Mechanics turn down the concessions.

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
You can't blame Bob for doing what he is. Everyone is motivated by self interest to get what they want.
It is just a shame that 6,000 mechanics can make it bad for 100,000 workers who stand to lose well over $120,000,000 plus what folks have in retirement funds.

What is stopping the other workers from giving more? They did not have to put in the clause that its all or none.

If this happens I wonder what repercussions will be inflicted upon mechanics for years to come.

Such as?

There won't be a union who will protect them from what others might do.

Oh really? Ever heard of DFR? Hey when has it been the Unions position to use threats of violence to coerce employees into concessions? It sure bodes ill for the Labor movement when we have come to this point.

I already heard of fights breaking out. People being fired for fighting. How would you like to have 20, 25, 30 years and be fired for fighting.
Or be treated like the plague and never know what your car will look like when you come out of work. You know how those little dents can annoy you.
You guys have proved a point. I hope you are willing to accept the consequences.
You're not just messing with the company anymore. Now you are messing with your co-workers money.
Please don't take this as a threat from me. I would never do anything like that. It just occurred to me when I heard of the fights and thought you might not have thought this the whole way through. I don't know why I think you didn't. You guys are smatter than that.

This was one unbeleivable post! He cant come up with a logical arguement as to why you should agree to 6 years of concessions, all the economic threats did not work, so he is resorting to threats of violence?
 

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
Busdvr;
Nobody deserves their pay but poor little you....Grow Up

Is the new definition of mature- willing to work for less so those at the top can get more?


Maybe you should WAKE UP!
 

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 7:56:34 PM ual06 wrote:

Hey guys and gals, lets give Bob a break. He knows good and well that regardless of what happens at UAL; that he is getting close to the front of the line to receive the same. He is scared.
----------------
[/blockquote]

I prefer to use the term concerned.

When the NWA mechanics got their big increase, which in reality was a restoration, mechanics throughout the industry were glad. We were glad because we knew that since this little union called AMFA was able to restore the wages of mechanics that this would be repeated throughout the industry. Now two years later we are faced with the prospect of the opposite happening. If UAL mechanics agree to these concessions it will set them back at least six years. It will likely be repeated throughout the industry. If UAL did actually liquidate, when the mechanics went on to the airlines that picked up Uniteds routes the concessions that they voted on at UAL would follow them to their new job.As seen at USAIR agreeing to these concessions does not mean that the company will not come back for more. If UAL goes C-11 it is highly unlikely that they will be liquidated. No airline the size of United has ever been liquidated before. Once great carriers that were never nearly as large as UAL had shrunk to become remnants of what they once were before liquidation. This could even result in a partial re-regulation of the industry. Not the regulation of Labor that S-1327 is calling for. Indeed the submission to these terms makes it more likely that S-1327 will become law, if we show that we are submissive then they wont have to worry that we will rebel against s-1327.
The government has already stated that they can not allow United to cease operations because of the publics right to travel-thanks Dubya. There is no mechanism in place to force mechanics to accept concessions. If the mechanics struck United would be shut down, if the President stepped in he could only do so under the RLA which says that if he does so the staus quo is maintained. The BK court does not have the jurisdiction to mandate that the workers consent to concessions. So we could end up in a situation where the company is operating under BK protection while the mechanics are working under the Status quo for 90 more days. As the company runs lower on cash they will be under pressure to modify the agreement and politically Bush, who has defacto control over the ATSB would be forced to have the ATSB modify its terms. Either that or the economy would suffer the consequences of its second largest air carrier terminating operations. There is more at stake here than just airline employees and UAL and that works in the workers favor. Its too bad that your unions have failed to explore this and share it with you. I have to wonder, did the IAM receive a kickback like they did over at USAIR?
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
Bob,

I'm curious. Why are you so vehemently opposed to how UA chooses to restructure? You act as though you have a stake in our outcome. Could it be because you already know Don Carty is in the on-deck circle to hit you with paycuts? Is that what really worries you?

By some of your previous posts, you have an obvious lack of knowledge as to the importance of having as much cash as possible when going into bankruptcy. No matter how UA ends up restructuring, it's going to all come home to roost at AA very soon! It oughta be real interesting to see how you folks choose to deal with it. We'll be sure and patronize the AA board to offer our keen opinions and recommendations!
 

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 3:11:46 PM synchronicity wrote;

I've been reading your posts in which you interpret BK law, and have to respond.

First, you keep repeating the mantra that six years [actually 5.5] of concessions is unreasonable. This is obviously your opinion, but saying so don't make it so. I've spoken with a few corporate BK attorneys, including one who is involved with the UAL situation, and they disagree with your interpretation.

In what capacity was the attorney that you spoke with involved? Obviously all the other parties would be in favor of an opinion that would steer the mechanics towards acceptance. After all the more they give the less the company would need from them.

Second, you say:
;How did Continental, TWA and all those other airlines that limped along in bankruptcy get capital before there was an ATSB?

Ever hear of;Debtor in Possession; financing?

Yes. And if this financing is made the contracts still remain in place unless the BK judge voids them. If he voids the contract the DIP could loose a lot more than $600 million because the mechanics would be free to strike. I doubt that without an agreement in place too many people will be standing in line. Liquidation would probably not be as viable when one considers that the assetts of UAL would be of little value to other carriers at this time.


Although I hope for UAL's sake that you are right, that sure doesn't appear to be the case. As for the political digs at the current administration, hey, I'm no fan of them either, but so far they are showing every sign of letting UAL go into Ch. 11 without significant concessions.

Well anyone who has been around knows that all the cards are not laid out until one minute after the midnight hour. Bush revealed some of his cards last December when he stated that he could not allow the airline to shut down because of a mechanics strike. This at best would have been a temporary shut down are you saying that he could turn around and let the company cease operations permanently? How much sense does that make?

I'd add that the concessions are being demanded from other parties as well as labor. UAL is looking for even more concessions (over 8 Billion over the next 5.5 years) from assorted lenders and vendors.

If labor makes up only 30% of the costs then how come they make up around 40% of the cost reductions? How many of the vendors and lendors have agreed to six years of concessions?
Is it unreasonable to pay a mechanic $35 but reasonable to pay $6000 for a headrest or $150,000 for one first class seat module?

Now, we could argue that the government SHOULD extend assistance to the airlines without demanding considerable cost concessions. But that's a whole 'nuther discussion.

As to your refrain of how many contracts have actually been abrogated, you might realize that people come to agreements rather than have the contract abrogated because even a bad agreement is better than no agreement at all! Given that the law would allow a contract to be abrogated, it is in the parties interests to reach some agreement.

Both parties interests you should have added. Under the ATSB the company simply dictated how muc they wanted costs reduced. The mechanics have said that the current agreement is unacceptable. Now they start all over again but both parties feet are to the fire, not just the mechanics. They can either offer a more acceptabe deal or both burn- this equalizes the positions.

Anyway, to summarize my main point: your continued insistence that the 5.5 year contract length, either by itself or in conjunction with other factors, renders the current concession offer unreasonable in bankruptcy, is incorrect according to the attorneys I have talked to who work in the field. This means that, if IAM 141-M were to reject this offer in bankrupcty, a BK judge would be able to abrogate the contract.

I would highlight The attorneys I have talked to who work with in the feild. Are they Labor attorneys or corporate attorneys. The mechanics have to make the arguement that they turned it down for good cause, not irrefutable cause, not the best cause considering the options just good cause, in presenting this arguement they would most certainly be allowed to bring testimony forward of events in the past, and they would be relevant to their concluding for good cause the rejection of a six year concessionary deal that provides NO benificial guarantees to the employees. The whole pretense has been take this or the alternative will be worse. Such threats are an everyday component of collective bargaining and contracts that are offered along with such threats are rejected all the time.

But I'm sure you know far more about BK law than actual attorneys who specialize in corporate bankruptcies. If so, you really should consider changing fields, as those guys make a lot more than mechanics. Heck, they make a lot more than pilots, even the 25 year captains flying 747-400's!

What a lawyer says depends upon who he is working for.
 
OP
A

atabuy

Senior
Oct 13, 2002
419
0
[blockquote]
----------------
atabuy wrote
Please don't take this as a threat from me. I would never do anything like that. It just occurred to me when I heard of the fights and thought you might not have thought this the whole way through. I don't know why I think you didn't. You guys are smatter than that."

On 12/2/2002 1:19:55 PM Bob Owens wrote:

This was one unbeleivable post! He cant come up with a logical arguement as to why you should agree to 6 years of concessions, all the economic threats did not work, so he is resorting to threats of violence?

----------------
[/blockquote]
Ok Bob,
Here's the deal; If you posted on the U board with the same crap, and they bought into it, they were fools.
We are not, I repeat, are not interested in saving your wage. We are interested in saving our company and your thinking will not do that.

If we can get the loan with the concessions and business plan we have, We will all be over on your board to see how you guys are doing without the loan.

Our interests and investment in our company go a lot deeper than a job. We bought into this company and own 55%. Why would we want to ruin it.

You go ahead and put $50,000 or more into AA and tell your co workers to send your company into bankruptcy. You would be squealing!

You truly have to be the village idiot to come here with your garbage.
Take it back to AA.

By the way Bob, many people live on a lot less than $50,000 a year. Not as good, but they survive. I worked on 1994 wages for a long time. It is all about financial planning which you must not have a clue about.
 

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/2/2002 7:40:17 PM atabuy wrote;
[/blockquote]
Ok Bob,
Here's the deal; If you posted on the U board with the same crap, and they bought into it, they were fools.
We are not, I repeat, are not interested in saving your wage. We are interested in saving our company and your thinking will not do that.

If we can get the loan with the concessions and business plan we have, We will all be over on your board to see how you guys are doing without the loan.

Our interests and investment in our company go a lot deeper than a job. We bought into this company and own 55%. Why would we want to ruin it.

You go ahead and put $50,000 or more into AA and tell your co workers to send your company into bankruptcy. You would be squealing!

You truly have to be the village idiot to come here with your garbage.
Take it back to AA.

By the way Bob, many people live on a lot less than $50,000 a year. Not as good, but they survive. I worked on 1994 wages for a long time. It is all about financial planning which you must not have a clue about.

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

Well obviously the guys at USAIR did not buy it, they voted yes, and by the way the company laid off and came back for more like I said they would. So I guess that all the less senior guys who were convinced to vote yes in order to save their jobs are glad they did so.
Saving your company? It was never your company, you just work for them. Even with the ESOP you did not own the company, if you cant sell it you dont own it. Besides I thought State Street was selling all your shares?

Lets see you put $50,000 in and lost nearly all of it so I guess the most logical decision is to put in another $50,000. Teach me more of your financial planning tips.

I guess that UAL is more than a job to you, poor soul all you are to it is one of 100,000 employees, any one of which is completely disposable. Grow up, its a job, you do the best job you can and you get every penny out of them that you can, an equal exchange. Its not a cause, not a religion its a job.Bottom line is all that matters, you dont mean squat to it.

Sure a lot of people live on less than $50K. A lot of people earn a lot more also. I did not learn a skill to just survive. Why is it that people like you are willing to just survive in order to make a company thrive?I expect to make at least what an electrician, plumber or elevator mechanic makes. I feel those jobs skill level wise are comparable but they normally work normal hours. I dont think that its unreasonable for UALs mechanics to feel the same way.

You worked on 1994 wages a long time. Well your 1994 wages were really closer to 1990 wages and how did UAL do? Oh yea they thrived as you learned to economize. While you economized they got to spend like crazy. Well that guy is gone now and you have a new leader. The beatification process is in full swing. He is different! Yea the differnce is that he getting concessions without really giving you anything. Six years from now he will be gone and you will be looking for a new savior. His beatification will be reveresed and he will be the devil, it was all his fault, then a new different leader will come along and ask for a six year concessionary deal and you will once again say what a great guy he is and that you all should give him what he asks and trust him.What happened in 94? Didnt the proponents of ESOP have only good things to say about Goodwin or who ever was your CEO then? You know if you step in a trap once, no big deal, but if you keep stepping into the same trap something is wrong.
 
OP
A

atabuy

Senior
Oct 13, 2002
419
0
Bob,
I think I am starting to see your point. NOT!!
Listen, try your bs on someone else. You are really wasting your time here. Yes I like my job. I like what I do. Money is not everything Bob.

We are voting to keep our company strong. We know there are going to be layoffs. We are in terrible times right now. You know the drill. First in last out. It isn't great, but this is reality.

You take your own company down and then you will have a little credibility here. We will know that you were behind what you said, and you're dumber than we thought.
Instead of a little less for 5 1/2 years you can have no money for the rest of your life, unless you want to come here and start at b scale when we become healthy again.
Sorry Bob if I insulted you. But you have been insulting our intelligence for some time.
 

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/3/2002 1:39:43 AM atabuy wrote:

Bob,
I think I am starting to see your point. NOT!!
Listen, try your bs on someone else. You are really wasting your time here. Yes I like my job. I like what I do. Money is not everything Bob.

We are voting to keep our company strong. We know there are going to be layoffs. We are in terrible times right now. You know the drill. First in last out. It isn't great, but this is reality.

You take your own company down and then you will have a little credibility here. We will know that you were behind what you said, and you're dumber than we thought.
Instead of a little less for 5 1/2 years you can have no money for the rest of your life, unless you want to come here and start at b scale when we become healthy again.
Sorry Bob if I insulted you. But you have been insulting our intelligence for some time.


----------------
[/blockquote]
Great, you should like your job. That does not mean to love the company.You should be the most productive worker you can be and take pride in what you do. Then, with clear conscience you can demand a fair value for what you do. If however you are a lazy S.O.S and you hardly carry your weight then maybe you should agree to concessions because that concessionary wage would be a more accurate reflection of what you are really worth. Its not quite fair to all the good workers though, because they not only have to carry the chock but their value is reduced also because of him. Yes I know the drill, the lean times have always been a part of the cycle that this industry is very subject to. A relatively new phenominon is the way workers hit the panic button and agree to all sorts of cuts, for periods that are usually far longer than the economic cycle.

Your attempt to insult is the result of the fact that you do not have valid counterpoints. Your fustration and fear are evident, all this stuff about never working again and even fights and damage to peoples cars, dumb, very dumb. Sorry there is no nice way to put it but thats was just plain dumb, just like your position on agreeing to 6 years of concessions. Three years from now you (if you are a mechanic) will be sitting in the breakroom denying how you voted, thats why you hide behind an alias, so you can do that.

I can not insult what does not exist.

The statement about taking down your company is pure idiocy. I go to work and do the best job I can, that is how you save your company, not by treating as a charity. Like I said, if your an unproductive worker then you have good cause to give back. If you give the company your best effort and they still cant make it, well thats life, get your value someplace else. While there may be times where a little financial assistance is warranted due to the time invested at a particular employer the worker should not lose any value over time however if this happens the flexability must go both ways. Not, give me the concessions this year but next year when we are raking in the money you are still working under concessions such as back in the 90s. Profit sharing is a poor replacement of real increases. You get hit with a double whammmy because profit sharing does not compound like wages. Without the ability to restore wages along with the companys recovery in writing then you should never give back a dime.Uniteds mechanics just came off a six year concessionary deal, now you think they should accept another 6 years, thats a total of twelve years under concessions. Out of the past 6 years that have already gone by, how many years was the company losing money? Two? The last two? Yet you want to step right back into a six year concessionary agreement again. Back in 92, all the financial experts were repeating what they said in 82 and are saying again in 02, that the majors are in trouble. There was no hope in sight, but despite all their predictions most not only recovered but prospered as never before, in the meantime workers fell further and further behind.
Your fear of liquidation is not rational. While it could happen, its not likely. Back in 1984, 90% of the RPMs were provided by 15 carriers but by 1988 that had changed to 8 carriers. Since then consolidation has continued. Now there are three dominant carriers, American, Delta and United. The dissapearance of United would be fought by Consumer groups, politicians that represent where United has operations and provides service, and business that could be affected by the reduced competition, along with the 100,000 workers directly affected. We are not talking about a small employer here. We are talking about a company that moves hundreds of thousands of people every day along with tons of cargo and packages. The economic effect would be broad, and negative. It certainly would not be an economic boost. Being that our industry is so vital to the economy airline employees suffer from the imposition of severe restrictions in their ability to withhold their labor, other industries such as the railroads and some local mass transit industries also have similar restrictions, the difference is those other industries are heavily regulated and usually get some federal subsidies in order to operate. This is considered justified because the service that they provide is considered essential and the normal interuptions that would occur under free market, lassaiz faire practices is considered unacceptable. However it is only the airlines , that have now entered into economic distress, as they periodically always do, that is being held to provide stockholders with a 7% ROI. This is completely unreasonable and unprecidented for an essentail service. The intent of the President and the Federal Reserve Board is to lower your wages and increase investor returns. Read the act, its pretty evident.By having you voluntarily accept the long term cuts, you have lost any moral arguement two years from now when United is making record profits as to unfair treatment. Todays crisis will be history, just as in 82 and 92, but your concessions will still be in place long afterwards. Meanwhile mechanics will watch as the electricians, plumbers and elevator mechanics further distance themselves wagewise from Aircraft mechanics. They will see their standard of living slide back once again after a brief taste of what it should be. Its a bitter pill that gets more bitter with time.

Do you really feel that if UAL goes under that you will never work again? Boy you must really have a scam there.
 
OP
A

atabuy

Senior
Oct 13, 2002
419
0
Bob,
You are too good of a debater to continue. In fact you are the Grand master here. You found out I was just an unproductive slug who is willing to bring my pay down to my output. Ok I give.
I bow to the Grand Master Debater.
You are king. Hope you get well soon. I really can't spend this much time reading your posts. I have a life, a wife, and I am clipping coupons to offset some of my givebacks. Did you know Chicken breasts are $1.99 at the food store today.
 

767jetz

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
3,286
2,779
To all UAL MECHANICS, (not Bob)

Please keep in mind that Mr. Tilton has addressed some of your concerns since the first vote. (ie: quality of work life, and clarification of the vacation changes) Please keep in mind that although it is not a great deal, it is still better than CH11, and it is the last deal before we run out of time and options. For those who think UAL might file or CH11 anyway, keep in mind that if there wasn't a strong possibility of ATSB approval and staying out of CH11, Tilon would have pulled the trigger on December 2nd.

Don't let an AMERICAN AIRLINES employee sway your opinion. I certainly hope you vote yes. But in the end, just vote what's in your heart and in the best interest of your families. Maybe when we get through this, we can finally start to stick it to American, Continental, NWA and all the people lobying so hard for our collective failure. Our best revenge to them and the former management who put us where we are is our success.
 

ualdriver

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
509
0
Just remember that as you read Bob Owens diatribes, he stands to both directly and indirectly benefit from a faltering or failure of United Airlines.
 

wts54

Senior
Sep 16, 2002
374
0
www.usaviation.com
http://www.msnbc.com/news/842888.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1


IF UAL Corp.’s United is forced into bankruptcy-court protection later this month, no group has more to lose than the 8,600 pilots who fly its blue-and-gray jets. Simply put, they can’t get similar work at similar pay elsewhere.

BEGIN AT THE BOTTOM
Most other airlines are laying off workers. Tuesday, United said it would have to cut 352 pilots in January and February to adjust for its previously announced plan to reduce its 2003 flight schedule. Those layoffs will come on top of 844 pilots already furloughed since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Even if a United pilot did land a job at another carrier, he or she would have to start at the bottom of the seniority list, which would necessitate starting wages, poor hours, bad trips, being on call and having little control over vacation time.
“I make $210,000 a year as a captain,â€￾ says Michael Baiada, a United pilot for 23 years. “If United folds, I’m sunk. I don’t have a lateral path.â€￾ He says he doesn’t see himself, for far less money, “being a co-pilot to some 30-year-old kid. I’m not going to pull up the gear on a Beech King Air.â€￾ Capt. Baiada says he definitely would leave the industry altogether, and expects “the best I’d earn is $50,000 to $60,000â€￾ in another field.
Given that attitude, which is widespread, the pilots have little choice but to stay put, make financial concessions and try to keep the airline afloat. Indeed, the Air Line Pilots Association was the first big union at United to agree to cost savings — $2.2 billion over 5-1/2 years. For pilots, that means an immediate 18% pay cut, although wages would be restored to current levels by 2008.


Making the stakes even higher, the pilots own 25% of UAL’s shares, which they acquired through six years of wage and retirement cuts in the 1990s. That exercise, in which a majority of the workers bought a majority of the company, was supposed to usher in a marked improvement in management-labor relations. But most workers think it was a flop. And in a bankruptcy, those stock holdings — once-sizable nest eggs that since have lost most of their value — likely would be wiped out.

PILOT’S BOARD SEAT
Furthermore, it isn’t certain that United’s other creditors — or a potential investor group that might want to acquire a stake of the airline in Chapter 11 — would want to honor the pilots’ UAL board seat. (The 37,000 employees in the International Association of Machinists union have a 20.4% stake in UAL and a board seat. Salaried workers own a 9.6% stake and also have a board seat.)
Meanwhile, a senior Bush administration official said Tuesday night that the Air Transportation Stabilization Board is preparing to meet as early as Wednesday to vote on the carrier’s request for a $1.8 billion federal loan guarantee. Administration insiders say they believe the board, which has three voting members, will reject the application or set conditions so onerous that UAL will reject them.

The company has a labor-savings target of $5.2 billion, a figure it has pledged it will achieve as part of an overall business plan now under scrutiny by a federal panel weighing United’s request for a loan guarantee. If the panel doesn’t extend the aid soon so UAL can line up a $2 billion loan package and ease its liquidity crisis, the carrier expects to file for protection from its creditors in the coming days or weeks.
In a rare display of labor solidarity, all the employees have agreed to sacrifices, including the company’s 36 top executives who Tuesday agreed to nearly $60 million in cuts. The airline’s 13,300 mechanics and aircraft cleaners last week rejected their $700 million portion of the cost savings. But the group is scheduled to vote on a slightly revised package Thursday. If the Machinists-represented mechanics turn it down, their rejection could sink the entire labor-savings initiative because all givebacks are contingent on universal participation by United’s 80,000 employees.



The pilots’ union declined to comment on the mechanics situation or on United’s chances for receiving the federal bailout. But some pilots weren’t surprised that 57% of the mechanics rejected givebacks.
“It was an emotional vote for them,â€￾ says Eric Brown, a 14-year United pilot. “They haven’t been valued by past management or respected the way they feel they should be respected.â€￾ But Capt. Brown says he would be “very concernedâ€￾ if the mechanics didn’t ratify their agreement Thursday.
In the event of a bankruptcy, United could push for bigger pay and benefit cuts in court, or it could ask the bankruptcy judge to abrogate labor contracts so the carrier could impose terms on workers. And the airline could shrink further, leading to additional furloughs.
While those aren’t happy prospects, a senior United captain said it isn’t unreasonable to expect the company to “cram downâ€￾ more concessions on labor if it needs to.
“We need to survive,â€￾ he said. “With no enterprise, there are no benefits to employees