DON'T GET REAMED.......
- Thread starter furp
- Start date
Chuck Schalk
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2006
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 1,149
:angry: 🙄
THE ONLY REASON I AM VOTING NO IS BECAUSE THERE WILL NOT BE A BLOCK TO CHECK THAT SAYS....
#$%* NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:unsure: 😛 😀
how about hell no!
I see this Proposal voted in. It is another repeat of 2003. We have a week to vote by phone or internet. Last time this method was used it passed and many did not get their PIN numbers in time to vote. It's a hurry up and vote. No room for errors.
We are being rushed to judgment by our own union. How sad and pathetic. Fight like hell my A.S.S. TWU is afraid to go to court. They do not have to live under this pathetic demoralizing proposal. If this passes then we lose all other options. If it is that bad then why are the Pilots and Flight Attendants going to court to fight like hell???????
We are being rushed to judgment by our own union. How sad and pathetic. Fight like hell my A.S.S. TWU is afraid to go to court. They do not have to live under this pathetic demoralizing proposal. If this passes then we lose all other options. If it is that bad then why are the Pilots and Flight Attendants going to court to fight like hell???????
this is the biggest ram job ever !!!!!!!! worst than 2003. and I voted yes in 2003.
Little never should have said we where going to vote on the lbo. gave them another freebie. this isn't consensual how could they send it out . I tell you why, so little can throw his hands up in the air and say you voted on it.
If it was at least consensual my view might be different
Little never should have said we where going to vote on the lbo. gave them another freebie. this isn't consensual how could they send it out . I tell you why, so little can throw his hands up in the air and say you voted on it.
If it was at least consensual my view might be different
Vote NO ?
You have ANY Idea how many Junior, and a sad # of Senior 'OKIE Dudes' will be checking the box that begins with the letter " Y " 😱 😱 ???????
Jesus, WHY do you think things will change NOW ?
History (in this case SAD history) has an uncanny way of REPEATING Itself !
You have ANY Idea how many Junior, and a sad # of Senior 'OKIE Dudes' will be checking the box that begins with the letter " Y " 😱 😱 ???????
Jesus, WHY do you think things will change NOW ?
History (in this case SAD history) has an uncanny way of REPEATING Itself !
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
Sadly, I have to agree....And it won't be just the junior and senior guys from TUL checking the "Y"....try senior and junior guys throughout the system as well..
Anyone remember the 1995 contract....6% of 6 years? they threw in the 5 and 5 package and the floodgates opened....
This may not be a 5 and 5 package, but the for the senior most guys getting the $39500 AND the full prefunding contributions AND....the most important of all,......the saving of nearly 3000 jobs.....i would say do not discount a substantial YES vote result.
Another thing to consider, that voting no most likely will result in the term sheets being imposed if the judge rules in favor of that....Negotiations will begin anew.....
Another, what? 4 years? Longer?
Are we still going to hope and pray the NMB releases us?
NOT GONNA HAPPEN......NO ADMINISTRATION, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT IS GOING TO LET ANYONE STRIKE UNDER RLA.....
We are totally screwed.
BigMac
Veteran
This "junior" proud okie is voting no. So kiss it you old retired yank fart... 😛
Criteria for Rejection.
(1) The debtor must make a proposal to modify the CBA or obtain concessions from the union;
(2) The debtor’s proposal must be based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time the proposal is made;
(3) The proposal must be necessary to the debtor’s reorganization;
(4) The proposal must treat fairly and equitably creditors, the debtor and all other affected parties; and
(5) The debtor must provide the union with relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
After making a proposal and before the hearing:
(6) The debtor must meet at reasonable times with the union; and
(7) The debtor must negotiate in good faith with the union in an attempt to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of the CBA.
After the above steps are satisfied, courts have the authority to grant a rejection motion only if:
(8) The union has refused to accept the debtor’s proposal without good cause; and
(9) The balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of the CBA.
(1) The debtor must make a proposal to modify the CBA or obtain concessions from the union;
(2) The debtor’s proposal must be based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time the proposal is made;
(3) The proposal must be necessary to the debtor’s reorganization;
(4) The proposal must treat fairly and equitably creditors, the debtor and all other affected parties; and
(5) The debtor must provide the union with relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
After making a proposal and before the hearing:
(6) The debtor must meet at reasonable times with the union; and
(7) The debtor must negotiate in good faith with the union in an attempt to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of the CBA.
After the above steps are satisfied, courts have the authority to grant a rejection motion only if:
(8) The union has refused to accept the debtor’s proposal without good cause; and
(9) The balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of the CBA.
Criteria for Rejection.
(1) The debtor must make a proposal to modify the CBA or obtain concessions from the union;
DONE put a check there
(2) The debtor’s proposal must be based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time the proposal is made;
Questionable, in that based on their information the companys proposal is not required for the company to achieve profitability, it may be necissary to achieve the level of profitability that the company seeks ($1.75 billion vs $3bilion) but is that the intended purpose of C-11?
(3) The proposal must be necessary to the debtor’s reorganization;
Once again, "Reorganization" must be defined, does it mean profitability to the extent they can avoid liquidation or any level of profitibility that the debtor seeks? , I asssumed that the intent of C-11 is that its employed as the only alternative to C-7 not to any arbitrary level of profitabilty, in this case 17%. If I'm wrong then is there really any reason fwhy a company would not file BK when doing so can give you such a huge advantage over competitors? Perhaps the Bankruptcy Court Judges in NY look to allow such usage as a means to provide job security for themselves?
(4) The proposal must treat fairly and equitably creditors, the debtor and all other affected parties; and
In the 2003 reorganization the company established the standard of fair and equitable as a measure that considers our standing among our peers, that was why management did not take the cuts union employees took, because the company determined that pay at AA lagged the industry for management. The same standard should apply now that we are at the bottom of the industry.
(5) The debtor must provide the union with relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
After making a proposal and before the hearing:
(6) The debtor must meet at reasonable times with the union; and
(7) The debtor must negotiate in good faith with the union in an attempt to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of the CBA.
The companys standard reply during this process was "Thats our proposal." In other words take it or leave it.
After the above steps are satisfied, courts have the authority to grant a rejection motion only if:
(8) The union has refused to accept the debtor’s proposal without good cause; and
We have good cause for rejection;
The company proposal would lock is into concession for six years that are substandard to the rest of the industry in every measure.
The companys proposal is not required for the company to achieve even the highest level of profitability in the industry
We should not be required to agree to terms that are so drastic just so AA can achieve a level of profitability thats in excess of the other top seven carriers-combined.
(9) The balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of the CBA.
AA currently enjoys the lowest hourly average compensation rates for mechanics in the industry. The current contract includes even lower waged mechanics in the bases, which in talks the union was willing to expand, further reducing avergae hourly rate. In negotiations the Union was agreeable to freezing the pension, reducing costs, expanding the amount of outsoucing permitted to levels that competitors have, which may or may not reduce costs but its what the company sought, eliminating company paid retiree medical . Thes three items are the only substantial areas of the contract where AA did not have an advantage over most competitors. Currently TWU mechanics at all steps less than 30 years have one week less paid vacation, seven less paid sick days, five less paid Holidays and the rate paid to work the Holidays is at least half the rate paid at other carriers (1.5x vs 2x or 2.5X) In addition the company is demanding that current workers who are participants in the Retiree Medical Prefunding Trust agree to turn over half the value of the trust to the company and the 1114 committee. Active workers would likely lose as much as $50,000 that was intended to be set aside for these individuals to purchase alternate in the event of a Bankruptcy and termination of the Retiree Medical Plan. Clearly this demand is excessive, unprecidented in Bankruptcy settlements, which tend to grant some sort of equity or financial incentive instead of an additional financial penalty. During the course of negotiations the company representative even described the offer as "ridiculously bad". Clearly if the company describes the offer in such a way the workers have good cause for rejection .
One last thing you may want to consider before voting yes and denying rejecting the opportunity to even bring our story before the Judge, read this;
http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/pensionsbenefits/vol2num3/Decisions.html
"Judge Gropper’s decision makes clear that it is the terms of the last tentative agreement or if there is none, the debtor’s last proposal, that the debtor may impose."
So while you may be shown a side by side of what the company included with their motion, it is according to Sharon Leveine, what the company last offered that would be imposed, in other words the April 26 terms, not the March 22. So really they only reason to vote yes is that you want what you see for the next six years. If it gets voted down that the worst they can impose anyway but we could still negotiate.
If you look at the other agreements , from airlines that filed with much less than $4 billion and had much less ambitous plans as far as annual profits ($3billion), workers were at least given things to soften the financial impact of the concessions, in the NWA case they were given $182 million in unsecured claims, in UAL they were given Convertible Notes and shares of the new company, AA has offered none of that, in fact they want us to turn over half our Prefunding Trust for them to take to a committee that has no standing to claim any of those funds.
(1) The debtor must make a proposal to modify the CBA or obtain concessions from the union;
DONE put a check there
(2) The debtor’s proposal must be based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time the proposal is made;
Questionable, in that based on their information the companys proposal is not required for the company to achieve profitability, it may be necissary to achieve the level of profitability that the company seeks ($1.75 billion vs $3bilion) but is that the intended purpose of C-11?
(3) The proposal must be necessary to the debtor’s reorganization;
Once again, "Reorganization" must be defined, does it mean profitability to the extent they can avoid liquidation or any level of profitibility that the debtor seeks? , I asssumed that the intent of C-11 is that its employed as the only alternative to C-7 not to any arbitrary level of profitabilty, in this case 17%. If I'm wrong then is there really any reason fwhy a company would not file BK when doing so can give you such a huge advantage over competitors? Perhaps the Bankruptcy Court Judges in NY look to allow such usage as a means to provide job security for themselves?
(4) The proposal must treat fairly and equitably creditors, the debtor and all other affected parties; and
In the 2003 reorganization the company established the standard of fair and equitable as a measure that considers our standing among our peers, that was why management did not take the cuts union employees took, because the company determined that pay at AA lagged the industry for management. The same standard should apply now that we are at the bottom of the industry.
(5) The debtor must provide the union with relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
After making a proposal and before the hearing:
(6) The debtor must meet at reasonable times with the union; and
(7) The debtor must negotiate in good faith with the union in an attempt to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of the CBA.
The companys standard reply during this process was "Thats our proposal." In other words take it or leave it.
After the above steps are satisfied, courts have the authority to grant a rejection motion only if:
(8) The union has refused to accept the debtor’s proposal without good cause; and
We have good cause for rejection;
The company proposal would lock is into concession for six years that are substandard to the rest of the industry in every measure.
The companys proposal is not required for the company to achieve even the highest level of profitability in the industry
We should not be required to agree to terms that are so drastic just so AA can achieve a level of profitability thats in excess of the other top seven carriers-combined.
(9) The balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of the CBA.
AA currently enjoys the lowest hourly average compensation rates for mechanics in the industry. The current contract includes even lower waged mechanics in the bases, which in talks the union was willing to expand, further reducing avergae hourly rate. In negotiations the Union was agreeable to freezing the pension, reducing costs, expanding the amount of outsoucing permitted to levels that competitors have, which may or may not reduce costs but its what the company sought, eliminating company paid retiree medical . Thes three items are the only substantial areas of the contract where AA did not have an advantage over most competitors. Currently TWU mechanics at all steps less than 30 years have one week less paid vacation, seven less paid sick days, five less paid Holidays and the rate paid to work the Holidays is at least half the rate paid at other carriers (1.5x vs 2x or 2.5X) In addition the company is demanding that current workers who are participants in the Retiree Medical Prefunding Trust agree to turn over half the value of the trust to the company and the 1114 committee. Active workers would likely lose as much as $50,000 that was intended to be set aside for these individuals to purchase alternate in the event of a Bankruptcy and termination of the Retiree Medical Plan. Clearly this demand is excessive, unprecidented in Bankruptcy settlements, which tend to grant some sort of equity or financial incentive instead of an additional financial penalty. During the course of negotiations the company representative even described the offer as "ridiculously bad". Clearly if the company describes the offer in such a way the workers have good cause for rejection .
One last thing you may want to consider before voting yes and denying rejecting the opportunity to even bring our story before the Judge, read this;
http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/pensionsbenefits/vol2num3/Decisions.html
"Judge Gropper’s decision makes clear that it is the terms of the last tentative agreement or if there is none, the debtor’s last proposal, that the debtor may impose."
So while you may be shown a side by side of what the company included with their motion, it is according to Sharon Leveine, what the company last offered that would be imposed, in other words the April 26 terms, not the March 22. So really they only reason to vote yes is that you want what you see for the next six years. If it gets voted down that the worst they can impose anyway but we could still negotiate.
If you look at the other agreements , from airlines that filed with much less than $4 billion and had much less ambitous plans as far as annual profits ($3billion), workers were at least given things to soften the financial impact of the concessions, in the NWA case they were given $182 million in unsecured claims, in UAL they were given Convertible Notes and shares of the new company, AA has offered none of that, in fact they want us to turn over half our Prefunding Trust for them to take to a committee that has no standing to claim any of those funds.
That's what they all say. Everyone I asked after the 2003 vote said they voted No, but mysteriously it passed...!!!!
BigMac
Veteran
Like the SRP classification was mysteriously implemented before I hired on ... by the majority?
If I remember right someone posted the 2003 yes/no votes per each station. Seems to me it wasn't just us "hillbillies that voted yes. For me however I did vote no then. Take it as you wish
If I remember right someone posted the 2003 yes/no votes per each station. Seems to me it wasn't just us "hillbillies that voted yes. For me however I did vote no then. Take it as you wish
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
- Reaction score
- 584
