Fellings on the IAM contract


Aug 20, 2002
I second that NO vote. I don't mind helping this company out, but they have gone above and beyond what is needed.I believe the judge will throw out [at least] the "reverse retro" proposal. Please correct me if I'm wrong, If we vote this down, The judge's "changes" will only be valid until this present contract is over {2004}. Can someone back me up on this ???
Seems to me these folks rolled over,sat and begged when asked. This is the worst thing I have ever seen since our 1999 agreement. Hope others feel the same as I. Good luck to all,a no vote from me! [:(]
Just remember, before you vote you should discuss your decision over with your family. What ever way this turns out, they are going to be affected also. Weather its no employment, medical changes or less pay etc. They are involved also. Also, recommend that the mechanics get a copy of their training record before its too late. Its in the computer. Most management people can download a copy. It might come in handy if you have to seek other employment.
wish you good luck with what ever way this turns out.[:sun:]
On 8/21/2002 11:39:06 AM

If we vote this down, The judge's "changes" will only be valid until this present contract is over {2004}. Can someone back me up on this ???

We were told at the IAM meeting by the attorney the union retained that the judge can impose whatever time limit he desires on the changes he makes to our contract if we vote no. The attorney didn't know the leanings of this judge whether he was company or labor friendly. Virginia is a right to work state. The judge does not have a track record on cases this big. This case being the biggest of his career. If we vote no and the company/judge abrogates our contract then when our present contract expires we can organize union representation again and negotiate a new contract. Until that time, if the judge abrogates the contract, the company would be free to pick and choose who they bring back to work because they have in effect removed the union from the property and we would be starting from nothing when negotiating a new contract. That is what I understood from the meeting. You'd have to contact the attorney to get the official line.
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #5
pitmech, Thanks for the info.. I guess everything is up to the judge. I do not buy into the old doom & gloom line, that the judge will throw our contract out the window if we vote this piece of trash down. He is there to to protect the creditors,, not to punish the workers..It would not be in the creditors best interest to throw the mechanic ranks into a state of chaos at this very critical time.
I agree. Lets take our chances with the judge. Our union has shown how much it cares about what we think. Our pay and benifits are right in line with Southwest.We are not breaking this company labor is not the problem.We all know who is at fault. They made the bed they can keep making it or fix it. VOTE NO! Good luck again to all. My wife and I have discussed it. She is a CWA member,She agrees with me and I support her. TWO NO VOTES HERE![;)]
I can tell you that the IAM-FSA memebers Ive spoken with do not like the proposal at all. I would expect a very close vote on the 28th.
On 8/21/2002 10:48:54 AM

Our pay and benifits are right in line with Southwest----------------

We have 4500 Mechanics and LUV has 1700. We drive tugs and they don't. We do heavy maintenance anf they farm out theirs. Is that what we want? Yeah the 1700 that remain may get better pay and benifits but that won't do much for 2800 that hit the street. That isn't counting the fact after NOV they will have almost 100 more aircraft than we do.
Wow...never knew there was that much dissatisifaction on what the company proprosed to the IAM group. I have wondered why your union agreed to allow you to vote on it even though they did not endorse it. The only thing I can tell you since I am a CWA member...I know how you all feel.
The judge may determine the best chance for a sucessful emergence from CH. 11 and eventual repayment of creditor is access to the 1 billion dollar Govt. backed loan and insure the relief meets ATSB criteria.
I am an IAM member, and I wish to post my thoughts on the proposed contract. I do not like giving up anything, however, I cannot see how anyone assigned the task, of deciding whether the IAM related should contribute to the restructering process, could decide anything other than yes, and equal as compared to other labor group's agreed upon concessions. So, are we suffering more than ALPA or AFA? If I read correctly our give back percentage is less than either of the aforementioned. I, for one, am not inclined to turn over to a lone individuals discretion, the power to do as they see fit with our contract. Our union negotiated hard to retain some important provisions and, I feel they were successful with much. Maybe they didn't get it as good as they would have preferred, but do we really want to supplant fixed language with a 'chance' a judge might be more friendly? In thinking this through, I believe a fair question for us all to consider is; "if I were out of my current job and on the street, would I accept a job from a company who offered me exactly what the newly proposed contract does"? Please do not waste space re-iterating comments about who is responsible for our current woes, I believe 99.99% of humans on this earth agree on this one. And whoever asked about a judge allowing the company to pay the management's 'retainment' bonuses, IF I remember correctly, I read that the judge has already reviewed and approved money for these bonuses.
We were told at the IAM meeting by the attorney the union retained that the judge can impose whatever time limit he desires on the changes he makes to our contract if we vote no.
Um, yea, I believe the UNION's lawyer, NOT!!!!
Let's think this through.

The company’s' in bankruptcy and has asked the legal system for relief from it's CONTRACTS.

Let's just change contractors here for a moment.

Widget supplier Acme has a contract to supply widgets to US Airway under contract to, say, 2004.

US Airways under reorganization asks that Acme supply it's widgets at a price, say, 24% lower than the contract price, and the judge agrees.

But Wait. The judge decides that Acme now has to supply US Airways their widgets at 24% less for the next twenty years.

Really? Do you believe that could happen, or stand up under any kind of scrutiny?

End of Part 1. Continued in Part 2.
What if the judge were to decide that wash up time before and after your shift was no longer necessary? That paid lunches are a luxury? That double dipping with your pension and 401K company match are excessive? That mechanics doing pushback is not needed? That utility cleaning aircraft is expensive? That your hourly rate is industry standard for a substandard airline and lowered your wages?

It sounds like the IAM and the company were very close on the proposal that you are about to vote on, do you honestly think that you would do better in front of a bankruptcy judge? I am sure that if the IAM felt that they could fair better in court with a bankruptcy judge they would have never agreed to put this proposal to a vote. Think long and hard about your vote. You are goign to get profit sharing, a seat on the BOD and best of all, most people will still remain employed. Ask yourself what is the lesser of the two evils.
Part 2. Continued from Part 1.

I believe, and I'm not a Lawyer, that the only way for the judge to modify a creditors contract past it's current term, is simply to have it replaced with a new contract.
You know a legally signed agreement with a written term length of about SEVEN YEARS!!!!

Or the judge can cancel the contract. Then the creditor can continue commerce from a clean slate, but cannot make any claims against any pre-bankruptcy transactions.

I believe we need to VOTE NO on this proposal because of it's unreasonable and unfair terms.

Also, unfortunately during this process, because of either selfishness or incompetence, the IAM has proved itself unworthy of trust.
Theres a lot of chest pounding and posturing coming from the vocal minority.I predict this will pass easily,80/20.Then you won't be able to find a single person who will say they voted yes.You know 80% of the cleaners are a yes vote.They're all peeing their pants with joy because they were sure they would be sacrificed.Same with the tug slugs.Who thought we'd still have dispatch and reciept.Or the 22 mtc ron minimum language.Not me!