Outsourcing Commences

[700UW]

Funny, the union never shuts down a business, management does.

And the IAM was never at Pan Am, the IAM kept TWA in business for years beyond they should have.

The IAM never represented mechanics at SWA, they represent reservations and ticketing.

And eventhough the IAM does not represent mechanics at UAL, NWA or Alaska, they still represent ramp and ticketing.

And if you knew anything about airline history you would know Lorenzo took down Eastern and CAL, Braniff went out of business as AA hoarded all their tickets and called them in at once.

Don't let factual information get in the of your postings. And it does not look like AMFA is doing well, lets see Alaska shut down their heavy mtc in Oakland and laid-off all the mechanics, what did AMFA do about that?
Northwest has 50% less mechanics since before AMFA took over, UAL mechanics are in the same process of concessions, AMFA cant get a contract at ATA for several years and have done nothing at Horizon either.

 

[700UW]

Michael you could not be more far off base if you tried.

Apparently you have not been involved in concessionary bargaining.

The IAM presented their case in court just like everyother union did, were you there? Nope.

The court and legal system favors the company.
The union cannot file a claim in court against good faith bargaining, the IAM in the 1113 hearings presented to the court everytime a piece of data was requested and when the company gave it to the union.

The judge has favored the company in 99% of the 1st bankrutpcy and the 2nd, and you are playing arm chair QB on things you have no idea about.

And the proposal given to the Company on 1/5/05 was not the first proposal, the company upon advice of their attornies would not counter in writing to anything the IAM presented to them over the whole time frame of the process.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

[post="246294"][/post]​

So let me get this right AMFA is losing everything because they are inept and IAM is losing everything because they have no membership support?

Ok I understand now.

 

[mweiss]

The IAM presented their case in court just like everyother union did

Where was the claim against good-faith bargaining?

were you there? Nope.

Apparently you were, so I'm talking to you about it. You can belittle me for questioning you, or you can answer the questions that I ask, because from what I can tell I'm far from the only person to have these questions.

The union cannot file a claim in court against good faith bargaining

Why not? If it is a requirement of 1113, how else is the judge going to know whether the condition has been met?

the company upon advice of their attornies would not counter in writing to anything the IAM presented to them over the whole time frame of the process.

[post="246295"][/post]​

More evidence against good-faith bargaining. When was this presented to the judge?

 

[700UW]

The IAM presented all relevant facts to the judge in the hearings, his only responsibility is to the creditors, he even made the statement upon his ruling "half the mechanic jobs are better then no mechanic jobs".

And I have explained over and over what 1113 means, like I have said the judge does not get involved in negotiations, he only rules on the motions put forth to him under the code.

 

[mweiss]

The IAM presented all relevant facts to the judge in the hearings

Violating one of the key terms of 1113c (i.e., good-faith bargaing) isn't relevant?

his only responsibility is to the creditors

According to your claim, the IAM's proposal did at least as much for the creditors as the company's proposal. Is that not true?

he even made the statement upon his ruling "half the mechanic jobs are better then no mechanic jobs".

And, yet, you claim that the IAM had an offer that offered the choice of "more than half the mechanic jobs." You claim that the company, through lack of good faith, did not consider the offer. Please correct me if this is not true.

And I have explained over and over what 1113 means

Yes you have. How else would I know about the good-faith clause? Well, OK, one of the other half-dozen people who quoted it ad nauseum might have also clued me in.

like I have said the judge does not get involved in negotiations, he only rules on the motions put forth to him under the code.

[post="246329"][/post]​

But that's exactly my point! You claim that the motion put forth by the company was not put forth to him under the code, because the company's actions exhibited a lack of good-faith negotiation.

Someone didn't do their job. Who was it?

 

[700UW]

What are you talking about?

The company's motion was filed under section 1113 C of the bankruptcy code, never did I say any differant.

In the judge's eyes the company did not violate good faith bargaining, how many times does that have to be repeated to you?

The offer was worth $282,000,000, but since it was not agreed to by the company it is not relevant in court as the hearings were concluded before the offer was given and the judge abrogated on 1/6/05, like I said it the creditors and the judge only get to view it if both parties agree to it and it is put forward for creditor and court approval.

I have never said anywhere the IAM put an offer forward that cut or saved half the jobs, don't put words into my posts.

You need to take a bit more time and read and comprehend what I post, you are putting words into my posts and then not understanding what I am posting to begin with.

 

[mweiss]

In the judge's eyes the company did not violate good faith bargaining, how many times does that have to be repeated to you?

Because the IAM gave him no reason to believe otherwise, how many times does that have to be repeated to you?

The offer was worth $282,000,000, but since it was not agreed to by the company it is not relevant in court as the hearings were concluded before the offer was given

And therein lies the key problem. Where was the offer before the hearings? Oh, that's right, the company wouldn't look at them. Where in the hearings was the claim that the company wasn't negotiating in good faith, because they wouldn't look at the IAM's offers?

like I said it the creditors and the judge only get to view it if both parties agree to it and it is put forward for creditor and court approval.

Apparently you also have trouble with comprehension. I didn't say that the proposal was to be submitted to the judge as a proposal. I said that it was to be submitted to the judge as proof that the company wasn't negotiating in good faith. Of course, I said that before you showed how the company outmaneuvered you during the negotiations.

I have never said anywhere the IAM put an offer forward that cut or saved half the jobs, don't put words into my posts.

This is why I asked for your clarification. Here's your chance...how many more jobs would have been saved by this proposal, compared to the company's final offer?

You need to take a bit more time and read and comprehend what I post, you are putting words into my posts and then not understanding what I am posting to begin with.

[post="246338"][/post]​

Pot? Kettle here. You're black, too.

 

[700UW]

Ah once again you keep posting things you have no idea about.

The IAM in court provided the judge with the examples of the company's bad faith bargaining, but since you were not there nor not involved in the case you would have no idea about that, but yet you keep speculating on it.

There were other offers presented to the company, since you are not involved in concessionary bargaining you don't know it takes time to reach an agreement and it is back and forth and the company was very slow on getting relevant data back to the IAM, you just dont reach an agreement overnight, it took the various groups six months to reach an agreement and with the airbus fiasco, the IAM did not trust the company and was waiting for the arbiter's decision before talking with the company.

Once again the proposal was given to the company after the 1113 hearings were concluded, the Negotiating Committee continued to talk with the company during the process.

It probably would have saved more then 2/3s of the jobs.

Nope all white here, I take the time to read your posts and reply to them with factual information as best as possible with what I know.

 

[mweiss]

Ah once again you keep posting things you have no idea about.

I'm asking questions. Congratulations for recognizing that one asks questions when they don't know the answers.

...yet you keep speculating on it.

Hard to do otherwise when you keep all of your cards so close to your vest. It took you four hours to finally post that the IAM charged the company with bad faith, and it's not like you weren't answering plenty of posts in the meantime.

Don't want people speculating on your motives? Stop hiding the facts.

There were other offers presented to the company

If the company didn't receive them (for whatever reason), it doesn't matter that they were offered.

since you are not involved in concessionary bargaining you don't know it takes time to reach an agreement

At least as far as you know...

with the airbus fiasco, the IAM did not trust the company and was waiting for the arbiter's decision before talking with the company.

Seems like a really smart decision in retrospect, doesn't it? Again, I'm not trying to Monday morning quarterback. My point all along is that there appears to be a disconnect betweeen the information you're providing on this board and the evidence coming from other sources. Perhaps its inadvertent.

Once again the proposal was given to the company after the 1113  hearings were concluded

Or, more precisely, the company officially received the proposal after the hearings were concluded. How did this happen without being ruled as bad faith?

It probably would have saved more then 2/3s of the jobs.

OK. No words being put in your mouth now. That's significantly more than half.

 

[700UW]

The company recieved the offers it was handed across the table to them or given verbally.

In retrospect it was not a good decision.

Just because the hearings were concluded does not mean the parties should stop bargaining, substantial gains were included in the offer because of continued talks then the offer the company made to the union back in October. It happened because the court case and negotiations are two seperate events happening at the same time.

 

[mweiss]

The company recieved the offers it was handed across the table to them or given verbally.

OK, so they took them and tossed them into the shredder. They never countered them, instead sticking with (pretty much) the proposal that ended up going before the membership.

What exactly (conceptually; I'm not looking for verbatim unless you can post a link to a transcript) was presented to the judge in support of the charge of bad faith?

This, to me, is the sticking point. You've mentioned this proposal several times, and it seems pretty much unfathomable that it would be rejected if it truly were better than the one that ended up going to the membership. The judge's job is not to rule in favor of Bruce; his job is to rule in favor of the creditors.

Just because the hearings were concluded does not mean the parties should stop bargaining

Of course. That's not the point.

 

[700UW]

No the company never countered officially and after the judge ruled they threw the final offer and then it was discussed.

You would need to seek the court transcript to know exactly what the union presented as in bad faith. The majority of it was the lack of getting information back to the IAM in a timely manner. The initial request was made to the company on 10/22/04 and was not recieved by the first meeting with the IAM on 11/2/04.

The company knew the judge would rule in their favor, so they had no incentive to deal with the IAM in a fair manner.

Remember this is the same management who for the past several years that has done nothing but attack labor instead of the competition, does the airbus arbitration mean anything to you?

 

[SpinDoc]

700:

If you don't want to share the specifics of
the proposal, at least tell everyone on this
forum why, and make a legitimate case
for it rather than turning it around on the
person who is inquiring about it.

The time for that particular proposal has
long come and gone and I would be hard
pressed to believe it is such a secret that
the details can't be released.

If the IAM proposal REALLY was too good
for the company to pass up, then it is in
the best interest of the IAM to release the
details. This would at least show that the
company made an error by not even
reviewing the proposal.

You're making your entire union look
bad by having the appearance of
covering up something that should be
made public.

 

[700UW]

It was made public to ANY IAM Mechanic and Related employee who wanted to see it, it was at EVERY SINGLE ratification vote.