ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
UAL was granted temporary relief under 1113(e), it was not an 1113© abrogation.
NWA vs AFA
- Thread starter tech2101
- Start date
UAL was granted temporary relief under 1113(e), it was not an 1113© abrogation.
Fair enough, but until we find an example where the court rejects the company's petition to abrogate its a 100% rubber stamp.
Now, since Sect 1113 applies in other industries as well, what has the track record been? In those cases where abrogation was granted how often did the courts rule that they could not strike?
The fact is that the court abuses the law because they know the unions are weak. They know that the useless POS's that are running these unions wont do anything. They dont care, they still sit back and coolect their six figure salaries. Why did the same court system allow AMFA to strike? NWA was in BK, but since NWA desired a strike the courts allowed it. Now NWA, under the same conditions but with another workgroup doesnt want a strike and the courts comply. The hypocrisy and flagrant bias is astounding!
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
The major difference is that due process under RLA S.6 had already taken place with AMFA before the S1113 hearings. That never even started with AFA until after Moreno determined that it was necessary.
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
You both need to get your facts in order. AMFA went on strike before NWA filed for bankruptcy.
jenny@nw
Veteran
oooooooooooh. about the letter.....just checked with some people on this..... Verified! :down:
I didn't say it would be a violation of the RLA. It would be a violation of a court order, which is just as "illegal."
I'm not following you. MLK clearly broke the law and was acting illegally at times. Are you disputing that? That was a crucial component of the civil rights movement -- break the laws you feel are unjust, and face the consequences. Eventually the laws were changed, but civil rights activists certainly broke them, thus acting illegally at the time.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
Violating a court order has far worse consequences, and winning an appeal for contempt of court doesn't happen very often....
Just ask the APA.
No you said it would be an "illegal strike", technically the strike is a legal act under the trems of the RLA-rates of pay changed-that has been seized by a court injunction. The injunction can and will likely be challenged. Injunctions are temporary in nature and not considered to be law. This crooked Judge is misusing the leeway given to the courts, the purpose of an injunction is not to give one party the ability to screw the other, its supposed to freeze things where they are till a question of law can be settled. If the Judge was going to cite the RLA then he should have mandated that NWA restore wages and terms to what they were, otherwise they are free to strike. THAT WAS CLEARLY THE INTENT OF THE RLA!!!
Remember the RLA sets the terms and dictates the conditions where strikes are permitted and its clear that when rates of pay are changed its a major dispute, that frees the other party to self help since the company used the courts in order to bypass mediation. The lame arguement that BK changes these terms is completely without merit. Companies going bankrupt is not a new phenomina. Companies went Bankrupt prior to, during and after the creation of the RLA. The RLA existed prior to Chapter 11 of the BK code and the authors of the code did not include language that makes the code supercede the RLA, in fact it is repeatedly cited that the code does not supercede other laws.
The workers have the right to bargain collectively and to reject terms collectively just as the collective owners of Exxon can have their agents reject terms that are unfavorable to Exxon. The arguement that since individual workers can bail out, thus its fair, would be like saying that if Exxon is forced to submit to unfavorable terms its fair because if the individual shareholders dont like it they can individually dump their stock.Should collective Capital have more rights and protections under the law than collective human labor?
The workers are exposed to risk just like NWA and they have the right to acess that situation and make their decision accordingly, even if it could lead to liquidation of the corporation in the future. The fact is that because we sell something that is very limited, and we can only sell it to one entity at a time, unlike Exxon who can sell fuel to a multitude of consumers simultaneously, our fates are tied more closely to the company than any other entity. The fact is the workers have more to lose than anyone else if the company fails. They should not be forced into an unwanted condition insure that those who have much less at stake dont lose.
MLK was right to act illegally and the Unions would be just as right to act "just as "illegally in this situation.Unions should violate injunctions that are clearly nothing more than the acts of a crooked judge showing favor to a corporation. For 75 years if a company changed the rates of pay we could strike, even a PEB could not change that, it would take an act of Congrees and never before has Congress imposed cuts on workers, now we have a lowly unaccountable Judge taking liberties with the law that not even a President can to do.If we dont fight to protect our rights, even if it means that some crook will say its illegal and threaten to fine or imprison us then we dont desrerve rights. If unions will not fight for basic rights like this then they dont deserve to exist and it wont be long until the few workers in this country that are still union realize that.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
The judge didn't make any law or take liberties -- he simply ruled on the ambiguity between two pieces of overlapping legislation.
If you don't like it, either move to Cuba or China where there's no chance of having overlapping or ambiguous law to get in the way of your rights, or lobby your legislators to close the gap.
If you don't like it, either move to Cuba or China where there's no chance of having overlapping or ambiguous law to get in the way of your rights, or lobby your legislators to close the gap.
Correct. It would violate a court order. Therefore, it would be an "illegal strike."
Technically, as of today, it would be illegal under the court injunction. Maybe some day the injunction will be overturned. Maybe it won't. Until then, it is I-L-L-E-G-A-L.
That's certainly an interesting view of the law, and one with which most lawyers and judges would not agree.
Let's reverse the situation. Let's say the BK court had ruled against NW's S 1113 motion and said NW can't implement contract changes. But NW said the judge was corrupt and beholden to the unions, so NW said they would implement the cuts anyways, because they felt the judge was "wrong" and didn't understand BK law. Then let's say that action prompted the court to issue an injunction enjoining NW from implementing the concessions. Would you still be arguing that injunctions "aren't really law" and that NW has no real legal obligation to follow it, and should just do what it believes to be "right"?
Personally, I have no problem with the AFA violating the terms of the injunction, if they think it is such an important issue and the judge got it wrong, and if they think that is their only option. I don't think they would be acting wisely or legally, but it is one option available to them, no matter how stupid. And if they choose that route, they had better be prepared to face the consequences of acting I-L-L-E-G-A-L-L-Y.
The RLA has been pretty clear for the last 75 years that if rates of pay are changed without consent the workers can strike.Like I've said 100 times before the intent of BK was not to impose contracts that benifit a mismanaged company at the expense of others, it was to protect salvagable companies from creditors. Mismanaged corporations do not have a right to exist at the expense of others.
The RLA has been pretty clear for the last 75 years that if rates of pay are changed without consent the workers can strike.Like I've said 100 times before the intent of BK was not to impose contracts that benifit a mismanaged company at the expense of others, it was to protect salvagable companies from creditors. Mismanaged corporations do not have a right to exist at the expense of others.
The distinction between the fact that its a violation of the order of a single man and not the legislated will of the people is an important distinction. The system grants Judges certain rights but they can be overuled, in other words a higher court rules that the lower court acted in error of the law. When you claim thats its an illegal strike it implys that its a strike that that is carried out in violation of legislated rules.
Law is supposed to be made through legislation, not the personal feelings of some judge.
That not a reversed situation, its a completely different one. First of all what arguement would NWA use to support their claim that the Judge was wrong? As far as not understanding BK law the judge did not use BK law to enjoin the strike, he cited the RLA and public convienence.
The fact is I've lived under the RLA for 25years and while I may have disliked it when the RLA allowed the companies and the NMB* to conspire to unfairly drag out negotiations for years when it benifited the company I had to live with it. It was the law and it was clear. The rules were that as long as they paid us what we had agreed to previously we could not strike, however once they changed that we could. While the RLA delayed our ability to collectively seek out and act in our best intrests it never stripped us of that right, just like Exxon and all those other collectives of Capital can. However this quack who calls himself a judge** has just ruled thats no longer the case. He has ruled that collective labor does not have the same rights to act in its own best intrests like collective capital can and has. So, despite the fact that the airlines troubles are due to costs other than labor rising at rates that exceed the revenue the airline can generate he attacks labor. Despite the fact that fuel costs are the primary cause of financial distress for the airlines and the fact that the collective owners of these fuel companies are reaping record profits the judge rules that its OK for the airlines to force the workers to absorb the increased cost of fuel.So not only does the BK court not follow sect 1113 where it states that the concessions sought must be equitable, fair and refused in order for labor contracts to be voided (how much have leases, rents, fuel etc been decreased) but then this guy rules that the company can pay whatever they want and labor can not do what Exxon, any leasing company or any other vendor (nearly all of which are collectives of capital)can do-stop providing their product until a mutually agreeable deal can be made.
The emotional ploy of "public inconvience" is especially annoying and always cited by these government crooks when they screw over working people. When the owners of airlines decide to shut down or limit a service or product in their own best intrests concern by the courts for "public inconvience" is thrown out the window and the public is told "thats free enterprise". The government does not mandate that the private sector must provide for the needs or desires of the public simply for the sake of satisfying those needs or desires, companies do so only as long as they decide its in their intrests to do so.If corporate intrests cause public inconvience so be it, however if labors pursuit of its bests intrest could cause some inconvience, all of a sudden the public has a right to labors product.The vreality is that they are lying to the public, they are not acting in the publics intrests, they are acting in the intrests of corporations.
* In the past it has been common practice for NMB officials to leave "public service" and take much more financially rewarding positions in the corporate side of the same industry they served as a so called "impartial". Its inconcievable that the fact taht favorable rulings towards corporations can result in rewards later on hasnt affected how the NMB carrys on their business. As cited before, they ofetn allow the company to drag out negotiations for yaers when workers are in a position to make gains, however when the oposite is true the NMB releases the parties to self help in record time.
** The same as above * goes for Judges who rule favorably for corporations.
I beleive in having and following laws, provided the laws are exercised fairly, which is clearly not the case here. The FAs never collectively agreed to work under these conditions, no other collective or private entity has been stripped of their rights to pursue their best intrests.
My claims here are backed up by more than "beliefs", they are supported by what is written and what we have experienced. What is Illegal or legal is not as much of a concern to me as what is moral or immoral. When immoral people are given the power to decide legality, morality must take precidence. Morally, workers would be right to resist these attacks by whatever maens are at their disoposal regardless of what that Judge ruled.
On a lofty constitutional law level, yes.
On a practical level of people (and unions) deciding how to conduct themselves in light of the decision, not really. Whether it is a court order or a statute, violating it will have unpleasant consequences.
And legislators can change laws.
That is your assumption. I have been very clear that it is a COURT ORDER, not a "legislated rule." (However, there are "legislated rules" giving judges authority to make decisions like this, and giving the legal system the means to enforce them. So violating a court order is in many ways violating "legislated rules.")
You apparently don't know much about the anglo-American common law legal system we have or the concept of stare decisis.
And anyways, if a judge is confronted with a novel set of facts that is not quite addressed by existing legislation, or of existing legislation is not clear on the issue, what should the judge do? Sit there like a deer in the headlights and hope the conflict somehow goes away?
I'm sure NW, with the help of pro-business legal firms and media outlets (think Wall Street Journal) could come up with a bunch of self-serving and self-righteous rhetoric to publicize while conveniently leaving out many relevant and material facts and laws to make their point, just as you have been doing.
So you think the judge would have reached the same conclusion if NW were not in bankruptcy?
And you have lived under the thousands of other laws that make up the U.S. legal system for your entire life (unless you lived outside the U.S. for a time).
Law is hardly ever "clear." It is always changing, and new sets of facts are always arising.
Are you a NW F/A?
I don't disagree with what you said in that last bit. The reason I asked (rhetorically) if you are a NW F/A is because they are the ones most diretly affected by this and thus have a choice to make. They can carry out CHAOS anyways in spite of the judge's ruling, and face the consequences; appeal the decision; and/or lobby to change the bankruptcy and labor laws.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
The unions are just as free to seek to hire the same people, and if you actually bother to look at the makeup of the NMB's staff, you'll see that it works both ways.
Former union negotiators:
1) Les Parmalee - Sr. Mediator, came from the American Train Dispatchers Department (part of the BLE)
2) Patricia Sims - Sr. Mediator, came from the AFA
3) Denise Hedges - Mediator, came from APFA
4) Mike Tosi, came from ALPA
Former management negotiators:
1) Terri Brown - Mediator, came from Amtrak
2) Dick Hanusz - Mediator, came from railroad mgmt
3) John Livingsgood - Mediator, came from railroad mgmt
Former attorneys:
1) Ernie DuBester - Mediator, bankruptcy/RLA attorney
2) Zachary Jones - Mediator, employement law attorney
If anything, the NMB's makeup appears skewed more towards labor.
All that said, even you have to admit that being a NMB mediator is a extremely specialized skillset, and since government agencies aren't known for paying well over time, they're going to go where they're paid better. And as already stated, the unions are just as free to recruit them as management is.
Just a hunch, but perhaps the real reason judges tend to rule favorably for corporations more often than not isn't because of corruption, but because most corporations are smart enough to follow the letter and intent of the law in the first place, so that they're not on the losing end of a judgement?
It's not just a willy-nilly order of a single man, Bob. It's his interpretation of what the intent of the will of the people was when both pieces of legislation were crafted.
Poorly crafted legislation often leads to wide gaps that judges are left to interpret. Likewise, when long standing legislation meets up with newer legislation, you're left to either fix it thru the legislative process, or wait for it to be interpreted in a courtroom.
More often than not, gaps and loopholes are left for a judge to interpret, the people get pissed off about it, which prompts the legislature to try and follow the will of the people and amend the law (e.g. radical court rulings regarding gay marriage in Massachussets and California resulted in other states passing constitutional amendments defining marriage).
For at least the past five years, there's been a lot of argument over whether or not an airline could strike following arbrogation, yet not a single labor union or corporation bothered to try and fix it thru the legislative process. The corporations didn't pursue it because they felt that the uncertainty worked in their favor.
If any or all of the major transport unions had spent a little more time being proactive on this, then it could have been codified in law as the will of the people, and not left it for a judge to interpret.
And not violating it also has unpleasent consequences. It allows a precident to be made and sends us off in a direction where workers rights are permanently damaged.
African Americans waited a 100 years for laws to be changed, it wasnt until they engaged in civil disobedience that they truly were given the chance to let everyone else know that their reasobnable requests were being ignored.
No that was my interpretation of what you wrote, so obviously you were not very clear.
Thats just it. The law is clear. The RLA prohibits strikes as long as the status quo is maintained, its clear that a change in pay rates violates the status quo. The BS arguement where labor should be forced to submit to unfavorable terms, and only labor, not the fuel companies, landlords, lessors, vendors etc is a crock, but since Judges will never face this situation where are negatively affected they rule in favor of a company where they can be positively affected. So far you havent address the fact that the Judge has not forced anyone else to continue to do business with NWA under unfavorable terms.
What are you talking about? They obviously already have.
In this case its clear, the prohibition on strikes is tied to maintenace of the agreement, if the company changes the rates of pay, and it clrearl states "rates of pay" the workers can strike.
No but I am an airline worker so the precidents set there have a direct impact on me and my future.
Thats like saying they are free to strike, CHAOS would be "just as illegal" as a strike.
Similar threads
