usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,882
- Reaction score
- 57
700UW said:
Why must you put down everyone? call names?
I would finally understand what? Why , if it even exists, that it isn't fit for public view?
Outsourcing Commences
- Thread starter diogenes
- Start date
Why must you put down everyone? call names?
I would finally understand what? Why , if it even exists, that it isn't fit for public view?
Just following your tactics, you have been told at least ten times how to get your eyes on it, if you are actually a US M&R Employee.
And it is for the membership only, not my decision, if you want to view it, go back and read one on the numerous posts where I instructed anyone on how to read it.
I am done explaining it to you, how many times do I have to tell you the samething over and over and over for it to sink in?
And it is for the membership only, not my decision, if you want to view it, go back and read one on the numerous posts where I instructed anyone on how to read it.
I am done explaining it to you, how many times do I have to tell you the samething over and over and over for it to sink in?
RedOne
Senior
700, I would like to give you some free advise. CHILL. Go for a few days in the cornfield and don't come to this site. You need a break. Calm down. Your attitude, responses, calling people ignorant, and saying over and over "you were not there" is not imporviing your image nor helping the situation any. You are not helpiing your union or yourself by most of your replies. This ofcourse, is my opinion.
Not in bankruptcy they can't. The judge can do whatever he wants (within the confines of the law). Was the IAM proposal submitted to the judge? Wouldn't submitting it to the judge make it public record? Even if there were a business case for keeping it sealed (and I could imagine that there would be), it would most certainly have to be made available to the creditors. If it were made available to the creditors, they'd have plenty of reason to insist on its acceptance if it were a better solution than the company's offer.700UW said:
Something doesn't add up. 😛h34r:
Fine. In case you haven't been paying attention lately, negiotiation is over for the next several years.
The hearings over the section 1113 c were concluded in late November or early December, the judge can only rule on the company's motion.
The creditors with motions filed with the court were ALL in support of abrogation of the CBAs. So an offer given to the company on 1/5/05 had nothing to do with the judge or the creditors.
The company and the union had up until the judge ruled to reach an agreement.
Who said anything about future negotiations? And there are talks going on now to clarify the final offer that was ratified and try to improve several items it containd.
The creditors with motions filed with the court were ALL in support of abrogation of the CBAs. So an offer given to the company on 1/5/05 had nothing to do with the judge or the creditors.
The company and the union had up until the judge ruled to reach an agreement.
Who said anything about future negotiations? And there are talks going on now to clarify the final offer that was ratified and try to improve several items it containd.
So, if I understand you correctly this is what happened:
The hearings were held in November/December on the company's motion. The creditors saw the company's motion, without any offered alternatives. Given that, they supported the company's motion (what other option would they have, other than to produce their own?).
Then, way late in the game, IAM makes an offer to the company. The company had the option to accept the offer, but doing so without the support of the judge and creditors could put those relationships in jeopardy.
Furthermore, the judge could also insist upon taking the time to review the new agreement. If so, there's still a chance that the judge would abrogate the new agreement. In the meantime, the pall of uncertainty would hang over the company, which would interfere with the company's ability to negotiate with the creditors (GECAS comes to mind).
Doesn't sound to me like the best of planning on the part of the IAM. Where were they six weeks prior?
The hearings were held in November/December on the company's motion. The creditors saw the company's motion, without any offered alternatives. Given that, they supported the company's motion (what other option would they have, other than to produce their own?).
Then, way late in the game, IAM makes an offer to the company. The company had the option to accept the offer, but doing so without the support of the judge and creditors could put those relationships in jeopardy.
Furthermore, the judge could also insist upon taking the time to review the new agreement. If so, there's still a chance that the judge would abrogate the new agreement. In the meantime, the pall of uncertainty would hang over the company, which would interfere with the company's ability to negotiate with the creditors (GECAS comes to mind).
Doesn't sound to me like the best of planning on the part of the IAM. Where were they six weeks prior?
The company and the union were meeting since 11/2/04, the talks were going very slow as the company did not provide information to the economist in a timely manner due to US being short staffed.
And negoitiations is a very time consuming function, the IAM and the company met four days a week for the most part from November till January. The company never seemed serious in reaching a T/A. Since you were not involved I would not expect you to understand what transpired. The company was in the driver's seat, not the union, the company had all the leverage in the concessionary bargaining, not the union. I firmly believe the company wanted what they wanted and how they wanted it and whatever the union offered would not have been good enough.
The judge nor the creditors get involved with negotiations until an offer is presented to the court and the creditors committee for approval.
Then you had the deadlines from GECAS and the ATSB to have agreements in place or the money goes away.
And negoitiations is a very time consuming function, the IAM and the company met four days a week for the most part from November till January. The company never seemed serious in reaching a T/A. Since you were not involved I would not expect you to understand what transpired. The company was in the driver's seat, not the union, the company had all the leverage in the concessionary bargaining, not the union. I firmly believe the company wanted what they wanted and how they wanted it and whatever the union offered would not have been good enough.
The judge nor the creditors get involved with negotiations until an offer is presented to the court and the creditors committee for approval.
Then you had the deadlines from GECAS and the ATSB to have agreements in place or the money goes away.
That is the how the process works, the only time a contract is submitted to the court is for approval. The court has nothing else to do with the negotiation process other then the Section 1113 c hearings to terminate an exsisting collective bargaining agreement.
The court can only rule on the motion put before it and the union cannot file a motion to make the company accept a contract offer. And the company filed the 1113 c, hearings were held and concluded before the negotiation process finished.
The court can only rule on the motion put before it and the union cannot file a motion to make the company accept a contract offer. And the company filed the 1113 c, hearings were held and concluded before the negotiation process finished.
Yes, the company filed the 1113c motion. However, one of the requirements of abrogation is that the two parties confer in "good faith." Assuming that things happen as you say they did, the counteroffer should have been submitted as evidence of the company's lack of good faith in negotiation. This would have gotten the offer in front of the judge (and creditors!) through the back door, and put the company in a defensive position.
I'm not trying to Monday-morning quarterback. I'm trying to understand how the IAM got so badly whipped in this.
I'm not trying to Monday-morning quarterback. I'm trying to understand how the IAM got so badly whipped in this.
The hearings were over and the judge said he will rule on January 6, 2005, the company proved that they bargained in good faith to the judge.
The judge stated he will rule on this date and that was it, the company can bargain in good faith and still reject an offer made to it.
That is the process that is how it works, it favors the company and not the union and its members.
And there was no way the IAM was going to reach a deal that called for layoff of 50% of the workers, it was an impossible task.
And things did happen as I say, I was there. And backdooring is exparte communications and that is not allowed.
The judge stated he will rule on this date and that was it, the company can bargain in good faith and still reject an offer made to it.
That is the process that is how it works, it favors the company and not the union and its members.
And there was no way the IAM was going to reach a deal that called for layoff of 50% of the workers, it was an impossible task.
And things did happen as I say, I was there. And backdooring is exparte communications and that is not allowed.
So, in other words, you didn't have the counterproposal until the day before the judge's ruling? :huh: I have to say that an 11th-hour proposal that is radically different from the company's would certainly give me pause as well. Basically, the tacit statement is one of intentionally trying to pull a fast one over on the company. Whether or not it's true, that's sure how I'd see it if I were on the other side of the table. One needs time to be able to digest the details of a large contract.700UW said:
Easy to do if nobody rebuts.
Of course they can. But part of "good faith" includes not rejecting an offer that covers all explicit demands. You claim that they didn't do this.
Except where it is. If the union files a claim stating that the company did not, in fact, bargain in good faith, you will be expected to provide evidence. The proposal would be the evidence.
