which will it be? the ta or term sheet?

[Bob Owens]

Bob, if they have a gag on you, now is the time to ignore that gag provide the information and take whatever they dish out. You will be better served to stand up against them than to not. Your VP will be still represent the 562 membership.

Balls or No Balls?

You let them hold the information until the Saturday Rally here in Tulsa, you may as well just be part of the VOTE YES group.

I have what you have. they have not released the final text to the committee either.

 

[High Speed Steel]

That's all folks, goodnight Informer....lmao

 

[TWU informer]

I have what you have. they have not released the final text to the committee either.

Who is "they"?
You are not on the negotiation committee?

 

[Bob Owens]

That's a good point, is the TWU looking to protect dues or are they truly concerned with peoples's jobs?

We were in the brake room talking about all this and all us guys with 20+ years are concerned with protecting pay, but there was a guy with 6 years saying he totally disagreed and said the union should be concerned with protecting jobs, and I can tell you he was not happy with our attitude.

At this point I say protect the pay so you have something good to come back to. That term sheet doesn't scare me, what scares me is another crappy 6 year deal like the 1995 contract or the 2003 deal that turned into a 9 year deal.

If we got a $4 dollar an hour raise, I would vote for the consensual agreement, but that doesn't seem likely.

When all those guys came to AA from Eastern not one of them regretted seeing Eastern go under and starting all over, I thought they were crazy, I'm starting to see their point. I feel like I have been beaten down the past 4 years.

They are one and the same, but the union has to use company arguements to sell it to the members. The true union way is to preserve pay and honor seniority, paycuts to save jobs is one of the oldest anti union scams around, funny how the Union will blast republicans who claim that the minimum wage destroys jobs then basically use the same arguement to get us to accept concessions in order to you guessed it-save jobs. . Jim Little said to me "You dont give a #### about anybody but yourself" because of my position on making this a job worth coming back to and not giving concessions for the promise of keeping more workers on the job (paying dues). I told him that unlike him I had to live under the deal.

The fact is this is a capitalist society, layoffs are part of life. If we keep lowering the pay then we will have to work longer so guys with the 6 years who end up getting laid off after taking the paycuts anyway stay out of work that much longer.

In 1995 we voted in a concessionary 6 year deal and missed out on one of the greatest economic expansions this country ever saw. We were told "dont worry we got a me too clause" and that our raises would be pegged to the pilots, they werent, we got nothing.

In 2003 we voted in another concessionary deal this one for five years with an "early opener" in 2006 and we were told we would "get everything back in 2006" its 2012 and we still didnt get anything back. We were told that we saved jobs yet the list went down by 5000.

In 2012 we find ourselves looking at yet another concessionary six year deal. No promises to get anything back only that we saved jobs, however the language still allows the jobs to be outsourced. We are at the bottom of the industry with the least amount of Holidays, Vacation, 401k match and wage. The companys LBO would leave us in 2018 with a wage thats lower than what UAL already has. The economy has been in recession for four years, all AAs cxompetitors are making money and the flights are full.

Does anyone out there still think that voting YES was the right choice in 1995?

Does anyone out there (that lives under the terms) think that voting YES was the right choice in 2003?

Why would anyone think that tying ourselves to another long term concessionary contract would be the right choice in 2012?

How many time can we afford to make the same mistake?

 

[Bob Owens]

Who is "they"?
You are not on the negotiation committee?

There was no negotaitions, the LBO is the companys offer. They submitted a full text to us last week, we found around 50 things that they changed but never discussed or proposed, things that we TAd that they changed, things that were TAd that they cut out, some things they changed after discussions with us, others they simply said 'thats our offer". We are waiting for the International to send us the latest final text once they get it from the company. When we get it we will see what they changed this time.

 

[TWU informer]

There was no negotaitions, the LBO is the companys offer. They submitted a full text to us last week, we found around 50 things that they changed but never discussed or proposed, things that we TAd that they changed, things that were TAd that they cut out, some things they changed after discussions with us, others they simply said 'thats our offer". We are waiting for the International to send us the latest final text once they get it from the company. When we get it we will see what they changed this time.

What a cluster. James C Little is gutless, or we would just tell the membership the truth and take this crap to the Judge.

 

[Bob Owens]

What a cluster. James C Little is gutless, or we would just tell the membership the truth and take this crap to the Judge.

That seems to be the sentiment, let the Judge screw us, then when we get the injunctions the guys will remember how fairly the courts treated them. No way can we sign a six year deal.

 

[Buck]

Why can't the membership see what you were given? Is it not appropriate to discuss or have time to discuss those items that affect our lively hood?

 

[iluvaa]

There was no negotaitions, the LBO is the companys offer. They submitted a full text to us last week, we found around 50 things that they changed but never discussed or proposed, things that we TAd that they changed, things that were TAd that they cut out, some things they changed after discussions with us, others they simply said 'thats our offer". We are waiting for the International to send us the latest final text once they get it from the company. When we get it we will see what they changed this time.

So the neg. committee does not even have it yet and we are to have voting results in 2 week this is the biggest bunch of bullshit Ive ever seen

 

[TWU informer]

So the neg. committee does not even have it yet and we are to have voting results in 2 week this is the biggest bunch of bullshit Ive ever seen

What is even more rediculous is that James C Little sends his Lawyers into Bankruptcy Court and tells the Judge he will have vote results by May 14th and come to find out there wasn't even language agreed to when that statement was made.

Talk about putting yourself into a negative position and having zero leverage. Why the hell would any Union Leader make a mistake like that and place himself and the membership into such a position?

What was wrong with just telling the truth. Which was we do not have an agreement and until we do have one we will not be voting.

This man is such a coward and completely stupid that it is no wonder why AA spent so much in legal fees to protect him during the AMFA drive.

Jaw Dropping Ignorance :blink:

The membership should file a class action DFR against this idiot

 

[odie01]

What is even more rediculous is that James C Little sends his Lawyers into Bankruptcy Court and tells the Judge he will have vote results by May 14th and come to find out there wasn't even language agreed to when that statement was made.

Talk about putting yourself into a negative position and having zero leverage. Why the hell would any Union Leader make a mistake like that and place himself and the membership into such a position?

What was wrong with just telling the truth. Which was we do not have an agreement and until we do have one we will not be voting.

This man is such a coward and completely stupid that it is no wonder why AA spent so much in legal fees to protect him during the AMFA drive.

Jaw Dropping Ignorance :blink:

The membership should file a class action DFR against this idiot

No ####, that's exactlly right!

 

[BoeingBoy]

I only take advice from experts that I hire. Never go by the advice of somebody elses lawyer

Yet you take the word of the union's lawyer...

Your imposed contract after abrogation is as valid as any other. The terms are as valid as those in any contract. If the company includes an altered amendable date it is as valid as any contract amendable date but if the company doesn't change the amendable date it remains the same.

Jim

 

[iluvaa]

see thats the problem so many people telling us different sh#t ugh wish we could know what really is going on

 

[BoeingBoy]

After bankruptcy law was changed by adding section 1113 after Lorenzo tore up the labor contracts, a new word was introducted specifically for labor contracts - abrogate. Companies can still reject any and all other contracts, which was allowed for labor contracts prior to the change, but after the change companies could no longer reject labor contracts - they could only abrogate them. Abrogate, in this context, means modifying any or all of the contract but not eliminating it. After following the specified process a company imposes a contract containing it's terms, but there is still a contract, union representation, etc. Why do you thing AA included an amendable date in it's term sheets? It wasn't to be nice, but to make the term sheets (if approved) contractually valid for a certain term - 6 years in this case.

Think of agreeing to a new contract with a 6 year term against your will - that's what really happens in abrogation. If you had just ratified that contract would negotiations for the next contract begin immediately after ratification? Of course not, so why expect abrogation to be different?

The problem is that there are very few contract abrogations in the airline industry. First, the carrier has to be in bankruptcy which doesn't happen all that much. Second, the employees can't reach a negotiated agreement instead of abrogation, which itself is rare among carriers in bankruptcy - US went through 2 bankruptcies back to back and ended up abrogating no contract. The closest was the IAM in the second bankruptcy - the judge approved abrogation but the companies final offer was submitted to the membership for a vote and ratified.

Jim

 

[eolesen]

The problem is that there are very few contract abrogations in the airline industry. First, the carrier has to be in bankruptcy which doesn't happen all that much. Second, the employees can't reach a negotiated agreement instead of abrogation, which itself is rare among carriers in bankruptcy

Jim, what happens after abrogation is grey area in my non-lawyer opinion. NWA vs. AFA only settled a union's right to self-help after abrogation. It doesn't clearly define what happens if the two sides don't come to an agreement (as AFA and NWA did a month before NWA exited Ch11.

I strongly suspect it's going to take a court to decide whether modifying the existing contract results in maintaining status quo, or if abrogation really does start things over with regard to Section 2 and Section 6 as Bob has asserted.