You still do not get it:
Here is your paragpraph that causes fear and worry in your mind:
"The committee said it expects voluntary agreements with all labor groups. But if a deal with pilots isn't possible, the committee said, AMR could "propose and prosecute" a reorganization plan without one. "
If and when a Plan of Reoganization is approved, then negotations and authority moves from the Bankruptcy Laws back the the Railway Labor Act, under the Railway Labor Act the APA would claim that the "status quo" has been unilaterally changed by the employer, this creates an opened the door for arguement of self help under the Railway Labor Act.
The legal question is "Which Law trumps"? The Railway Labor Act of 1926 or the 1113 of the Bankruptcy Law.
Without consensual agreement, then my opinion is that whichever is governing the process. Sure the APA is under the 1113 process now, but not once the POR is approved and the BK law is no longer governing. Therefore the RLA takes over and then everything changes.
This is when the final rounds of the fight begin. By then, AA and the APA will be so at odds with each other, the only means of survival will be NEW MANGEMENT, and real negotiations under the Railway Labor Act.
You on the other hand, believe that 1113 and BK Law is the end game. It is not. Not by a long shot.
Remind me to never follow you into a battle with greedy corporate management.
Every piece of legal advice given during the last view months to all unions has been strictly advice about the Bankruptcy Law, but once a POR is approved, the Railway Labor Act once again is the governing law and really in my mind, always has been.
This Bankruptcy Law is a temporary reorganization law, not one where a company with $4.5 Billion can circumvent the Railway Labor Act because the employees would not hand over their pensions voluntarily after being screwed, lied too, and shafted by management of the Corporation.
Get a clue. Sorry, I dont know wany other way to put it.
But at least think in long terms and about ALL Legislation and how screwed up the laws are, then stop focusing on one single law and look at the global fight and what law governs in each round of the battle.
I still say that APA and AA are only in early rounds of what could be a lengthy and ugly fight. It is up to management and how they intend to treat and recognize the professionals of the APA.
Good points. Its obvious that the appeals court screwed up big time with the NWA decision (i heard that from more than one lawyer) and I agree that the Pilots need to challenge it, I just wish were there next to them.
Bankruptcy was put in place to relieve a debtor of debts and liabilities, such as onerous contracts, that prevent the debtor from recovering, it was not intended to allow the debtor to force onerous terms on its creditors, which is what abrogation and a ban on the right to stike does to Unions. Yes individual workers have the right to quit, but if thats the arguement then its also true that individual shareholders have the right to sell their shares if the court has the right to force onerous deals on corporations for the benefit of the debtor.
The thing is nowhere in 1113 did it say that airline workers could not strike, 1113 covers all labor contracts and every other worker in this country is allowed to strike under abrogation, and the RLA explicitely allows workers to strike if the company unilaterally changes pay and working conditions, and outside of bankruptcy (or release) what other way can a carrier legally unilaterally change a contract? None that I know of.
The laws are not in conflict, so there is no which law trumps which question, the conflict lies with the decision on a restraining order by an appelate court. According to the NMB the process' run concurrant. They sat in on the 1113 meetings for some time, usually eating lunch with the company.
I think that the airlines want to keep things vauge and unwritten because the arguements that labor has strikes at the heart of both sides of the political spectrum, for the left its about the rights of workers, should Airline workers have the same protections under the law as Railroad workers and if not should they have the same freedoms as everyone else, including other creditors? For the rights its about the confiscation of private property (the labor of workers) from one owner for the benifit of another owner who is more favored by the government. If they can confiscate our property for the benefit of the airlines bottom line whats stopping them from confiscating oil from the oil companies for the airlines bottom line? (Other than the fact the oil companies can probably buy more Judges than the airlines.)
In order for the law to be respected it has to at the very least appear to be fair, not one person on this forum, even FWAAA, who claims to be a lawyer, has come forward to defend the arguement made by the appelate court in the NWA case because its indefensible. A pilot struggle, and whatever goes along with that will put the spotlight on what any decent Jurist would admit is a huge embarrasment to their craft and a threat to the credibility of the system.
Unfortunately my guess is that once the 6 month window has expired on our "Me Too" clause the company will strike a deal with the pilots, recalculate a bunch of "values" to save face, and settle without this going to the end. (Unless they find a way around the "Me Too' which probably would not be too hard -from past experience, then it would be less than 6 months.) Nobody, except workers, wants this to be brought out into the light. The TWU doesnt want that, all the other Airline Unions who folded dont want that, the courts dont want it, and the entire business community doesnt want the sweetheart deal thay have in C-11 to become the focus of political debate and possible reform. In the end the pilots will lose very little other than that required to remain close to their peers at UAL and Delta, but we will still be dead last.
