U Puts The Pressure On

[BoeingBoy]

Greater pressure directed at unions

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

JustMe,

I think you called this one....

Jim

 

[delldude]

me too................
it was expected and we will negotiate..........
however...unless we accept we may be done on earth as it is in heaven.... 🙁 :angry:

 

[Justaramper]

Once again, "good faith negotiations" is NOT giving a deadline and refusing to listen to counter offers...This is something U must learn, before the judge will freely impose there will...

 

[Justme]

thanks for the credit on my guess Boeing Boy, here's an excerpt from my post on Oct 17 (Tas all around):

Step One: The company tells unions it will file for rejection of contracts on 15 November if consensual agreements are not reached and ratified by then. It then files on Nov 15th and makes a proposal to each union without a ratified TA that "provides for those necessary modifications in the employees benefits and protections that are necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor"

The company's not fooling around. They are acting in a ruthless manner to transform this company. If you formerly made $48,000.00 as an agent, you are being told in very cold terms that the company believes it can replace you with someone more than willing to accept the terms of yesterday's proposal. So then they will run the airline with agents that make $24,000. Can they pull it off? I think that the Chapter 11 will enable them to put the contracts in place (imposed by the courts) and then it will take a couple of years to see what the "new" product looks like.

Go look at the people working full time jobs making $24,000 and evaluate them against the current workforce at U. Assistant managers at fast food joints pull down $30K to $40K. Keep in mind that they're also working 48 - 55 hours a week with no overtime.

I think that the biggest issue will be turnover. When I was with FlightSafety they were paying way too low and were losing 40% of their instructor pilots annually. Guys making $40,000 (in 1998) to instruct on the Falcon 50 were being offered $110,000 to go fly one. So the company finally had to up the $40,000 to around $70,000 to keep from having to recruit and train 250 instructors every year. So U may be able to attract a marginally or even fully qualified and motivated employee under the new contract, but after 2 or 3 years many will find better paying jobs (they will be looking) and leave. But don't you think that the company knows this? They've got it plugged into their computers and have accepted it.

As I said in that post from last Sunday, the hearing is to be held within 14 days of filing and then the court has 30 days to make a ruling. So expect the hearing to take place the week of the November 29th and then a ruling handed down around December 19th. And then new contracts in place by January 1. The only wildcard is what the judge and appellate courts do with labor's ability to strike. Do you think that maybe the company has already thought of that also?

Anyway, what else do you expect from a society that is producing lawyers at the rate this country is? They've got to get out there and do something.

 

[Justme]

Once again, "good faith negotiations" is NOT giving a deadline and refusing to listen to counter offers...This is something U must learn, before the judge will freely impose there will...

[post="193989"][/post]​

JAR,

I'm afraid that giving a deadline and refusing to listen to counter offers is all that will be required if the following three requirements have been met. Negotiations are over. The proposals will either be accepted and ratified or they will be imposed. That is reality, a very ruthless reality.

© The court shall approve an application for rejection of a
collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that -
(1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that
fulfills the requirements of subsection ((1);
(2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused
to accept such proposal without good cause; and
(3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of
such agreement.

 

[700UW]

Levine also went over all the procedures and steps in the bankruptcy codes. One item she covered in depth is the 1113 letter, which refers to the section of code that ensures that a company negotiates with the union before they seek abrogation of the labor agreement. When a company seeks protection, the agreement remains in effect. When a union negotiates an 1113 letter it secures an agreement with the company showing that the company will not seek further cuts from labor. To this date, no company that has had an 1113 letter negotiated has ever asked the court to abrogate it.

Companies that request abrogation of the labor agreement but it must meet the following nine (9) distinct requirements:

1. The debtor in possession must have made a proposal to the union.
2. The proposal must be based upon the most complete and reliable information available at the time of the proposal.
3. The modification must be necessary to permit reorganization.
4. The modification must provide that all affected parties be treated fairly and equitably.
5. The debtor must provide the union with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
6. The debtor must have met with the collective bargaining representative at the reasonable times subsequent to making the proposal.
7. The debtor must have negotiated with the union concerning the proposal in good faith.
8. The union must have refused to accept the proposal with good cause.
9. The balance of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the agreement.

 

[NeedForSpeedNFS]

Just a side note... The company has announced that the Machinists', and the F/A's have 3 weeks to do this. Hope that is long enough to "negotiate"...."in good faith"!! :down: GOOD DAY!!!!!

 

[cavalier]

Levine also went over all the procedures and steps in the bankruptcy codes. One item she covered in depth is the 1113 letter, which refers to the section of code that ensures that a company negotiates with the union before they seek abrogation of the labor agreement. When a company seeks protection, the agreement remains in effect. When a union negotiates an 1113 letter it secures an agreement with the company showing that the company will not seek further cuts from labor. To this date, no company that has had an 1113 letter negotiated has ever asked the court to abrogate it.

Companies that request abrogation of the labor agreement but it must meet the following nine (9) distinct requirements:

1. The debtor in possession must have made a proposal to the union.
2. The proposal must be based upon the most complete and reliable information available at the time of the proposal.
3. The modification must be necessary to permit reorganization.
4. The modification must provide that all affected parties be treated fairly and equitably.
5. The debtor must provide the union with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
6. The debtor must have met with the collective bargaining representative at the reasonable times subsequent to making the proposal.
7. The debtor must have negotiated with the union concerning the proposal in good faith.
8. The union must have refused to accept the proposal with good cause.
9. The balance of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the agreement.

[post="194004"][/post]​

You have shown us all this list many times before and act like it’s an impossible hurtle, well in U case it's a slam dunk. The union you worship will fall flat on it's face along with anyone who blindly and foolishly follows their path to destruction.

Never been done, watch and see, it will be done and then the company will be done along with every employee still presented and accounted for wondering what the hell hit them.

Ever hear of the Titanic? Well just like that, so goes U.

Bets on survival anyone? With union leadership such as it is, at extreme odds with management spells, H-I-S-T-O-R-Y………

EXCEPT for union leadership who will retire and live another day, off YOUR dues.

 

[Justme]

Companies that request abrogation of the labor agreement but it must meet the following nine (9) distinct requirements:

1. The debtor in possession must have made a proposal to the union.
2. The proposal must be based upon the most complete and reliable information available at the time of the proposal.
3. The modification must be necessary to permit reorganization.
4. The modification must provide that all affected parties be treated fairly and equitably.
5. The debtor must provide the union with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
6. The debtor must have met with the collective bargaining representative at the reasonable times subsequent to making the proposal.
7. The debtor must have negotiated with the union concerning the proposal in good faith.
8. The union must have refused to accept the proposal with good cause.
9. The balance of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the agreement.

[post="194004"][/post]​

From (b )(1)
1. check
2. check
3. check
4. check
5. check
6. check
7. check
8. check
9. check

(c ) The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that—
(1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection (b )(1);
(2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and
(3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such agreement.

(1) check
(2) check
(3) check

So it looks like IAM and CWA and AFA attorneys have until around the hearing date of 29 November (my date) to come up with a way to prove to the court that at least one of the requirements listed above has not been met. I think that the company has a winner based on the same unions ratifying similar contract specifics for a portion (M/E, MDA) of their represented workers a year ago.

I think that we've moved from "inept" and "amateurish" to "cold, calculating, and ruthless". Might management run an ad offering work as an agent for $9.00 and hour in several cities and present to the judge the tens of thousands of applications to show that the proposed pay rates are indeed fair and equitable? That's the kind of thing one should be expecting from this crew.

The reality is that RSA is going to make this pig fly at whatever human cost is required or die trying. As I said some weeks back, if they can operate this franchise for 40% of the labor cost of pre 911 they will have a gold mine.

The real question isn't whether or not the court will approve the upcoming motion, but what RSA intends to do vis a vis selling or buying in the subsequent 24 months. The ultimate irony is that Wolf's primary intent to "paint it and sell it" will likely be fulfilled during that timeframe. To who? At what profit? Don't know who, but the deal will likely bring RSA a nice return on their $240M investment.

So the employees are being squeezed by an all out, extreme effort on the one hand and by RSA's willingness to bet it all on the court's decision on the other. Either way they lose big....no job or their 2000 pay cut in half and benefits that have gone downhill in a major way.

Bummer. So our next excitement comes at the hearing and the ruling that follows and the appeal that follows and.......

jm

 

[Schatzee]

The word on the street is that the company did not even show up this week for the meeting with CWA.......lawyers sat there for 4 + hours and left........Doesn't sound like negotiating in good faith to me. :down:

 

[Justme]

Schatze,

The requirement to show up pertains to the period between the filing and the hearing only. That will likely be the last two weeks of November. Maybe they are just trying to soften up the resistance by playing mental games with CWA's attorneys.

jm

 

[Res]

I just can't see how the BK laws make what they are tryng to do legal...it obvious Bk was the ultimate goal even over 1 yr ago with original givebacks...Is this not misleading to the shareholders and employees....can we file some type of class action lawsuit if U still stands after all the trama?

 

[BoeingBoy]

4. The modification must provide that all affected parties be treated fairly and equitably.

From (b )(1)
4. check

jm

[post="194038"][/post]​

This just may be the one hook that the IAM, AFA, and CWU can hang their hat on....

As a backdrop to everything else to follow, keep this in mind. The company has said in court filings that, unlike non-union employees, the union folks would have to start at entry level wages/benefits if they went to an equivalent job at another airline, thus justifying wage/benefit packages at or near entry level at other airlines.

1 - The company compares average U employee wages for various groups with the average at LCC's. Due to upper management decisions (downsizing), the average U employee is either at or near TOS. Not the case at the LCC's, so this is an "apples and oranges" comparison. Upper management made the decisions that resulted in high longevity employees, but now wants those employees to pay the price of the higher costs incurred by those decisions. Upper management compensation is said to be "at or near" market rates. What is the market rate for a 20 year agent, mechanic, etc? Could it be what another carrier pays a 20 year agent, mechanic, etc?

2 - The company compares labor CASM at U with that at the LCC's, but does not adjust for stage length, seat density, or business model - all management decisions. Again, an "apples to oranges" comparison. Adjust for B6's stage length and U's labor CASM comes down. Adjust for B6 or WN seat density, and U's labor CASM comes down. Adjust for a P2P business model and labor CASM comes down. As I've said before, plug the WN, B6, HP, etc, contracts into our operation and our labor CASM would still be higher than theirs. Likewise, plug our contracts into their operation and their labor CASM would still be lower than ours. Again, upper management wants employees to pay for the extra costs incurred by decisions entirely within upper management's purview.

It could be that a presentation to the judge showing the effects of downsizing, stage length, seat density, and business model on labor cost could have an effect on the outcome in an 1113c hearing, if presented along with a union proposal that provided equivalent labor cost after making those adjustments. Of course, coming up with the figures to put together such a proposal is easier said than done. However, there is one of those 9 listed "steps" along the way to abrogation that could be useful:

5. The debtor must provide the union with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.

Just my thoughts....

Jim

 

[AP Tech]

This company is a joke!!!! Good faith bargining???? They throw some garbage on the table and say take it or leave it? Well boys & girls its almost time to hit the streets. Lock us out and I hope you know who enjoys loading bags, fixing a/c and all else involved in the day to day operations of running an airline, or in U's case trying to run an airline.

One side note on payscales.......Jet Blue is paying $25/hr to start with better benefits than U.