Who the heck you think I've been talking to!!! Scotty, Ray, Fitz...what, are you blind. One more time, it's not the money...IT'S THE SCOPE CLAUSE'S...that's right...the 20% farmout, the foreign stations which already ARE doing our work btw, jet shop, indy, oak. The last word they got from the company is to cut the mechs down to about 4400-5000. Friend of mine from training just told me he had 3 guys from Bejing for 777 taxi-run. Didn't know we had 777 going there? The bottom line is this...typical UAL except on a grand scale...1/3 can make a deal, the other 2/3's are screwed. When you go from embryo to fetus let me know...that way I know I'm talking to someone with a vertebrae
All UAL wants for Christmas is Labor Agreements
- Thread starter UnitedChicago
- Start date
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 2
20 PM Busdrvr wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 12:42:03 PM The Ronin wrote:
Guess what the "low fare" carriers pay their mechanics...I think you need some fresh air Busdvr
----------------
[/blockquote]
I think you need to comprehend basic math. If UAL put 10 pilots on each and every jet, but paid them half of todays salary, would the pilots be correct to say "we're not the problem"? It's not about what any individual makes, it's about the TOTAL cost of the workforce. If the low fares do the same amount of MX with HALF the number of mechanics, then it follows that although they may be paid similar wages, they are costing the company HALF as much. The company would be perfectly happy to pay the current Mechs the same rate...if your willing to ****can half your workforce. Guess what, that's the plan.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Good thing I'm over the halfway on the list then, heck almost 2/3's...where are you Busdvr???
----------------
On 12/31/2002 2
20 PM Busdrvr wrote: [blockquote]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 12:42:03 PM The Ronin wrote:
Guess what the "low fare" carriers pay their mechanics...I think you need some fresh air Busdvr
----------------
[/blockquote]
I think you need to comprehend basic math. If UAL put 10 pilots on each and every jet, but paid them half of todays salary, would the pilots be correct to say "we're not the problem"? It's not about what any individual makes, it's about the TOTAL cost of the workforce. If the low fares do the same amount of MX with HALF the number of mechanics, then it follows that although they may be paid similar wages, they are costing the company HALF as much. The company would be perfectly happy to pay the current Mechs the same rate...if your willing to ****can half your workforce. Guess what, that's the plan.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Good thing I'm over the halfway on the list then, heck almost 2/3's...where are you Busdvr???
Tell me Busdvr...why should I be fighting the company I serve??? Why am I fighting another member that depends and rides on my work everyday??? Giddy??? more like sick to my stomach. Half way through my life in a career I've been at since I was a kid...down the drain. There are no smiles here my friend. Strike...doubtful with the likes of 747mech and his kind...the kind that lowers his eyes and hopes danger passes even when the beast is already chewing on his leg, instead of picking up that stick and bashing that beast brains out...I'm holding up the best I can, and trying to still do the best job I can, but it's getting heavy and the worst has yet to come. Even for those that remain, I doubt life at the U will ever be the same...On another note, the lab is paying ok....house is worth $360k and I owe about $100k on it, got about 50k in the bank, and had a great x-mas with the fam. All in all...lifes ok, cheers to you my friend on the new year
[STRONG][EM]It is now my understanding that Bob Owens is in favor of paycuts as long as they do not last for 6 years. [BR][BR]Bob could you tell us how much and for how long you are in favor of paycuts at your airline.[/EM][/STRONG]
Sorry Ronin, it would have been about the jobs had you been willing to play ball 6 months ago, but you weren't, and each and every day the IAM plays games, you get deeper and deeper in the hole. Do you really think the IAM won't sell you and the cleaners out to save as many CSR jobs and wages as possible? I personally don't want the MX done in China nor ANY other place off OUR property. Unfortunately, you guys went to a gun fight carrying only a stick. It's unfortunate, if you guys try to strike, it'll be broken. Yesterdays deal is gone, and soon todays will be to. Don't worry about my seniority Ronin, although I'm not the one trying to "burn it down", I am covered (and then some). I'm just not quite as giddy about the loss of half the mechanic jobs at UAL (best case scenario) as you unfortunately seem to be. Enjoy the crappy shifts you'll get bumped down to (and the likely move you'll have to put your family through).
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 5:56:24 PM The Ronin wrote:
Tell me Busdvr...why should I be fighting the company I serve??? Why am I fighting another member that depends and rides on my work everyday??? Giddy??? more like sick to my stomach. Half way through my life in a career I've been at since I was a kid...down the drain. There are no smiles here my friend. Strike...doubtful with the likes of 747mech and his kind...the kind that lowers his eyes and hopes danger passes even when the beast is already chewing on his leg, instead of picking up that stick and bashing that beast brains out...I'm holding up the best I can, and trying to still do the best job I can, but it's getting heavy and the worst has yet to come. Even for those that remain, I doubt life at the U will ever be the same...On another note, the lab is paying ok....house is worth $360k and I owe about $100k on it, got about 50k in the bank, and had a great x-mas with the fam. All in all...lifes ok, cheers to you my friend on the new year
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hey Ronin take a chill pill before you burst an artery. What, you think I'm scared to strike? You're wrong sh*thead. I'm not scared of what can happen here because I already got a job lined up just in case. You probably voted "no" on the ERP huh? You probably thought the company and the unions were lying we were in the brink of bankruptcy huh? You probably didn't believe them that it was going to be worst in bankruptcy huh? All I'm saying is lets work smart, get as much information as we can to make an informed decision. If what you said is what the company is planning on doing then I agree with you, let it fold. If management don't want to be reasonable then why should we be reasonable, let the court decide.
Here's an interesting case for everybody.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PIKEVILLE DIVISION
IN RE:
SUN GLO COAL COMPANY, INC. CASE NO. 92-70014
TROJAN MINING AND PROCESSING, INC. CASE NO. 92-70015
DEBTORS (Joint Administration)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the Motion of Debtors for Authority to Reject Collective Bargaining Agreement and for Other Relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. '1113, filed herein on May 1, 1992. An evidentiary hearing in this matter was conducted on June 29, 1992, and continued to its conclusion on July 6, 1992. The debtors, the United Mine Workers of America, and the UMWA Health and Retirement Funds participated. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '1334(B); it is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '157(B)(2)(A).
The record herein indicates that the debtors are each signatory to a collective bargaining agreement, the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1988 ("NBCWA" or "Wage Agreement"), with the United Mine Workers of America, which has been in force at all times relevant herein. The Wage Agreement provides the material terms of the wages, benefits and work rules regarding the debtors and their employees, together with the benefits related to former employees and retirees. The debtors are parties to the Wage Agreement which was negotiated by the Bituminous Coal Operators Association ("BCOA"), the body that entered into collective bargaining with the United Mine Workers of America to produce the Wage Agreement.
The debtors filed their Chapter 11 petitions in this Court on January 7, 1992. Debtor Trojan Mining and Processing, Inc. ("Trojan") is an affiliate of debtor Sun Glo Coal Company, Inc. ("Sun Glo"). Trojan has employed upwards of 180 people in the mining and processing of coal, and has furnished a labor force to Sun Glo at all times relevant hereto. On the date of filing of the petitions the debtors also filed a Motion for Authority to Impose Interim Modifications to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Other Relief. This Court considered that Motion on January 10, 1992, and on January 14, 1992, entered an Order based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law granting the requested relief in part. An Order Approving Joint Administration was entered on February 12, 1992.
The debtors and the International Union, United Mine Workers, and Locals 5741 and 1468 UMWA ("the Union") memorialized a Joint Stipulation in regard to the Motion under consideration here. The UMWA Health and Retirement Funds ("the Funds") did not participate in the formulation of the Stipulation although, at the hearing on this matter, the Funds joined in the Stipulation. The Stipulation was tendered to the Court on the date of hearing. It provides in pertinent part as follows (items dealing with the attachment of exhibits and copies are omitted):
1. Subsequent to the filing of the Petition herein and prior to filing the application seeking rejection of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Debtors have made proposals to the UMWA, the authorized representative of the employees, which sought modifications in the employees' benefits under the contract.
4. The Debtor has provided relevant information necessary to evaluate the proposals. Further, the Debtor has offered to make all of its books and records available to the representative and has not refused to respond to any requests for information from the representative, except the Debtors have advised that they do not know the price for which the coal they produce is sold or the profit margin.
5. The Debtors have met at reasonable times after making the proposals with the authorized representative to confer regarding the proposals.
6. Prior to the hearing, the authorized representative has not accepted any of the proposals as a total package, although the UMWA representative has advised that some portions of the proposals were acceptable subject to an entire agreement being reached.
At the evidentiary hearing conducted on June 29, 1992, Don Wallen, a CPA, testified on behalf of the debtors. He stated that Trojan had a taxable income of $9,038.00 in 1991, while Sun Glo showed a loss of $514,043.00. Compilations for January through May, 1992, showed a cumulative loss of $1,500,000.00. Of this figure, $758,000.00 was a prior period entry, and therefore the actual monetary loss as of May 31 was approximately $740,000.00. By month the figures are as follows:
January 31: -$644,000.00
February 29: -$341,000.00
March 31: +$679,391.00
April 30: -$ 55,172.00
May 31: -$392,092.00
Total -$752,873.00
Although these losses will be subject to some adjustment, it is evident that the debtors will continue to suffer significant losses unless some drastic reductions in their costs occur. Costs are the major factor in these losses, and this Court finds that labor costs are the most significant of these costs.
According to the testimony of Tom Anderson, sole shareholder and director of the debtors, and their president, the debtors and the Union began a series of bargaining sessions regarding permanent changes in the Collective Bargaining Agreement on March 19, 1992. Prior to this meeting the debtors submitted a second proposal for modifications. The debtors presented a third modification to the Union on April 17, 1992. The session following that proposal took place on April 28, 1992, with another meeting taking place within a week or ten days of that session. At that time, the Union presented its response to the most recent proposal. The debtors then responded with a fourth proposal. Another meeting may have taken place after the fourth proposal was submitted, and a fifth proposal was submitted, but not in time for the Union to consider it before the evidentiary hearing in this matter. (Transcript of Hearing, pp. 78-80)
Testimony elicited from Mr. Anderson and other witnesses indicates that while the debtors and the Union have been able to achieve a certain degree of compromise on various economic modifications such as wages and medical insurance benefits, issues such as seniority, employee discipline, and absenteeism have not been susceptible to such compromise. As set out in the parties' Joint Stipulation, they have not been able to come up with a "total package" acceptable to all sides. This Court posed the question of the court's authority to approve some modifications and not others.
The Union has responded that the provisions of 11 U.S.C. '1113 which allow a bankruptcy judge to authorize rejection of collective bargaining agreements under certain circumstances do not permit "judicially-constructed" modifications of those agreements. It has cited several cases in support of its position, with language most directly addressing this issue found in In re Russell Transfer, 48 B.R. 241 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Va. 1985). Therein the court stated:
A reading of '1113(e) clearly indicates a Congressional intent that relief under this sub-section shall be granted only as a means to avoid irreparable damage to the estate and permit the debtor to continue in business for the benefit of the debtors (sic), its creditors, and to provide jobs for its employees. The Congress did not intend that this Court undertake the rewriting on a permanent basis of collective bargaining agreements.
At page 243.
Another case which supports this view is In re Sierra Steel Corp., 88 B.R. 314 (D.Colo. 1987), in which a bankruptcy court's imposition of a "snap-back" provision into an employer's proposed alteration of a collective bargaining agreement was found to be error. This Court agrees with this view and finds that it may authorize the debtors' rejection of the collective bargaining agreement, or not, as the case may be, but that it may not create an agreement for the parties.
Consideration of the debtors' fourth proposal dated May 20, 1992, reveals that it contains nineteen items dealing with a variety of concerns including wages and other benefits, work rules, and other items not strictly economic in nature. The Union's response to this proposed modification is embodied in a letter dated May 26, 1992, from the Union's attorney to the debtors' attorney. The Union's response was that it was agreeable to paragraphs 1 (wages), 2 (overtime), 3 (vacation), 7 (Sunday operations), 8 (retraining), and 13 (management committee).
The Union did not agree with paragraph 4 which limits contractual paid leave days to six, but did agree to reduce the total number of possible accumulated vacation days from thirteen to eight. The Union was agreeable to the provision in paragraph 5 changing medical insurance to an 80/20 coinsurance plan with deductible. The Union would not agree with that part of the provision which limited coverage to active employees. The Union agreed to consider adoption of the changes in scheduling to allow outside travel time as provided in paragraph 9.
As to paragraphs 10 (idling) and 14 (job bidding freeze/temporary jobs), the Union agreed that the employers should have the right to produce coal on idled days without scheduling the entire work force where shipments are scheduled or coal storage needs require. It did not agree to the right to schedule crews for regular ten-hour shifts or other flex time. It agreed to a 180 day freeze on job bidding. It did not agree with the rest of this paragraph as regards certification, testing, and the determination of senior qualified bidders being in management's discretion, or with the elimination of temporary job bidding.
Paragraph 12 (layoff/recall) allows management a one-time work force reduction and recall without strict regard to seniority. This provision was rejected by the Union.
Paragraph 15 (supervisor work) was agreed to insofar as it authorized supervisors to perform classified work to correct any unsafe condition, providing it was limited to emergency situations where classified employees are not available. The remainder of the provision authorizing a supervisor to perform any task needed to return the mine or plant to production after a breakdown or when insufficient classified employees come to work on any given day was rejected.
Paragraph 16 (attendance program) provides for the calculation of absenteeism on a monthly basis with absenteeism above the mine average rate for any three months resulting in suspension with intent to discharge. Medical absences are counted in the calculation, the "AWOL" program is eliminated, and leaving a shift early or arriving after the mantrip has left for the workface is counted as an absence. The Union rejected this provision, and agreed only to the establishment of a six member committee to review past customs and practices and prepare a recommended summary of continuing practices.
The Union agreed to the provisions of paragraph 18 (BCOA) dealing with modifications or extensions of the NBCWA. It did not agree however that this provision should apply to future modifications regarding the UMWA Pension Plan and Trust, or that future statutes or court decisions could not modify the NBCWA unless separately agreed to by the parties. The Union also agreed to paragraph 19 (interpretation) except that it proposed a three year extension rather than an expiration date of February 19, 1993.
The Union's response also stated that if it were provided with "reasonable and accurate" calculations of the cost savings of those portions of paragraphs 4, 5, and 11 to which the Union could not agree, that it would attempt to accommodate the economic concerns embodied in these provisions by a counterproposal in the form of establishment of a defined contribution pension plan. The Union's response further noted that the only provisions for which the debtors had provided cost analysis were paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9.
As stated above, the applicable Bankruptcy Code provision is 11 U.S.C. '1113. In regard to the requirements of that section, courts have historically applied the nine-part test enunciated in In re American Provision Co., 44 B.R. 907, 909 (Bkrtcy.D.Minn. 1984):
1) The debtor in possession must have made a proposal to the union;
2) The proposal must be based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time of the proposal;
3) The modification must be necessary to permit reorganization;
4) The modification must provide that all affected parties are treated fairly and equitably;
5) The debtor must provide the union with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal;
6) The debtor must have met with the collective bargaining representative at reasonable times subsequent to making the proposal;
7) The debtor must have negotiated with the union concerning the proposal in good faith;
8) The union must have refused to accept the proposal without good cause; and
9) The balance of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the agreement.
The requirements of items 1, 2, 5, and 6 have undoubtedly been met. The Union has raised the question of the debtors' good faith, but this court believes that the debtors have negotiated with the Union in good faith and that item 7 has also been satisfied. The issues remaining to be resolved are, therefore, those raised by items 3, 4, 8, and 9.
The issue of whether the modification is necessary for reorganization has historically caused courts the greatest problem in interpretation. The leading cases on this issue are Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, 791 F.2d 1074 (3rd Cir. 1986) and Truck Drivers Local 807 v. Carey Transportation, Inc., supra. The Third Circuit in Wheeling-Pittsburgh interpreted "necessary" to mean "necessary to prevent liquidation". Id. at 1088. The Second Circuit in Carey Transportation held that "necessary" should be interpreted in the context of whether rejection would increase the likelihood of successful reorganization. The Union urges this Court to follow Wheeling-Pittsburgh; the debtors line up behind Carey Transportation.
The Funds argue that since the debtors propose to modify or eliminate their retiree benefit obligation, the standard for rejection is the Wheeling-Pittsburgh standard codified in 11 U.S.C. '1114. The Funds maintain that the legislative history of this section makes it clear that the Carey Transportation view is rejected and the Wheeling-Pittsburgh standard adopted. However, as is pointed out in 5 Collier on Bankruptcy &1114.02[5][a] (15th ed. 1992), this position was embodied only in the remarks of Sen. Metzenbaum and was not part of any Committee or Conference Report. Congress did not adopt one test or the other.
This Court is inclined to follow Carey Transportation in making a determination as to whether rejection of the collective bargaining agreement is necessary to the reorganization of the debtor. Since the debtors and the Union have agreed on many of the provisions of the debtors' fourth (May 20, 1992) proposal, this Court must then decide if the provisions which remain in contention are necessary to the debtors' reorganization, i.e.,
whether they increase the likelihood of successful reorganization. The evidence is indisputable that if these debtors do not receive major economic concessions they cannot continue in business. The question before the Court is whether the debtors have insisted on significant concessions that go beyond what is necessary to allow them to reorganize. The majority of these provisions, as set out above, have to do with work rules, layoffs, seniority, and benefits being provided to other than currently active workers.
The economic benefit to the debtors to be derived from ceasing to provide benefits to other than currently active workers is evident (and it is substantial) as is the desirability of a one time rearrangement of the workforce without regard to seniority, but as the Union points out, and the debtors have presented no testimony in contravention, the debtors have not done cost analysis for the other contested provisions. (Transcript of Hearing, pp. 29-30) They relied on what the Union has characterized as vague, unsubstantiated testimony from Dr. Ralph Barbaro, Trigg Combs, and Malcolm Poulter as to the cost savings that would be effected by the implementation of such measures. This Court tends to agree that the debtors have failed to sufficiently quantify the results of such proposed changes to allow this Court to find that they are "necessary" to the reorganization of the debtors.
The sum and substance of Dr. Barbaro's testimony was that loss of job security tends to result in an increase in productivity. Mr. Combs's testimony was not particularly supportive of the debtors' position in that he did not have significant knowledge of prevailing wage rates in Pike County, and Mr. Poulter gave what amounted to opinion testimony that implementing these measures would effect an increase in productivity of between fifteen and twenty percent. (Transcript of Hearing, pp. 40-97; 108-120; 12) This Court does not believe that the debtors have demonstrated that these measures are "necessary" to its reorganization, because they have not demonstrated how these particular changes will increase the likelihood of successful reorganization, aside from vague assertions that they will increase productivity.
As set out in '1113©, the Court may only approve an application for rejection if the trustee (debtor in possession) has made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of '(B)(1), the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept the proposal without good cause, and the balance of the equities favors rejection. This Court believes that the Union's response to the debtors' fourth proposal provides evidence that supports a finding that the Union did not refuse to accept the proposal without good cause.
The Union bargained in good faith and gave concessions in many areas, especially where the debtors could demonstrate what the cost savings of particular measures would be. It did not "stonewall", nor did it reject proposals out of hand because they would require some sacrifice on its part. This Court believes that the Union's objection to and rejection of the provisions discussed above are not grounded in obstinate attempts to thwart management efforts to improve productivity, but in its historical role as the guarantor of the working person's rights in the labor arena.
All of the foregoing tends to show as well that the balancing of the equities does not favor rejection and that the proposal does not treat all parties fairly and equitably. Clearly these debtors are on the brink of financial disaster but it appears that they sought concessions which went beyond those necessary to allow them to reorganize and that the Union did not act unreasonably in refusing these concessions.
It is therefore the opinion of this Court, based on all the considerations set out above, that the debtors Motion for Authority to Reject Collective Bargaining Agreement should be overruled. An order in conformity with this opinion will be entered separately.
Dated:
By the Court -
___________________________
Judge
Copies to:
James B. Ratliff, Esq.
James R. Hampton, Esq.
Barbara E. Locklin-George, Esq.
John A. Rollins, Esq.
Bruce A. Levy, Esq.
U.S. Trustee
----------------
On 12/31/2002 5:56:24 PM The Ronin wrote:
Tell me Busdvr...why should I be fighting the company I serve??? Why am I fighting another member that depends and rides on my work everyday??? Giddy??? more like sick to my stomach. Half way through my life in a career I've been at since I was a kid...down the drain. There are no smiles here my friend. Strike...doubtful with the likes of 747mech and his kind...the kind that lowers his eyes and hopes danger passes even when the beast is already chewing on his leg, instead of picking up that stick and bashing that beast brains out...I'm holding up the best I can, and trying to still do the best job I can, but it's getting heavy and the worst has yet to come. Even for those that remain, I doubt life at the U will ever be the same...On another note, the lab is paying ok....house is worth $360k and I owe about $100k on it, got about 50k in the bank, and had a great x-mas with the fam. All in all...lifes ok, cheers to you my friend on the new year
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hey Ronin take a chill pill before you burst an artery. What, you think I'm scared to strike? You're wrong sh*thead. I'm not scared of what can happen here because I already got a job lined up just in case. You probably voted "no" on the ERP huh? You probably thought the company and the unions were lying we were in the brink of bankruptcy huh? You probably didn't believe them that it was going to be worst in bankruptcy huh? All I'm saying is lets work smart, get as much information as we can to make an informed decision. If what you said is what the company is planning on doing then I agree with you, let it fold. If management don't want to be reasonable then why should we be reasonable, let the court decide.
Here's an interesting case for everybody.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PIKEVILLE DIVISION
IN RE:
SUN GLO COAL COMPANY, INC. CASE NO. 92-70014
TROJAN MINING AND PROCESSING, INC. CASE NO. 92-70015
DEBTORS (Joint Administration)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the Motion of Debtors for Authority to Reject Collective Bargaining Agreement and for Other Relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. '1113, filed herein on May 1, 1992. An evidentiary hearing in this matter was conducted on June 29, 1992, and continued to its conclusion on July 6, 1992. The debtors, the United Mine Workers of America, and the UMWA Health and Retirement Funds participated. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '1334(B); it is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '157(B)(2)(A).
The record herein indicates that the debtors are each signatory to a collective bargaining agreement, the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1988 ("NBCWA" or "Wage Agreement"), with the United Mine Workers of America, which has been in force at all times relevant herein. The Wage Agreement provides the material terms of the wages, benefits and work rules regarding the debtors and their employees, together with the benefits related to former employees and retirees. The debtors are parties to the Wage Agreement which was negotiated by the Bituminous Coal Operators Association ("BCOA"), the body that entered into collective bargaining with the United Mine Workers of America to produce the Wage Agreement.
The debtors filed their Chapter 11 petitions in this Court on January 7, 1992. Debtor Trojan Mining and Processing, Inc. ("Trojan") is an affiliate of debtor Sun Glo Coal Company, Inc. ("Sun Glo"). Trojan has employed upwards of 180 people in the mining and processing of coal, and has furnished a labor force to Sun Glo at all times relevant hereto. On the date of filing of the petitions the debtors also filed a Motion for Authority to Impose Interim Modifications to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Other Relief. This Court considered that Motion on January 10, 1992, and on January 14, 1992, entered an Order based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law granting the requested relief in part. An Order Approving Joint Administration was entered on February 12, 1992.
The debtors and the International Union, United Mine Workers, and Locals 5741 and 1468 UMWA ("the Union") memorialized a Joint Stipulation in regard to the Motion under consideration here. The UMWA Health and Retirement Funds ("the Funds") did not participate in the formulation of the Stipulation although, at the hearing on this matter, the Funds joined in the Stipulation. The Stipulation was tendered to the Court on the date of hearing. It provides in pertinent part as follows (items dealing with the attachment of exhibits and copies are omitted):
1. Subsequent to the filing of the Petition herein and prior to filing the application seeking rejection of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Debtors have made proposals to the UMWA, the authorized representative of the employees, which sought modifications in the employees' benefits under the contract.
4. The Debtor has provided relevant information necessary to evaluate the proposals. Further, the Debtor has offered to make all of its books and records available to the representative and has not refused to respond to any requests for information from the representative, except the Debtors have advised that they do not know the price for which the coal they produce is sold or the profit margin.
5. The Debtors have met at reasonable times after making the proposals with the authorized representative to confer regarding the proposals.
6. Prior to the hearing, the authorized representative has not accepted any of the proposals as a total package, although the UMWA representative has advised that some portions of the proposals were acceptable subject to an entire agreement being reached.
At the evidentiary hearing conducted on June 29, 1992, Don Wallen, a CPA, testified on behalf of the debtors. He stated that Trojan had a taxable income of $9,038.00 in 1991, while Sun Glo showed a loss of $514,043.00. Compilations for January through May, 1992, showed a cumulative loss of $1,500,000.00. Of this figure, $758,000.00 was a prior period entry, and therefore the actual monetary loss as of May 31 was approximately $740,000.00. By month the figures are as follows:
January 31: -$644,000.00
February 29: -$341,000.00
March 31: +$679,391.00
April 30: -$ 55,172.00
May 31: -$392,092.00
Total -$752,873.00
Although these losses will be subject to some adjustment, it is evident that the debtors will continue to suffer significant losses unless some drastic reductions in their costs occur. Costs are the major factor in these losses, and this Court finds that labor costs are the most significant of these costs.
According to the testimony of Tom Anderson, sole shareholder and director of the debtors, and their president, the debtors and the Union began a series of bargaining sessions regarding permanent changes in the Collective Bargaining Agreement on March 19, 1992. Prior to this meeting the debtors submitted a second proposal for modifications. The debtors presented a third modification to the Union on April 17, 1992. The session following that proposal took place on April 28, 1992, with another meeting taking place within a week or ten days of that session. At that time, the Union presented its response to the most recent proposal. The debtors then responded with a fourth proposal. Another meeting may have taken place after the fourth proposal was submitted, and a fifth proposal was submitted, but not in time for the Union to consider it before the evidentiary hearing in this matter. (Transcript of Hearing, pp. 78-80)
Testimony elicited from Mr. Anderson and other witnesses indicates that while the debtors and the Union have been able to achieve a certain degree of compromise on various economic modifications such as wages and medical insurance benefits, issues such as seniority, employee discipline, and absenteeism have not been susceptible to such compromise. As set out in the parties' Joint Stipulation, they have not been able to come up with a "total package" acceptable to all sides. This Court posed the question of the court's authority to approve some modifications and not others.
The Union has responded that the provisions of 11 U.S.C. '1113 which allow a bankruptcy judge to authorize rejection of collective bargaining agreements under certain circumstances do not permit "judicially-constructed" modifications of those agreements. It has cited several cases in support of its position, with language most directly addressing this issue found in In re Russell Transfer, 48 B.R. 241 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Va. 1985). Therein the court stated:
A reading of '1113(e) clearly indicates a Congressional intent that relief under this sub-section shall be granted only as a means to avoid irreparable damage to the estate and permit the debtor to continue in business for the benefit of the debtors (sic), its creditors, and to provide jobs for its employees. The Congress did not intend that this Court undertake the rewriting on a permanent basis of collective bargaining agreements.
At page 243.
Another case which supports this view is In re Sierra Steel Corp., 88 B.R. 314 (D.Colo. 1987), in which a bankruptcy court's imposition of a "snap-back" provision into an employer's proposed alteration of a collective bargaining agreement was found to be error. This Court agrees with this view and finds that it may authorize the debtors' rejection of the collective bargaining agreement, or not, as the case may be, but that it may not create an agreement for the parties.
Consideration of the debtors' fourth proposal dated May 20, 1992, reveals that it contains nineteen items dealing with a variety of concerns including wages and other benefits, work rules, and other items not strictly economic in nature. The Union's response to this proposed modification is embodied in a letter dated May 26, 1992, from the Union's attorney to the debtors' attorney. The Union's response was that it was agreeable to paragraphs 1 (wages), 2 (overtime), 3 (vacation), 7 (Sunday operations), 8 (retraining), and 13 (management committee).
The Union did not agree with paragraph 4 which limits contractual paid leave days to six, but did agree to reduce the total number of possible accumulated vacation days from thirteen to eight. The Union was agreeable to the provision in paragraph 5 changing medical insurance to an 80/20 coinsurance plan with deductible. The Union would not agree with that part of the provision which limited coverage to active employees. The Union agreed to consider adoption of the changes in scheduling to allow outside travel time as provided in paragraph 9.
As to paragraphs 10 (idling) and 14 (job bidding freeze/temporary jobs), the Union agreed that the employers should have the right to produce coal on idled days without scheduling the entire work force where shipments are scheduled or coal storage needs require. It did not agree to the right to schedule crews for regular ten-hour shifts or other flex time. It agreed to a 180 day freeze on job bidding. It did not agree with the rest of this paragraph as regards certification, testing, and the determination of senior qualified bidders being in management's discretion, or with the elimination of temporary job bidding.
Paragraph 12 (layoff/recall) allows management a one-time work force reduction and recall without strict regard to seniority. This provision was rejected by the Union.
Paragraph 15 (supervisor work) was agreed to insofar as it authorized supervisors to perform classified work to correct any unsafe condition, providing it was limited to emergency situations where classified employees are not available. The remainder of the provision authorizing a supervisor to perform any task needed to return the mine or plant to production after a breakdown or when insufficient classified employees come to work on any given day was rejected.
Paragraph 16 (attendance program) provides for the calculation of absenteeism on a monthly basis with absenteeism above the mine average rate for any three months resulting in suspension with intent to discharge. Medical absences are counted in the calculation, the "AWOL" program is eliminated, and leaving a shift early or arriving after the mantrip has left for the workface is counted as an absence. The Union rejected this provision, and agreed only to the establishment of a six member committee to review past customs and practices and prepare a recommended summary of continuing practices.
The Union agreed to the provisions of paragraph 18 (BCOA) dealing with modifications or extensions of the NBCWA. It did not agree however that this provision should apply to future modifications regarding the UMWA Pension Plan and Trust, or that future statutes or court decisions could not modify the NBCWA unless separately agreed to by the parties. The Union also agreed to paragraph 19 (interpretation) except that it proposed a three year extension rather than an expiration date of February 19, 1993.
The Union's response also stated that if it were provided with "reasonable and accurate" calculations of the cost savings of those portions of paragraphs 4, 5, and 11 to which the Union could not agree, that it would attempt to accommodate the economic concerns embodied in these provisions by a counterproposal in the form of establishment of a defined contribution pension plan. The Union's response further noted that the only provisions for which the debtors had provided cost analysis were paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9.
As stated above, the applicable Bankruptcy Code provision is 11 U.S.C. '1113. In regard to the requirements of that section, courts have historically applied the nine-part test enunciated in In re American Provision Co., 44 B.R. 907, 909 (Bkrtcy.D.Minn. 1984):
1) The debtor in possession must have made a proposal to the union;
2) The proposal must be based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time of the proposal;
3) The modification must be necessary to permit reorganization;
4) The modification must provide that all affected parties are treated fairly and equitably;
5) The debtor must provide the union with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal;
6) The debtor must have met with the collective bargaining representative at reasonable times subsequent to making the proposal;
7) The debtor must have negotiated with the union concerning the proposal in good faith;
8) The union must have refused to accept the proposal without good cause; and
9) The balance of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the agreement.
The requirements of items 1, 2, 5, and 6 have undoubtedly been met. The Union has raised the question of the debtors' good faith, but this court believes that the debtors have negotiated with the Union in good faith and that item 7 has also been satisfied. The issues remaining to be resolved are, therefore, those raised by items 3, 4, 8, and 9.
The issue of whether the modification is necessary for reorganization has historically caused courts the greatest problem in interpretation. The leading cases on this issue are Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, 791 F.2d 1074 (3rd Cir. 1986) and Truck Drivers Local 807 v. Carey Transportation, Inc., supra. The Third Circuit in Wheeling-Pittsburgh interpreted "necessary" to mean "necessary to prevent liquidation". Id. at 1088. The Second Circuit in Carey Transportation held that "necessary" should be interpreted in the context of whether rejection would increase the likelihood of successful reorganization. The Union urges this Court to follow Wheeling-Pittsburgh; the debtors line up behind Carey Transportation.
The Funds argue that since the debtors propose to modify or eliminate their retiree benefit obligation, the standard for rejection is the Wheeling-Pittsburgh standard codified in 11 U.S.C. '1114. The Funds maintain that the legislative history of this section makes it clear that the Carey Transportation view is rejected and the Wheeling-Pittsburgh standard adopted. However, as is pointed out in 5 Collier on Bankruptcy &1114.02[5][a] (15th ed. 1992), this position was embodied only in the remarks of Sen. Metzenbaum and was not part of any Committee or Conference Report. Congress did not adopt one test or the other.
This Court is inclined to follow Carey Transportation in making a determination as to whether rejection of the collective bargaining agreement is necessary to the reorganization of the debtor. Since the debtors and the Union have agreed on many of the provisions of the debtors' fourth (May 20, 1992) proposal, this Court must then decide if the provisions which remain in contention are necessary to the debtors' reorganization, i.e.,
whether they increase the likelihood of successful reorganization. The evidence is indisputable that if these debtors do not receive major economic concessions they cannot continue in business. The question before the Court is whether the debtors have insisted on significant concessions that go beyond what is necessary to allow them to reorganize. The majority of these provisions, as set out above, have to do with work rules, layoffs, seniority, and benefits being provided to other than currently active workers.
The economic benefit to the debtors to be derived from ceasing to provide benefits to other than currently active workers is evident (and it is substantial) as is the desirability of a one time rearrangement of the workforce without regard to seniority, but as the Union points out, and the debtors have presented no testimony in contravention, the debtors have not done cost analysis for the other contested provisions. (Transcript of Hearing, pp. 29-30) They relied on what the Union has characterized as vague, unsubstantiated testimony from Dr. Ralph Barbaro, Trigg Combs, and Malcolm Poulter as to the cost savings that would be effected by the implementation of such measures. This Court tends to agree that the debtors have failed to sufficiently quantify the results of such proposed changes to allow this Court to find that they are "necessary" to the reorganization of the debtors.
The sum and substance of Dr. Barbaro's testimony was that loss of job security tends to result in an increase in productivity. Mr. Combs's testimony was not particularly supportive of the debtors' position in that he did not have significant knowledge of prevailing wage rates in Pike County, and Mr. Poulter gave what amounted to opinion testimony that implementing these measures would effect an increase in productivity of between fifteen and twenty percent. (Transcript of Hearing, pp. 40-97; 108-120; 12) This Court does not believe that the debtors have demonstrated that these measures are "necessary" to its reorganization, because they have not demonstrated how these particular changes will increase the likelihood of successful reorganization, aside from vague assertions that they will increase productivity.
As set out in '1113©, the Court may only approve an application for rejection if the trustee (debtor in possession) has made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of '(B)(1), the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept the proposal without good cause, and the balance of the equities favors rejection. This Court believes that the Union's response to the debtors' fourth proposal provides evidence that supports a finding that the Union did not refuse to accept the proposal without good cause.
The Union bargained in good faith and gave concessions in many areas, especially where the debtors could demonstrate what the cost savings of particular measures would be. It did not "stonewall", nor did it reject proposals out of hand because they would require some sacrifice on its part. This Court believes that the Union's objection to and rejection of the provisions discussed above are not grounded in obstinate attempts to thwart management efforts to improve productivity, but in its historical role as the guarantor of the working person's rights in the labor arena.
All of the foregoing tends to show as well that the balancing of the equities does not favor rejection and that the proposal does not treat all parties fairly and equitably. Clearly these debtors are on the brink of financial disaster but it appears that they sought concessions which went beyond those necessary to allow them to reorganize and that the Union did not act unreasonably in refusing these concessions.
It is therefore the opinion of this Court, based on all the considerations set out above, that the debtors Motion for Authority to Reject Collective Bargaining Agreement should be overruled. An order in conformity with this opinion will be entered separately.
Dated:
By the Court -
___________________________
Judge
Copies to:
James B. Ratliff, Esq.
James R. Hampton, Esq.
Barbara E. Locklin-George, Esq.
John A. Rollins, Esq.
Bruce A. Levy, Esq.
U.S. Trustee
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 6:13:23 PM thedog wrote:
[STRONG][EM]It is now my understanding that Bob Owens is in favor of paycuts as long as they do not last for 6 years.
Bob could you tell us how much and for how long you are in favor of paycuts at your airline.[/EM][/STRONG]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Your "understandings" under this moniker are just as confused as under your other monikers.
Next slide please.
----------------
On 12/31/2002 6:13:23 PM thedog wrote:
[STRONG][EM]It is now my understanding that Bob Owens is in favor of paycuts as long as they do not last for 6 years.
Bob could you tell us how much and for how long you are in favor of paycuts at your airline.[/EM][/STRONG]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Your "understandings" under this moniker are just as confused as under your other monikers.
Next slide please.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 3:38:29 PM ual747mech wrote:
"Ok Bob, since you seem to know everything,lets hear it." We are going to forget about our Unions, we are going to consult with you instead. You are going to be our lawyer, financial adviser, and analyst. In one word you're the "Expert". "I WANT YOU TO ADVISE US ON WHAT TO DO, HOW SHOULD WE HANDLE WHAT WE ARE FACING, ETC."
Before you give us your expert advice I hope you did some research like a real attorney does(Just like us mechanics, we look at the MM, SRM etc. to help us when we do a job, especially jobs we're not familiar with). When you give us your advice give us what you got to back it up with, cite the case or other credible data you got because I don't want to hear you say you got it from your buddy Joe Blow while you guys are playing cards or bs'ing during your idle time there in the line. "K, buddy."
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well first of all I do not claim to know everything. Twenty years in the industry have taught me a few things though. One thing learned is that Long term concessionary contracts are bad deals. In 94 you guys signed a concessionary deal and the company went on to make record profits. We did the same thing. There was no way the company was going to reopen the contract then, yet they want you to do it now.In the meantime you guys worked OT and second jobs to just "get by". "Getting by" is what you should be doing during the busts, not the booms. If we wanted to just get by we could have found jobs where we did not have to work weekends, holidays and night shifts. We could have found jobs without the liability of hundreds of lives at stake. Where we are not subjected to random drug tests and background checks. Where we have to work in the worst of weather conditions. Hard times are a fact of life, but usually you get some good times too. By agreeing to long term concessionary contracts you go from one hard time to the next, and if times are good in 2009 you had better beleive that UAL will drag out the talks like they did during the last round.You end up so far behind that just asking to catch up gets portrayed as an "unreasonable demand" never mind getting back what you lost. I might not be a Lawyer but I dont think I have to be to realize what is a bad deal. What you are being asked to do is to forgo any possibility of good times in the future to insure that things dont get worse now. However no real assurances are given, in fact it gives the company an escape clause should we go to war with Iraq.These talks, just like regular negotiations will have to go down to the wire. Those that fold first will lose the most, those who dont fold will lose the least, the stakes remain the same from the beginning, the stakes are your job.If your not willing to hold out and call their bluff you will continue to work for less and less. In 94 the company claimed that they would perish if they did not get the what they wanted. The pilots and the machinists caved in, the Flight Attendants did not. As a result they lost less.
From what Ive read the contract looks pretty much gutted, the IAM however will still be collecting dues, and for them, thats the most important part. The Lawyers that are giving advice are working to protect the interests of the IAM, not the mechanics of UAL. My advice would be to pool your money and hire your own legal representation, one that represents mechanics interests, not the IAMs interests. The evidence points to the fact that Aircraft mechanics are in high demand from other industries that do not require weekend, shift or holiday work. The airlines do not pay a premium for aircraft mechanics as they do in many other classifications. If the company included that they wanted to eliminate check-off, and have the Union go around collecting the dues the IAM would be saying "Lets strike" but they would not be citing check-off but the scope provisions, the paycut, the reduction of vacation etc etc.
Much of what we are going through is relatively uncharted territory as far as the bankruptcy goes. The government has already said that it could not allow UAL to cease operations. I dont think that this has been the case in any of the other BK cases. Having used that excuse to stop the mechanics from striking, then using the PEB to come to what they considered a fair agreement how could the government now allow the company to cease operations simply because the mechanics refuse to work for less than what the government already stated was a fair wage? Does the court have the power to impose unfair conditions upon workers to save a private corporation? Or can he just abrogate the agreement? The RLA governs this industry, the only conditions that can be imposed on workers is the status quo, anything else frees them for self help. The fact is if the IAM goes on strike, the airline could not continue operating. The government has already said that it could not allow UAL to cease operations. The vulnerability of the airlines to strikes will more than likely be brought up at the Senate hearings on Jan 9 as the airlines lobby for S-1327 and discuss the state of the industry. We will likely see charts that show the vertical progression of wages, the fact that they have only just brought us up to inflation will not be mentioned.
By the way, I dont play cards with my idle time, I READ. Books, magazines, newspapers, what ever I get my hands on.
Try doing it some time.Here are some good books;
Hard Landing
Turbulent Skies
Airline Labor Law
The Air Controllers Controversy
Airline Labor Relations in the Global Era
Grounded; Frank Lorenzo and the Destruction of EAL
The Eastern Airlines Strike
If you want the ISBNs let me know.
----------------
On 12/31/2002 3:38:29 PM ual747mech wrote:
"Ok Bob, since you seem to know everything,lets hear it." We are going to forget about our Unions, we are going to consult with you instead. You are going to be our lawyer, financial adviser, and analyst. In one word you're the "Expert". "I WANT YOU TO ADVISE US ON WHAT TO DO, HOW SHOULD WE HANDLE WHAT WE ARE FACING, ETC."
Before you give us your expert advice I hope you did some research like a real attorney does(Just like us mechanics, we look at the MM, SRM etc. to help us when we do a job, especially jobs we're not familiar with). When you give us your advice give us what you got to back it up with, cite the case or other credible data you got because I don't want to hear you say you got it from your buddy Joe Blow while you guys are playing cards or bs'ing during your idle time there in the line. "K, buddy."
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well first of all I do not claim to know everything. Twenty years in the industry have taught me a few things though. One thing learned is that Long term concessionary contracts are bad deals. In 94 you guys signed a concessionary deal and the company went on to make record profits. We did the same thing. There was no way the company was going to reopen the contract then, yet they want you to do it now.In the meantime you guys worked OT and second jobs to just "get by". "Getting by" is what you should be doing during the busts, not the booms. If we wanted to just get by we could have found jobs where we did not have to work weekends, holidays and night shifts. We could have found jobs without the liability of hundreds of lives at stake. Where we are not subjected to random drug tests and background checks. Where we have to work in the worst of weather conditions. Hard times are a fact of life, but usually you get some good times too. By agreeing to long term concessionary contracts you go from one hard time to the next, and if times are good in 2009 you had better beleive that UAL will drag out the talks like they did during the last round.You end up so far behind that just asking to catch up gets portrayed as an "unreasonable demand" never mind getting back what you lost. I might not be a Lawyer but I dont think I have to be to realize what is a bad deal. What you are being asked to do is to forgo any possibility of good times in the future to insure that things dont get worse now. However no real assurances are given, in fact it gives the company an escape clause should we go to war with Iraq.These talks, just like regular negotiations will have to go down to the wire. Those that fold first will lose the most, those who dont fold will lose the least, the stakes remain the same from the beginning, the stakes are your job.If your not willing to hold out and call their bluff you will continue to work for less and less. In 94 the company claimed that they would perish if they did not get the what they wanted. The pilots and the machinists caved in, the Flight Attendants did not. As a result they lost less.
From what Ive read the contract looks pretty much gutted, the IAM however will still be collecting dues, and for them, thats the most important part. The Lawyers that are giving advice are working to protect the interests of the IAM, not the mechanics of UAL. My advice would be to pool your money and hire your own legal representation, one that represents mechanics interests, not the IAMs interests. The evidence points to the fact that Aircraft mechanics are in high demand from other industries that do not require weekend, shift or holiday work. The airlines do not pay a premium for aircraft mechanics as they do in many other classifications. If the company included that they wanted to eliminate check-off, and have the Union go around collecting the dues the IAM would be saying "Lets strike" but they would not be citing check-off but the scope provisions, the paycut, the reduction of vacation etc etc.
Much of what we are going through is relatively uncharted territory as far as the bankruptcy goes. The government has already said that it could not allow UAL to cease operations. I dont think that this has been the case in any of the other BK cases. Having used that excuse to stop the mechanics from striking, then using the PEB to come to what they considered a fair agreement how could the government now allow the company to cease operations simply because the mechanics refuse to work for less than what the government already stated was a fair wage? Does the court have the power to impose unfair conditions upon workers to save a private corporation? Or can he just abrogate the agreement? The RLA governs this industry, the only conditions that can be imposed on workers is the status quo, anything else frees them for self help. The fact is if the IAM goes on strike, the airline could not continue operating. The government has already said that it could not allow UAL to cease operations. The vulnerability of the airlines to strikes will more than likely be brought up at the Senate hearings on Jan 9 as the airlines lobby for S-1327 and discuss the state of the industry. We will likely see charts that show the vertical progression of wages, the fact that they have only just brought us up to inflation will not be mentioned.
By the way, I dont play cards with my idle time, I READ. Books, magazines, newspapers, what ever I get my hands on.
Try doing it some time.Here are some good books;
Hard Landing
Turbulent Skies
Airline Labor Law
The Air Controllers Controversy
Airline Labor Relations in the Global Era
Grounded; Frank Lorenzo and the Destruction of EAL
The Eastern Airlines Strike
If you want the ISBNs let me know.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/1/2003 8:57:04 AM Bob Owens wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 3:38:29 PM ual747mech wrote:
"Ok Bob, since you seem to know everything,lets hear it." We are going to forget about our Unions, we are going to consult with you instead. You are going to be our lawyer, financial adviser, and analyst. In one word you're the "Expert". "I WANT YOU TO ADVISE US ON WHAT TO DO, HOW SHOULD WE HANDLE WHAT WE ARE FACING, ETC."
Before you give us your expert advice I hope you did some research like a real attorney does(Just like us mechanics, we look at the MM, SRM etc. to help us when we do a job, especially jobs we're not familiar with). When you give us your advice give us what you got to back it up with, cite the case or other credible data you got because I don't want to hear you say you got it from your buddy Joe Blow while you guys are playing cards or bs'ing during your idle time there in the line. "K, buddy."
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well first of all I do not claim to know everything. Twenty years in the industry have taught me a few things though. One thing learned is that Long term concessionary contracts are bad deals. In 94 you guys signed a concessionary deal and the company went on to make record profits. We did the same thing. There was no way the company was going to reopen the contract then, yet they want you to do it now.In the meantime you guys worked OT and second jobs to just "get by". "Getting by" is what you should be doing during the busts, not the booms. If we wanted to just get by we could have found jobs where we did not have to work weekends, holidays and night shifts. We could have found jobs without the liability of hundreds of lives at stake. Where we are not subjected to random drug tests and background checks. Where we have to work in the worst of weather conditions. Hard times are a fact of life, but usually you get some good times too. By agreeing to long term concessionary contracts you go from one hard time to the next, and if times are good in 2009 you had better beleive that UAL will drag out the talks like they did during the last round.You end up so far behind that just asking to catch up gets portrayed as an "unreasonable demand" never mind getting back what you lost. I might not be a Lawyer but I dont think I have to be to realize what is a bad deal. What you are being asked to do is to forgo any possibility of good times in the future to insure that things dont get worse now. However no real assurances are given, in fact it gives the company an escape clause should we go to war with Iraq.These talks, just like regular negotiations will have to go down to the wire. Those that fold first will lose the most, those who dont fold will lose the least, the stakes remain the same from the beginning, the stakes are your job.If your not willing to hold out and call their bluff you will continue to work for less and less. In 94 the company claimed that they would perish if they did not get the what they wanted. The pilots and the machinists caved in, the Flight Attendants did not. As a result they lost less.
From what Ive read the contract looks pretty much gutted, the IAM however will still be collecting dues, and for them, thats the most important part. The Lawyers that are giving advice are working to protect the interests of the IAM, not the mechanics of UAL. My advice would be to pool your money and hire your own legal representation, one that represents mechanics interests, not the IAMs interests. The evidence points to the fact that Aircraft mechanics are in high demand from other industries that do not require weekend, shift or holiday work. The airlines do not pay a premium for aircraft mechanics as they do in many other classifications. If the company included that they wanted to eliminate check-off, and have the Union go around collecting the dues the IAM would be saying "Lets strike" but they would not be citing check-off but the scope provisions, the paycut, the reduction of vacation etc etc.
Much of what we are going through is relatively uncharted territory as far as the bankruptcy goes. The government has already said that it could not allow UAL to cease operations. I dont think that this has been the case in any of the other BK cases. Having used that excuse to stop the mechanics from striking, then using the PEB to come to what they considered a fair agreement how could the government now allow the company to cease operations simply because the mechanics refuse to work for less than what the government already stated was a fair wage? Does the court have the power to impose unfair conditions upon workers to save a private corporation? Or can he just abrogate the agreement? The RLA governs this industry, the only conditions that can be imposed on workers is the status quo, anything else frees them for self help. The fact is if the IAM goes on strike, the airline could not continue operating. The government has already said that it could not allow UAL to cease operations. The vulnerability of the airlines to strikes will more than likely be brought up at the Senate hearings on Jan 9 as the airlines lobby for S-1327 and discuss the state of the industry. We will likely see charts that show the vertical progression of wages, the fact that they have only just brought us up to inflation will not be mentioned.
By the way, I dont play cards with my idle time, I READ. Books, magazines, newspapers, what ever I get my hands on.
Try doing it some time.Here are some good books;
Hard Landing
Turbulent Skies
Airline Labor Law
The Air Controllers Controversy
Airline Labor Relations in the Global Era
Grounded; Frank Lorenzo and the Destruction of EAL
The Eastern Airlines Strike
If you want the ISBNs let me know.
----------------
[/blockquote]
There you go with your conspiracy theory again. You still haven't answered my question. I don't know where you got the idea that the government will not let UAL cease to exist. Why didn't they give us the loan guarantees then if that's the case? You also said that the IAM is looking out for the dues money and not the membership's interest. Are you saying that ALPA and the AFA are only looking at dues money too since they are endorsing the 29% and 9% temporary paycut to their membership to ratify? Btw, the IAM is not bringing the 13% temporary paycut back to us for ratification they are fighting that in court.
You keep mentioning the PEB, well this is not the PEB, this is a different venue and a different case altogether. If you look at history, nobody has been able to stop concession when you are dealing with a bankrupt carrier. The company and the Unions will either work things out or suffer the consequences. The Unions will work with the company because they want to control the changes in the contracts and don't want the risk of having the contracts voided. The company will work with the Unions because they don't want the risk of having a strike which could end up crippling the company like what happened at Eastern. Those books you mentioned will tell you that's what happens when management and the unions don't come to terms.
You mentioned the ESOP, well during the ESOP nobody was complaining too much back then, people were actually happy because we had better schedule and more flexibility, we were rich on paper because our stock was all the way up to $100(and that's after a 4way split) a share. People that retired or quit(you get your money when you quit) during that time were pretty happy. There was even talks about ESOP 2 and try to bring the AFA on board because they missed out on the success of the ESOP(during the good times of course). I think the pilots were the ones talking about another ESOP.
Yes I agree with a lot of what you're saying but I disagree with you about how to fix it. If you look at history of bankrupt carriers, management and the unions always comes to an agreement otherwise it will be another Eastern all over again.
You mentioned Bill S-1327. If you're in favor of the PEB then you're in favor of that Bill.
Btw, Happy New Year!! that goes to everybody on this BB too.
----------------
On 1/1/2003 8:57:04 AM Bob Owens wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 3:38:29 PM ual747mech wrote:
"Ok Bob, since you seem to know everything,lets hear it." We are going to forget about our Unions, we are going to consult with you instead. You are going to be our lawyer, financial adviser, and analyst. In one word you're the "Expert". "I WANT YOU TO ADVISE US ON WHAT TO DO, HOW SHOULD WE HANDLE WHAT WE ARE FACING, ETC."
Before you give us your expert advice I hope you did some research like a real attorney does(Just like us mechanics, we look at the MM, SRM etc. to help us when we do a job, especially jobs we're not familiar with). When you give us your advice give us what you got to back it up with, cite the case or other credible data you got because I don't want to hear you say you got it from your buddy Joe Blow while you guys are playing cards or bs'ing during your idle time there in the line. "K, buddy."
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well first of all I do not claim to know everything. Twenty years in the industry have taught me a few things though. One thing learned is that Long term concessionary contracts are bad deals. In 94 you guys signed a concessionary deal and the company went on to make record profits. We did the same thing. There was no way the company was going to reopen the contract then, yet they want you to do it now.In the meantime you guys worked OT and second jobs to just "get by". "Getting by" is what you should be doing during the busts, not the booms. If we wanted to just get by we could have found jobs where we did not have to work weekends, holidays and night shifts. We could have found jobs without the liability of hundreds of lives at stake. Where we are not subjected to random drug tests and background checks. Where we have to work in the worst of weather conditions. Hard times are a fact of life, but usually you get some good times too. By agreeing to long term concessionary contracts you go from one hard time to the next, and if times are good in 2009 you had better beleive that UAL will drag out the talks like they did during the last round.You end up so far behind that just asking to catch up gets portrayed as an "unreasonable demand" never mind getting back what you lost. I might not be a Lawyer but I dont think I have to be to realize what is a bad deal. What you are being asked to do is to forgo any possibility of good times in the future to insure that things dont get worse now. However no real assurances are given, in fact it gives the company an escape clause should we go to war with Iraq.These talks, just like regular negotiations will have to go down to the wire. Those that fold first will lose the most, those who dont fold will lose the least, the stakes remain the same from the beginning, the stakes are your job.If your not willing to hold out and call their bluff you will continue to work for less and less. In 94 the company claimed that they would perish if they did not get the what they wanted. The pilots and the machinists caved in, the Flight Attendants did not. As a result they lost less.
From what Ive read the contract looks pretty much gutted, the IAM however will still be collecting dues, and for them, thats the most important part. The Lawyers that are giving advice are working to protect the interests of the IAM, not the mechanics of UAL. My advice would be to pool your money and hire your own legal representation, one that represents mechanics interests, not the IAMs interests. The evidence points to the fact that Aircraft mechanics are in high demand from other industries that do not require weekend, shift or holiday work. The airlines do not pay a premium for aircraft mechanics as they do in many other classifications. If the company included that they wanted to eliminate check-off, and have the Union go around collecting the dues the IAM would be saying "Lets strike" but they would not be citing check-off but the scope provisions, the paycut, the reduction of vacation etc etc.
Much of what we are going through is relatively uncharted territory as far as the bankruptcy goes. The government has already said that it could not allow UAL to cease operations. I dont think that this has been the case in any of the other BK cases. Having used that excuse to stop the mechanics from striking, then using the PEB to come to what they considered a fair agreement how could the government now allow the company to cease operations simply because the mechanics refuse to work for less than what the government already stated was a fair wage? Does the court have the power to impose unfair conditions upon workers to save a private corporation? Or can he just abrogate the agreement? The RLA governs this industry, the only conditions that can be imposed on workers is the status quo, anything else frees them for self help. The fact is if the IAM goes on strike, the airline could not continue operating. The government has already said that it could not allow UAL to cease operations. The vulnerability of the airlines to strikes will more than likely be brought up at the Senate hearings on Jan 9 as the airlines lobby for S-1327 and discuss the state of the industry. We will likely see charts that show the vertical progression of wages, the fact that they have only just brought us up to inflation will not be mentioned.
By the way, I dont play cards with my idle time, I READ. Books, magazines, newspapers, what ever I get my hands on.
Try doing it some time.Here are some good books;
Hard Landing
Turbulent Skies
Airline Labor Law
The Air Controllers Controversy
Airline Labor Relations in the Global Era
Grounded; Frank Lorenzo and the Destruction of EAL
The Eastern Airlines Strike
If you want the ISBNs let me know.
----------------
[/blockquote]
There you go with your conspiracy theory again. You still haven't answered my question. I don't know where you got the idea that the government will not let UAL cease to exist. Why didn't they give us the loan guarantees then if that's the case? You also said that the IAM is looking out for the dues money and not the membership's interest. Are you saying that ALPA and the AFA are only looking at dues money too since they are endorsing the 29% and 9% temporary paycut to their membership to ratify? Btw, the IAM is not bringing the 13% temporary paycut back to us for ratification they are fighting that in court.
You keep mentioning the PEB, well this is not the PEB, this is a different venue and a different case altogether. If you look at history, nobody has been able to stop concession when you are dealing with a bankrupt carrier. The company and the Unions will either work things out or suffer the consequences. The Unions will work with the company because they want to control the changes in the contracts and don't want the risk of having the contracts voided. The company will work with the Unions because they don't want the risk of having a strike which could end up crippling the company like what happened at Eastern. Those books you mentioned will tell you that's what happens when management and the unions don't come to terms.
You mentioned the ESOP, well during the ESOP nobody was complaining too much back then, people were actually happy because we had better schedule and more flexibility, we were rich on paper because our stock was all the way up to $100(and that's after a 4way split) a share. People that retired or quit(you get your money when you quit) during that time were pretty happy. There was even talks about ESOP 2 and try to bring the AFA on board because they missed out on the success of the ESOP(during the good times of course). I think the pilots were the ones talking about another ESOP.
Yes I agree with a lot of what you're saying but I disagree with you about how to fix it. If you look at history of bankrupt carriers, management and the unions always comes to an agreement otherwise it will be another Eastern all over again.
You mentioned Bill S-1327. If you're in favor of the PEB then you're in favor of that Bill.
Btw, Happy New Year!! that goes to everybody on this BB too.
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/1/2003 7:52:19 AM Bob Owens wrote:
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/31/2002 6:13:23 PM thedog wrote: [BR][BR][EM]It is now my understanding that Bob Owens is in favor of paycuts as long as they do not last for 6 years. [BR][BR]Bob could you tell us how much and for how long you are in favor of paycuts at your airline.[/EM][BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Your "understandings" under this moniker are just as confused as under your other monikers. [BR]Next slide please.[BR]
[P][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]
[P align=center][STRONG]On 12/22/2002 8:02:06 PM Bob Owens wrote: [BR][BR][/STRONG][/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE]
[P align=left][BR][STRONG]----------------[BR][BR]The problem with the concessions was the fact that they were to last until 2008. [BR]----------------[BR][/STRONG][BR][BR][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/1/2003 7:52:19 AM Bob Owens wrote:
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/31/2002 6:13:23 PM thedog wrote: [BR][BR][EM]It is now my understanding that Bob Owens is in favor of paycuts as long as they do not last for 6 years. [BR][BR]Bob could you tell us how much and for how long you are in favor of paycuts at your airline.[/EM][BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Your "understandings" under this moniker are just as confused as under your other monikers. [BR]Next slide please.[BR]
[P][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]
[P align=center][STRONG]On 12/22/2002 8:02:06 PM Bob Owens wrote: [BR][BR][/STRONG][/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE]
[P align=left][BR][STRONG]----------------[BR][BR]The problem with the concessions was the fact that they were to last until 2008. [BR]----------------[BR][/STRONG][BR][BR][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 5:56:24 PM The Ronin wrote:
On another note, the lab is paying ok....house is worth $360k and I owe about $100k on it, got about 50k in the bank, and had a great x-mas with the fam. All in all...lifes ok, cheers to you my friend on the new year
----------------
[/blockquote]
What lab? Are you running a Meth lab? Wow!! Your house is worth that much? C..You're rich..be happy, don't worry.
Just kidding bud. [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] Happy New Year!!
----------------
On 12/31/2002 5:56:24 PM The Ronin wrote:
On another note, the lab is paying ok....house is worth $360k and I owe about $100k on it, got about 50k in the bank, and had a great x-mas with the fam. All in all...lifes ok, cheers to you my friend on the new year
----------------
[/blockquote]
What lab? Are you running a Meth lab? Wow!! Your house is worth that much? C..You're rich..be happy, don't worry.
Just kidding bud. [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] Happy New Year!!
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/1/2003 5:56:26 PM RV4 wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 1/1/2003 7:52:19 AM Bob Owens wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 6:13:23 PM thedog wrote:
[EM]It is now my understanding that Bob Owens is in favor of paycuts as long as they do not last for 6 years.
Bob could you tell us how much and for how long you are in favor of paycuts at your airline.[/EM]
----------------
[/BLOCKQUOTE]
Your "understandings" under this moniker are just as confused as under your other monikers.
Next slide please.
[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[/P]
[P align=center][STRONG]On 12/22/2002 8:02:06 PM Bob Owens wrote:
[/STRONG][/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE]
[P align=left]
[STRONG]----------------
The problem with the concessions was the fact that they were to last until 2008.
----------------
[/STRONG]
[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
[/blockquote]
That was the criteria given by the ATSB. Now, the concessions they're demanding is even bigger and longer. Again, it's because the banks who are giving us the special financing are demanding that and the Unions knows it.
----------------
On 1/1/2003 5:56:26 PM RV4 wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 1/1/2003 7:52:19 AM Bob Owens wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 6:13:23 PM thedog wrote:
[EM]It is now my understanding that Bob Owens is in favor of paycuts as long as they do not last for 6 years.
Bob could you tell us how much and for how long you are in favor of paycuts at your airline.[/EM]
----------------
[/BLOCKQUOTE]
Your "understandings" under this moniker are just as confused as under your other monikers.
Next slide please.
[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[/P]
[P align=center][STRONG]On 12/22/2002 8:02:06 PM Bob Owens wrote:
[/STRONG][/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE]
[P align=left]
[STRONG]----------------
The problem with the concessions was the fact that they were to last until 2008.
----------------
[/STRONG]
[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
[/blockquote]
That was the criteria given by the ATSB. Now, the concessions they're demanding is even bigger and longer. Again, it's because the banks who are giving us the special financing are demanding that and the Unions knows it.
On 12/31/2002 5:56:24 PM The Ronin wrote:
On another note, the lab is paying ok....house is worth $360k and I owe about $100k on it, got about 50k in the bank, and had a great x-mas with the fam. All in all...lifes ok, cheers to you my friend on the new year
----------------
[/blockquote]
Is this the same guy who was bashing on pilots?
I am a pilot and have lots of pilot friends...not one of them has a 360k house or 50k in the bank.
I take that back, I do know one guy a senior 76 driver. His house may be worth that much.
Happy New Year[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']
On another note, the lab is paying ok....house is worth $360k and I owe about $100k on it, got about 50k in the bank, and had a great x-mas with the fam. All in all...lifes ok, cheers to you my friend on the new year
----------------
[/blockquote]
Is this the same guy who was bashing on pilots?
I am a pilot and have lots of pilot friends...not one of them has a 360k house or 50k in the bank.
I take that back, I do know one guy a senior 76 driver. His house may be worth that much.
Happy New Year[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']
The problem is that as a 'UNION', we are fractionalized.
(ALPA) doesn't give a rats ass about their union bro/sis (IAM/AFA).
(IAM) Mechanics desire AMFA but can't get the vote to get them in. (Too Late Anyway!!!)
(AFA) 'smartest of the group' is just trying to survive.
AS long as 'WE' keep pointing fingers at each other, 'WE' are out!!!
Shoulda, woulda, coulda doesn't mean ****!!!
(ALPA) doesn't give a rats ass about their union bro/sis (IAM/AFA).
(IAM) Mechanics desire AMFA but can't get the vote to get them in. (Too Late Anyway!!!)
(AFA) 'smartest of the group' is just trying to survive.
AS long as 'WE' keep pointing fingers at each other, 'WE' are out!!!
Shoulda, woulda, coulda doesn't mean ****!!!
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 5:56:24 PM The Ronin wrote:
On another note, the lab is paying ok....house is worth $360k and I owe about $100k on it, got about 50k in the bank, and had a great x-mas with the fam. All in all...lifes ok, cheers to you my friend on the new year
----------------
[/blockquote]
On 1/1/2003 11:45:25 PM ONTHESTREET wrote:
Is this the same guy who was bashing on pilots?
I am a pilot and have lots of pilot friends...not one of them has a 360k house or 50k in the bank.
I take that back, I do know one guy a senior 76 driver. His house may be worth that much.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Nothing wrong with owning a home worth 360K. Mine is worth that much. Only paid 160K for it. Home prices have gone up in most of the country. Can't say I got 50K in the bank. Wish I did. The reason a lot of pilots may not have a home worth that much is they might live very far from their home station since they don't commute on a daily basis. You know the average 36 days a year some fly.
----------------
On 12/31/2002 5:56:24 PM The Ronin wrote:
On another note, the lab is paying ok....house is worth $360k and I owe about $100k on it, got about 50k in the bank, and had a great x-mas with the fam. All in all...lifes ok, cheers to you my friend on the new year
----------------
[/blockquote]
On 1/1/2003 11:45:25 PM ONTHESTREET wrote:
Is this the same guy who was bashing on pilots?
I am a pilot and have lots of pilot friends...not one of them has a 360k house or 50k in the bank.
I take that back, I do know one guy a senior 76 driver. His house may be worth that much.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Nothing wrong with owning a home worth 360K. Mine is worth that much. Only paid 160K for it. Home prices have gone up in most of the country. Can't say I got 50K in the bank. Wish I did. The reason a lot of pilots may not have a home worth that much is they might live very far from their home station since they don't commute on a daily basis. You know the average 36 days a year some fly.
Similar threads
