Trouble in 777 Overhaul (China)

[eolesen]

So in other words they do it over there because they can get away with things they cant get away with here. Nice. Have a nice flight!!

I'm sure there are things they could get away with, but only if they wanted to, which is unlikely.

Fact is that there's usually a far higher work ethic in Asia vs. what we see in the States. Workers still show respect and loyalty to their employer and take pride in their work. They don't see the company as an enemy.

Certainly, you won't see elected labor leaders on an internet chat room trying to justify what he couldn't get done at the bargaining table. That activity seems to be uniquely American.

But it goes far beyond things like labor law. Expanding your facilities means doing a set of environmental impact studies as thick as the Brooklyn white pages. An equivalent amount of paperwork goes into stuff like material handling, complying with Obamacare, Obamafare, and then you also have agencies like TSA who insist on photographing and fingerprint foreign visitors as though they're criminal suspects, even as they're leaving hundreds of miles of border unchecked...

Today, it's far easier to do business in China and Russia than the US. You'd think that should serve as a wake-up call for those of us who grew up during the Cold War, but apparently not.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob you have no clue. Seriously China and Afghanistan is what you equate workers rights in the US to? What do you want, for us to be like France or Italy with strikes and scheduled work stoppages all the time? Did you see Iberia workers are going on strike before the Christmas holiday? How supportive do you think the thousands of travelers for whom they disrupt their plans, cost them large amounts of money on hotels, new flight booking, forfeited deposits on cruises, tours, etc at their destination? What about all the people who won't be with their family for the Christmas holiday?

http://www.reuters.c...E8AS01T20121129


The RLA exists because an airline strike would have far reaching effects on the US economy, transportation system, and interstate commerce, it does NOT exist with the intent of restricting workers' rights. Besides you've posted before that if new terms were imposed you supported a wildcat strike so why are you so hung up about the RLA?

Josh

Then why dont they call it the Airway Labor Act? Its the Railway Labor Act. So yes we have to follow the proceedures under the act and utilize the NMB process before going on strike but the purpose of the law was not to eliminate strike but to make them less spontaneous and unpredictable. Over the years things have been twisted. First the courts said that 1167 of the bankruptcy code (which stated that contracts under the RLA could not be agrogated and could only be modified via the processs outimed under the RLA) did not apply to the airlines. When they did that airlines unions, like all other unions were permitted to strike if the company had their contracts abrogated, why were thety permitted to strike back then? Because the RLA says that if an employer unilaterally changes the contract we can strike. A quarter of a decade later some judges had a different opinion and said that we cant strike, that our contracts never existsed, however that decision was never challenged by the airline unions, they were too busy trying to change the law for getting new members, despite the fact that under the old rules this was one of the most heavily unionized industries in the country.


Airline workers miss plenty of Holidays with their families, and at AA they do it for half pay! Do we force the airlines to give people seats and fly people around for a price that the airlines dont agree to? If the people dont pay what the airline demands guess what, they dont get on the plane and they dont get to be home for Christmas do they?

 

[737823]

Then why dont they call it the Airway Labor Act? Its the Railway Labor Act. So yes we have to follow the proceedures under the act and utilize the NMB process before going on strike but the purpose of the law was not to eliminate strike but to make them less spontaneous and unpredictable. Over the years things have been twisted. First the courts said that 1167 of the bankruptcy code (which stated that contracts under the RLA could not be agrogated and could only be modified via the processs outimed under the RLA) did not apply to the airlines. When they did that airlines unions, like all other unions were permitted to strike if the company had their contracts abrogated, why were thety permitted to strike back then? Because the RLA says that if an employer unilaterally changes the contract we can strike. A quarter of a decade later some judges had a different opinion and said that we cant strike, that our contracts never existsed, however that decision was never challenged by the airline unions, they were too busy trying to change the law for getting new members, despite the fact that under the old rules this was one of the most heavily unionized industries in the country.


Airline workers miss plenty of Holidays with their families, and at AA they do it for half pay! Do we force the airlines to give people seats and fly people around for a price that the airlines dont agree to? If the people dont pay what the airline demands guess what, they dont get on the plane and they dont get to be home for Christmas do they?

Bob its outrageous for the Iberia workers to strike on what is a major holiday for many around the world and disrupt travel. It shows how greedy, selfish and out of touch they are. Guess it didn't strike them that unemployment in Spain is above 25%, government is insolvent, and the country is in a deep recessions. Sounds like a great time to strike. Like I said, you suggested pursuing a wild cat if your employment terms were changed unilaterally:

Who has flipped? Same old same old out there.

Yes, a couple of Locals got together and retained an attorney because we did not want filtered information. We relied on the economist that the International hired and when he did the cost out he was $ 250 million off. Every assumption he made was in favor of the company. the company didn't even challenge the modified cost out.

On the issue of strikes, well plenty of judges ruled that "separate but equal" was legal, it took Rosa Parks to sit in one of the front seats, despite all the legal rulings, to change that legal injustice. Airline workers may need to follow the example of Rosa Parks, we should comply with what the RLA says, as much as it sucks it's a law that was put in place by elected representatives, not of couple of one per centers who aren't accountable to the public, and according to the RLA if our contract is abrogated we can resort to self help. If our contract is abrogated we must react and resort to self help in spite of the NWA ruling.Judges are not supposed to make laws, they are supposed carry out the law, the judges convoluted decision in the NWA case needs to be challenged and we ain't waiting for years while the legal system jerks us around, we have already been suffering for eight years. If workers under the NLRA can strike why can't workers under the RLA? The prohibition on strikes or self help in the RLA is clear that it's tied to the status quo. Hortons own statements say that he went this route for strategic reasons, that he was no using the code for its intended purpose, so they better not even think about touching our contract. To them this is a game,"let's see how low we can drive them down before they rebel", but we ain't playing, when it starts injunctions won't stop it.
This is a watershed moment, everyone will be watching us, if they abrogate our contract or use BK to once again get what they want everyone else should be prepared to face the same thing again. They will keep taking till we rebel, when we go we will need everyone else to go as well.
Bankruptcy deals with creditors, when you extend creyou wand exchange something of value without getting something back at the time of the exchange you take a risk, when a court tells exxon that they have to sell fuel to a bankrupt carrier for $1 gallon or tell the PONY that they can only charge $ 100 to land a 777 at JFK then they may have an argument to try and justify what they have done to workers Real people should not be treated as the property of corporate persons, our rights should be superior to the rights of corporate persons. If you extend credit you inherit risk, so the logic and legal argument behind wiping out debts and even terminating deferred compensation has some basis, but to impose terms going forward, regardless of the period is not where someone engaged in an activity where it's expected that there is risk, imposing terms going forward is nothing less than confiscating the property of one person for the unwarranted benefit of another.

and here:

Its easy to see when FWAAAs pride has been hurt. He resorts to making broad attacks instead to true debate. I guess that why he is a Blogging lawyer instead of a real one. I'm sure he is aware that my words are not meant to influence a judge or an executive but rather my peers lest they get duped again.

There will be no six year term imposed on us unless we do it to ourselves. FWAAA can no longer throw out that "Red Herring". Concessions will be what we are willing to give, if the court imposes them on us we have ways of making that a bad move, and we will have to go that route. Even the court should not be permitted to take away our rights. The question is do they really want to elevate things to that level? If we go that route I would hope that we could get our peers who would likely be put through the same thing once again to join us, maybe an industrywide overtime ban during what is looking to be a very heavy travel season this summer? Who knows? We arent the only ones who are fed up and things are much worse for us now than they were during the last "summer from hell".

Look at the "nonsense" that being presented to us. After tolerating four years of stonewalling, by the company, by the NMB and by some who are supposed to be on our side, we are in C-11 where, as we sit at the bottom of the industry the company is trying to get us to, under the threat of being able to impose new terms while we are denied self help, accept even more concessions, and why? Because they need them to survive? NO. They are doing this so they can not only buy 500 new airplanes (that will eliminate an estimated 3000 jobs in addition to the RIFS) but earn over 17% in profits!!!! So they can be the most profitable airline ever while we are the lowest paid in the industry.

Maybe these "irrelevant facts" mean nothing to FWAAA, maybe they mean nothing to the Judge (although the two week extension indicates that they may mean something, Hostess was only shooting for 10% and that judge rejected their request) but I think it means something to my peers, the people who were duped into accepting concessions in 2003 because they were told those sacrifices would be considered when AA filed for BK, who are being duped into working for inferior wages and benefits, the ones who will either continue to say NO to this "nonsense' or roll over and accept it.

If they try and take anything you can be pretty sure that not only will Kennedy have a problem but so will Logan, LaGuardia, Miami, Dallas etc etc.

Enough is enough!

Josh

 

[Bob Owens]

Fact is that there's usually a far higher work ethic in Asia vs. what we see in the States. Workers still show respect and loyalty to their employer and take pride in their work. They don't see the company as an enemy.

And you know that how?

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob its outrageous for the Iberia workers to strike on what is a major holiday for many around the world and disrupt travel. It shows how greedy, selfish and out of touch they are. Guess it didn't strike them that unemployment in Spain is above 25%, government is insolvent, and the country is in a deep recessions. Sounds like a great time to strike.

Why were they on strike? Why is it OK for Iberia and other carriers to withhold their service for higher rates around the Holidays but not for workers? Really, what difference does it make that they strike on a Holiday vs any other day except for the fact that the airlines charge a lot more to travel then?

 

[737823]

Why were they on strike? Why is it OK for Iberia and other carriers to withhold their service for higher rates around the Holidays but not for workers? Really, what difference does it make that they strike on a Holiday vs any other day except for the fact that the airlines charge a lot more to travel then?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/29/uk-iberia-strikes-idUSLNE8AS01T20121129

Josh

 

[Bob Owens]

http://www.reuters.c...E8AS01T20121129

Josh

http://www.reuters.c...E8AS01T20121129

Josh

Ok , and? Basically you feel that workers should not be allowed to strike.

 

[chris perry]

"greedy out of touch workers Have no right to disrupt travel" VS "Over paid arrogant CEO's with scumbag Bankruptcy attorneys"

Sounds pretty fair to me,as long as they have the right to strike.LET THE FIREWORKS BEGIN...

 

[eolesen]

The right to strike is entirely reasonable, as long as you're free to chose whether to pay dues. Where I take issue are the closed shops. The union has nothing to lose as long as they're still getting dues income from the agency fee guys who resign from with the union, but still have to pay the union.

If unions had to actually prove their worth to keep dues flowing, I suspect negotiations would be handled entirely differently.

 

[Kev3188]

Airline Unions are the only workers in this country where Unions can not strike even after the company unilaterally changes pay rates and working condistions, the NMB has become a Joke when they string workers along for years before releasing them to a process where if the government chooses they can send us to Arbitration and avoid any disruptions.

Then why dont they call it the Airway Labor Act? Its the Railway Labor Act. So yes we have to follow the proceedures under the act and utilize the NMB process before going on strike but the purpose of the law was not to eliminate strike but to make them less spontaneous and unpredictable. Over the years things have been twisted. First the courts said that 1167 of the bankruptcy code (which stated that contracts under the RLA could not be agrogated and could only be modified via the processs outimed under the RLA) did not apply to the airlines. When they did that airlines unions, like all other unions were permitted to strike if the company had their contracts abrogated, why were thety permitted to strike back then? Because the RLA says that if an employer unilaterally changes the contract we can strike. A quarter of a decade later some judges had a different opinion and said that we cant strike, that our contracts never existsed, however that decision was never challenged by the airline unions, they were too busy trying to change the law for getting new members, despite the fact that under the old rules this was one of the most heavily unionized industries in the country.

The answer is for all of us to collectively push to scrap the RLA and fall under the same rules as any other industry.

Bob its outrageous for the Iberia workers to strike on what is a major holiday for many around the world and disrupt travel. It shows how greedy, selfish and out of touch they are. Guess it didn't strike them that unemployment in Spain is above 25%, government is insolvent, and the country is in a deep recessions. Sounds like a great time to strike. Like I said, you suggested pursuing a wild cat if your employment terms were changed unilaterally

It's all well and good to play nice, but sometimes ya gotta throw the (proverbial) brick through a window to effect change.

Speaking of not playing nice, the article you cited said this:

"A cabin crew strike alone ought to be enough to halt operations though," said Espirito Santo analyst Gerald Khoo, adding that IAG had indicated deeper cuts than those proposed would be imposed if there was industrial action.


How is that good faith bargaining??

If unions had to actually prove their worth...

The elimination of the AFL-CIO's "no raid" clause would go a long way to accomplishing that.

 

[ChockJockey]

Fact is that there's usually a far higher work ethic in Asia vs. what we see in the States. Workers still show respect and loyalty to their employer and take pride in their work. They don't see the company as an enemy.

If we're speaking in general, in Asia this is more likely due to the higher degree of power the employers have over their employees. If your job is the only thing between your family and destitution your work ethic and respect for your employer would be pretty piqued.

Today, it's far easier to do business in China and Russia than the US. You'd think that should serve as a wake-up call for those of us who grew up during the Cold War, but apparently not.

The wake-up call is that the United States should become an authoritarian nation, devoid of press freedoms and rife with corruption?

 

[Anomaly]

The right to strike is entirely reasonable, as long as you're free to chose whether to pay dues. Where I take issue are the closed shops. The union has nothing to lose as long as they're still getting dues income from the agency fee guys who resign from with the union, but still have to pay the union.

If unions had to actually prove their worth to keep dues flowing, I suspect negotiations would be handled entirely differently.

What a naive statement. Have you NEVER heard of a union being de-certified? It has happened twice at UA, and is the subject of many threads on this blog. Unions do have to prove their worth, or they risk the possibility of getting voted out entirely. The choice is the employees if enough of them are willing to take up the issue.

Your statement also seems to run counter to what you posted on your blog. At first you blame the unions and their members for having unrealistic expectations, and then you accuse the unions, and consequently the members, for not doing enough...

http://www.olesen.com/

Which is it?

Open shops defeat the idea of a union. For me, the choice was clear when I started. I knew entirely that by working as a mechanic for UA I would have to join the union. How was it for you? Was the union around before you started working for AA? (I presume you work for AA in some capacity and are part of a union. If not, why are you worried about it?) To cry about it after the fact is like those people who move right next to an airport and then complain later about the noise.

 

[eolesen]

Being able to de-certify isn't the same as being able to choose to associate or not. You have no choice but to feed the pig (minus the token amount they say is for non-representation activities and politics).

The unions know this, and to quote members here, often do just enough not to get fired.

If a union is worth paying for, people will stay members. That's shown to be the case in states where RTW has been passed, and in countries where compulsory union membership is prohibited (e.g. Australia).

Anyone who is convinced the union provides a value shouldn't fear free association.

What we saw in Wisconsin last year wasn't rooted in the fear of trampling on workers rights -- it was the fear of losing members and revenue...

 

[jersey777]

I would love for people to resign from the apfa and live under the contract that AA gives them.....just like I wish the scabs in 1993 had to work under the imposed contract that AA forced us under in November 1993. After a few months with no union, the whiners would beg to come back.

 

[eolesen]

I would love for people to resign from the apfa and live under the contract that AA gives them.....just like I wish the scabs in 1993 had to work under the imposed contract that AA forced us under in November 1993. After a few months with no union, the whiners would beg to come back.

If you're faced with having to pay agency fee without a vote, or having a vote, that's probably a a no-brainer for most of your whiners.

Would they have been so quick to return if they weren't paying the agency fee?