IAM Paycuts

[Boomer]

Anyone,

Was the request from UAL to the Bankruptcy Judge an actual 1113 request? On another web-site, there is a posting which claims to be from the AFA which says that the Judge granted UALs' "Emergency 1113" request. From what I've read elsewhere that has not been mentioned but from what I've been reading I don't see how it could be otherwise.

I agree with another poster with regard to the IAMs' freedom of action, but, they too are silent about the particulars. This is odd given that if the IAM and UAL fail to come to terms and there is a motion to abrogate under 1113; one of the factors the Judge must consider before granting a motion allowing the contract to be abrogated is the likelyhood of a strike shutting down the company in bankruptcy resulting in a larger loss for the creditors.

While some may argue that walking out now will result in the shutdown of the carrier; the failure of the IAM to do anything, even if for one day, could be cited when and if a full 1113 hearing is ever convened thus reducing their leverage while negotiating a concessions package.

 

[Bob Owens]

error

 

[Bob Owens]

error

 

[Bob Owens]

Eoleson;
"Lesson to be learned from this: negotiate what you can before it comes to the point of being imposed with the Court's approval..."

Do you mean that they would have been better off to agree to a 6 year concessionary agreement rather than have a temporary cut imposed on them? While this is bad, it doesn’t appear as bad as what they rejected. They still have their vacation and other contractual provisions that would have been lost had the rejected offer been in place. The way I see it they are free to strike or self help. The contract has been violated, while only in part, it has still been violated. "Rates of pay" is a major dispute and since the status quo has been altered the union is free to use self-help even though a judge authorized the change. This is not a question of interpretation. This is a change of rates of pay. The workers labor is their property, and even a Judge does not have the right to force them to give their labor to a private, for Profit Corporation for terms that they are not in agreement with. If they had willingly agreed to the cuts like the flight attendants and the pilots then they would have no argument. But they did not. I would rather have the Judge impose terms than willingly accept long-term concessions any day. If things improve in the spring then they can strike right away because their pay has already been modified. Airline workers still work under the RLA and the RLA is pretty clear about what employees can do if the company changes their rates of pay. To say that it is the Judge doing it is incorrect. The company writes the checks, the Judge is allowing the company to change the pay rates. I would not be surprised if years from now we hear that the IAM, despite their public protests, was a part of this deal. That they agreed to this (which in reality they have by not threatening to strike or informing the NMB that a major dispute exists). The fact that the judge has allowed it does not mean that a dispute does not exist. The company solicited this change, so they are still the cause of the dispute. I would not be surprised if in the Judges chambers the IAM, the company and the Judge discussed the predicament the IAM is in. A conversation could have went like this "IAM: Look your honor we understand that the company needs these cuts but our mechanics have already voted "NO" and if we agree to anything concessionary there will likely be an AMFA vote that will cause even more disruption. Look at what the leader of AMFA recently wrote, 'mechanics should not accept any pay cuts what-so-ever', "mechanics should make $100K a year'. If these guys get in the company will go bankrupt for sure" Judgeto the company representative) What is your position on this? UAL: Well,we are neutral of course as to who our employees choose for representation but I agree that we would rather not see a change in representation at this time, it could disrupt our recovery plans, especially if they took the positions as mentioned by the IAM". Judge; (to the IAM) So what are you proposing? IAM; Well what if you were to just impose the temporary 13% pay cut. We would make comments protesting the decision but not take or encourage any real resistance. Everything else in the contract would remain in place. Judge;(to UAL) Would this help in your efforts at restructuring? UAL: Well its a start. Judge; OK then, I will authorize the company to adjust the rates of pay a total of 13% retroactive to Jan 1. All other contractual provisions remain in place and the IAM will not claim the presence of a major dispute and assert their rights as per the RLA. Agreed? UAL; Yes. IAM Yes. Judge; OK gentlemen.
Its done. What do you say we grab a bite to eat and tip a few? UAL; Sure IAM; I'll buy!

 

[Borescope]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/11/2003 12:22:41 AM 767jetz wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/10/2003 5:32:20 PM Borescope wrote:

My wrench seems to turn 14% slower now.
----------------
[/blockquote]

I hope your kidding. Right???

Should I fly 29% slower? Or maybe just 29% less efficiently?

Should the F/A's work 9% less?

Why don't the gate agents and CS board the flight 13% slower?

This is ridiculous. If everyone subscribes to this kind of attitude we will soon ALL be 100% out of work.

Now is the time for us to be putting 150% into our jobs for the sake of our paying customers.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I doubt you would be able to keep your767 in the air at mach .488, but it might be interesting to see you try. I can always get a job turning a wrench somewhere and I'm tired of being the lowest paid. 14% cut = 14% slower work.

Good luck

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/13/2003 4:31:54 PM Bob Owens wrote:

Do you mean that they would have been better off to agree to a 6 year concessionary agreement rather than have a temporary cut imposed on them? While this is bad, it doesn't appear as bad as what they rejected. They still have their vacation and other contractual provisions that would have been lost had the rejected offer been in place. The way I see it they are free to strike or self help.


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

Bob, the pay cut is just the start. The other issues like VC and work rules haven't been touched. Yet.

When all is said and done, the 6 year agreement will look a whole lot better than what they'll get via the S.1113 process, even if their contract isn't arbrogated.

If nothing else, at least the 6 year agreement had snap-backs -- how many years did it take for CO's employees to get back to pre-Lorenzo wages?

Yes, IAM be free to strike or seek self-help if the contract is arbrogated.

It would be suicidal, but yes, they'd be free to do it.

 

[UnitedChicago]

Borescope:

"I can always get a job turning a wrench somewhere and I'm tired of being the lowest paid."

No one is making you stay.

 

[Buck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/13/2003 10:41:00 AM eolesen wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/13/2003 500 AM Buck wrote:

No not exactly. All job areas receive their premiums for lead positions and shift differential correct?

What I am saying is that the pay for the Airframe and Powerplant licenses are being devalued by including them in the percentage.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Of course they're being devalued. It is an across the board cut. The court doesn't care how that 13% reduction is achieved. I'm sure the IAM can negotiate other changes which add up to the same dollar value (or more) than what the "flat tax" cut achieved.

Lesson to be learned from this: negotiate what you can before it comes to the point of being imposed with the Court's approval...
----------------
[/blockquote]
So why take the pay cut from the total wage? The union should protect the license premium.

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/13/2003 10:41:00 AM eolesen wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/13/2003 500 AM Buck wrote:

No not exactly. All job areas receive their premiums for lead positions and shift differential correct?

What I am saying is that the pay for the Airframe and Powerplant licenses are being devalued by including them in the percentage.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Of course they're being devalued. It is an across the board cut. The court doesn't care how that 13% reduction is achieved. I'm sure the IAM can negotiate other changes which add up to the same dollar value (or more) than what the "flat tax" cut achieved.

Lesson to be learned from this: negotiate what you can before it comes to the point of being imposed with the Court's approval...
----------------
[/blockquote]

That's what I've been trying to tell my colleagues and Bob Owens himself.

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/13/2003 9:13:15 PM Buck wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/13/2003 10:41:00 AM eolesen wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/13/2003 500 AM Buck wrote:

No not exactly. All job areas receive their premiums for lead positions and shift differential correct?

What I am saying is that the pay for the Airframe and Powerplant licenses are being devalued by including them in the percentage.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Of course they're being devalued. It is an across the board cut. The court doesn't care how that 13% reduction is achieved. I'm sure the IAM can negotiate other changes which add up to the same dollar value (or more) than what the "flat tax" cut achieved.

Lesson to be learned from this: negotiate what you can before it comes to the point of being imposed with the Court's approval...
----------------
[/blockquote]
So why take the pay cut from the total wage? The union should protect the license premium.
----------------
[/blockquote]

These emergency temporary wage reduction was requested by the company to meet the terms of the DIP that is needed to be in place by Feb. The unions didn't negotiate these terms. The IAM didn't bring it back to us for ratification. They challenge it in court instead and lost. These wage reduction are only temporary until the unions and company negotiate a consensual agreement or until the Judge decide whether to abrogate the contracts if no consensual agreements is reached. I believe the deadline to have a ratified agreement in place is May 1. The Company is going to resubmit its application on March 15 to void the contracts for any union that is unable to negotiate and ratify a new term.

The IAM did negotiate a 4 days of vacation without pay and 7% wage cut based on the base pay only before the Company filed for bankruptcy. The Mechanics and related turned that down by a wide margin. We were going to have a second vote but the ATSB turned us down for the loan guarantee so the vote was cancelled.

 

[Buck]

Thank You

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/14/2003 4:36:53 PM Buck wrote:

Thank You
----------------
[/blockquote]

You're Welcome

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/13/2003 10:15:41 PM ual747mech wrote:


These emergency temporary wage reduction was requested by the company to meet the terms of the DIP that is needed to be in place by Feb. The unions didn't negotiate these terms. The IAM didn't bring it back to us for ratification. They challenge it in court instead and lost. These wage reduction are only temporary until the unions and company negotiate a consensual agreement or until the Judge decide whether to abrogate the contracts if no consensual agreements is reached. I believe the deadline to have a ratified agreement in place is May 1. The Company is going to resubmit its application on March 15 to void the contracts for any union that is unable to negotiate and ratify a new term.

The IAM did negotiate a 4 days of vacation without pay and 7% wage cut based on the base pay only before the Company filed for bankruptcy. The Mechanics and related turned that down by a wide margin. We were going to have a second vote but the ATSB turned us down for the loan guarantee so the vote was cancelled.
----------------
[/blockquote]

The union has agreed to the cuts by their inaction. I dont believe that the Union has to bring it back for a vote. The Contract belongs to the Union, not the workers. The Judge has already abrogated your agreement. The Union has not challenged it under the RLA. What is stopping the Union from striking? Under what authority can the Judge prevent you from Striking? Is he God? A long term concessionary contract is the worst thing that you could possibly agree to. Didnt you learn anything from 94?

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/13/2003 827 PM eolesen wrote:

Bob, the pay cut is just the start. The other issues like VC and work rules haven't been touched. Yet.

When all is said and done, the 6 year agreement will look a whole lot better than what they'll get via the S.1113 process, even if their contract isn't arbrogated.

If nothing else, at least the 6 year agreement had snap-backs -- how many years did it take for CO's employees to get back to pre-Lorenzo wages?

Yes, IAM be free to strike or seek self-help if the contract is arbrogated.

It would be suicidal, but yes, they'd be free to do it.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Look better for whom? The workers who will have to live under conditions that were negotiated under the worst of times or the executives and stockholders of UAL? After watching how the airlines stall contract negotiations when times are good its time for labor to do the same. Right now the IAM can shut down UAL. This stops UAL and the judge from imposing anything more.
Snap back? Six years of inflation will have taken their toll on the so-called "snap-back" so in reality they will be working for 18% less than they are today six years from now. Even if they snapped back to an adjusted rate they still will lose real earnings that will probably come close to the equal of working a year for nothing.
Siucidal? Not really the workers will survive just like those from EAL, Pan Am and all the rest. By agreeing to huge concessions they will be lowering the prevailing rate for the industry. Should UAL eventually fail these concessions will continue to haunt them even in their next airline job. That's what happened in the 80s and 90s.
The fact is that a strike would kill UAL. Given the history of this industry the workers are better off retaining the ability to strike than agreeing to a long term concessionary deal. I have no doubt that within the next few years not only will the airlines be making profits but record profits(depending on how well they sucker their employees into long term deals). Construction projects continue. I beleive that even UAL is still going forward with its Cargo project here at JFK. The CEO of AA while pushing for the addition of another runway in ORD when questioned as to why, given the direction and state of the industry, such an infastructural investment should be made, admitted that the industry is still expected to expand once the economy recovers.

 

[ualdriver]

Keep in mind that as you read Bob Owen's posts that he is an American Airlines employee and stands to gain from a United Airlines that would more than likely have to liquidate should a strike or work action by any employee group take place.