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

[REACC1]

[P] [/P]
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/9/2002 10:38:39 PM Liz wrote:
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/9/2002 11:28:33 AM chipmunn wrote: [BR][BR][BR][BR]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.[BR][BR]Chip[BR][BR][BR][BR]Chip,[BR][BR]  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?  [BR][BR]  The heavy hand of intimidation usually doesn't allow people to look at the facts and make a well-thought decision.  [BR][BR]              Thanks,[BR]                    Liz 
[P][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]
[P]Yeah Chip,[/P]
[P]Where and how did you come up with [STRONG]that??????[/STRONG][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]

 

[chipmunn]

AOG:

AOG said: I guess if Dave does go to have the contract tossed out?....We will in turn see just how Labor Friendly he is?

Chip comments: Dave has no option but to seek to cancel the contracts. Without the agreement he cannot get the DIP and Emergence Financing or the federal loan guarantee.

I do not know how many times I have to post it, but the hammer is not Siegel. The investors and the ATSB, who set the rules, require the cuts.

A no vote is near certain liquidation. There will be no funds and the unsecured creditors committee will likely force the breakup of the company. If you want the company to survive, you will vote yes.

Chip

 

[traderjake]

 

[ResNoMore]

Meriel

Ditto for me!!! I appreciate your sound logic and encouragement for each of us to read and understand this contract.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

I guess the bottom line is this...aNo Vote is looking very very certain. I guess if Dave does go to have the contract tossed out?....We will in turn see just how Labor Friendly he is? Most will say he's not labor friendly to begin with...but if more than what's being voted down is asked for?...That will close the book on his integrity. Dave is gambling , just as much as the next guy. Should he win his case? ...and in turn make U profitable again? He will be able to name his price in the corporate world.....a failure will seal his young executive career , just about as easily. It ain't over till the fat lady sings

 

[Bob Owens]

Meriel;
Good post. The only thing that I disagreed with is that you dont beleive that anything good will come out of a NO vote.
My position on this is based upon what I've experienced, witnessed and read over my 22 years in this industry. My biggest problem is the length of the deal. While you may think 6 years isnt that bad you must take into consideration that under the RLA contracts usually extend far beyond their amendable dates. Full Retro is normally the exception.The APFA/AA deal took three years. So this concessionary contract could easily be dragged out until 2011. That would make it a nine year contract.It could go way beyond 6 but it will not be less than 6.Then in order to make up for inflation the numbers asked for would appear unreasonbly high. In the AMFA/NWA negotiations I beleive that the AMFA was asking for a raise of around 70%. This figure while it sounds high would have brought their pay only slightly higher than if their pay had been adjusted by a corrected CPI. The NMB declared that figure unreasonable and told the AMFA that if it did not lower its demands that they would never release them.
The fact is that this industry has never lost money more than three years in a row. The industry lost money in 1980, 81,82 and 1990,91,92. This cycle is a year late. Following the previous patttern the industry will be profitable again by 2004. Basically USAIR wants to ride through the next cycle on a concessionary contract. They are already starting with six years that can easily be stretched out to 9 or 10, just in time for the next downturn. Now I'm not saying that economic cycles are that predictable but the delaying tactics of the RLA makes it so that it doesnt need to be. Asking for concessions to bail out the company is bad enough, especially when they are trying to hand out $5million in bonuses to the top executives, but asking for concessions for such a long period of time is unreasonable.You may see nothing good coming out of a No vote, but I see something worse coming out of a yes vote. If they vote no, at the very least they will probably get offered a shorter term or a lower percentage cut. Why should the mechanics accept a higher percentage cut than Fleet Service?

 

[Bob Owens]

Freedom;
But not Continentals workers.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/10/2002 1203 AM chipmunn wrote:

AOG:


AOG said: I guess if Dave does go to have the contract tossed out?....We will in turn see just how "Labor Friendly" he is?


Chip comments: Dave has no option but to seek to cancel the contracts. Without the agreement he cannot get the DIP and Emergence Financing or the federal loan guarantee.


I do not know how many times I have to post it, but the hammer is not Siegel. The investors and the ATSB, who set the rules, require the cuts.


A no vote is near certain liquidation. There will be no funds and the unsecured creditors committee will likely force the breakup of the company. If you want the company to survive, you will vote yes.


Chip


----------------
[/blockquote]
Chip...You are preaching to the choir. I agree!!...and I have understood this from the beginning. I understand the 6.5 year concession rule for the ATSB funding. I also grasp the shared cuts among the 3 largest labor groups. However...the mood is getting beyond ugly. The IAM was in the CLT Hangar prior to 1st and 2nd shifts today...for an information meeting. The Members were verbal beyond belief!! The 1st shift attempt ended in a screaming match after about 20 minutes....the 2nd shift attempt lasted about 30 seconds before the IAM representative was blown out the door. This spells Doom good Captain!! The time is still there ...to find a better bethod of resolve....and I suggest that both Labor and Management stop mailing letters....and screwing around. This is serious....and it's serious for all of us. I do not care to lose my job..anymore than you do!! , but bashing people over the heads with this it's your fault type of posting....IS FUELING the Flames!! How in the heck do you ever expect Calmer Heads to prevail?...when you as an ALPA outsider are keeping people stirred up?....Give it a rest Chip. The IAM membership will do...whatever it's gonna do? You nor I will change that aspect... then you and I can deal with the fallout later. You are not changing any opinions...but you are ticking people off even more. I'm hearing your name at work now.....and it Ain't favorable. Let the Chips fall where they may....and concern yourself with Long Range plans beyond the A320's front office at U. I will do the same accordingly.....I'm beyond being scared....I'm now being prepared. Plan for the worst....and hope for the best.

 

[chipmunn]

Meriel:

The Section 1113 hearing has never been conducted since the government created the current code. In every bankruptcy reorganization airline organized labor has taken wage and benefit cuts, except for the US IAM-M.

The company has filed a legal brief and if any union does not provide voluntary concessions, the company is asking for a court order to cancel current collective bargaining agreements, prevent a strike, and for the unions to pay the company damages.

If the union is unable to pay, it will have two choices: Settle with the company for maybe deeper concessions (similar to what APA did) or access its members. There are no other funding options.

A union is made up of its membership. The membership elects its representation and funds the union; therefore, the union has the right to assess its members to fund its obligations. If an agreement is rejected, it will be interesting to see how the court rules.

However, in the simplistic of all issues, if an employee wants their company to survive, they will vote yes.

Chip

 

[pitguy]

If other groups want it to survive they can give up a little more dough too.

 

[chipmunn]

Bob:

Bob said: My biggest problem is the length of the deal. While you may think 6 years isnt that bad you must take into consideration that under the RLA contracts usually extend far beyond their amendable dates.

Chip comments: Bob, the contract concessions and time frame were provided by the ATSB. Without a 6.5-year business plan, which would enable Fitch to provide a B credit rating, the ATSB will reject the conditional loan guarantee.

In addition, for US to obtain the second tranche of $175 million in DIP financing, the agreement requires 85 percent restructuring agreements with ALPA, AFA, & the IAM.

Again, if you or anybody else wants the company to survive, you will vote yes. Anything else could begin the immediate liquidation of the company, just what DL is trying to accelerate.

Chip

 

[pitguy]

Amen to that. If the company truly wants a yes vote then they need to ask what we can give. No one has asked. This contract hits mechanics too hard. You can say whatever you want about that, but that is why it will fail. Take it to the judge or go ch-7 the ball is in the companies court. The forced deal should have been thought out. Most of this stuff does not snap back either. It is forever. We are willing to do our fair share. We always have. Force feeding inducing vomiting. I don't know where this thing got so screwed up, but I see no way is it going to pass. It looks to me as if it will fail bigger than before. I too am planning for my future. Resume writing and getting ready to move on. It did not have to be this way. I feel more thought and input should have been put into this.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

scare tactics?

chip says: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.

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

and chip says:The company has filed a legal brief and if any union
does not provide voluntary concessions, the company is asking
for a court order to cancel current collective
bargaining agreements, prevent a
strike, and for the unions to pay the company damages.

If the union is unable to pay, it will
have two choices: Settle with the company for maybe deeper
concessions (similar to what APA did) or access its members.
There
are no other funding options.

yet chip says:However, in the simplistic of all issues, if an
employee wants their company to survive, they will vote yes.

and chip says: Chip comments: Dave has no option but to seek
to cancel the contracts. Without the agreement he cannot get
the DIP and Emergence Financing or the federal loan
guarantee.

and again says:A no vote is near certain liquidation


WELL CHIP which is it? imposed cutbacks? Liquidation? survival
only with a yes vote? more pain? I've never seen such
conflicting statements. (and even in same thread) You talk out
of both sides of your mouth. I am sorry but theres only one
word for you JOKE.

I'M VOTING NO If I would have had any leaning towards voting
yes your statements and scare tactics would have leaned me to
a NO. So instead I more resolved in voting NO