Questions for any IAM-M member

C

chipmunn

Guest
Dear IAM-M Member:
The TPG MOU and CSFB & BOA DIP financing agreements require target concessions to get the $500 million DIP funding. The same thing holds true for the $1.2 billion ATSB federal loan guarantee and TPG emergence financing.
Without the IAM-M target numbers to meet the contractual requirements above, which require a $154 million annual IAM-M cost reduction, how can the company gain access to these funds to continue to operate and reorganize?
The bankruptcy courts primary responsibility is to the creditors, both secured and unsecured. Without the business plan cost savings identified in the DIP financing plan and the ATSB loan guarantee applications, how can the airline continue to operate without these financial resources?
If you were going to prepare written and oral arguments against your September 10 S.1113 hearing, where the company is seeking relief from your CBA, how would you prepare your defense for a company in default?
By voting no and understanding you will be summoned to appear against this motion, what is your motivation? For one to vote no, I believe the voter must believe they can get a better deal. Would you explain how this would now occur?
What would you do to convince Judge Mitchell you deserve more than the company's final proposal instead of the bankruptcy court imposing deeper cuts, per the company's request?

I ask these questions and seek a mature discussion to understand your thought process and motivation.
Thanks.
Chip
 
OP
C

chipmunn

Guest
Repeet:

Thanks for the non-emotional and well thought out post. If this battle is about representation, disgust with the IAM leadership, or the IAM/AMFA dispute, this was the wrong way or arena to voice displeasure.

I believe its reasonable for the court to offer a settlement to this dispute that the parties can agree on. In any litigation the court does not like to impose an order and in most disputes, the judge looks for settlement.

There is still a limited amount of time for a voluntary resolution on September 10 or for the parties to agree to a Section 1113 settlement during the September 10 court appearance.

Let's hope reasonable man and women can reach a reasonable accord.

Chip
 
Chip

Thank you for this forum.

I voted for the company's proposal. I did so because I believed it was the best deal financially I was going to get.

But, my fellow mechanics and I believe that the IAM feathered their nest at our financial expense. We also believe that they doggedly held on to antiquated work rules to please a small minority at the expense of the majority, and incurred added expense to us while doing it.

Then, they agreed to be reimbursed for all of their expenses, so that there would be zero impact on their budget. (It's not like we pay for them to do this type of thing). Of course our budgets can be twisted and mangled to accomodate their idea of unionism.

The membership, already feeling ignored and even ridiculed by their own union leadership, threw a temper tantrum.

Those I talk to don't want a negotiated settlement. They want the judge, as a government employee, to review our contract, cover to cover, and make any changes he feels are required as a reasonable man. The fact that there is no time for this task doesn't make any difference to them.

It is horrifying to me, as I'm sure it is to the thirty two thousand fellow employees, that the stress of years of company harassment, union arrogance, and economic pressure has caused such an illogical and unreasoned response.

Still I agree and identify with all of the mechanics grievances. On an emotional level I cheer them on. On a practical level, I hope the judge drops the gavel quickly and the proceedings continue on un-delayed.

I certainly urge my fellow machinists to make their case here also. This is simply the way it appears to me.
 

usjacket

Senior
Aug 30, 2002
310
52
Chip,I have worked for this company for 14 years so yes I do want to see USAirways survive.Let me say also I am not a full pay till the last dayer! The vast majority of AMTs are willing to do our fair share to help the company out.The no vote was bound to happen after the IAM loaded down the offer with pork that in most mechanics view only benefit the IAM and not the employee.Guaranteed IAM representation at the new RJ airline,$1,000,000+ payment to the IAM, guaranteed seat on the board for the IAM.Personally I could care less if the IAM represents employees at the new airline and gets a seat on the USAirways board.I think those employees should have their own choice who represents them. Pilots took pay cut to Fall of 99 and recieve 19.33% of new company stock, mechanics take pay cut to rates of pay below what was in effect in Fall of 99 with 0 stock!Vacation cut a full week,Sick days cut 2 days, loss of 2 holidays,loss of paid lunch,loss of bumping rule,loss of ot bypass,vacation scheduling ratio changed to companys favor,vacation usage changed in companys favor.All of our work rule changes are permanent, not just for 1 year like pilots scheduling change.I dont begrudge pilots anything, you get what you negotiate!Unfortunately for us we have the IAM negotiating for themselves,and yes hopefully we will change who represent us soon! This is why I voted NO!If Dave offers an offer that will more benefit the employee,and not the IAM I will vote yes!
 

cavalier

Veteran
Aug 28, 2002
2,409
1
www.usaviation.com
Chip

usjacket has put into words very well why many voted no. I VERY reluctantly voted yes, and to be honest I felt by doing so would give me a shot at severance being I have even less time than usjacket. Everything usjacket mentioned is correct which is bad enough, then you have mechanics looking at bonuses for the very people who make our life miserable, how’s that you may ask: Sick time, don’t take it least you get an occurrence, vacation, sorry can’t have it due to needs of the company, simple mistake equals a written PE1 disciplinary report, late for work one second, that is another PE1, better watch it mister, any more and out the door! I could go on and on, but bonuses to these people while we are expected to take retro pay cuts, vacation ratio which will make taking vacation, “vacation time which will be less of course with a yes vote” nearly impossible unless one has 30 years seniority. AND to top it off, we must to vote yes on this without so much as a clue or promise from the company, other than 245 mainline, which means nothing as too how many will even have a job. ALL THE WAY TILL 2008 at that. People felt trapped, overwhelmed, confused, scared, uncertain, hence the no vote. You asked the reason for the no vote, what more reason do you need? But we might go out of business you say, believe me Chip, it doesn’t matter when one is fed up with it all, like too many already are. I do hope this can be turned around, if some sanity comes into the picture it may happen, if not, I am prepared to move on and will live without regret.

Cav
 
OP
C

chipmunn

Guest
USjacket, the problem I see is that this is not the arena to fight your AMT IAM/AMFA battle.

There is very little time to get something done and Argento's comments about Delta and American having US Airways in its "cross hairs" is valid.

There has not been one IAM-M member answer any of my questions to start this thread. Why is that? My questions are reality and are non-emotional. The underlying theme of my questions is how is any IAM-M member going to be better off by voting this deal done? Moreover, what's the overriding benefit while dramatically increasing the opportunity for liquidation and unemployment starring 36,000 employees in the face?

Chip
 

N628AU

Veteran
Aug 22, 2002
909
106
www.usaviation.com
Chip, I can only you answer your question related to getting a better deal from the judge. I voted yes, but I think the majority felt the judge will not make us a better deal, but the IAM will not see the benefits they got in the proposal for them. I agree this was the wrong arena for this, but that is my best look at it.
 

MarkMyWords

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,900
1
I have a follow up question for those that said they voted no because of all the "pork" that the IAM packed into the contract. In the bankruptcy hearings, the IAM and their lawyers will be the ones that will represent you to the judge. Do you think that those items will be taken out by the judge? Remember, the IAM and their lawyers will be representing your interests in the bankruptcy court hearings.
 

Dark Wrench

Member
Aug 30, 2002
44
0
www.usaviation.com
If they try to include the "pork" they might find themselves spending most of their time in court.

Who knows, the membership might really get pissed and make matters worse for them.
 
OP
C

chipmunn

Guest
Here's the problem:

I believe both the IAM-M and the CWA will reach accords before September 10. There is to much at risk for the employees and the company.

On August 30 the Charlotte Observer said, "Getting labor concessions is crucial to US Airways because they trigger access to $425 million in cash (DIP financing). When US Airways filed for bankruptcy protection, several lenders, including Charlotte's Bank of America, agreed to lend the airline $500 million in four installments to help it operate. The lenders set milestones to trigger each installment. The airline received the first installment of $75 million on its first day of court. The second, $175 million, comes with IAM concessions. The third and fourth come after agreements with the CWA and other unions."

Without the IAM-M reaching a $154 million and CWA a $70 million giveback, the company will not have access to the DIP financing listed above and would likely be forced to liquidate as early as September 26.

Again, the hammer is not Dave Siegel, it's TPG, CSFB, BOA, & the ATSB. However, the judge will see the DIP agreement employee concession requirements and will make a choice: Either force the unions to accept contract changes or authorize the sale of US Airways' assets and the fragmentation/liquidation of the company.

Chip
 

cavalier

Veteran
Aug 28, 2002
2,409
1
www.usaviation.com
Chip

I wanted you to email me to see if you knew Mr. Siegel's email address, but you never replied, so I will ask you here then. What is his email address? I would think you know it.

Cav
 

MarkMyWords

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,900
1
I have a question.....

Does the IAM and CWA MEC and Negotiating committee have the right to sign contracts for the rank and file without a vote?

For example, say in the 11th hour the company comes to both unions with an offer that meets the target numbers and is favorable to the members, could they ratify the contract without the union members getting a chance to vote on it?

I realize that this would pretty much seal the fate of the IAM ever represnting the Mechanics again (I could already see the AMFA cards being sent in by the case), but is it a possible?
 

AAmech

Veteran
Aug 22, 2002
766
1
----------------
On 9/1/2002 2:16:17 AM

I have a question.....

Does the IAM and CWA MEC and Negotiating committee have the right to sign contracts for the rank and file without a vote?

For example, say in the 11th hour the company comes to both unions with an offer that meets the target numbers and is favorable to the members, could they ratify the contract without the union members getting a chance to vote on it?

I realize that this would pretty much seal the fate of the IAM ever represnting the Mechanics again (I could already see the AMFA cards being sent in by the case), but is it a possible?


----------------

The answer is YES! And it has happened before and it was with the IAM. When Braniff International was trying to get itself back into the air after its BK and grounding the IAM rep went and signed a complete "Contract" with managment instead of a "Back-to-Work" agreement. They later went to court to have it thrown out but the judge ruled it was a legal. The IAM violated its own by-laws but not US law. This resulted in their being voted out the and Teamsters in.
 

AOG-N-IT

Veteran
Aug 19, 2002
1,132
1
www.usaviation.com
N513AU, I completely agree!!!. We are obviously in the same boat. I was acreeded into the IAM recently. (Against my will , I might add) From the time of the IAM being allowed to takeover my work group , things have only gone south rapidly. My so-called negotiated contract , nailed me to the wall. I negotiated a better salary from off the street..than what the IAM sold us out for. Now my 4 on 3 off , 3 on 4 off life is ruined. I lost out on 3 raises and a promotion during the "Negotiation" process...only to end up with less than what I had to begin with. Then you add in the loss of Union dues on top of that. I will also have poor days off like you. Now I will be working an additional 51 days a year by schedule...and only having 1 week of vacation for the next 2 years. This is a lose/lose scenario for a bunch of us. The lack of time off is bad...but at reduced rates , coupled to additional mileage being racked up to get to work 5 days a week...You see how this situation bids poorly for a lot of us. Labor and negotiations..."What a Joke". This is like allowing Hitler to be a spokesman for human rights issues. I hope the IAM is destroyed in place!!. I was better off representing myself. My abilities and work ethic , do not require Union Representation to maintain a job....and that aspect is trickling away for thousands!!. I hope the IAM burns in hell!!!.......AOG-N-IT [:(] [:devil:]
 

Latest posts