IAM Fleet Service topic

[LD3]

Wrong, they could get the job done cheaper by outsourcing. I was on the NC for M&R during the second bankruptcy.

It's called fighting for the members, knowledge and experience.

What did you do bring a fork to a knife fight? That must of been one hell of a fight you put up for your members...

 

[28L_or_10R?]

What did you do bring a fork to a knife fight? That must of been one hell of a fight you put up for your members...

More like a spork.

 

[Harry Callahan]

What did you do bring a fork to a knife fight? That must of been one hell of a fight you put up for your members...

And we're paying for his fight now :angry:

 

[700UW]

Like I said, you have you no idea what it means when your in Section 1113 negotiations, all the power is on the company's side, not the members, did any group come out smelling like a rose during the last bankruptcy?

If you can answer yes, then explain how.

 

[Jester]

Like I said, you have you no idea what it means when your in Section 1113 negotiations, all the power is on the company's side, not the members, did any group come out smelling like a rose during the last bankruptcy?

If you can answer yes, then explain how.

Perhaps some historical perspective to someone who is quick to cite some events at US during his career might be helpful. Given that most jobs were saved, and while there were sacrifices in terms of wages and benefits, it was not Continental and Frank Lorenzo's trip through bankruptcy where pilots suffered upwards of 50% pay cuts and 65% of the workers lost their job.

Bankruptcy courts no longer legally allow employers to completely abrogate the collective bargaining agreements, and the courts will demand employers to reasonably accommodate employee groups. Often times these negotiations are the biggest delays in terms of exiting bankruptcy. To be sure, there will be some pain in any bankruptcy filing, but you don't realize how much of a "rose" you came out smelling. Speaking as a former West FSA working under a CBA outside of bankruptcy, even the East "bankrupt contract" was far more generous, and I could only imagine what would have been the contract if Schofield, Gangwal or Lakefield were allowed to dictate the labor agreements unilaterally.

So Reminds Jester.

 

[john john]

Perhaps some historical perspective to someone who is quick to cite some events at US during his career might be helpful. Given that most jobs were saved, and while there were sacrifices in terms of wages and benefits, it was not Continental and Frank Lorenzo's trip through bankruptcy where pilots suffered upwards of 50% pay cuts and 65% of the workers lost their job.

Bankruptcy courts no longer legally allow employers to completely abrogate the collective bargaining agreements, and the courts will demand employers to reasonably accommodate employee groups. Often times these negotiations are the biggest delays in terms of exiting bankruptcy. To be sure, there will be some pain in any bankruptcy filing, but you don't realize how much of a "rose" you came out smelling. Speaking as a former West FSA working under a CBA outside of bankruptcy, even the East "bankrupt contract" was far more generous, and I could only imagine what would have been the contract if Schofield, Gangwal or Lakefield were allowed to dictate the labor agreements unilaterally.

So Reminds Jester.

Yep!
Brought now to HP level
And still paying the price

 

[700UW]

Your wrong Jester, Section 1113 does allow for a complete abrogation, our Mechanic and Related CBA was abrogated in January of 05, lock, stock and barrel.

The only reason a CBA wasnt implemented is Judge "rubber stamp" Mitchell didnt want labor unrest, so he made us vote on the company's final offer.

Stick to throwing bags, instead of bankruptcy law, as you have no idea of what your talking about.

Section 1113 was implemented so there had to be a process of negotiations before an abrogation, that was changed due to CO and Frank Lorenzo.

1113. Rejection of collective bargaining agreements

(a) The debtor in possession, or the trustee if one has been appointed under the provisions of this chapter, other than a trustee in a case covered by subchapter IV of this chapter and by title I of the Railway Labor Act, may assume or reject a collective bargaining agreement only in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(B)
(1) Subsequent to filing a petition and prior to filing an application seeking rejection of a collective bargaining agreement, the debtor in possession or trustee (hereinafter in this section “trustee” shall include a debtor in possession), shall—
(A) make a proposal to the authorized representative of the employees covered by such agreement, based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time of such proposal, which provides for those necessary modifications in the employees benefits and protections that are necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor and assures that all creditors, the debtor and all of the affected parties are treated fairly and equitably; and
(B) provide, subject to subsection (d)(3), the representative of the employees with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
(2) During the period beginning on the date of the making of a proposal provided for in paragraph (1) and ending on the date of the hearing provided for in subsection (d)(1), the trustee shall meet, at reasonable times, with the authorized representative to confer in good faith in attempting to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of such agreement.
(c) The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that—
(1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection (B)(1);
(2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and
(3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such agreement.
(d)
(1) Upon the filing of an application for rejection the court shall schedule a hearing to be held not later than fourteen days after the date of the filing of such application. All interested parties may appear and be heard at such hearing. Adequate notice shall be provided to such parties at least ten days before the date of such hearing. The court may extend the time for the commencement of such hearing for a period not exceeding seven days where the circumstances of the case, and the interests of justice require such extension, or for additional periods of time to which the trustee and representative agree.
(2) The court shall rule on such application for rejection within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing. In the interests of justice, the court may extend such time for ruling for such additional period as the trustee and the employees’ representative may agree to. If the court does not rule on such application within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing, or within such additional time as the trustee and the employees’ representative may agree to, the trustee may terminate or alter any provisions of the collective bargaining agreement pending the ruling of the court on such application.
(3) The court may enter such protective orders, consistent with the need of the authorized representative of the employee to evaluate the trustee’s proposal and the application for rejection, as may be necessary to prevent disclosure of information provided to such representative where such disclosure could compromise the position of the debtor with respect to its competitors in the industry in which it is engaged.
(e) If during a period when the collective bargaining agreement continues in effect, and if essential to the continuation of the debtor’s business, or in order to avoid irreparable damage to the estate, the court, after notice and a hearing, may authorize the trustee to implement interim changes in the terms, conditions, wages, benefits, or work rules provided by a collective bargaining agreement. Any hearing under this paragraph shall be scheduled in accordance with the needs of the trustee. The implementation of such interim changes shall not render the application for rejection moot.
(f) No provision of this title shall be construed to permit a trustee to unilaterally terminate or alter any provisions of a collective bargaining agreement prior to compliance with the provisions of this section.

Read and Learn

US Airways' pact with 8,800 machinists tossed out by bankruptcy court

ARLINGTON, Va. -- A federal bankruptcy judge yesterday threw out US Airways' contracts with its 8,800-member machinists union, putting the troubled carrier one step closer to emerging from its second bankruptcy in two years.

The ruling, which US Airways desperately sought, allows the company to cut pay and eliminate thousands of jobs, including some in Pittsburgh. U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Stephen Mitchell also canceled pensions covering 50,000 current and former US Airways employees

 

[robbedagain]

perhaps those at HP never understood how difficult it was/still is working under deplorable contract conditions imposed on us yet still fathoming the fact that good ole dp and crew take an additional 3 million in pay/bonus and all that crap.

 

[Jester]

Your wrong Jester, Section 1113 does allow for a complete abrogation, our Mechanic and Related CBA was abrogated in January of 05, lock, stock and barrel.

The only reason a CBA wasnt implemented is Judge "rubber stamp" Mitchell didnt want labor unrest, so he made us vote on the company's final offer.

Stick to throwing bags, instead of bankruptcy law, as you have no idea of what your talking about.

Section 1113 was implemented so there had to be a process of negotiations before an abrogation, that was changed due to CO and Frank Lorenzo.



Read and Learn

US Airways' pact with 8,800 machinists tossed out by bankruptcy court

700UW,

I must ask, do you actually read what you post? If your assertion is that somehow abrogating any CBA through the bankruptcy process is a simple matter of a corporate whim, then you are grossly mistaken. You use collective bargain paragraphs and the Law as a drunken man uses a lamp-post for support – rather than illumination (with apologies to Andrew Lang). So with that in mind, let us review what Section 1113 says:

“(The Trustee)...may assume or reject a collective bargaining agreement only in accordance with the provisions of this section... that are necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor and assures that all creditors, the debtor and all of the affected parties are treated fairly and equitably... the trustee shall meet, at reasonable times, with the authorized representative to confer in good faith in attempting to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of such agreement.”

As employees would be part of the creditors (especially in terms of pensions), and certainly, “affected parties”, they too would be “treated fairly and equitably” and “to confer in a good faith in attempting to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of such agreement.” Does this language strike you as particularly one-sided given there is an opportunity for compromise with Management in an agreement?

Furthermore,
“The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that—
(1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection ((1);
(2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and
(3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such agreement.”

And the very narrowing defined conditions by which “The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if...” the trustee fulfills the requirements of aforementioned subsection, the employee group fails to show good cause to reject proposal or the Judges finds the agreement too one-sided. Does that strike you as something for which Management could dictate the terms of the CBA to you?

Finally,
“(f) No provision of this title shall be construed to permit a trustee to unilaterally terminate or alter any provisions of a collective bargaining agreement prior to compliance with the provisions of this section.”

So once again, the trustee (and certainly not Management either) cannot unilaterally terminate or alter any provisions of the collective bargaining agreement” without complying with those sections which I cited earlier. Once again, does Section 1113 strike you as a Law which allows Management to violate “any provision” without the affected labor groups input? If you have other sections of the Law which nullifies Section 1113, then I am more than willing to entertained by your continued delusions.

If your view of Section 1113 was correct, then why did Management fail to slash all FSAs down to minimum wage and cancel all healthcare insurance benefits while in bankruptcy? Are you suggesting that Management had a conscience? Are you suggesting that replacements were not available off the street? Or maybe you are just wrong?

When I managed business operations, if I was creditor in a bankruptcy, I was happy to get 50 cents on the dollar, and if I had to re-negotiate a contract, if I only had to get a 20% haircut, then I was happy that that too. Frankly, the East guys are spoiled, but if not for the restrictions to abrogate CBAs without lengthy considerations and the pension protections under ERISA and the PBGC, you would have been out of the street and without any pension in the future. Yes, you came out like a rose, albeit after a long prom night of excessiveness without a care in the world living under CAB protections, but a rose by any other name would smell (almost) as sweet.

Also let it be known that I take great umbrage in your statement that I lack the intellectual abilities to discuss this matter, especially from anyone whose occupation consisted of stocking, sorting, and inventorying parts for decades. One of the oddities of working with West was the number of very intelligent people working on the ramp part-time because it was a means to benefits instead of an attempt to make it their primary career. I have personally known lawyers, CPAs, nurses, Management PhD’s, economists, teachers, etc. who were “throwing bags” right along with me. Honestly, I doubt that your immediate co-workers, or especially you, achieved that level of formal academic success, and frankly, no one gives a crap about your week-long seminars of “Wackyhutt Collectivist College” (or whatever you call it) somewhere on a lake in New York state. I have forgotten more in what I learned in major universities than what you ever learned in an accredited college (assuming you were ever enrolled in one).

So Chastises Jester.

 

[700UW]

Are you that ignorant?

I lived it, was there and survived.

Fleet did not have their CBA abrogated, MECHANIC AND RELATED did.

 

[Jester]

Are you that ignorant?

I lived it, was there and survived.

Fleet did not have their CBA abrogated, MECHANIC AND RELATED did.

I will ask again... did your wages gets slashed to minimum wage? Did you lose your health care insurance?

Why not?

What better time than to impose Draconian terms than during a bankruptcy if your understanding of Section 1113 is correct. Don't tell me you were irreplaceable... because obviously, you were eventually.

If you cannot answer the question as to why your wages weren't reduced to minimum wage levels, then please refrain from further posts, as adults are attempting an intelligent discussion.

So Scolds Jester.

 

[28L_or_10R?]

Are you that ignorant?

I lived it, was there and survived.

Fleet did not have their CBA abrogated, MECHANIC AND RELATED did.

Please spare us the melodrama.

you might enjoy this

 

[700UW]

Because Judge Mitchell made the company have us vote on a final offer, if it was rejected, it could have led to a strike and the Judge didnt want that.

And US never asked for minimum wage for its classifications.

Also the retirees did lose their healthcare and our cost went through the roof and we lost our pension and 46% of the maintenance workforce was laidoff.

 

[Jester]

Because Judge Mitchell made the company have us vote on a final offer, if it was rejected, it could have led to a strike and the Judge didnt want that.

And US never asked for minimum wage for its classifications.

Also the retirees did lose their healthcare and our cost went through the roof and we lost our pension and 46% of the maintenance workforce was laidoff.

Exactly... because Judge Mitchell ordered what Section 1113 required based upon how the Law was written, and contrary to your beliefs, Management cannot breach the entire CBA in bankruptcy without some reasonable attempts to find compromise and accomodation. Minimum wage demands would have violated that "all of the affected parties are treated fairly and equitably," so of course, it was never considered.

So Comments Jester.

P.S. Did your pension become covered under PBGC, and what percentage from what was earned versus what was received?

 

[700UW]

The Judge abrogated the CBA, and had no part of negotiations nor did he know what was in the final offer as we left CCY at like 4am after tweaking the final offer, yes even the final offer was negotiated after it was presented to us.

So once again your wrong.

I will lose over $1,500 a month when I start collecting, that is how much it was reduced.