North by Northwest said:
United had better think loooong and haaaard before they go canx them there union contracts. If they do....it will most certainly be the last time they ask the employees for concessions, cause that will be the end of ual. Today's actions by the PG assoc. was a clever move, they hardly think ual will risk alienating the entire work force by canx their pensions and contracts. They are aware that the Ual Pilot agreement is good only if all other pensions are canx. Ain't gonna happen. If it does...they have saved themselves $140 million dollars by acting today instead of 05. Tradgically, this has turned into a quagmire. I would not want to be in Mr. Glen Tilton's shoes for a Zillion dollars.
[post="234019"][/post]
agreed, this is starting to read more and more like lord of the flies
With a special MEC Update for Thursday, December 30, 2004, this is MEC Communications Chairman Steve Derebey.
This morning in major newspapers across the country, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) placed advertisements directed toward "All Participants, Retirees and Beneficiaries of the United Airlines Pilot Defined Benefit Pension Plan."
The ad stated the following: "The PBGC, a United States government agency, has determined under provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) that the above pension plan must terminate and that the PBGC should become statutory trustee of the pension plan. PBGC has determined that the company's sponsorship of the pension plan will end on December 30, 2004. As of that date, participants cannot earn additional benefits under the plan. PBGC will seek to take over the plan's assets and assume responsibility for paying benefits. In the interim, UAL Corp. remains responsible for payment of plan benefits."
In reaction to today's announcement by the PBGC, the United MEC released the following statement:
“We deplore the PBGC's ill-timed attempt to retaliate against the United pilot group in the United bankruptcy proceeding.
“ALPA's tentative agreement with United does not permit the termination of the pilot pension plan without a final judicial determination that pension termination is necessary for the Company to emerge from bankruptcy or at any point prior to May 1, 2005. As the PBGC is well aware, there are no grounds for the termination of the pilot pension plan.
“ALPA will vigorously oppose any effort by the PBGC to take over the plan before May 1, 2005 or to single out the pilot group for punitive and vindictive treatment in the United bankruptcy. Under the terms of the tentative pilot agreement, the Company has also agreed to oppose any attempt to terminate the pilot pension plan prior to May 1, 2005.
“In addition, the tentative pilot agreement requires United to continue the pilot pension plan if any other United employee group maintains a defined benefit pension program following the bankruptcy. We will vigorously enforce that right against the PBGC or any other party that seeks to single out the pilot group for unfair treatment in the
bankruptcy proceeding.
“We are equally concerned about the timing of the PBGC action in the midst of a pilot membership vote over the tentative pilot agreement. We question whether the PBGC's action may be designed to confuse the pilot group, undermine the membership ratification process and deprive the pilots of the benefits and protections of the tentative agreement. If so, today's action is an outrageous ploy by the PBGC to harm the very employee interests that the agency is sworn to protect.
“The pilots of United Airlines are critical to the reorganization of this Company and, by far have sacrificed the most to save the airline. We demand to be recognized and compensated for our unique contributions, and we will take every lawful action necessary to protect the interests of the United pilots against the PBGC or any other party in this proceeding.â€
Be advised that the PBGC cannot terminate a qualified plan simply by taking out a few newspaper advertisements. In fact, there is a specific legal process which must be followed, which requires them to persuade a US District Court Judge that such an action is necessary. One might easily conclude that this action by this government agency is little more than an effort to interfere with a ratification vote over an agreement it has already made clear it intends to oppose.
We urge you to continue to monitor your union’s communications as we will provide you with up to date and factual information as events unfold around our career and profession.
