IAM AT IT AGAIN...

mastermechanic

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
202
0
9/6/2002
To the Membership of District Lodge 141-M Employed at US Airways,
IAM representatives and advisors met at the request of US Airways today at the carrier’s headquarters in Arlington, VA. US Airways acknowledges that perhaps some confusion developed while the company was meeting with employees prior to the August 28, 2002 restructuring proposal vote over what the consequences would be if their proposal was not ratified by the Mechanical and Related membership.
In a letter that US Airways is mailing to each member’s home, CEO David Siegel asks the Mechanical and Related employees to reconsider the Company’s proposal.
In today’s meeting, the IAM was informed of the following:
1. If the members reject the company’s proposal, US Airways will not ask the bankruptcy court judge to just partially modify your agreement, but will have to ask the bankruptcy court to reject, terminate, abrogate the agreement in full.
2. Once the collective bargaining agreement has been rejected/terminated, US Airways will impose terms for wages, benefits, and work rules as it deems necessary, and will be able to change those terms as it deems necessary.
The IAM is prepared to defend your agreement. However, you must understand that the judge only has the authority to rule on the motion before him, and that motion will not be for modification, but for rejection of the total agreement. The bankruptcy court cannot craft a compromise deal.
Based on these facts, District 141-M will hold a second vote on September 17, 2002. The bankruptcy court hearing to reject the Mechanical and Related agreement will be postponed until after the membership has had an opportunity to vote.
The IAM is only asking you to vote based on accurate facts, and not misleading statements and rumor. There should be no confusion going forward. The decision is yours, and the IAM will continue to vigorously represent you, whatever your choice may be.
Sincerely and fraternally,
Scotty Ford
 
OP
M

mastermechanic

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
202
0
You see guys, you just don't understand what you were doing...now lets vote AGAIN and see if we can get it right...
 

kcabpilot

Senior
Aug 22, 2002
271
0
The voting will continue until the results are correct.

An example of IAM confusion during a vote count:

seven thousand three hundred forty two,
seven thousand three hundred forty three,
seven thousand three hundred forty four,
seven thousand three hundred forty ....
seven thousand three hundred forty ????
???

one,
two,
three...
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
In my opinion, this second vote is a face-saver for the IAM, pure and simple. The first vote was close. Something like 53% No and 47% Yes. In that area anyway. I think the IAM is beginning to realize that Siegel is serious about petitioning to abrogate their entire contract in bankruptcy court. Now that the CWA has a T/A, they are the only group left twisting in the wind (assuming the CWA T/A is ratified). So I think that the US IAM leadership has had a mild change of heart and will throw it out to the membership in hopes that the majority will vote Yes, to save them some face from the inevitable shredding they'd take at the hands of a bankruptcy judge. Just my two cents.
 

kcabpilot

Senior
Aug 22, 2002
271
0
This is plain and simple: the IAM was PAID to deliver a YES vote and they failed to do so. The company and the IAM are now both trying to pump up the fear level by inferring that the Mechanics will be treated as CRIMINALS by the BK judge.

This is extortion and robbery and I hope the US Air guys can stand up and shove it back in their faces so that it will be known that if you say NO, it means NO. I hope we all do the same too. This NINE BILLION DOLLAR concession demand is nothing more than a Xerox copy of the US Air demands. Why can't UAL come up with an original plan? Why do we have to hog tie ourselves to six years of oppressive concessions? Until they come up with something that makes sense, something that we have some input to and something that does not involve a very, very large blank check to a group that has proven over time that it is not to be trusted my answer is a simple two letter word.

NO
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
kcabpilot,

I'm curious. Considering that US has the highest labor costs in the industry, what makes you think the bankruptcy judge is NOT going to side with Siegel? If past airline bankruptcy history is any indicator, you're taking the gamble of a lifetime in putting your fate into the hands of a judge. What makes you believe you'll attain a better outcome from a bankruptcy judge, when his duty is to act in the best interests of the creditors and shareholders, not the employees? While no outcome is guaranteed, I think it's a foolish gamble that you'll eventually lose. Hopefully, it won't come to that.
 

gatemech

Senior
Aug 24, 2002
356
5
www.usaviation.com
As of now we still haven't heard if Mr. Tilton is going to change the concessions or go with the flow. If there are no changes I would have to take the gamble. I already gave for six years and don't see any reason to do it again.
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
gatemech,

Thanks for the honesty. While I don't embrace that mentality, I can certainly understand why you and others do. Let's hope for both our sakes, and that of our fellow employees, that we find a mutually acceptable way out of this mess. Because if bankruptcy becomes a reality, you have absolutely no idea how ugly it will get. This airline will become a mere shadow of its former self in terms of size.
 

AOG-N-IT

Veteran
Aug 19, 2002
1,132
1
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/9/2002 9:05:17 PM UAL777flyer wrote:

gatemech,


Thanks for the honesty. While I don't embrace that mentality, I can certainly understand why you and others do. Let's hope for both our sakes, and that of our fellow employees, that we find a mutually acceptable way out of this mess. Because if bankruptcy becomes a reality, you have absolutely no idea how ugly it will get. This airline will become a mere shadow of its former self in terms of size.
----------------
[/blockquote]
UAL777Flyer....You hit the nail on the head Sir!!. The term Mutually Acceptable should be the first and foremost thought in everyone's mind. Mutually Acceptable allows for a spirit of co-operation...and mutually desired results. Anything short of this?...will always leave an atmosphere of dis-trust. We at U have felt for a long time , that the IAM is completely in bed with the company. They speak of representation....but thier actual actions say much different. Greed is the creed with the IAM....and the sooner both of our proud companies can manage to Right Themselves.....and send these thieves packing. The better off we will all be. I'm not saying for a moment that going through life un-represented is a choice!! Corporate America has created that need....but representation that carries forward the will of the membership group is the issue. I would be better off giving my same alloted Union Dues to a charity...as opposed to the IAM. A charity , might do someone else in need some good....I would at least have the luxury of a tax break from the charitable donation.
 

ONTHESTREET

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
198
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/9/2002 3:52:33 PM kcabpilot wrote:

This NINE BILLION DOLLAR concession demand is nothing more than a Xerox copy of the US Air demands. Why can't UAL come up with an original plan? Why do we have to hog tie ourselves to six years of oppressive concessions?

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

What are the similarities of the two plans? I am not jabbing at anyone I just have not heard the whole UA concession Package Is the U and UA mgmt. packages really that similar?

If they are, it might be interesting to note that U is currently shedding it's self of EXACTLY the equipment and routes that it said it would during the merger with UA. U has been dumping routes and equipment that do not make sense. Other than mgmt. just in a twilight zone (possible!!) it looks like they are still trying to make something happen there.

It would be interesting to put the contracts side by side and compare them. Pilot, Mechanic, F/A etc... They might be trying to mirror image the two as much as possible and then merge two bankrupt carriers.

When U was at the stage that you guys are in now, U's mgmt. already had the funding for the BK done, and UA is making almost mirror image statements to the press right now.

Using that old keen Hindsight is 20/20 it does appear that UA is a planned BK just as U was.

Just an observation, not intended to get anybody riled up, I am just curious about the concession pkg. that you guys are being offered.
 
OP
M

mastermechanic

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
202
0
That's what I've been saying but they just aren't listening. They just keep telling us how to find the door. They talk about spirit and attitude. Status quo is what they are selling, and the mechanics aren't buying.
 

kcabpilot

Senior
Aug 22, 2002
271
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/9/2002 5:33:24 PM UAL777flyer wrote:

kcabpilot,

I'm curious. Considering that US has the highest labor costs in the industry, what makes you think the bankruptcy judge is NOT going to side with Siegel?
----------------
[/blockquote]

You know UAL777flyer, we've been going round about this for some time now and I still can't figure out why you assume you know what I think. I'm simply stating the fact that (at least in the case of the Mechanics) their backs have been pushed against the wall and I don't think this has anything to do with what a bk judge will or won't do. If the Mechanics knuckle under this time then it will be business as usual, we can all pony up the NINE BILLION DOLLARS and in six years we'll all be right back here again facing the same threats, we'll just be six years older, that's all.

As to the similarities between US Air and UAL and what is going on right now. It's pretty obvious from what I can see. Somebody has a BIG plan and we're gonna fund it.
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
kcabpilot,

Relax. I was not intending to put words in your mouth. I'm just wondering how much better the mechanics will feel when UA petitions to severely alter the contract in bankruptcy court? Considering that we'll have the highest costs in the industry once US restructures, what do you think the outcome will be? I'm wondering what your opinion is on that? But if you're of the opinion that you don't care if the company shuts down, but you won't give an inch, than I'll already have my answer.
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
You're correct, my group doesn't get a vote. But that's life when you're not a represented employee. There is a strong chance that when it's all said and finalized, that the givebacks from management will be too much for me and I may have to leave UA. My wife and I both work for UA. If that ends up being the case, I'll do what I have to do, even if that means finding another job.

And you're right, maybe the bankruptcy judge won't strap you to the whippin' post and make an example out of you. But bear this in mind. UA will have the highest labor costs in the industry once US puts their new agreements into effect. Considering that fact if UA declares bankruptcy, it's inevitable that groups without agreements are going to face changes or abrogation to their labor contracts. What will the judge do? Who knows. But history has shown that labor rarely ever wins in that situation. And why put your fate into the hands of a 3rd party where you have virtually no control over your fate. Also keep in mind that the judge's responsibility is to act in the best interests of the creditors, not the employees. I'm not so sure your contract would remain intact. Would it be worse than what the company wants now? Who knows. But it's a large risk. If you're willing to take that risk, so be it. Just don't be surprised if the outcome isn't in your favor.
 

kcabpilot

Senior
Aug 22, 2002
271
0
Well I do care. I go to work and do my job. I'm willing to go the extra mile to get it done. I'm just not going to hand nine billion dollars to these clowns because they say that's what's required. I'm not Nostradamus and don't pretend to know what the future holds. I have no idea what a bankruptcy judge would do. I find it hard to believe that he would strap the Mechanics to the whippin' post and make an example out of them as though they had criminal culpability simply because they had not voted to accept the concessions. Maybe I'm wrong but by saying you folks didn't accept the offer so your contribution will be double what the others contribute you're going to end up with a system that will never work. That should be obvious.

Besides, at this point NOBODY at UAL is on board with this latest offer except, of course, your group 777flyer. But then you don't get to vote do you?