From Plane Business

[Dog Wonder]

"Does anyone think that other airline (sic)would not be happy to see U go away?"

Yes they would. Unfortunately, there is a very large group of US Airways employees so fed up with the indifference of management to their lives that agree.

 

[N628AU]

Feel free to waste your money.

A strike is not illegal after a contract has been abrogated.

Go educate yourself.

[post="226715"][/post]​

Maybe you should educate yourself on the ins and outs of the legal system. Any lawyer worth his salt can present an argument on either side of the issue whether a strike is permissable or not. As a matter of fact, the company lawyers are doing just that now, and you can bet your bottom dollar they'll have the support of RSA, GE, B of A, and all the other major creditors. Only what Judge Mitchell rules really matters, not what the IAM or it's legal team say, or for that matter, what the company or it's legal team say.

 

[700UW]

Well go read what happened at CO, they struck when their contracts were abrogated, they were not ordered back to work nor sued for damages.

 

[PITbull]

Maybe you should educate yourself on the ins and outs of the legal system. Any lawyer worth his salt can present an argument on either side of the issue whether a strike is permissable or not. As a matter of fact, the company lawyers are doing just that now, and you can bet your bottom dollar they'll have the support of RSA, GE, B of A, and all the other major creditors. Only what Judge Mitchell rules really matters, not what the IAM or it's legal team say, or for that matter, what the company or it's legal team say.

[post="226877"][/post]​

We can take it to the surpreme court.

 

[PITMTC]

We can take it to the surpreme court.

[post="226888"][/post]​

The unions will take it the supreme court while the workers take it to the unemployment line.

 

[PITbull]

You've got a better idea than acepting near min. wage for the next 7 years with no retirment and no medical retirement after how many years of service????

Sure bend over, babe in your normal position.

 

[PITMTC]

I knew what to expect when I took a management position. I watched what happened in the past. I however, took the job because I felt like I could do some good. As far as I am concerned I did.

I have been paid well overall. There have been recent changes that are probably going to force me to find employent elsewhere. I can not work for 20 more years with nothing to see at the end except what I contribute.

So as far as bending over, I do not think so. I do not have to a vote on a proposal. So I do not say either way what happens. It hasn't been to bad if I might say so myslef. If you want to put it in a the persepective of a position though, I would say I have slightly arched my back while you may clearly be touching you toes.

 

[700UW]

The ONLY thing that has changed is a company can no longer go to the judge and the judge automatically abrogate a contract.

After that transpired at CAL back in 1983, Congress enacted 1113 of the bankruptcy code to add a process to follow instead of an instant abrogation.

No where in 1113 or 1114 does it say the judge can stop the unions from striking after an abrogation.

Companies that request abrogation of the labor agreement but it must meet the following nine (9) distinct requirements:

1. The debtor in possession must have made a proposal to the union.
2. The proposal must be based upon the most complete and reliable information available at the time of the proposal.
3. The modification must be necessary to permit reorganization.
4. The modification must provide that all affected parties be treated fairly and equitably.
5. The debtor must provide the union with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
6. The debtor must have met with the collective bargaining representative at the reasonable times subsequent to making the proposal.
7. The debtor must have negotiated with the union concerning the proposal in good faith.
8. The union must have refused to accept the proposal with good cause.
9. The balance of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the agreement.

 

[deano]

I would say I have slightly arched my back while you may clearly be touching you toes.

[post="226897"][/post]​

Take this attitude from a person in management and multiple it 100 fold and Wal-la you have a very dysfunctional corporation called U. U will be in the text book of rules on how NOT to run a business and treat employees. I'll never forget when my son was taking a college business class his professor said: look to U as a perfect example on how not to run a corporation.

I saw the manager who runs the entire maintenance department in Pit at a local food chain store, Giant Eagle, the other week literally jumping up and down in front of the bagel counter screaming at his wife. He looked like a big ape gone mad. I walked up to him and he was instantly embarrassed, and rightly so. Yep, bunch of apes jumping up and down is a good symbol of U’s blundering management.

Love Curt

 

[PITbull]

I knew what to expect when I took a management position. I watched what happened in the past. I however, took the job because I felt like I could do some good. As far as I am concerned I did.

I have been paid well overall. There have been recent changes that are probably going to force me to find employent elsewhere. I can not work for 20 more years with nothing to see at the end except what I contribute.

So as far as bending over, I do not think so. I do not have to a vote on a proposal. So I do not say either way what happens. It hasn't been to bad if I might say so myslef. If you want to put it in a the persepective of a position though, I would say I have slightly arched my back while you may clearly be touching you toes.

[post="226897"][/post]​

Granted..I agree, that managment has not nearly made the sacrifices that labor has, as evidenced by your post...and we will not continue to save your hide or protect your employment....we are bent over because you and your kind our riding on our backs.

That is why, we will take that challenge to the supreme court...

 

[delldude]

Granted..I agree, that managment has not nearly made the sacrifices that labor has, as evidenced by your post...and we will not continue to save your hide or protect your employment....we are bent over because you and your kind our riding on our backs.

That is why, we will take that challenge to the supreme court...

[post="226902"][/post]​

pitbull,why don't we do like they do in europe and to hell with the courts...its coming down to going to jail to make a point...

 

[BoeingBoy]

That was then!

This is now.

As several have pointed out the BK laws have changed since the CO strike. They were by all accounts changed as a result of Lorenzo's actions.

Based on EVERY article I have read it is UNCLEAR as to the "Self Help" options available after abrrogation that would be legal. It appears that if a contract is thrown out, there are currently NO precedents and the judge would be making NEW law and that more than anything is fueling the increased negotiating activity.

[post="226887"][/post]​

Bob,

Prior to passage of section 1113 (as a result of Lorenzo's actions), a CBA was considered no different than any other contract under bankruptcy and was equally as easy to abrogate. Passage of section 1113 changed that by providing parameters that had to be met to abrogate a CBA. Those parameters are still being fleshed out - hence the controversy over the standard that has to be met before a contract can be abrogated.

However, section 1113 does not address what happens after a CBA is abrogated. Hence CAL is as good a precedent as any. Unfortunately (or fortunately if you'd prefer), there is so little precedent for contract abrogation in airlines that no national uniformity exists - thus the controversy over whether a post-abrogation strike is legal or not.

I've found no case cited where a post-abrogation strike was ruled illegal at an airline. That doesn't mean a judge could not rule that way, only that it has not happened. I guess at some point, a case will make it to the Supreme Court and this part of the law will be settled once and for all - maybe U will be the basis for that.

Jim

 

[repeet]

Companies that request abrogation of the labor agreement but it must meet the following nine (9) distinct requirements:

1. The debtor in possession must have made a proposal to the union.
2. The proposal must be based upon the most complete and reliable information available at the time of the proposal.
3. The modification must be necessary to permit reorganization.
4. The modification must provide that all affected parties be treated fairly and equitably.
5. The debtor must provide the union with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
6. The debtor must have met with the collective bargaining representative at the reasonable times subsequent to making the proposal.
7. The debtor must have negotiated with the union concerning the proposal in good faith.
8. The union must have refused to accept the proposal with good cause.
9. The balance of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the agreement.

The only fly in the ointment that I see is Item number 8. The judge, whose job is to look out for the creditors, must determine that we rejected the company's offer "with good cause".

That is where the fight will be.

 

[N628AU]

We can take it to the surpreme court.

[post="226888"][/post]​

Just because you petition the high court to hear a case does not mean they have to listen. Look at the recent decision not to hear a case regarding the gay narriages in Massachusetts.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Just because you petition the high court to hear a case does not mean they have to listen. Look at the recent decision not to hear a case regarding the gay narriages in Massachusetts.

[post="227048"][/post]​

The supreme court often makes it's decision by NOT hearing cases. In that case, it is saying either that the lower court ruling stands, or the issue was solved to it's satifaction.