Union Warns Of Job Action

[700UW]

PIT Tribune

David Lampl, leader of the bankruptcy and creditors' rights practice at the Downtown law firm Leech Tishman Fuscaldo and Lampl, sided with the union.

"There is precedent for strikes when a collective bargaining agreement is rejected,'' he said.

 

[planejane]

PIT Tribune

[post="235776"][/post]​

Forgot the next line of article -

However, case law would favor the company if the bankruptcy judge only amends the contracts, Lampl said.

 

[robbedagain]

if the union does any job action, how will the company respond and how does the ones in the mainline express cities feel about it especially since we were the ones sold down the river without the life preservers?

 

[Bob Owens]

Forgot the next line of article -

However, case law would favor the company if the bankruptcy judge only amends the contracts, Lampl said.

[post="235781"][/post]​

With two rounds of concessions already in bankruptcy and a court imposed Emergeny "amened" contract and still no positive results how could the judge justify forcing these workers to accept even more concessions?

 

[usfliboi]

Whats soooo stupid, is here we are and theres southwest..... there growing, and were fighting each other. Thanks IAM !

 

[neverhome]

Forgot the next line of article -

However, case law would favor the company if the bankruptcy judge only amends the contracts, Lampl said.

[post="235781"][/post]​

Which is interesting because I thought that the judge didn't have the authority to amend the contract.

 

[700UW]

Under Section 1113e, the judge can impose emergency/temporary changes.

 

[Bob Owens]

Under Section 1113e, the judge can impose emergency/temporary changes.

[post="235832"][/post]​

And its up to the union to challenge the companies arguement, which they did not do.

I often hear how "the judge has granted every request". Well what do you expect when there is no real challenge? Why wouldnt he grant it if from what he can see there is no objections from the other parties?

 

[700UW]

Mr Bob Owens,

I was in court during the section 1113e hearings and YES the IAM, CWA and AFA all opposed the section 1113e hearing.

The IAM, AFA and CWA even filed an appeal after the judge ruled.

 

[Bob Owens]

Whats soooo stupid, is here we are and theres southwest..... there growing, and were fighting each other. Thanks IAM !

[post="235829"][/post]​

Stupid is fighting to prevent a $40/hr (SWA mechanics) job from coming to town by agreeing to work for $20/hr.

Your efforts would be better spent polishing up your resumees and getting them into SWA!

 

[Bob Owens]

Mr Bob Owens,

I was in court during the section 1113e hearings and YES the IAM, CWA and AFA all opposed the section 1113e hearing.

The IAM, AFA and CWA even filed an appeal after the judge ruled.

[post="235840"][/post]​

Well that was what you saw and was probably meant for public consumption. If the unions did not indicate that they were going to avail themselves of their RLA provided right to self help then the Judge had no reason to believe that their objections were anything more than a political attempt to show the members that they were fighting for them.

 

[28yrsnojob]

IAM we will not work for free

 

[OldGuyinPA]

we are where we because of inept management, not because of the line employees. how long..can the bod keep their heads in the sand....


to long i'm afraid.....


keep at it ...usa320pious and usfliboy

i vote for the al's to save us....................

 

[usfliboi]

[management was a part of it, but our high salaries and outdated workrules combined with the bashin were taking from other carriers, is the cultprit. Keep clicking your heels and blame management for everything, maybe it will just all go away !

 

[Tim Nelson]

The IAM has been big on warnings, threats, and rhetoric talk before and didn't do squat for its members. I would cast this newspaper 'chatter' from Canale aside.

And I do not pesonally find it likely that the IAM will strike since they have done nothing to increase solidarity.
I mean, it is common knowledge that the IAM isn't legitimated with its members on US AIRWAYS property. Almost a 'detachment' for the most part.

To be sure, there is corporate greed going on, but if the IAM cries Strike it will be interesting to see how many rampers obey. The ramp will be key and IMO only a 50%-50% might be all that is needed to have a successful strike if success is measured by shutting down a carrier, exterminating greed cancer so it doesn't affect other carriers, jobs, etc [see Eastern].

As a side, I do not find it any surprise that your company has decided to leave the dues checkoff article in tact with proposals while at the same time gutting all other articles in your contract, from wages, health care, benefits, retirement etc.....but ole yes, the dues checkoff stays in tact even though it cost the company tons to administer something the union should be doing. Doesn't that suggest anything to you folks?
Yes, while every quality part of your contract may get lowered, the IAM keeps the dues coming thanks to the company's willingness to somehow overlook the dues checkoff article, unless of course the Judge rules for a complete abrogation.

And if an imposition does happen that wipes out everything except the dues checkoff, then are the dues worth it and is it legally required to pay them if the 'contract in entirety' was not representative of a ratified collective bargaining agreement? I imagine with good measure that such things will be challenged should they come to pass and if an employee gets fired as a result of the dues checkoff then perhaps damages could be won. Interesting indeed.

regards,