers, assets and liabilities. What they forget is the human elements of persaverance, hard work, and an entrepernueal spirit.
Like the old saying goes, when you can't do anything else, teach.
BTW GW did not order the AA folks back to work, Bill Clinton did.
Like the old saying goes, when you can't do anything else, teach.
BTW GW did not order the AA folks back to work, Bill Clinton did.
Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
700UW said:
The iam is there to support the members? Like at UAL when they allowed overhaul to close in Indy & Oak? Or at your airline when they threatened to strike if USAir contracted out about 5 Airbus overhauls? Only to retreat to their shadow realm when USAir called their bluff?
You truely are a iam sheep.
ual747mech
Senior
- Nov 26, 2002
- 279
- 0
I voted yes on the TA because I don't want to risk the CBA being rejected. I think it's going to be worse if that happens. This is the 1113 process:
Summary of Section 1113© and (e) Contract Rejection Process
In bankruptcy an airline collective bargaining agreement entered into under the Railway Labor Act can be rejected by the Bankruptcy Court under Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Railway Labor Act does not provide any protection from contract rejection under Section 1113. Section 1113 empowers the Bankruptcy Court both to order interim, i.e. temporary, changes to a Contract and to order permanent rejection of the Agreement.
Interim Contract Changes:
Section 1113(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides as follows:
(e) If during a period when the collective bargaining agreement continues in effect, and if essential to the continuation of the debtor's business, or in order to avoid irreparable damage to the estate, the court, after notice and a hearing, may authorize the trustee to implement interim changes in the terms, conditions, wages, benefits, or work rules provided by a collective bargaining agreement. Any hearing under this paragraph shall be scheduled in accordance with the needs of the trustee. The implementation of such interim changes shall not render the application for rejection moot.
Immediately after filing for bankruptcy the Company can ask the Court to make temporary changes to your Agreement. The hearing on that request will be scheduled “in accordance with the needs of the trustee†(which means the Company) and that hearing will likely be held within a day or two after filing for bankruptcy. The Court can order that your wages be cut and work rules be changed. The Court can even order that your contract rights, such as system protection, be immediately suspended. These interim contract changes will remain in effect until the Court rules on the Company’s Application for permanent rejection of your Agreement under Section 1113©, which is discussed below.
Permanent Contract Rejection:
Section 1113© of the Bankruptcy Code provides as follows:
© The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that -
(1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection b(1);
(2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and
(3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such agreement.
Section 1113© authorizes the Court to order that your Agreement be permanently rejected in its entirety, allowing the Company to unilaterally implement whatever wage reductions, work rule changes, or modifications to your pension and medical benefits that it wants.
Unlike interim changes, which can be ordered without any negotiations, permanent rejection of your Contract under Section 1113© can be ordered only after the Company has made a proposal for changes to the Agreement which it believes to be “necessary†for it to successfully reorganize. The Company has already provided AMFA (and all other unions) with its Section 1113 proposal, which is being distributed to you in a separate handout.
The Company must also provide the union with information, which it has already done, and negotiate. However, the opportunity for further negotiations is almost non-existent, as another provision of Section 1113, subsection (e), provides that the hearing on contract rejection can be scheduled as early as 10 days after applying to reject the Agreement, and must be held within 14 days after that date.
The Courts have interpreted “necessary†changes to the Agreement not to be the bare minimum changes which the Company needs to survive, but rather, the changes the Company believes it needs to reorganize and operate successfully long-term. The Court will defer to a Company’s view of what changes are “necessary.â€
If the Union refuses to agree to the Company’s proposed Contract changes without “good causeâ€, and if the Court believes that the “equities†balance in favor of rejection, then under Section 1113© the Court will simply order that the entire Agreement be permanently rejected, completely freeing the Company from all its obligations under the Agreement.
At the hearing on contract rejection the Court will not get into the details of the Company’s proposal or consider arguments as to the specifics of how the Agreement should be restructured. The Court will simply order that the contract be rejected, or not rejected.
If the Company can convince the court of it’s dire financial condition, the court would find that there would not be good cause to reject the Company’s 1113 proposal and that the balance of the equities would favor rejection. The result would be that your Contract would effectively no longer exist, the Company could impose unilaterally whatever wage reduction, work rule changes, or benefit elimination or changes that it wanted. Moreover, the provisions of your Agreement, which were preserved through the proposed consensual Agreement now before you for ratification would be lost.
Also, this is what the flight attendants are telling their members:
The choice comes down to this:
With a FOR vote, we have an enforceable Contract that preserves our work rules, healthcare, and bolsters our legal position to defend our defined benefit pension.
With a vote AGAINST, we face rejection of our Contract followed by management imposing what it wants well beyond exit from bankruptcy.
Be clear about the decision you are making for our future. Consider the circumstances of an aviation industry in turmoil and then make sure that your ballot is cast in the best interest of you and your family. If you do not cast your ballot, others will make your decision for you. Do not presume that those who have voted have come to the same conclusion you have reached with regard to our collective future.
Summary of Section 1113© and (e) Contract Rejection Process
In bankruptcy an airline collective bargaining agreement entered into under the Railway Labor Act can be rejected by the Bankruptcy Court under Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Railway Labor Act does not provide any protection from contract rejection under Section 1113. Section 1113 empowers the Bankruptcy Court both to order interim, i.e. temporary, changes to a Contract and to order permanent rejection of the Agreement.
Interim Contract Changes:
Section 1113(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides as follows:
(e) If during a period when the collective bargaining agreement continues in effect, and if essential to the continuation of the debtor's business, or in order to avoid irreparable damage to the estate, the court, after notice and a hearing, may authorize the trustee to implement interim changes in the terms, conditions, wages, benefits, or work rules provided by a collective bargaining agreement. Any hearing under this paragraph shall be scheduled in accordance with the needs of the trustee. The implementation of such interim changes shall not render the application for rejection moot.
Immediately after filing for bankruptcy the Company can ask the Court to make temporary changes to your Agreement. The hearing on that request will be scheduled “in accordance with the needs of the trustee†(which means the Company) and that hearing will likely be held within a day or two after filing for bankruptcy. The Court can order that your wages be cut and work rules be changed. The Court can even order that your contract rights, such as system protection, be immediately suspended. These interim contract changes will remain in effect until the Court rules on the Company’s Application for permanent rejection of your Agreement under Section 1113©, which is discussed below.
Permanent Contract Rejection:
Section 1113© of the Bankruptcy Code provides as follows:
© The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that -
(1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection b(1);
(2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and
(3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such agreement.
Section 1113© authorizes the Court to order that your Agreement be permanently rejected in its entirety, allowing the Company to unilaterally implement whatever wage reductions, work rule changes, or modifications to your pension and medical benefits that it wants.
Unlike interim changes, which can be ordered without any negotiations, permanent rejection of your Contract under Section 1113© can be ordered only after the Company has made a proposal for changes to the Agreement which it believes to be “necessary†for it to successfully reorganize. The Company has already provided AMFA (and all other unions) with its Section 1113 proposal, which is being distributed to you in a separate handout.
The Company must also provide the union with information, which it has already done, and negotiate. However, the opportunity for further negotiations is almost non-existent, as another provision of Section 1113, subsection (e), provides that the hearing on contract rejection can be scheduled as early as 10 days after applying to reject the Agreement, and must be held within 14 days after that date.
The Courts have interpreted “necessary†changes to the Agreement not to be the bare minimum changes which the Company needs to survive, but rather, the changes the Company believes it needs to reorganize and operate successfully long-term. The Court will defer to a Company’s view of what changes are “necessary.â€
If the Union refuses to agree to the Company’s proposed Contract changes without “good causeâ€, and if the Court believes that the “equities†balance in favor of rejection, then under Section 1113© the Court will simply order that the entire Agreement be permanently rejected, completely freeing the Company from all its obligations under the Agreement.
At the hearing on contract rejection the Court will not get into the details of the Company’s proposal or consider arguments as to the specifics of how the Agreement should be restructured. The Court will simply order that the contract be rejected, or not rejected.
If the Company can convince the court of it’s dire financial condition, the court would find that there would not be good cause to reject the Company’s 1113 proposal and that the balance of the equities would favor rejection. The result would be that your Contract would effectively no longer exist, the Company could impose unilaterally whatever wage reduction, work rule changes, or benefit elimination or changes that it wanted. Moreover, the provisions of your Agreement, which were preserved through the proposed consensual Agreement now before you for ratification would be lost.
Also, this is what the flight attendants are telling their members:
The choice comes down to this:
With a FOR vote, we have an enforceable Contract that preserves our work rules, healthcare, and bolsters our legal position to defend our defined benefit pension.
With a vote AGAINST, we face rejection of our Contract followed by management imposing what it wants well beyond exit from bankruptcy.
Be clear about the decision you are making for our future. Consider the circumstances of an aviation industry in turmoil and then make sure that your ballot is cast in the best interest of you and your family. If you do not cast your ballot, others will make your decision for you. Do not presume that those who have voted have come to the same conclusion you have reached with regard to our collective future.
