Anyone Iam M&r.....
- Thread starter amt4u
- Start date
OK if the final offer from the union to the company, met the finacial numbers then why would'nt the judge want the company to use it for the vote? It would better serve the creditors with an offer from the union voted on and passed. And happy union employees. And why didn't the union cry foul and show the judge and the creditors it had the better offer. Food for thought.
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,882
- Reaction score
- 57
delldude said:
Ok what if I don't have one? lol
Because the judge has no authority in negotiations, he cannot make the company accept an offer from the union.
The 1113 c hearings were completed before the offer of 1/5/05 was given to the company.
Because there is no option for the union to show the creditors or judge an offer, the only time the creditors and judge see an offer is when they are presented an agreement by the company to have the court approve it.
The company knew they would win its case and they wanted what they wanted and how they wanted and did not care to actually reach an agreement with the IAM.
The 1113 c hearings were completed before the offer of 1/5/05 was given to the company.
Because there is no option for the union to show the creditors or judge an offer, the only time the creditors and judge see an offer is when they are presented an agreement by the company to have the court approve it.
The company knew they would win its case and they wanted what they wanted and how they wanted and did not care to actually reach an agreement with the IAM.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
planejane,
I've said much the same before in the context of the ALPA agreement, but in further reading I've "refined" my view. The judge doesn't pick a contract offer, he only rules on the motion before him - in this case, the motion to abrogate the IAM contracts. So his possible decisions were to either allow abrogation or not.
The issue of whether to vote on anything, or if so what to vote on, was strictly between the company and the union. The judge had nothing to do with it.
Jim
I've said much the same before in the context of the ALPA agreement, but in further reading I've "refined" my view. The judge doesn't pick a contract offer, he only rules on the motion before him - in this case, the motion to abrogate the IAM contracts. So his possible decisions were to either allow abrogation or not.
The issue of whether to vote on anything, or if so what to vote on, was strictly between the company and the union. The judge had nothing to do with it.
Jim
So what your saying is the high priced lawyers that represented the IAM (members) were not cabable of submitting documents before the deadline of the court. Sounds like the IAM (members) got the short end of the stick for their money (dues).700UW said:
Phantom Fixer
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2003
- Messages
- 577
- Reaction score
- 0
planejane said:
He is not saying that at all. You are guessing The judge had No leverage or levity on picking what was best for all concerned. His only concern was with the creditors
He was very much limited to granting abrogation...or certifying what We were forced to vote on..and that's the name of that tune
The IAM could have presented pictures of the Management of U being the Devil himself...but it all boiled down to either the company agreeing or the IAM agreeing to a final offer for the membership to vote on.
The company rejected the IAM's offer...and that left the last best offer as poor as it was for the members to vote on. High powered lawyers or all the facts in the world would not have changed the leverage the company held over labor in this case.
Apparently you have never been in the negotiation process, it does not happen overnight, it took two months of talking and exchanging information to reach the point to give the company that total offer.
Negotiations and the hearings occur at the same time, one does not go on hold for the other to occur. The section 1113 c hearings lasted a few weeks, they concluded, the judge went on vacation and the IAM and the Company continued to talk.
All documents and relevant information was presented to the judge during the hearings that was available at the time. The judge said he would rule on 1/6/05 negotiations continued the whole time.
If you look it took six months for ALPA to reach a T/A and almost the same time frame for CWA and AFA.
Maybe instead of throwing barbs against the IAM, you should educate yourself on how the process works. In reality there was no way the IAM and company could have reached a T/A that eliminated 50% of the workforce. No other union was asked to give up 50% of their jobs and let blanket outsourcing happen, that is why AFA, ALPA, CWA and the TWU reached T/As, because they were not asked to devastate themselves as the IAM was.
Negotiations and the hearings occur at the same time, one does not go on hold for the other to occur. The section 1113 c hearings lasted a few weeks, they concluded, the judge went on vacation and the IAM and the Company continued to talk.
All documents and relevant information was presented to the judge during the hearings that was available at the time. The judge said he would rule on 1/6/05 negotiations continued the whole time.
If you look it took six months for ALPA to reach a T/A and almost the same time frame for CWA and AFA.
Maybe instead of throwing barbs against the IAM, you should educate yourself on how the process works. In reality there was no way the IAM and company could have reached a T/A that eliminated 50% of the workforce. No other union was asked to give up 50% of their jobs and let blanket outsourcing happen, that is why AFA, ALPA, CWA and the TWU reached T/As, because they were not asked to devastate themselves as the IAM was.
Thanks for the reply. I wish I had more time to study the procedings. Also I have a vested interest in the IAM. They need to convey info to the membership in a timely manner over the internet with a password entry. IAM members should demand it. That said, post it so we can decide for ourselves about the offer.700UW said:
Except within the context of bad faith. I would have expected the union to submit the offer as evidence of the company's bad faith...except that the company had less than a day to review the IAM's final offer. All in all, it sounds like the IAM leadership got played pretty well. :blink:BoeingBoy said:
700UW said:
in reality we lost 50% of the members ANYWAY plus WAGES,,VACATION,HOLIDAYS,,PENSION + ++++.
I FIRMLY BELIEVE IF THE UNION NEGOCIATED THE COMPANY WOULD SETTLED FOR THE 5O % OF JOBS WE LOST and whom ever remain with the company would had good wages,benifits and pension.
iam :angry: :down: :down:
Like I have told others, the offer was made available for every IAM M&R member to see at every single ratification vote.
During negotiations the reason why information sometimes is slow is for two reasons:
1. What you agree on today can change tomorrow then everyone gets mad and call the IAM liars.
2. Sometimes progress is very limited or non-existent and how many times can you say the same thing over and over or in different ways and not belittle the membership.
The offer is still available for IAM members to see it, it is not a document for anyone else as it does not concern them.
I don't see the IAM asking you to post your paycheck, IRS tax records, Mortgage or any other information on the internet for people who it does not concern.
The District Leadership made the decision not to post it on the internet and make it available through the General Chairmen, Committeemen, Negotiating Committee Member or any IAM Representative who was attending at ratification vote to answer questions the membership might have about the Final Offer given to the IAM or the Offer the IAM gave to the company on 1/5/05.
And setting up a password protected site is very encumbered and how do you verify everyone is who they say they are and how you do you stop the information going to people who should not have it?
I hope this satisfies your points.
During negotiations the reason why information sometimes is slow is for two reasons:
1. What you agree on today can change tomorrow then everyone gets mad and call the IAM liars.
2. Sometimes progress is very limited or non-existent and how many times can you say the same thing over and over or in different ways and not belittle the membership.
The offer is still available for IAM members to see it, it is not a document for anyone else as it does not concern them.
I don't see the IAM asking you to post your paycheck, IRS tax records, Mortgage or any other information on the internet for people who it does not concern.
The District Leadership made the decision not to post it on the internet and make it available through the General Chairmen, Committeemen, Negotiating Committee Member or any IAM Representative who was attending at ratification vote to answer questions the membership might have about the Final Offer given to the IAM or the Offer the IAM gave to the company on 1/5/05.
And setting up a password protected site is very encumbered and how do you verify everyone is who they say they are and how you do you stop the information going to people who should not have it?
I hope this satisfies your points.
Let me explain this to you again.mweiss said:
The IAM and the company started talks on 11/2/04, the hearings took place in the middle of November and cocluded at the end of November.
The company's motion was to abrogate the collective bargaining agreement so they would meet the ATSB and GECAS requirements in able them emerge from bankruptcy.
The IAM in the hearings gave all relevent items that would lead you to believe the company was negotiating in bad faith ie. how long it took for information to be given and the company not responding to offers made on paper.
Negotiations and the hearings were occuring at the same time. The hearings concluded and negotiations continued. If the hearings are over and the Judge went on vacation and said he would rule 1/6/05 and there were no more hearings and all the evidence was presented at the end of November how was the offer to be submitted into evidence as the hearings were concluded and the judge said no more hearings on the matter? And the company could have asked for more time, just they did after the judge abrogated to give the IAM time to ratify, all the company had to do is say your honor we need more time, see the company was in control of the process, not the union.
Like I have said numerous times, there was no way to reach an agreement that would eliminate 50% of the workforce.
And do you think the judge would have said no to an abrogation which would have done. The ATSB calling in the loan and GECAS pulling the funding? This is the same judge who in two cases has ruled virtually in the company's favor on every motion. Like Judge Mitchell said "Half the mechanic jobs are better then none of them" his own words, he has to protect the creditors and ensure they get paid.
The deck was stacked against the IAM from the begining and I truly believe there was no way to reach a T/A and the company wanted what they wanted and how they wanted it and no matter what the IAM offered it would have not been good enough.
You can believe what you want, the IAM tried from 11/2/04 till 1/6/05 to reach an agreement.amt4u said:
Were you at any of the talks? Do you know what happened in every meetings?
Do you know if the IAM did not negotiate? Do you know how long it took for data to be given to the IAM from the company?
I can answer all of these questions with a big NO, because you were not there, I was.
Similar threads
