I tend to agree...can't believe CWA submittted 12 proposals and each one turned down, unable to reach agreement with the company..think maybe he's wanted to take us to court all along...I'm hoping that I'm wrong and an agreeement is reached soon. Although I running out of hope and have resolved myself to believe that this is going to the judge.
Dave is showing his colors isn''t he? a question to ponder
- Thread starter Res
- Start date
No matter what one thinks about the mechanics vote, my opinion is that Dave has just pissed off most mechanics by saying he will ask for more than the last contract. This shows me what I knew all along, that Dave was controlled by Wolf, our Chairman of the board.
I mean, ok, if Dave says everyone must take the same cuts but then goes and asks the court to get more from the mechanics, what could be the reasoning?
Is it a "I'll show you who is boss"? What is it and what drives this man to now treat the mechanics different by asking for more cuts?
It does show that Dave's position on cuts has changed, one that won't serve his image good.
Of course, all opinions are just as valid on this but I'm curious as to what you people think about this.
it's in the pudding
I mean, ok, if Dave says everyone must take the same cuts but then goes and asks the court to get more from the mechanics, what could be the reasoning?
Is it a "I'll show you who is boss"? What is it and what drives this man to now treat the mechanics different by asking for more cuts?
It does show that Dave's position on cuts has changed, one that won't serve his image good.
Of course, all opinions are just as valid on this but I'm curious as to what you people think about this.
it's in the pudding
Well, Dave doesn't always do what he says as we have seen his "bluff" letter to the IAM didn't come true, i.e., that he would seek to abrogate all 3 IAM contracts if 1 was rejected.
At any rate, whether or not he asks or gets more isn't the question but rather why ask for more?
Doesn't that fly in the face of what Dave said about fairness to all groups?
It is an interesting discussion to ponder.
At any rate, whether or not he asks or gets more isn't the question but rather why ask for more?
Doesn't that fly in the face of what Dave said about fairness to all groups?
It is an interesting discussion to ponder.
In Dave mind he has acted fairly with all groups to reach his goals ....
Dave has warned the last groups what he will do if their TA are not ratified...
Just say its fair to assume his tolerance level to be fair has come to an end and time to be "agressive" is here..
SO the decisions were made right or wrong now lets all live with the consequences ....but remember if you do not want to blame yourself ...thats right blame your union..
Dave has warned the last groups what he will do if their TA are not ratified...
Just say its fair to assume his tolerance level to be fair has come to an end and time to be "agressive" is here..
SO the decisions were made right or wrong now lets all live with the consequences ....but remember if you do not want to blame yourself ...thats right blame your union..
Sabre---I cant get to the old board now, but remember when Chip kept talking so much about 1113 agreements that we thought we would throw up? Chip always said the company would ask for even more if a union had to go before the judge to get a settlement. So it was no surprise to me that the company will ask for more because i had heard it so many times. Like it or not Dave always does what he says and this is something we arent used to for many years from the boss. I hope a agreement can happen before!!
How is it being fair? The company hardly met with the IAM and when they did they stared at each other. The company had the audacity at 1pm on sunday to throw their final offer at the mechanic and related negotiating committee and laugh and then tell them at 3pm we are filing chapter 11. Dave and his management like to put on a good front, but they are no friend to labor
Lakeguy,
It was the IAM, not the Company, who did not meet the week before the Company file Chap 11. The IAM said the entire negotiating committee had to attend some conference. Our livlihoods were at stake, and they felt a conference was more important. Is that what OUR dues money goes to pay for? Since the company was going to reimburse the IAM for expenses, and they would not have to renogiate for some time, did the IAM offer to lower our dues? Think for yourself here, don't tote the IAM line.
It was the IAM, not the Company, who did not meet the week before the Company file Chap 11. The IAM said the entire negotiating committee had to attend some conference. Our livlihoods were at stake, and they felt a conference was more important. Is that what OUR dues money goes to pay for? Since the company was going to reimburse the IAM for expenses, and they would not have to renogiate for some time, did the IAM offer to lower our dues? Think for yourself here, don't tote the IAM line.
Dave showed his true colors to me during his second visit to TPA. Perhaps it was utter frustration and exhaustion when he used a few words that were not becoming of a CEO. Perhaps it was his way of trying to speak our "language", but it was disenchanting to hear from our Chief Executive Officer.
[
]
[
]----------------
On 8/31/2002 831 AM
No matter what one thinks about the mechanics vote, my opinion is that Dave has just pissed off most mechanics by saying he will ask for more than the last contract. This shows me what I knew all along, that Dave was controlled by Wolf, our Chairman of the board.
----------------
Wolf is not in control. The board basically no longer exists, and a new board will be in place when the company emerges. Please stop living in the past. Siegel is the only one here that can save the company now. If you don't like it, leave. I don't mean to be rude, but that is reality. There are many here, and many on the street willing to do the job.
repeet
Veteran
Dave has been brutal in keeping his word. We are lucky to have him here. I just wish he had come four years ago instead of Wolf.
As far as Dave asking the Judge for more from the mechanics.
He's just another petitioner before the court.
He can ask.
As far as Dave asking the Judge for more from the mechanics.
He's just another petitioner before the court.
He can ask.
C
chipmunn
Guest
Joesy:
Dave told all employee groups that he would seek deeper cuts for any union who did not ratify a restructuring agreement. He's now doing what he said and simply being honest. For someone to be upset at this action, when they knew fefore the proposed restructuring agreement rejection, is not accepting what our CEO told employees before the vote.
Dave is simply being true to his words.
In addition, today the Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette said, "The airline also indicated it will ask that the union (IAM) be assessed $5.1 million a month for six months (this is $30.6 million) to reimburse US Airways for 'economic detriment of the bankruptcy.' If the two fail to agree on voluntary concessions, the airline wants the CWA assessed $2.4 million a month for six months (this is $14.4 million)."
In my opinion if the judge agrees and issues a court order supporting US Airways' claim, the union will be required to pay the assessment. However, during furloughs unions have declining budgets and do not have excess funds to pay court assesments. However, who is the union? The membership; therefore, if the court agrees in addition to deeper cuts the members could be required to pay the multi-million assessments and if a member refuses, they would be in contempt of a court order.
Again, the company is doing what they said. They are seeking deeper cuts, which they told all employee groups they would do during the negotiating process.
Chip
Dave told all employee groups that he would seek deeper cuts for any union who did not ratify a restructuring agreement. He's now doing what he said and simply being honest. For someone to be upset at this action, when they knew fefore the proposed restructuring agreement rejection, is not accepting what our CEO told employees before the vote.
Dave is simply being true to his words.
In addition, today the Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette said, "The airline also indicated it will ask that the union (IAM) be assessed $5.1 million a month for six months (this is $30.6 million) to reimburse US Airways for 'economic detriment of the bankruptcy.' If the two fail to agree on voluntary concessions, the airline wants the CWA assessed $2.4 million a month for six months (this is $14.4 million)."
In my opinion if the judge agrees and issues a court order supporting US Airways' claim, the union will be required to pay the assessment. However, during furloughs unions have declining budgets and do not have excess funds to pay court assesments. However, who is the union? The membership; therefore, if the court agrees in addition to deeper cuts the members could be required to pay the multi-million assessments and if a member refuses, they would be in contempt of a court order.
Again, the company is doing what they said. They are seeking deeper cuts, which they told all employee groups they would do during the negotiating process.
Chip
Reservation Agent
Senior
- Aug 23, 2002
- 406
- 0
The company doesn't want an agreement with CWA...Their just stringing CWA along until Sept 10th...There idea is to make the agreement so outragious very few would vote for it...blame CWA and the machinists...plead their case to "Judge Wapner of the Companys Court"...With 12 propsals submitted by CWA, the company is not looking for an out of Court agreement....
[:0]
And to those saying he will ask for more in court than he has in negotiations, I would call that "REVENGE" [:devil:] From a person who says he's "Labor Friendly".....
[:knockout:]
[:0]
And to those saying he will ask for more in court than he has in negotiations, I would call that "REVENGE" [:devil:] From a person who says he's "Labor Friendly".....
[:knockout:]
Mr. Munn, Quote and Commentary on an article in the Pitt Post-Gazette,
"In addition, today the Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette said, "The airline also indicated it will ask that the union (IAM) be assessed $5.1 million a month for six months (this is $30.6 million) to reimburse US Airways for 'economic detriment of the bankruptcy.' If the two fail to agree on voluntary concessions, the airline wants the CWA assessed $2.4 million a month for six months (this is $14.4 million)."
In my opinion if the judge agrees and issues a court order supporting US Airways' claim, the union will be required to pay the assessment. However, during furloughs unions have declining budgets and do not have excess funds to pay court assessments. However, who is the union? The membership; therefore, if the court agrees in addition to deeper cuts the members could be required to pay the multi-million assessments and if a member refuses, they would be in contempt of a court order"
Although I've disagreed with some of your statements, I have still respected the fact that you advanced your opinion and labeled it as such. I think that you have gone way over the line on this one. The logic that underlies the assertion that Union Members, whose membership is compulsory under the closed shop provisions of their labor Contract with the Carrier by Air, are somehow culpable for asserting their LMRDA rights is highly suspect.
Do you or any of your sources have one Legal Precedent for supporting any type of fine against a Union whose membership refused to grant Concessions?
Do you or any of your sources have one Legal Precedent for the payment of fines against an Organization being subsequently levied against the members- WHEN THOSE MEMBERS WERE REQUIRED TO JOIN THE ORGANIZATION AS A TERM OF EMPLOYMENT?
Nowhere has it been asserted that the Union has engaged in an Unlawful Job Action or is in violation of any lawful Order issued by a Court of Jurisdiction in this matter.
There are numerous cases, which deal with the Duty of Fair Representation Doctrine. We can start with Vacca v. Sipes and continue to the Reno F/A Class Action Lawsuit v. APFA. In each of those cases, the Federal District Courts up to and including the United States Supreme Court have ruled that the Duty of a Union is to protect the Interests of the Membership; not the Company, not prospective members, not customers of the Company, not the Stockholders of the Company.
There is even a Law that was passed that helps to delineate the responsibility of a Union covered under the Railway Labor Act to its' members. The law is the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, LMRDA, of 1959. It covers the rights of Union Members.
Sec. 411. Bill of rights; constitution and bylaws of labor organizations
(a) (1) Equal rights
Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings, and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization's constitution and bylaws.
(2) Freedom of speech and assembly
Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization's established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings...
I've heard that there used to be an old negotiating tactic that went by an acronym: FUD. It stood for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. I think that is what we are seeing now.
"In addition, today the Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette said, "The airline also indicated it will ask that the union (IAM) be assessed $5.1 million a month for six months (this is $30.6 million) to reimburse US Airways for 'economic detriment of the bankruptcy.' If the two fail to agree on voluntary concessions, the airline wants the CWA assessed $2.4 million a month for six months (this is $14.4 million)."
In my opinion if the judge agrees and issues a court order supporting US Airways' claim, the union will be required to pay the assessment. However, during furloughs unions have declining budgets and do not have excess funds to pay court assessments. However, who is the union? The membership; therefore, if the court agrees in addition to deeper cuts the members could be required to pay the multi-million assessments and if a member refuses, they would be in contempt of a court order"
Although I've disagreed with some of your statements, I have still respected the fact that you advanced your opinion and labeled it as such. I think that you have gone way over the line on this one. The logic that underlies the assertion that Union Members, whose membership is compulsory under the closed shop provisions of their labor Contract with the Carrier by Air, are somehow culpable for asserting their LMRDA rights is highly suspect.
Do you or any of your sources have one Legal Precedent for supporting any type of fine against a Union whose membership refused to grant Concessions?
Do you or any of your sources have one Legal Precedent for the payment of fines against an Organization being subsequently levied against the members- WHEN THOSE MEMBERS WERE REQUIRED TO JOIN THE ORGANIZATION AS A TERM OF EMPLOYMENT?
Nowhere has it been asserted that the Union has engaged in an Unlawful Job Action or is in violation of any lawful Order issued by a Court of Jurisdiction in this matter.
There are numerous cases, which deal with the Duty of Fair Representation Doctrine. We can start with Vacca v. Sipes and continue to the Reno F/A Class Action Lawsuit v. APFA. In each of those cases, the Federal District Courts up to and including the United States Supreme Court have ruled that the Duty of a Union is to protect the Interests of the Membership; not the Company, not prospective members, not customers of the Company, not the Stockholders of the Company.
There is even a Law that was passed that helps to delineate the responsibility of a Union covered under the Railway Labor Act to its' members. The law is the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, LMRDA, of 1959. It covers the rights of Union Members.
Sec. 411. Bill of rights; constitution and bylaws of labor organizations
(a) (1) Equal rights
Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings, and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization's constitution and bylaws.
(2) Freedom of speech and assembly
Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization's established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings...
I've heard that there used to be an old negotiating tactic that went by an acronym: FUD. It stood for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. I think that is what we are seeing now.
Reservation Agent,
I don't like the IAM of which I am a member NOT by choice. I don't believe the problems will be solved in court, in fact, I believe if the court decides then the real problems will only then begin. I have always been in favor of an out of court settlement and voted as such. I feel Chip is correct in worrying about liquidation, especially when I hear my fellow co-workers say things like: Where is the liquidation button, I'll push it. Just Pray Dave has the wisdom to settle BEFORE it reaches the court! Of course, there is also the small possibility that is what was planned all along, OR, Dave has meet his match, but it's not a Harvard debate team.
Cav
I don't like the IAM of which I am a member NOT by choice. I don't believe the problems will be solved in court, in fact, I believe if the court decides then the real problems will only then begin. I have always been in favor of an out of court settlement and voted as such. I feel Chip is correct in worrying about liquidation, especially when I hear my fellow co-workers say things like: Where is the liquidation button, I'll push it. Just Pray Dave has the wisdom to settle BEFORE it reaches the court! Of course, there is also the small possibility that is what was planned all along, OR, Dave has meet his match, but it's not a Harvard debate team.
Cav
