I believe we gave & gave......how much more do you wish to give? This place is history, enjoy the ride ........into the ground!!!!!
Airbus Ruling
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
OH I get it...the "few" who will give AGAIN will be working at U and most of the others will be goneusfliboi said:
You're a trip and must be on one....
usfliboi
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 2,070
- 270
rofl So sad , your disconnected... you think your the only one who gave? Because of that its gonna fold..... My friend USAIRWAYS isnt gonna fold, you havent begun to give yet! None of us has.... You need to research the industry man and see its across the board.
USA320Pilot said:
Hey, but "don't shoot the messenger," right? He's only saying that he wants management and the courts to cause additional pain for the coworkers who make sure that the airplanes he flies every day are safe. At least we didn't see the word "respectfully" after statements that show little respect to anyone at all. "Regards" can be either "best" or "worst" and we know which kind these are.
The judge does have a responsibility to protect the interests of the creditors, but some people seem to think that's congruent with granting the company's management all of its requests -- and that's simply not the case. For example, let's say that it were abundantly clear that imposing deep cuts on the IAM would mean that the union would strike. Are the assets of the estate best preserved by a liquidation forced by the strike, or are they best preserved by pushing management back to the bargaining table? Management must also demonstrate that the relief it requires is necessary for a successful reorganization. Simply saying "we don't have the space" when the facts don't support the assertion doesn't get them off the hook, especially if the 1113(e) motion is opposed by the applicable union. While the judge may not have the authority to pick and choose theterms imposed by the company, he can certainly hint as to what he would find acceptable and willing to grant or deny.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
700UW said:
Actually, they can.
If the judge orders the two sides to meet, and one side refuses or negotiates in bad faith, that's contempt of court.
Now, if the company is able to prove they've made reasonable attempts to negotiate in advance of the S1113 hearing, you're correct that the judge can't penalize the union. But if their arguments are convicing, he also won't hesitate to grant the motion made by the company, in effect punishing the union's membership, not the union.
fatherof2 said:
Your interpretation of the management cuts are incorrect. From www.transformingusairways.com (bold added for emphasis):
The overall annual target for participation by management/non-union employees, including all officers, is $45 million (or more than 20 percent of total 2004 payroll costs).
The bottom line is that total payroll cost cuts among MSP employees will be over 20% of the current total. How is that a feeble giveback?
High Iron
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 495
- 0
Knowing this poster's inveterate propensity for chiming in on every subject about everybody nomadderwhat(sic), I was going to let it go, but I'll bite...though it's obvious said poser of question ignored the 100+ posts prior.................................
I am NOT, trying to break stones here
Cough Cough.
I want someone to politely explain from the IAM Point of view exactly what victory was achieved and how it will benefit
OK. Short and sweet and as condensed as possible:
A blatant contract violation affecting a very large portion of membership was recognized, challenged, and legally recognized as such. Whatever leverage is provided in the BK2 court is doubtless better than letting said violation slide...especially in view of company's stated goal of outsourcing as a backdrop to any future "deals". It should also be noted ( well, it has been noted, it's studiously ignored by the pro-giveawy crowd in the heat of self-serving rhetoric ) that said violation was a violation of a previous "deal" with same company leadership. But this polite response comes with a question? What would have been the benefit of NOT challenging this contract violation?
I clearly am missing something
No you're not. Other than the attention you so crave, you're deliberately missing something because it does not jive with your own dogma.
I am NOT, trying to break stones here
Cough Cough.
I want someone to politely explain from the IAM Point of view exactly what victory was achieved and how it will benefit
OK. Short and sweet and as condensed as possible:
A blatant contract violation affecting a very large portion of membership was recognized, challenged, and legally recognized as such. Whatever leverage is provided in the BK2 court is doubtless better than letting said violation slide...especially in view of company's stated goal of outsourcing as a backdrop to any future "deals". It should also be noted ( well, it has been noted, it's studiously ignored by the pro-giveawy crowd in the heat of self-serving rhetoric ) that said violation was a violation of a previous "deal" with same company leadership. But this polite response comes with a question? What would have been the benefit of NOT challenging this contract violation?
I clearly am missing something
No you're not. Other than the attention you so crave, you're deliberately missing something because it does not jive with your own dogma.
ya know, Piney, having ovserved and participated on these boards for awhile, I sense your personna changing. I could be very wrong, but I am feeling you see the end for USAirways. I say this, because you have lost your mmmffffssssaaaaa. 
High Iron
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 495
- 0
PineyBob said:
Pffft!
That's an answer, and you know it...and considering your constant kibbitzing it's a far more civil one than you deserved. Now: Parse my answer and tell me where it's not an answer.BTW, are you even familiar with the terms dogma and karma? Doesn't sound like it.
Not angry at all. Enjoyed a fine day outside, enjoying a fine evening, and I know my mettle and the stuff I'm made of, and the lack of same of my opponents. Don't even go there. Unhealthy? I feel great mentally and physically. Weight, 172, Body fat 20%, Cholesterol 163...most of it the HDL sort, blood pressure 118/78. Feeling real healthy. Life's good man! ( I'll do what I can to keep it that way too )
High Iron
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 495
- 0
PineyBob said:
A position of greater strength in any upcoming battles. Why? Because it's a legally held opinion. You don't like that answer? Fine. You don't have to. Are you bidding for another party by asking ?
What would the mechs gain if they lost? What would be gained by letting it slide? What would be lost by fighting it?
Take those Q's back to that party and let them mull it over.
What did the IAM win he asks?
Surely it can be said that the ruling is a hollow victory , but it was a vindication of RIGHT over supposed MIGHT. The only downside is the company had to hide behind the coverage of Chapter 11 to make the victory hollow.
I do not mean to say that U leaped into CH 11 again because it knew it was about to lose the Arbitraition process...but I'm willing to bet it was one of many factors for them doing so.
My opinion is this...regardless of obtaining career destroying agreements with ALPA , AFA or the CWA and the TWU (which they still haven't)...U was going where we've gone based firstly on the payments due to the pension funds , an immediate ALPA capitulation would not have changed that in the slightest.
The meaning of the IAM's currently hollow victory is showing strong proof of the incorrect thinking of our past and present leadership. This also shows how poorly money has been spent on fighting the employees instead of fighting those whom are out to destroy us from a competative business standpoint.
I fault Siegel and Lakefield both for this. I fault Siegel for bringing this failed Union Buster on board...and Lakefield for keeping him and his tactics around. No good will come from any of this with his presence remaining here.
Surely an objective person such as Judge Mitchell will have followed the IAM's case...and how the IAM has prevailed in 1 Court , drew a draw in a second that forced arbitraiton..then prevailed in BINDING ARBITRAITION that a court ruling directed both parties to participate in.
U's willingness over and over again to ignore Contratcs , ignore obligatons and run from competition is a clear indictment of continued failed leadership...and hopefully the IAM's Victory , hollow or not? , will prevail in a mainer as to have the control of U taken away from the RSA (Bronner) and certainly those whom continue to support and draw advice from the likes of Gerald Glass.
The final plus is the reward of monitary losses the IAM is due...sure we may never see a nickle in real terms...but the award of the funds does become a bargaining chip for continued negotiations...I would rather bargain with that chip and the Victory in hand..than bargain with nothing but Sorry Charlie you lost the Airbus sweepstakes and BINDING arbitraition said so.
Surely it can be said that the ruling is a hollow victory , but it was a vindication of RIGHT over supposed MIGHT. The only downside is the company had to hide behind the coverage of Chapter 11 to make the victory hollow.
I do not mean to say that U leaped into CH 11 again because it knew it was about to lose the Arbitraition process...but I'm willing to bet it was one of many factors for them doing so.
My opinion is this...regardless of obtaining career destroying agreements with ALPA , AFA or the CWA and the TWU (which they still haven't)...U was going where we've gone based firstly on the payments due to the pension funds , an immediate ALPA capitulation would not have changed that in the slightest.
The meaning of the IAM's currently hollow victory is showing strong proof of the incorrect thinking of our past and present leadership. This also shows how poorly money has been spent on fighting the employees instead of fighting those whom are out to destroy us from a competative business standpoint.
I fault Siegel and Lakefield both for this. I fault Siegel for bringing this failed Union Buster on board...and Lakefield for keeping him and his tactics around. No good will come from any of this with his presence remaining here.
Surely an objective person such as Judge Mitchell will have followed the IAM's case...and how the IAM has prevailed in 1 Court , drew a draw in a second that forced arbitraiton..then prevailed in BINDING ARBITRAITION that a court ruling directed both parties to participate in.
U's willingness over and over again to ignore Contratcs , ignore obligatons and run from competition is a clear indictment of continued failed leadership...and hopefully the IAM's Victory , hollow or not? , will prevail in a mainer as to have the control of U taken away from the RSA (Bronner) and certainly those whom continue to support and draw advice from the likes of Gerald Glass.
The final plus is the reward of monitary losses the IAM is due...sure we may never see a nickle in real terms...but the award of the funds does become a bargaining chip for continued negotiations...I would rather bargain with that chip and the Victory in hand..than bargain with nothing but Sorry Charlie you lost the Airbus sweepstakes and BINDING arbitraition said so.
PITbull
Veteran
N628AU said:
Feeble, because it INCLUDES positions that won't be filled.
You need to investigate this whole issue before you can equate this with some kind of managment "sacrifice".
Please....
Similar threads
