The Bottom Line for all CWA & IAM-M Members to consider

[Dark Wrench]

Chip
You can't convince me to vote yes.
I will vote NO again, without emotion or confusion.
Or fear of doom and gloom.
Now if you don't like the way i vote or the outcome,
i suggest you take you own advice and look for employment elsewhere.
Concessions haven't saved and airline yet, just prolonged the inevitable. History seems to repeating here again, we heard this same garbage 10yrs ago.
I understand all to well that this is different. I don't need to be told how to vote by you, or an upgraded stock clerk union lackey. You and boof1967 can stop your preaching.

 

[chipmunn]

These are difficult and emotional times for every US Airways active & furloughed employee. Nobody likes what is occurring, including Dave Siegel, but employee concessions are required to meet the Credit Facility (DIP/Emergence financing) and ATSB loan guarantee requirements. Without these restructuring agreements all bets are off and this is something the company cannot and will not allow to happen.
Lakeguy67 expressed the legal issue extremely well when he or she said, congress established section 1113 of the bankruptcy code because in 1982 with just a stroke of a pen a judge abrogated all contracts at Continental Airlines, under Lorenzo as CEO and Wolf as President. In 1983 section 1113 was passed, all this does is ensure that a judge at just a stroke of a pen does not abrogate a contract. There are nine criteria a company has to meet in order for the judge to abrogate. So far US Airways is batting 100% in having every motion they have filed granted to them.
If either the CWA or IAM-M restructuring agreement is not ratified the company will ask Judge Mitchell to:
1. Terminate any union contract that has not been voluntarily restructured. If this occurs the company will be free to impose deeper cuts in pay, work rules, and benefits.

2. Provide an order preventing any union to strike.
3. Agree to the company’s request that the IAM-M and its members be forced to pay US Airways $5.1 million per month and the CWA $2.1 million per month for six months.
With the legal precedent of Judge Mitchell agreeing to every company request used as a benchmark, in my opinion the bankruptcy court will rule in favor of the company at a Section 1113 hearing. The judge has no option to adjust the restructuring agreements; therefore, a no vote will not-result in a better deal. A no vote will simply inflict more pain on union members and colleagues who elect to remain at the company post Section 1113 hearing.

This is not a time for emotion to interfere with logic. It appears the cuts are coming and the choice is to either agree to the current restructuring accords or be prepared to receive deeper cuts, be prevented from striking, and be forced to pay the company damages, which could be accessed against the members even if an employee leaves employment. For those disgruntled, it may be better to vote yes and simply leave the company than risk having to personally pay damages.
Chip

 

[Lakeguy67]

[P][STRONG][FONT color=#ffff00 size=5]I never thougth I would say this in a million years, but chip that was a good post![/FONT][/STRONG][/P]

 

[cavalier]

AMEN! Well stated Chip.

Being in total denial is fruitless, voting to reject with hopes of a better outcome is living in a fantasy world in this situation, period.

 

[Meriel]

Chip, although you tout the 100% success rate with Judge Mitchell, you don't cite any that were particularly controversial. So far in monitoring the docket, I haven't seen anything (other than that fear of life and limb stuff!) that wasn't pretty much run-of-the-mill. I'd have been shocked if any of them had been denied. Bottom line of how your posts come across is that you're still pandering to fear. That's an excellent tool for a propagandist, but hardly worthy of a journalist.

As far as the union contracts go, there's case law both ways. Bankruptcy and Labor Relations resources at Cornell University's Law site state that bankruptcy courts are bound by NLRB rules which feed into NMB rules (RLA flows into NMB). It would take something extraordinary for a bankruptcy court to fly in the face of the NLRB. Mitchell may think this is one of those times to be extraordinary; he may not. If he does, his decision can always be appealed. Bankruptcy judges have been reversed on labor decisions before (but not always!).

For anyone voting, before you make up your mind... educate yourself. Please don't be lead by fear and panic-mongering or hatred of the IAM/CWA, loathing of what management has done in the past, or simply a sense of life being unfair and you're not going to put up with it anymore. Make your choices based on sound reason. As you vote ask yourself, Could I explain this decision to someone without steam coming out of my ears or spitting in fury? Some of the posters here, I don't think they could.

Read everything you can about the contract you are voting on and the consequences of a YES or NO vote. Take out your calculators and understand what YOUR bottom line is going to be. What is the absolute worst that can happen? In the short term -- you have a union, but no contract, providing Judge Mitchell throws the contract out. Whether he does or not is anybody's guess. And it'd be just that: a guess. His current rulings on non-controversial motions that are based on how the law treats mercantile goods and services contracts have little bearing on how he may rule on motions made regarding labor contracts, which are a different animal entirely. Long-term consequences... again, anybody's guess. Admittedly, I don't think anything good will come out of a NO vote, but that's my personal take. Nobody has a crystal ball here. Well, actually, I do -- but I use it for a paperweight.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

MODERATOR DELETED BY POSTER

 

[StillFishing]

Meriel,

As always Great post,To All please read your T/a's and talk with your family about the thing's that are going on...then make your mind up on which way you will vote...

 

[ITRADE]

Meriel, the ability to simply walk away from several dozen leases worth MILLIONS of dollars was certainly controversial to some. Just goes to show you that contracts aren't quite worth their weight in gold in Chapter 11. So, in other words, don't bet the farm.

 

[pitguy]

Funny how some of you guys call this forced contract offer a T/A.

 

[planeman]

POST DELETED BY MODERATOR.

 

[moimenta1]

hello. im in customer service and still reading over the agreements. dont like alot of it but will say yes only because i dont want a bk guy deciding. he works for the creditors and we are on the end of the food chain. ive been in this biz for 27 years and yes i am looking elsewhere. i was with pan am way back and believe me what is going on with the IAM right now is nothing new. i am not happy with CWA.. They are called Communications union but let me tell you i guess our union dues are meant to pay the lawyers because they have done nothing for us. If we had hooked up with the local established CWA locals our grievances would not be now pasted on the walls of the Crystal City offices being used as wallpaper and being laughed at. The CWA locals already established for AT@T and other phone companies could have handled our grievances and we would not have 2 year old greivances still in limbo. The initial stance when we became CWA was they did not feel the established locals would not understand airline stuff.. hey a contract is a contract and a violation is a violation and a grievance is a grievance.. i will vote for the contract only because im pleased the CWA LAWYERS did the deal. not the locals. Our dues are important to any union. Remember when you have a union you now work for two manangements.. The COMPANY and THE UNION.. but the difference we pay the union. The company pays us.. Like Bette Davis once said.. HOLD ON ITS GOING TO BE A BUMPY RIDE....

 

[Meriel]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/9/2002 8:32:42 PM ITRADE wrote:

Meriel, the ability to simply walk away from several dozen leases worth MILLIONS of dollars was certainly controversial to some. Just goes to show you that contracts aren't quite worth their weight in gold in Chapter 11. So, in other words, don't bet the farm.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Itrade,

As odd as it may sound, the dollar figure involved is irrelevant. Abrogating commercial contracts and leases that hamper a company's ability to restructure itself, whether it's the mom-and-pop donut shop on the corner or a multi-billion dollar corporation, is one of the functions of the bankruptcy court. So no, despite the mind-boggling amounts of money involved, I really don't see it as anything controversial or unusual. It's simply how things work... and sadly, for a lot of companies, how things end up more and more often.

 

[Seatacus]

Meriel
Good posts. I appreciate you insight and objectiveness.

 

[Liz]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/9/2002 11:28:33 AM chipmunn wrote:



This is not a time for emotion to interfere with logic. It appears the cuts are coming and the choice is to either agree to the current restructuring accords or be prepared to receive deeper cuts, be prevented from striking, and be forced to pay the company damages, which could be accessed against the members even if an employee leaves employment. For those disgruntled, it may be better to vote yes and simply leave the company than risk having to personally pay damages.

Chip



Chip,

Could you please tell me where to read the documentation regarding damages being @ssessed against employees who leave the employ of USAirways? Is there actually something in writing or is this supposition on your part?

The heavy hand of intimidation usually doesn't allow people to look at the facts and make a well-thought decision.

Thanks,
Liz

 

[traderjake]

Concessions haven't saved and airline yet, just prolonged the inevitable.

Dark Wrench

Conncessions thru bankruptcy did save Continental.