IAM Withdraws from Labor Coalition

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
[A href=http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/021009/2051000864_1.html]http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/021009/2051000864_1.html[/A][BR][BR]Well it's nice to know that some things are still as predictable as the sunrise. The IAM is all about themselves. They have little interest in acting in the best interests of the company. Well, if we end up filing for Ch.11, they're going to probably learn the hard way when their contract is shredded by a bankruptcy judge.[BR][BR]
 

UnitedChicago

Veteran
Aug 27, 2002
756
0
www.usaviation.com
Not to sound completely naive or too positive...but I suspect this was a calculated maneuver by the IAM and that at least Tilton knew it was coming.

IAM has to save face with the members as much as possible to keep AMFA at bay. If they negotiate their own agreement independent of the coalition then they can say they did it their way and weren't influenced by the pilots.

Notice that the pilots and FA's downplayed it in some press releases.

As long as they take on a proportionate reduction of wages and benefits (yes I know IAM...you put off $500M in retro pay) then I don't care if they go alone or via the coalition.

In the end the coalition is a fuzzy thing just like shared sacrifices.

It's down to the wire and it looks bad...but this company and labor have done it before. I know they can do it again.
 

Busdrvr

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
2,217
0
It was the Union coalition plan from the beginning to have bilateral agreements! This is just another uninformed cheapshot from the financial press and thier agenda
 
OP
U

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
But I think it will take the company more time to negotiate concession deals with each union separately than it would in dealing with them as a coalition. And if they were so interested in fixing this company, they'd have decided how to split up the cuts amongst each group, instead of laying that on the company's lap to negotiate.

I agree that this came as no surprise to Tilton. He's been in constant communication with the labor leaders all throughout his short tenure. But here we are on October 10th, 5 weeks away from that first large debt payment. Time is running out. When you consider that it would most likely take a couple of weeks to conduct a vote on any T/A, there is almost no margin for error. What happens if T/A's are announced, let's say, in another week. Then it goes out for a vote two weeks later. What if it doesn't pass? That doesn't allow for much time to negotiate another deal, unless they somehow manage to push off that debt payment, which I doubt is possible or they'd have already done it. The unions would then be risking the company filing for Ch.11 and them not having concession deals already in place. If that were to happen, I'm quite confident that the company would petition to throw out those labor contracts. I'm sure the unions know that also. So it behooves them to conclude agreements quickly. At this point, I'm not very optimistic that it will happen. As usual, United continues to waste away precious time.
 

gatemech

Senior
Aug 24, 2002
356
5
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/9/2002 10:09:33 PM UAL777flyer wrote:

http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/021009/2051000864_1.html

Well it's nice to know that some things are still as predictable as the sunrise. The IAM is all about themselves. They have little interest in acting in the best interests of the company. Well, if we end up filing for Ch.11, they're going to probably learn the hard way when their contract is shredded by a bankruptcy judge.


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

You are right. The IAM is all about the IAM and not the membership or UAL. If they really cared they would do what is right and if AMFA comes in then so be it. In 2 years they can have a drive to oust AMFA. It's not so much that I don't trust the IAM it's the same old idiots with no education negotiating with the company. I might be wrong on the education thing but that is what it looks like.
 

DCT JVL

Advanced
Oct 7, 2002
115
0
www.usaviation.com
I always wondered about it before, but now I'm sure, the IAM is nuts. How are they going to get out of this without a paycut? The lenders won't lend without it and the other unions won't stand by while the IAM skates by without taking a cut in pay. One way or another they are taking a paycut just like the rest of us. Either they'll negotiate something that is acceptable (as acceptable as a paycut can be)that includes some of the benefits they enjoy now or a judge will rip their contract to shreds and do it for them. Any sane group would negotiate in a effort to save some of what they have achieved for their membership, but obviously their primary concern is the AMFA threat. They only care about how they appear to their radical members. This is a shame since they stand to lose so much from a chapter 11. Not only will they lose their seat on their board, but all of their ESOP shares and their retro pay. Wow, what a deal! How about helping save UAL instead. Didn't they learn from Eastern?
 

Busdrvr

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
2,217
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/10/2002 2:24:17 PM DCT JVL wrote:

I always wondered about it before, but now I'm sure, the IAM is nuts.

LOL, I was thinking the same thing!!

How are they going to get out of this without a paycut?

Hmmm, labor cost are roughly salary + benefits X number of employees. I guess we could save the IAM payrates by furloughing more folks...

This is a shame since they stand to lose so much from a chapter 11. Not only will they lose their seat on their board, but all of their ESOP shares and their retro pay. Wow, what a deal!

Not to mention the outsourcing of heavy MX and Dispatch and Receipt. Although UAL is currently carrying a few extra pilots in anticipation of a rebound in the spring, we can't cut that many pilots. All of our jets are 2 pilot airplanes. The place that cuts in manpower would come is straight out of the IAM.

----------------
[/blockquote]
 
OP
U

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
It just goes to show you how some people are still deeply in denial about what it's going to take to fix UA's problems. But when you consider it's the IAM, it shouldn't be that surprising. In my opinion, the IAM is going to lose out to AMFA no matter what they do regarding paycuts. If they choose paycuts voluntarily, AMFA probably wins. If they refuse and UA files Ch.11 and a judge throws out their contract, AMFA probably wins. So the way I see it, the IAM is in a lose-lose situation. Each union wants to negotiate separately because nobody wants to agree to any cuts until they see what the other groups are doing. So chances are, now everyone will expect the pilots to go first. And we still have the AFA saying they shouldn't have to participate in paycuts at all. Maybe a Ch.11 filing, 20% shrinking of the company and its operations and thousands more layoffs, as well as throwing out their contract, will wake these people up. But I doubt it. We're being witness to the slow death of a once great airline. The only question now is will the employees realize that and do what's necessary before time runs out.
 

UnitedChicago

Veteran
Aug 27, 2002
756
0
www.usaviation.com
I dont know if this is just a bunch of posturing by the IAM or if they truly still believe that they don't have to give back wages. I read on interesting comment today at WSJ...words to the effect that UA management should negotiate first with the IAM as they are the toughest and least likely to budge before spending time on the others. It would waste precious time that they could be filing CH11, lining up debtor in possession financing, etc. If the IAM won't budge, file ch11 then negotiate with the unions actually willing to admit that UA needs givebacks. Screw the IAM...just have the judge void the contract.

Question for all: Do you think that AMFA would have a better argument to win representation if:

A. IAM agrees to wage givebacks and helps UA avoid CH11 filing. IAM member's stock and board seat remain un-touched.

B. IAM gives UA the finger and UA files for CH11. IAM members continue receiving normal wages until 3-4 weeks into the filing when they either accept wage givebacks or have a new contract imposed on them. IAM member's stock is worthless and board seat is gone.

I would vote they would be a clear shoe-in under option B. Doesn't that seem logical? Does the IAM believe in logic?

Okay...sorry I'm getting too pissed.

:)
 

DCT JVL

Advanced
Oct 7, 2002
115
0
www.usaviation.com
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The machinists union at UAL Corp.'s (NYSE:UAL - News) United Airlines on Thursday said pay cuts may not necessarily be part of plans to cut costs at the No. 2 U.S. carrier.

Discussions with management are being set for the week of Oct. 14 on cost cuts to help avoid a bankruptcy filing, the International Association of Machinists said in a statement.

United Airlines needs to reduce its labor costs, but cost reduction does not necessarily mean pay cuts, said Robert Roach, general vice president of the IAM.

The IAM believes a large portion of the cost reductions can be achieved by working with United to improve the efficiency of its operations.

In particular, the IAM said it wants recognition for $500 million in retroactive pay deferral it agreed to earlier this year. The union, one of five in a newly formed coalition, said it will still coordinate with the other members.
 
OP
U

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
I don't know, I tend to think that the company should negotiate hard with everyone at the same time. I don't see success in trying to get the IAM to deal first. That's risky. If the other unions agree first, it then puts CONSIDERABLE pressure on IAM leadership to follow suit. They're not going to want to be the group that pushes UA to file Ch.11 because you can bet a bankruptcy judge would tear their contract to shreds. They'd lose worse in that scenario.

Chances are, everyone will expect the pilots to deal first. That tends to be the conventional wisdom. As much as people whine and complain about the pilots, everyone always points the finger for them to act first. And ALPA, realizing the situation fully, will deal. No problem there. The dispatchers will also be no problem. The problems will lie with the F/A's and the IAM, as always. At least this gives us the chance to test the leadership skills of our new CEO and see what he's made of. Reputations are made in situations like this.
 

MrMarky

Advanced
[P]I agree with UAL777Flyer. And this isn't rocket science. All anyone needs to do is take a look at how things have unfolded at US Airways, to see what's going to happen at United. And it's gonna happen soon....trick or treat?[/P]
[P]As for the IAM, pro-union though I am proud to be, perhaps after that myopic union's track record in this industry is examined, there will be a move to give them the same status as Frank Lorenzo--permanently banned from the airline industry! Some union--how many jobs are they responsible for destroying??[/P]
[P]If we want to get rid of Saddam, perhaps the best way to bring him down is to have the IAM represent the folks at Iraqi Airways.
P]
 

UnitedChicago

Veteran
Aug 27, 2002
756
0
www.usaviation.com
MrMarky...very funny :)!

I agre UA777 that it would have been best for all to play together. But we've already witnessed and you have pointed out that they just don't seem to grasp the urgency.

My hope is that they are just posturing to save face. I hope. As for the FA's...I do commend them for finally thinking before puting out a press release. Remember the old FA union likening Wolf as the Dr. Kervorkian of the airline industry?
 

gatemech

Senior
Aug 24, 2002
356
5
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
I agree with UAL777Flyer. And this isn't rocket science. All anyone needs to do is take a look at how things have unfolded at US Airways, to see what's going to happen at United. And it's gonna happen soon....trick or treat?

As for the IAM, pro-union though I am proud to be, perhaps after that myopic union's track record in this industry is examined, there will be a move to give them the same status as Frank Lorenzo--permanently banned from the airline industry! Some union--how many jobs are they responsible for destroying??

If we want to get rid of Saddam, perhaps the best way to bring him down is to have the IAM represent the folks at Iraqi Airways.


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


If it was that easy to get rid of the IAM. If Saddam had to deal with those people he would probably put a gun to his own head.
 

Tim Thorpe

Member
Aug 20, 2002
53
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/10/2002 10:20:55 AM UAL777flyer wrote:

But I think it will take the company more time to negotiate concession deals with each union separately than it would in dealing with them as a coalition. And if they were so interested in fixing this company, they'd have decided how to split up the cuts amongst each group, instead of laying that on the company's lap to negotiate.

Your right it will take them more time. That is what the company wants. If this was a straight cash deal it would have been easy for the coalitions leaders to cut up the pie. It is not a straight cash deal. The company wants changes to our scope agreements and work rule changes. These things have to be negotiated by each individual union. The IAM may as well be up first, someone has to be. If we do ever get to vote on a package and we reject it remember it is the members not the union who are casting the votes. Blame us all you want but until you earn an A+P license all you get to do is whine about us on this message board.