In practice they dont have more protection, in fact they have less because the court seems to think that they have the right to conficate proprty into the future and not just write off at risk credit.
But the law is supposed to be. If not then people are morally right to disobey it.
Arent the unions on the USC?
Both. It depends on what the terms of payment are. If the payments are up to date but there is still a balance then they may have money owed to them but still have not lost anything.
No, thats not what I said. I said who has been stiffed in this case at NWA? Who has been told, other than workers, that they must continue to provide their product at terms that they did not agree to?
Labor is a creditor.Thats why they are part of the USC.
OK but lets go back to why 1113 was put in place. When Continental used BK to throw out the contracts Labor balked at it and the government responded with 1113. The intent, the selling point, was that it would give labor contracts more protection and prevent companies from using BK as a maens to bust labor contracts, obviosly the courts no longer look at it that way.
OK so sect 1113 did not live up to its promise, but that still doesnt change anything as far as the right to strike which is not covered under the BK code because its covered under the RLA. On the issue of strikes and labors reaction to an abrogated contract, the sect 1113 is silent, just as its silent as to how other creditors can react to an abrogated agreement because the established fact is that if there is no consentual agreement both parties have the right to withdraw.
