Perhaps you missed this (you know, being blinded by your anger and all), which I took the time to write in my previous post:
If that doesn't address what you were asking, I guess I didn't understand you.
Judge Blocks NW f/as right to strike
- Thread starter PITbull
- Start date
Perhaps you missed this (you know, being blinded by your anger and all), which I took the time to write in my previous post:
If that doesn't address what you were asking, I guess I didn't understand you.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 587
<_< ----- Notice the word "should"! It doesn't say "Shall"! So what's your point?------
<_< ------ And nothing says the RLA "shall" supersede BL law either! (If it were that clear one way or the other, the matter wouldn't be in litigation, duh. That's the point!) So what's YOUR point?------<_< ----- Notice the word "should"! It doesn't say "Shall"! So what's your point?------
What should they do? Go to the AFL-CIO and ask them to inform the IAM, TWU and ALPA that the AFA is going on strike, not just at NWA but everywhere and they are asking all of organized labor in the airline industry to join them in protest of the Judges actions. For over 80 years organized labor has played by the rules of the RLA, rules that are biased towards the employer to start with, the Judges actions where he is allowing management to exercise self help while denying the workers the same right is an intolerable act.
This strike would a politically motivated act of free speech in protest against the courts violation of law-the RLA.
The Flight attendants should walk and everyone else should join them.
Where does the BK code give the court the right to confiscate the future earnings of others? Bankruptcy is for protection from creditors, debt,Judges do not have the right to force creditors to continue to do business under new unfavorable terms. If they did then if the Judge were truly trying to fair and objective he would force the oil companies to sell the airline fuel at an affordable price. The Bankruptcy code does not give the Judge the right to throw out the RLA and the RLA is claer in that once the status quo has been changed self help is afforded to both sides. If the makers of the code had intended for it to supercede other laws they would have stated it the law.
If Exxon has a contract to sell NWA fuel at $3/gallon the Judge could release NWA from that contract. NWA could argue that they need fuel at $1.50 a gallon and the Judge could say to Exxon that if you want to continue to do business with NWA you will now get $1.50/gallon, but Exxon could say NO, we will not give them fuel at $1.50 a gallon.
BK does not give one company the right to force others to do business with them.It does allow for the court to terminate contracts. While a Judge can rewrite contracts he can not force the other party to agree to those terms, in other words he can not sign their names to them.
If one law is clear and the other is silent why would a Judge assume or conjure up an opinion that its silence was an omission by error? Like I've said so many times before, if the intent of BK was to not only protect the company from creditors but to allow the company to rewrite its contracts to whatever terms it dictates and force the other party to those contracts to comply with those new terms in the future then every company in the country would seek BK. But the BK code that they cite does not say any of that.
You can not confine this principle to labor, if they can force a union to continue to work under terms they they did not agree to they could do it to anyone, including other corporations. What would be the logic in rewarding poorly managed companies the right to directly profit off others? What makes the needs and future intrests of the poorly managed corporation paramount over the interests of everyone else?
What is the other sides position? All I've heard is that the BK code doesnt say that they can strike, doesnt say they cant either. Well that could be because BK law does not address the issue of strikes, other laws do that. And it is other laws such as in this case, the RLA, that determine the conditions under which unions cant and can strike. The RLA is clear in that once a company imposes new rates of pay or workrules that unions can strike. That is the case here. No exceptions are included. The RLA is the law that restricts unions from striking in the first place, not the BK code, and the conditions to go on strike have been met.In this respect its no different than Exxon saying they wont give NWA fuel at rates they dont agree to.
People have been working under the RLA for 80 years. It was considered a compromise, in return for a prohibition on strikes the workers were protected from having new conditions imposed upon them without consent. To allow companies to use BK to impose new conditions while still claiming the the RLA protects them from a strike-since nothing in the BK code provides such protection, would defeat the whole purpose of the law, in fact it would directly contradict the RLA. The judge is acting in a lawless manner by condoning and working in concert with NWA in direct violation of the RLA. The excuse that financially they can be made whole is merely another fraud. If they held someone down to be raped and robbed and then said "oh well we got your money back so no real permanent harm was done" nobody would buy that arguement.
If he restrained the flight attendants he should have ordered the company to restore pay and conditions until he could settle the issue. Its not as if the company could afford it, they just posted a profit. His act is a clear demonstration of favoritism meant to delay and dishearten the flight attendants. Thats why all of labor should walk off the job. When the courts, which are supposed to be unbiased, disregard clearly written and expressed rights and create new rights that are in direct contradicion to those popularly legislated rights people must fight back.
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
Oh really? There are dozens of small and large business owners who will disagree with you. The company I'm now working at has been stiffed to the tune of at least six figures by bankrupt companies in the past three years.
When UAL, DAL, NWA, etc. declared bankruptcy, hundreds of suppliers from Boeing all the way down to Bob's Landscaping Service were told by the court that 1) they were not going to be paid for any bills that were outstanding, 2) they had to maintain the status quo as far as continuing to provide services to the debtor until such date that the contract they had was either affirmed or rejected, and 3) they were most likely going to have to give back any payments received in the previous 60-90 days.
So, not only are those companies (many of which are small businesses) stiffed for three to five months of invoices, they can't cut their losses when the filing takes place, and have no recourse.
If that's not forcing other companies to continue to do business with a bankrupt company, I don't know what else to call it, Bob.
Check out this change to the Bankruptcy laws, section 1167, funny how the courts just neglect this part of the law:
Section 1167
Section 1167
You are ignoring the existence of S 1113. NW is apparently arguing that S 1113 does just those things.
Again, please keep in mind (and for the dozenth time), that I think ultimately a union will be found to have a right to strike in these circumstances, but to say it is a "clear" right is disingenuous.
This is part of the problem. Simply repeating something does not make it true, nor does it make it binding precedent. But anyway . . .
. . . Again you are ignoring S 1113. I imagine a big part of management's argument is that S 1113 gives extra protections to labor contracts that other executory contracts do not have. For example, under S 1113 a court must find that terminating a CBA is "fair and equitable" to both parties, whereas there is no such requirement for a debtor to terminate other types of contracts.
Some would argue the entire effect of reorganizational bankruptcy is to unfairly reward poorly managed companies. But Congress decided that as a matter of public policy the alternative (liquidation instead of Ch. 11) is even worse, for employees and others.
You'd have to read NW management's briefs to the court if you really want to understand their position. I'm pretty sure they are available on line.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 587
<_< ----- I think Bob made my point quit well! Where in Bankruptcy Law doe's it say that if a contract is involuntarily breached, one can not discontinue services????<_< ------ And nothing says the RLA "shall" supersede BL law either! (If it were that clear one way or the other, the matter wouldn't be in litigation, duh. That's the point!) So what's YOUR point?------
It isn’t ethical, moral or fair but it is ‘legal’.
That’s the problem!
Where does it say one can?<_< ----- I think Bob made my point quit well! Where in Bankruptcy Law doe's it say that if a contract is involuntarily breached, one can not discontinue services????
BK law does not address that specific point either way.
Hence the problem.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
Where in Bankruptcy Law doe's it say that if a contract is involuntarily breached, one can not discontinue services????
Section 365. It's all about executory contracts and equipment/property leases. Happy reading...
In the United States we operate upon the principle that unless there is a law that states that you cant legally do something then you can do it.
As far as where it says you can, its pretty basic that you have the right to discontinue to do business with someone if they do not offer terms you agree to.
The fact that BK law doesnt point one way or the other means that under that code the Judge doesnt have the right to tell these workers or their union that they cant resort to self help, the Judge is expanding the scope of the law, his answer should have been the same as the Mesaba case "negotiate or liquidate". The RLA is clear in that once the airline imposes new rates of pay and working conditions that they can strike.
By the way I checked Sect 365, didnt find anything that gives a Judge the right to impose new terms on workers but I did find this:
So in other words the BK code admits that it does not cover everything and that other laws still apply.
Cite?
In any case, that general sentiment is relatively correct, but also extremely meaningless. For example, the BK code does not say that NW cannot impose contract terms once S 1113 requirements are met; and the RLA does not say that it trumps the BK code and that a carrier in BK can not impose terms pursuant to the BK code. Therefore an airline can legally impose terms, by your logic. Right?
The law is not clear at all about the interplay of BK and RLA statutes. Again, repeating your talking point over and over does not make it necessarily true or "simple."
And also again, I agree with you that at some point unions should be found to have the right to strike when terms are imposed by a BK court. You don't need to repeat your talking points to me since we agree on the underlying issue. We just disagree on whether the law is "clear" on that point.
It wasn't me who pointed you to S 365. But in any case, S 1113 governs labor contracts in BK, not S 365, which covers other types of executory contracts.
