GREAT NEWS! MN Appeals court rules in AMFA's favor!

[upsilon]

finman, you feel that since a company pays for UI that it shouldn't be honored in most cases. I ask you, if/when NW goes tits up, do you feel you would be entitled to UI? If the company isn't around any longer to pay for it would you expect the benefit?

This post is another example of a lack of understanding of the state Unemployment Compensation laws. Employing firms do NOT pay the UC benefits. The state(s) pay the benefits under varying state laws. If a company covered by a state UC law goes out of business for any reason ((including bankruptcy), its eligible employees will be paid benefits, even if the company was delinquent in paying the UC taxes to the state.

Furthermore, the cost to the state of benefits paid do not immediately result in an increased charge to the employer. UC is a form of "insurance" and the costs are both capped to any one employer and are spread over all of employers in the state. The formula for determining the tax rate for each employer is complex and based on the benefit payments for the state as a whole and for each employer - and it is averaged over a number of years.

The facts are that any additional UC tax payments due to this ruling that NW strikers are entitled to benefits will not be felt until next year at the earliest and maybe not at all if NW was already at the top rate due to earlier payments to their former employees.

And in any case, the additional taxes will be a drop in the bucket compared to the wages it has not paid to the striking workers.

 

[Don Smith]

Every state has their own criteria for eligibility. Naturally, I don't think a striking worker should be entitled to workers comp, since it basically swings the negotiating power more in favor of the union. I.E., if there is less financial hardship that can come from a strike, then the union members will be more willing to strike, and the state will basically provide the strike fund. Since NWA pays into this system, it's an odd system whereby NWA is basically funding the strike fund (through the state unemployment system) for workers striking against NWA.

I'm not advocating a "national" unemployment system but, with a company like nwa that crosses state lines with commerce and has employees in almost every state there should have been more uniform guidelines. The fact that MN now has decided to give benefits makes me wonder if nwa lifed their objections. If they found that most of the workers got jobs (which is probably the case) then it won't cost them much. How many of the MN mechanics will get the full $13K. Probably not many.
I would have rather worked under a PEB than to walk out but I knew the risks when I voted to authorize the strike. nwa changed the rules with replacement SCABs. Other states saw the truth while MN stuck their collective heads in the sand and bowed to pressure from nwa to not pay benefits.

 

[limit]

I guess I thought all you liberal types were all for non-discrimination and such when it comes to government assistance? Treating an individual who chooses to not work a union job different from a person who was working a union job when confronted with identical situations (imposed 25% pay cut) is no different than treating a white different than a black. Please explain to me why a union job would be granted this special treatment, without simply saying "because the courts say so". A logical defense would be appreciated and is warranted in this case.

Are you asking why you will not get unemployment benefits even though this court decision will provide others with some?

Is this a case of “I don’t have it, they should not eitherâ€￾?

The way I see it, is not the liberals or conservatives on this board that will not provide you with the same benefits others received (after they fought for it in court).
Why are you not asking this question to the state and courts instead of trying to bash others with mindless arguments?

I think you should receive the same protections.

Now what are you going to do about it?
Blame those liberals some more, or fight for equal treatment with them?

 

[eolesen]

I don't think there is anything magical about the 25% number.

As I understand it, the cut for the cleaners and AMT's put them below the average MN worker's salary, which is the trigger. The average pilots salary after the 31% cuts was probably still well above that point.

 

[TheRealSaabmeister]

I don't think there is anything magical about the 25% number.

As I understand it, the cut for the cleaners and AMT's put them below the average MN worker's salary, which is the trigger. The average pilots salary after the 31% cuts was probably still well above that point.

In Minnesota, I think there is something "magical" about the amount of the cuts. Here is a link with information: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...550&invol=1

" The term "lockout" is not defined in the Minnesota Economic Security Law, Minn. Stat. §§ 268.001 to 268.98 (1996 & Supp. 1997). However, in Sunstar Foods , the supreme court applied the definition of "lockout" set forth in the Minnesota Labor Relations Act to determine whether employees were disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits. 310 N.W.2d at 83. That definition remains in effect and states that a lockout "is the refusal of the employer to furnish work to employees as a result of a labor dispute." Minn. Stat. § 179.01, subd. 9 (1996).

In Sunstar Foods , one day before a labor contract expired, the employer and the union that represented the employees agreed to extend the contract until a new contract could be negotiated. 310 N.W.2d at 81. However, when negotiations between the employer and the union failed to produce a new contract, the employer unilaterally imposed a contract that reduced wages by 21-26 percent. Id. at 82. The employer argued that because it continued to offer work, albeit at a lower wage, there was no lockout. Id. at 83. The supreme court disagreed and affirmed the commissioner's decision that the employees were separated from their employment due to a lockout. Id. at 85. The supreme court held "that the unilateral imposition by an employer of employment terms so unreasonable that the employees have no alternative but to leave constitutes a lockout." Id. at 83.

In determining whether the employees in Sunstar Foods were separated from their employment due to a lockout, the supreme court looked at reemployment insurance cases that considered whether a wage reduction constituted good cause for an employee to voluntarily terminate employment. Id. at 83-84. Those cases indicate that wage reductions less than 15 percent generally do not provide good cause for an employee to leave employment, but reductions of 20 to 25 percent do provide good cause for an employee to leave employment. Id. at 84. The court affirmed the commissioner's finding that the 21-26 percent wage reduction experienced by the employees in Sunstar Foods was so unreasonable that the employees had no alternative but to leave their employment. Id. at 85."

So I was wrong, and perhaps both the F/A's and the pilots would be eligible for unemployment.

 

[Bear96]

I guess I thought all you liberal types were all for non-discrimination and such when it comes to government assistance? Treating an individual who chooses to not work a union job different from a person who was working a union job when confronted with identical situations (imposed 25% pay cut) is no different than treating a white different than a black. Please explain to me why a union job would be granted this special treatment, without simply saying "because the courts say so". A logical defense would be appreciated and is warranted in this case.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else, or misread my post. I wasn't taking a position on the issue one way or the other. I was just wondering why you thought "the state" shouldn't treat individual versus collective action differently for UC payments, when "the state" treats them differently for a lot of other things. I was curious as to what you thought the difference was. But perhaps you think there shouldn't be any right to unionize or any other protections for collective action in those other cases either?

 

[Spock]

...."So I was wrong, and perhaps both the F/A's and the pilots would be eligible for unemployment"....

I agree, if you too struck as we did and were replaced by scabs and then told you were permanently replaced. 4700+ position doen to 800+

 

[Union Member on Strike]

Just to add another twist to this discussion.

My question is:

Should I be able to receive unemployment benefits if my job was to be eliminated regardless if the contract was voted in or the union went on strike? My seniority at NWA did not allow me to keep a job at NWA if the contract was voted in. I voted to strike and went on strike hoping the company would negotiate terms that would allow me to keep my job.

Even though my job was eliminated before the strike the state of Minnesota refused to give me unemployment benefits. The only reason I was still on the payroll is because I used the current contract to exercise my seniority to its fullest extent, so I would not be a burden on the state until it was absolutely necessary. Many people senior to me were already receiving benefits because they opted to leave at an earlier date. The state was unwilling to take my circumstances into consideration. All they saw was a strike and viewed all employees together regardless of their situation.

Simply put, I was offered no job (100% pay cut) or to strike with my fellow workers and hope for a job. I was told by the state that I had to be treated like all other striking workers regardless of my situation. Does anyone have an opinion as to why my situation was given no consideration?

 

[PurduePete]

Just to add another twist to this discussion.

My question is:

Should I be able to receive unemployment benefits if my job was to be eliminated regardless if the contract was voted in or the union went on strike? My seniority at NWA did not allow me to keep a job at NWA if the contract was voted in. I voted to strike and went on strike hoping the company would negotiate terms that would allow me to keep my job.

Even though my job was eliminated before the strike the state of Minnesota refused to give me unemployment benefits. The only reason I was still on the payroll is because I used the current contract to exercise my seniority to its fullest extent, so I would not be a burden on the state until it was absolutely necessary. Many people senior to me were already receiving benefits because they opted to leave at an earlier date. The state was unwilling to take my circumstances into consideration. All they saw was a strike and viewed all employees together regardless of their situation.

Simply put, I was offered no job (100% pay cut) or to strike with my fellow workers and hope for a job. I was told by the state that I had to be treated like all other striking workers regardless of my situation. Does anyone have an opinion as to why my situation was given no consideration?

If you are located in MSP, the best way to have your question answered is to either call or go to the Local 33 office and talk to someone there. There are also regularly scheduled monthly business meetings coming up this Tuesday at 9:00am and 6:00pm.

I would think that you would receive better answers through those channels instead of asking for help on a web site message board...

 

[finman]

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else, or misread my post. I wasn't taking a position on the issue one way or the other. I was just wondering why you thought "the state" shouldn't treat individual versus collective action differently for UC payments, when "the state" treats them differently for a lot of other things. I was curious as to what you thought the difference was. But perhaps you think there shouldn't be any right to unionize or any other protections for collective action in those other cases either?

What other things does the state treat them differently for? The Railway Labor Act is law specifically concerning unionized transportation industries, and how they settle disputes. It has nothing to do with publically funded general welfare programs. If you can name another general welfare program that gives unions special treatment, then you may have an argument, but I know of none.

For all I know, an individual could get UC payments for the same reason as was granted to AMFA. My question was more of a rhetorical nature, as the likelihood of an individual taking that step would likely never happen. When an individual is faced with a 25% imposed pay cut, the individual either:
A. gets another job lined up and quits
B. realizes that there are no other jobs that pay better, and stays, or
C. quits, with the anticipation that he'll get another job soon, but would have too much pride to actually seek unemployment compensation in the interim.

 

[Bear96]

What other things does the state treat them differently for?

Google "protected and concerted activity", for starters.

When an individual is faced with a 25% imposed pay cut, the individual either:
A. gets another job lined up and quits
B. realizes that there are no other jobs that pay better, and stays, or
C. quits, with the anticipation that he'll get another job soon, but would have too much pride to actually seek unemployment compensation in the interim.

or

D. if the individual is a union menber, explores exercising her/his collective rights with others to exert economic pressure on the employer under U.S. labor laws.

Option D is not available to individuals not associated with a union. But it is an option to unionzed workers. It may not be the smartest option, but it is still a legal option they have the right to exercise.