From our Union Attorney

OP
U

USADispatcher

Newbie
Jan 9, 2003
6
0
Our union just informed us they had further discussions
with their attorney. This is a cut and paste excerpt from
their email.
The Bankruptcy Judge is not there to assure fair and equitable treatment of employees, he is there to see that creditors get their money. If he feels any group is an obstacle to a successful reorganization he will steamroll right over the top of them. He will simply set aside the 1113 letter and any scope or work rules he deems necessary to protect the creditor, not employees. The other option is simply for the Company to liquidate under Chapter 7. The Company also made it very clear there will be no renegotiations.
>From discussions with our union leaders, their attorney
apparently had direct communications with one of the labor relations VP''s. Our agreement is distasteful just as everyone''s has been. Many of us were considering voting no. This, along with talking to a friend or two that have
been through airline bankruptcies before, changed my mind.
An educated decision is always the best one. I am not an attorney and do not want to be but what I really do not want to be is unemployed.
Although most employees do not even know what we do,
there are only about thirty of us on a shift. If we
aren''t there, nothing moves. Not one flight. We could shut this place down quicker than any other group but
ask your union if they would keep paying you. I know our union would not. I feel betrayed and let down by them.
But as mad as I am, I don''t feel like voting myself out
of a job to get at them.
I thought about voting no to try and screw our Management
but they would only make more off of us if we go under.
Go back and look at most bankruptcies. The judge pays
management millions to stay around and liquidate the company. All I would be doing is voting away my income.
We will continue to release the flights as long as the
rest of you continue to keep it all moving.
 
C

chipmunn

Guest
USADispatcher:

I know what you do and I appreciate your work on a daily basis. Thanks.

Chip
 
C

chipmunn

Guest
The post from USADispatcher, presumably from the TWU's attorney is compelling especially in light of Bill Freiberger's comments on a S.1113 hearing if any agreement is not ratified posted by Tug_Slug.

I do not want to see anybody get hurt, but Judge Mitchell has sided with the company on every motion including yesterday's news that the court is permitting an independent investigation of EDS, which will apparently permit US Airways to decide whether or not to abandon its $200 million IT contract that would open the door for another IT system, e.g. Apollo/Galileo.

Regardless, it is important to note the TWU attorney apparently said, "The Bankruptcy Judge is not there to assure fair and equitable treatment of employees, he is there to see that creditors get their money. If he feels any group is an obstacle to a successful reorganization he will steamroll right over the top of them. He will simply set aside the 1113 letter and any scope or work rules he deems necessary to protect the creditor, not employees. The other option is simply for the Company to liquidate under Chapter 7. The Company also made it very clear there will be no renegotiations."

Chip
 
OP
U

USADispatcher

Newbie
Jan 9, 2003
6
0
I double checked and that was a quote from our TWU attorney and not one of our union leaders opinions. If nothing else should have caused everyone to have opened there eyes to how serious of a threat we are facing, the ALPA deal should have. When the ALPA MEC took the hit they did without taking it out for a vote it was clear that this was not a game and that there were no other options.

When you are furloughed and see what some of your senior "brothers" are voting NO on, all you can think about is how you wish you could find a job like they are turning down.

But if they don't wake up, I'll have seniority over them at McDonalds. "Would you like fries with that Big Mac?" Try saying that a few times. The good side is you can usually find a job at McDonalds in any city. Even CLT.
 
C

chipmunn

Guest
USADispatcher:

You're right on why the ALPA MEC took the initiative on MEC ratification.

However, I think if the TA's do not pass, dependent on what the court decides, some of our naysayers should learn to say "would you like that super sized?"

Chip
 

Old PSA

Advanced
Aug 26, 2002
188
0
www.usaviation.com
Not so fast with McD's. Remember they are losing money also and in the middle of a very soft market and a price war with Burger King. They are looking for ways to cut cost and improve productivity. McD's hiring rate is at a 10 year low.
 

USAOCC

Newbie
Jan 10, 2003
8
0
The fact the bankruptcy judges only concern is the creditors, is what scares me. He does not care about labor law, the employees, or even what is fair! His only concern is to insure the creditors get the most they can. The judge would not hesitate to give the company relief on the 1113 letter, nor would he hesitate to destroy our contract if we attempt to stand in the way of the company coming out of bankruptcy (that is how he would view a no vote)! I also just heard the judge just threw out the United Airlines IAM 1113 letter, and imposed wage cuts, in addition he opened the entire contract.
 

delldude

Veteran
Oct 29, 2002
28,208
5,878
Downrange
www.youtube.com
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/9/2003 8:59:53 PM chipmunn wrote:
[P]USADispatcher:[BR][BR]You're right on why the ALPA MEC took the initiative on MEC ratification.[BR][BR]However, I think if the TA's do not pass, dependent on what the court decides, some of our naysayers should learn to say "would you like that super sized?"[BR][BR]Chip[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P][STRONG]wait a minute...i think i wanna be a cowboy[/STRONG].
 
C

chipmunn

Guest
USAOCC said, "I also just heard the judge just threw out the United Airlines IAM 1113 letter, and imposed wage cuts, in addition he opened the entire contract."[BR][BR]If true, this would give enormous motivation for US Airways to seek deeper cuts for any union who does not ratify their TA.[BR][BR]Chip[BR]
 

Andy S.

Member
Dec 21, 2002
26
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/10/2003 12:10:45 PM chipmunn wrote:

USAOCC said, "I also just heard the judge just threw out the United Airlines IAM 1113 letter, and imposed wage cuts, in addition he opened the entire contract."

If true, this would give enormous motivation for US Airways to seek deeper cuts for any union who does not ratify their TA.

Chip
----------------
[/blockquote]

I don't think the IAM had any pre-existing letter regarding Section 1113. Won't swear to it, but I haven't seen any reference to one from any official source.

Andy S.
 

AM49AAA

Member
Aug 20, 2002
92
0
I think it is an issue of the POR working or not working. If U was meeting it's POR projections the Company would probably have no room to attempt to abrogate CBA's through the BK process. Since U says it is not, which will ultimately be up to the Judge to determine, his determination will probably guide him in taking the steps best able to protect the creditor's interst. In a BK hearing employees, company, and shareholders all take a back seat to the creditors. There will likely be a case where the creditor's and company's interst are mutulal(continuation of U as a company) and if it protects the creditor the Judge will likely set aside any agreement that harms the creditor or their ability to be repaid.
 

diogenes

Veteran
Aug 22, 2002
2,515
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/9/2003 10:11:43 AM USADispatcher wrote:

Our union just informed us they had further discussions
with their attorney. This is a cut and paste excerpt from
their email.

"The Bankruptcy Judge is not there to assure fair and equitable treatment of employees, he is there to see that creditors get their money. If he feels any group is an obstacle to a successful reorganization he will steamroll right over the top of them. He will simply set aside the 1113 letter and any scope or work rules he deems necessary to protect the creditor, not employees. The other option is simply for the Company to liquidate under Chapter 7. The Company also made it very clear there will be no renegotiations."

From discussions with our union leaders, their attorney
apparently had direct communications with one of the labor relations VP's. Our agreement is distasteful just as everyone's has been. Many of us were considering voting no. This, along with talking to a friend or two that have
been through airline bankruptcies before, changed my mind.

An educated decision is always the best one. I am not an attorney and do not want to be but what I really do not want to be is unemployed.

Although most employees do not even know what we do,
there are only about thirty of us on a shift. If we
aren't there, nothing moves. Not one flight. We could shut this place down quicker than any other group but
ask your union if they would keep paying you. I know our union would not. I feel betrayed and let down by them.
But as mad as I am, I don't feel like voting myself out
of a job to get at them.

I thought about voting no to try and screw our Management
but they would only make more off of us if we go under.
Go back and look at most bankruptcies. The judge pays
management millions to stay around and liquidate the company. All I would be doing is voting away my income.

We will continue to release the flights as long as the
rest of you continue to keep it all moving.
----------------
[/blockquote]
-----------------------------------------------------------

I have no doubt this is an accurate rendition of what the attorney said. Here's the grain of salt.

During Concessions, part I, the company, the union leadership, and the hired gun all told us accepting the concessionary package, including the valued 1113 letters, would protect us from the company seeking further cuts in the future. I well remember the outside attorney - so nifty, bright, articulate, and seemingly forthright. The company and the union leadership all sold the virtues of the 1113 letters, and said the letters were a main reason to vote for the contract. I recall Chip was mighty proud of them as well.

Now we have the company, union leadership, and the outside attorneys saying the 1113 letters are basically emergency toilet paper.

Were they lying to us then, or now?
 

diogenes

Veteran
Aug 22, 2002
2,515
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/10/2003 5:01:39 PM AM49AAA wrote:

I think it is an issue of the POR working or not working. If U was meeting it's POR projections the Company would probably have no room to attempt to abrogate CBA's through the BK process. Since U says it is not, which will ultimately be up to the Judge to determine, his determination will probably guide him in taking the steps best able to protect the creditor's interst. In a BK hearing employees, company, and shareholders all take a back seat to the creditors. There will likely be a case where the creditor's and company's interst are mutulal(continuation of U as a company) and if it protects the creditor the Judge will likely set aside any agreement that harms the creditor or their ability to be repaid.
----------------
[/blockquote]
------------------------------------------------------------

That is exactly the line my esteemed 'leadership' is NOW spouting.

My question is, where were all these loopholes during concessions, part I? They are large enough to drive the Battleship North Carolina thru.

I pinned my 'leadership' down on this, and even he admitted the outside attorney (so believable, so competent) failed to make this clear. During the hours of presentation, he remembered it being mentioned ONCE. She mentioned a lot more than that how the 1113 letter was going to save us. Somehow, neither the company nor the union saw fit to clarify this little oversight.

Oversight or misleading? You be the judge.

You make think this is water over the dam.

I say, what makes you think they won't lie to you again?