Union Leader Defends Tough Stance

[PITbull]

UYH,

This question just begs to be asked....did you poll the pilots on the question? Did any one in ALPA Intenational poll anyone? Did you personally or ALPA ask the pilots that if BKwas imminent, would you accepts the co. final proposal as a T/A through some kind of scientific polling?

AFA did.

AFA is continuing the negotiations and is fully prepared to continue if the co. files Ch. 11.

Until, the elected leaders have a proposal that is livable and worthy of a vote to present to the membership, the neg. committee will continue to negotiate until a judge tells AFA to stop.

So, I suggest, if you want to sound "credible", state facts and back them up. Otherwise say...."i think this, or I think that".

You won't sound so desperate.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

PITbull, it's clear that the pilots spouting off about lack of support for the RC4 just goes to show how out of touch they are with their collegues. Either that or they're deaf.

 

[savyinvestor]

PitBull,

The RC4 do not represent the majority in anyway...the majority of angry/irrational pilots yes...that is about 17% even in their base.

Their day is coming, the pilots will rise-up and take care of this issue. The sad fact is that they are about to learn a painful lesson, which will be the catlyst to get them active in taking back the union.

These cycles repeat over and over, the majority of sane pilots will have their day.

[post="178877"][/post]​

So if you were "King for a day" you would accept the company's offer? Good thing your not King! Savy

 

[Rico]

700UW, thanks for the info, but I had a feeling that it was missing something, so I went and found the E section of the 1113 rules. This is where everyone is getting the notion that changes can be forced upon us right from the start. With no DIP and survival based upon cash on hand, I can see how this could be applied before and during any negotiations;

Peace B)

(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.

 

[PITbull]

So your point for posting this above is to let us know what? That the company can motion for consdieration of abrogation to the judge?

I think everyone know this, and is preparing. I know I am.

I think you should post the entire provision. After abrogation, the unions can be released for "self help" actions.

Everyone equally risks in BK...investors, creditors, managment and labor. I call this an"even playing field".

 

[700UW]

Pitbull,

1113E is not an abrogation, it is an emergency order for temporary relief, it happened at UAL with the mechanic and related and they were not able to seek self-help.

 

[PITbull]

700,

And then what happened? And where is it today?

United did not seek to abrogate agreements from my understanding. What is the status now?

 

[700UW]

UAL did seek to abrograte their agreements, but everyone reached one, but at the onset of bankruptcy the Mechanic and Related had voted down concessions, so the sought 1113E and the judge imposed a 13% paycut on them.

United asks court to dissolve union contracts

By Robert Manor
Tribune staff reporter
Published March 18, 2003

The corporate parent of United Airlines on Monday sought to set aside union contracts covering 57,000 of its workers, clearing the way for pay cuts and sweeping changes in the way employees work.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/chi-0...0,6165854.story

 

[jimntx]

FWIW, I think the "furlough out of seniority" cries rank right up there with "The sky is falling. The sky is falling." AND, with V-P Cheney's implication that electing Kerry will result in a terrorist attack worse than 9/11. (Give me a break. You and I both know that is exactly what he meant to imply. The fact that he came back yesterday to "clarify" his statement indicates that the firestorm he created overstepped the bounds even for the "truth sayers" of the Republican Party.)

Yes, in a worse case scenario, the company COULD get an 1113E that would allow them to furlough out of seniority. They would have to prove to the judge at a hearing in open court that it was " essential to the continuation of the debtor's business, or in order to avoid irreparable damage to the estate..."

That being said, if ALPA stood by and let the company do that to its members, then they deserve whatever the company does to them. It would then be obvious that unionism has no meaning to them.

I lived long enough to know that what goes around, comes around. Those who are willing to throw their coworkers over the side to save their own hides will discover that their lifeboat has an irreparable leak in it. JMHO.

 

[PITbull]

FWIW, I think the "furlough out of seniority" cries rank right up there with "The sky is falling. The sky is falling." AND, with V-P Cheney's implication that electing Kerry will result in a terrorist attack worse than 9/11. (Give me a break. You and I both know that is exactly what he meant to imply. The fact that he came back yesterday to "clarify" his statement indicates that the firestorm he created overstepped the bounds even for the "truth sayers" of the Republican Party.)

Yes, in a worse case scenario, the company COULD get an 1113E that would allow them to furlough out of seniority. They would have to prove to the judge at a hearing in open court that it was " essential to the continuation of the debtor's business, or in order to avoid irreparable damage to the estate..."

That being said, if ALPA stood by and let the company do that to its members, then they deserve whatever the company does to them. It would then be obvious that unionism has no meaning to them.

I lived long enough to know that what goes around, comes around. Those who are willing to throw their coworkers over the side to save their own hides will discover that their lifeboat has an irreparable leak in it. JMHO.

[post="178918"][/post]​

I think that if the company files a motion to be able to furlough out of seniority and it happened...that action could trigger major discrimination/ADA cases in all groups if the co. targets older workers to furlough or those who have chronic illness and conditions find themselves out on the street.

I've heard repeatedly from managment that they pay higher benefits because the work force is older than their LCC competitors and that what is required is more wage and benefit reductions and higher out-of-pocket expenses from the worker to compete. I think that is highly discriminatory.

I think the attornies would be lining up to take these civil cases or maybe one huge "class action". All thiese factors would make it very difficult for U to ever emerge from BK.

WE can all speculate all day long...hope we don't have to go there, but one never knows.

 

[ktflyhome]

Actually Ms. Lindy,

I'm coming in your Dept as your manager.......so just wait....

[post="178839"][/post]​

Manager??????Hmmmmm.......

 

[michael707767]

FAtburger:

The RC4 did not represnt the majority of the pilot's at Friday's MEC meeting.

[post="178859"][/post]​

Is that how it works? Only those who attend a meeting get represented?

 

[vc10]

The reality is that without a vote of the US Airways pilots, no one knows for sure whether they would support the RC4 or instead support the rest of the MEC.

Of course, such a vote is exactly what the RC4 refused to permit. Had the RC4 been truly confident in their position, presumably they would have sent the proposal to the membership, secure in the knowledge that the membership would resoundingly reject it.

PITbull, it's clear that the pilots spouting off about lack of support for the RC4 just goes to show how out of touch they are with their collegues. Either that or they're deaf.

[post="178887"][/post]​

 

[Phoenix]

PITbull, it's clear that the pilots spouting off about lack of support for the RC4 just goes to show how out of touch they are with their collegues. Either that or they're deaf.

[post="178887"][/post]​

They are all over on the special ALPA board that they created for themselves so they wouldn't have to listen to people who disagree with them. Or perhaps they are on their Yahoo Board. (I like that! Yahoo Board. HA!)

In either case, they don't have the real picture because they have refused to talk about things in the open.

 

[Phoenix]

The reality is that without a vote of the US Airways pilots, no one knows for sure whether they would support the RC4 or instead support the rest of the MEC.

Of course, such a vote is exactly what the RC4 refused to permit. Had the RC4 been truly confident in their position, presumably they would have sent the proposal to the membership, secure in the knowledge that the membership would resoundingly reject it.

[post="178995"][/post]​

Hold up genius. The Relevent 4 were voted in to do exactly what they are doing, FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION AND BY LAWS OF ALPA. Members are not supposed to vote on company proposals. They are supposed to vote on Agreements that have been agreed to by the company and the NC. The Company asked for 295 Mil and the NC offered 310Mil. The company said no and countered with 340 Mil.



Disclaimer: I have never knowingly posted any false information on this message board. I have never claimed to be "in tight" with the insiders. Moreover, I have never "cut and paste" messages from the Yahoo Board and claimed they were proof of my insider conections (without Yahoo attribution). Nor have I ever created secondary screen names in order to make posts that agree with my
primary screen name.