which will it be? the ta or term sheet?

[iluvaa]

well we need to know fast results in 2 weeks for lob we have not even seen yet just saying

 

[eolesen]

well we need to know fast results in 2 weeks for lob we have not even seen yet just saying

Good luck with that -- I can pretty much guarantee whatever is decided initially will wind up being appealed by one side or the other, and getting an appeals court to review it will take time.

 

[BoeingBoy]

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.

You're right - ultimately SCOTUS may decide one way or the other. In the meantime, precedent is that the status quo remains after abrogation unless a new amendable date isn't specified in the new terms imposed and the old contract was beyond it's amendable date. There have been very few abrogations, but I know of none where negotiations resumed immediately after abrogation except the US IAM case. But that was 1 ) after the judge ruled allowing abrogation but before US actually abrogated the contracts and 2 ) before the NW-AFA case and US wanted a consensual agreement so there would be no possibility of a strike.

Jim

 

[Buck]

SCOTUS , is that part of the TWU International?

 

[700UW]

We have been repreatedly told by the lawyers that the motion is to abrogate, which means to do away with , the collective bargaining agreements. There is no contract if its abrogated so there is no amendable date. But maybe you know more than they do.

The motion is to abrogate and modify, read the term sheet and motion, you are deceiving the membership.

The RLA states Section 6 negotiations commence 60 days prior tot he amendable date, AA has changed the amendable date to 2018, there will be no section 6 negotiations taking place.

 

[Hopeful]

Instead of un-non lawyer types tyring to decipher what the real deal is,,,,,what does TWU council say with respect to abrogation?

 

[Bob Owens]

Instead of un-non lawyer types tyring to decipher what the real deal is,,,,,what does TWU council say with respect to abrogation?

No Contract However if they deviated from the term sheet we have an arguement for violating the status quo because thats what presented to the court.

 

[Bob Owens]

The motion is to abrogate and modify, read the term sheet and motion, you are deceiving the membership.

The RLA states Section 6 negotiations commence 60 days prior tot he amendable date, AA has changed the amendable date to 2018, there will be no section 6 negotiations taking place.

Our lawyers told us there is no contract, thats based upon the decision in AFA vs NWA which came after your BKs

How can the court impose terms on labor that extend beyond BK? Think of the legal ramnifications. Then the court could impose terms on the oil companies and airports as well. Its the end of private property.

 

[Hopeful]

Our lawyers told us there is no contract, thats based upon the decision in AFA vs NWA which came after your BKs

Ok, so if there is NO contract....Do we keep our seniority? Can AA give AL Blackman June 6 2012 seniority?

 

[Bob Owens]

Ok, so if there is NO contract....Do we keep our seniority? Can AA give AL Blackman June 6 2012 seniority?

If this is the case, then I demand the TWU get decertified!

According to the Internationals lawyer, in his attempt to instill fear in the committee, there is no contract, the company can do whatever it wants, they could fire Al Blackman, tell him his services are no longer needed. Would they do that? I asked the question but never got an answer. From what I read typically the companies dont change much because they do not want to paint the Union into a corner where they have no choice but to strike.

 

[Hopeful]

According to the Internationals lawyer, in his attempt to instill fear in the committee, there is no contract, the company can do whatever it wants, they could fire Al Blackman, tell him his services are no longer needed. Would they do that? I asked the question but never got an answer. From what I read typically the companies dont change much because they do not want to paint the Union into a corner where they have no choice but to strike.

I understand. Hence the TWU's claim that what gets imposed is far worse than the LBO.

 

[Bob Owens]

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

The problem is there are so many different possibilities, it depends on how the Judge rules. The law says one thing but the Judges pretty much do as they please. When the APFA lawyer brought up how in one of the first 1113 cases the court in Michigan(?) laid out criteria that had to be met the Judge dismissed it pretty much saying that Federal law in Michigan is not Federal law in the Second District, the heart of Wall Street.

We were told different things by the lawyers, depending on which way they were trying to tell us to give the company everything they want as long as we could save a few jobs, without of course telling us what to do.

 

[Bob Owens]

I understand. Hence the TWU's claim that what gets imposed is far worse than the LBO.

Far worse for the TWU International, not for you and I who have to live under the terms for at least another six years. Under the proposal we would top out in 2018 lower than what UAL does now, and UAL is near the bottom as well.

For the International abrogation means more expense, more legal fees, more time and the possibility that members will quit paying dues if they dont get a deal quick enough so you can understand why they say that a consentual deal, no matter how bad it is, is better than abrogation. They dont have to live under it, just like the last 9 years, they have recieved raises every year, they still get 10 holidays off, still get all their vacations. As long as the dues come in things are ok. When things get tight what do they do? Do they make everyone take paycuts? They keep paying six figure salaries and keep it a job worth coming back to. They cut heads, but when it comes to us they say the opposite, they say we must do whatever it takes to save heads. "Do as I say, not as I do".

What gets imposed is temporary, until we reach a TA. The company would have a greater incentive to negotaite because they already pulled the trigger of abrogation, next its a strike or PEB, a much more level playing field. PEBs usually look at the latest contract and award accordingly and no way would we get a six year deal.

Look abrogation will be rough, but maybe it needs to go there, Do you think things are going to get easier when the medical eats up all the puny increases they put in there? Our Medical will double by 2018. Then whats to stop AA from dragging things out another four years and filing BK again in 2022? Nothing. The Judges wont throw the case out, its job security for him, and when he steps down from the bench another possible consulting job for him or his partners. They really have not left us a choice, we have to go to war.

 

[Hopeful]

Far worse for the TWU International, not for you and I who have to live under the terms for at least another six years. Under the proposal we would top out in 2018 lower than what UAL does now, and UAL is near the bottom as well.

For the International abrogation means more expense, more legal fees, more time and the possibility that members will quit paying dues if they dont get a deal quick enough so you can understand why they say that a consentual deal, no matter how bad it is, is better than abrogation. They dont have to live under it, just like the last 9 years, they have recieved raises every year, they still get 10 holidays off, still get all their vacations. As long as the dues come in things are ok. When things get tight what do they do? Do they make everyone take paycuts? They keep paying six figure salaries and keep it a job worth coming back to. They cut heads, but when it comes to us they say the opposite, they say we must do whatever it takes to save heads. "Do as I say, not as I do".

Look abrogation will be rough, but maybe it needs to go there, Do you think things are going to get easier when the medical eats up all the puny increases they put in there? Our Medical will double by 2018. Then whats to stop AA from dragging things out another four years and filing BK again in 2022? Nothing. The Judges wont throw the case out, its job security for him, and when he steps down from the bench another possible consulting job for him or his partners. They really have not left us a choice, we have to go to war.

Well put.. I don't disagree in the least.

But here's how I see it playing out...With ALL of us affected, there will be a great number who will play into the fear mongering.
If the T/A or LBO includes saving jobs AT any expense, I believe a good number of people who were definitely going to lose their jobs will vote yes. Let's not forget that not only OH people will be laid off, but throughout the system at line stations as well.
Those at the line stations facing bumping would be a yes vote....
Those also defintitely facing lay off probably would be a yes vote....
A good number of people up to 97 seniority would be a yes vote.
Don't forget all the people hired over the last few years.
It's human nature.. 4500 mechanics can't ALL go to SWA or FedEX or UPS....

And although I agree with your sentiment.....sadly you will find out at the end of the day, a good number of people do not have the stomach for "war" as you put it.
I'm not discounting anything you say, but I see things a little different.

People do not have the stomach for this....And once the RIF numbers finally begin the process of layoffs, then and only then will people realize just how bad this thing is going to be...Up until now, nothing really has changed.

 

[TWU informer]

No Contract However if they deviated from the term sheet we have an arguement for violating the status quo because thats what presented to the court.

This sounds absurd.

The Term Sheet is what the Judge is ruling on. How can "they" deviate from that unless we agree by ratification of deviated terms.
The changes in the 1113 Law were to protect the contract, not make it worse. I do not believe for one minute that abrogation means NO contract or Cancelled contract. It means modified to the terms of the 1113 term sheet presented to the court.

The way I understand it is yes, the voted on last best offer is going to be better than the term sheet, as it pertains to job loss and early out provisions.

For those of us that are not going to be RIF's and are not old enough to leave, then we have no reason to vote yes, because it will cost us the company match from the prefund reserves. Basically I am being asked to give up $8,000.00 in reserves refund to save someone else a job or let someone else leave early.

The question is, did the TWU and AA do their homework in adding the numer of yes voters.

In my opinion they cannot.

Because if the lower pay rate is based on percentage of head count, then as more or less take the early out, and/or volunteer to be RIF'd another employee who thought he was safe now becomes the one needing to take the paycut. how would you like to vote YES thinking you were safe and your pay was safe, only to find out you really voted yourself right into a paycut because the numbers change based on who stays or leaves from the top of the list compared to the bottom of the list. In other words more off the bottom, the paycut moves up the list, more off the top the paycut moves down the list.

What a Cluster