Unions. Food for thought.....

[strikeforce]

That is a fact! And when we asked why the executive officers did not loose their stock and pensions, they stated that they had a contract, all the while abrogating ours. Their 'contracts' are untouchable while ours we worthless paper. And Unions are the criminals, go figure... :wacko:

Why can't unions incorporate language in cba's that state something like "In the event of a BK this agreement shall be untouchable", and make it a strike issue, especially when it invloves companies on the brink, like AA. I mean, if our agreements are that "worthless" in BK's, then the union isn't doing it's due diligence to protect the membership.

 

[eolesen]

There are companies who have put agreements not to pursue S1113 into contracts (Hawaiian did this), but it wouldn't surprise me to find out they're unenforceable... and no side letter would allow you to bypass the RLA.

 

[xUT]

There are companies who have put agreements not to pursue S1113 into contracts (Hawaiian did this), but it wouldn't surprise me to find out they're unenforceable... and no side letter would allow you to bypass the RLA.

Reading the RLA, it appears that it only applies to unions/organized labor. Management/Executives/etc... are outside the RLA, or at least that's how I read it.
That would make sense as how union contracts can be abrogated while Management/Executives/etc... are untouchable.
B) xUT

 

[eolesen]

Reading the RLA, it appears that it only applies to unions/organized labor. Management/Executives/etc... are outside the RLA, or at least that's how I read it.
That would make sense as how union contracts can be abrogated while Management/Executives/etc... are untouchable.
B) xUT

I think you missed the point. The suggestion was to make it a strike issue if the contract was arbrogated. And that's not going to happen. The only way to strike under the RLA is to be released by the NMB, and not once that I'm aware of has the NMB involved with a S1113 proceeding.

An executive's contract most certainly can be arbrogated. And it does happen, albeit rarely. You just have to be able to prove to a judge that it is in the company's best interest to do so.

 

[xUT]

I think you missed the point. The suggestion was to make it a strike issue if the contract was arbrogated. And that's not going to happen. The only way to strike under the RLA is to be released by the NMB, and not once that I'm aware of has the NMB involved with a S1113 proceeding.

An executive's contract most certainly can be arbrogated. And it does happen, albeit rarely. You just have to be able to prove to a judge that it is in the company's best interest to do so.

Yes I did miss the point. Thanks!
We just need more regulations to clarify the steps.

Bankruptcy Law S.1113 only deals with collective bargaining (unions).
All the cards are stacked against organized labor and given the recent history of Management/Executives/etc... contracts, I do not know of one that has been modified, much less abrogated.
Every KERP package delivered to the judges in the UAL, USAIR, NWA and Delta BK's were rubber stamped while labor got reamed.

 

[FWAAA]

Why can't unions incorporate language in cba's that state something like "In the event of a BK this agreement shall be untouchable", and make it a strike issue, especially when it invloves companies on the brink, like AA. I mean, if our agreements are that "worthless" in BK's, then the union isn't doing it's due diligence to protect the membership.

As eolesen pointed out, such a provision would be unenforcable. The way to achieve what you suggest is to get Congress to amend the US Bankruptcy Code to make labor agreements inviolate or amend the RLA to permit immediate self-help if a labor agreement is abrogated in bankruptcy.

 

[Bob Owens]

I think you missed the point. The suggestion was to make it a strike issue if the contract was arbrogated. And that's not going to happen. The only way to strike under the RLA is to be released by the NMB, and not once that I'm aware of has the NMB involved with a S1113 proceeding.

An executive's contract most certainly can be arbrogated. And it does happen, albeit rarely. You just have to be able to prove to a judge that it is in the company's best interest to do so.

The RLA already says that once a contract is abrogated that we can strike. Thats been the law since 1926. Nowhere in there does it say that if they use Bankruptcty to abrogate the deal then we cant strike.This is still America, unless there's a law that expressly says we cant do something then we can do it. If they change our pay, benifits or workrules thats automatically a Major Dispute and we can strike.

The whole premise behind the prohibition on striking is the maintenance of Status Quo. The problem is the unions lacked the balls to act upon their rights and they let some quack Judge take that right away.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bankruptcy Law S.1113 only deals with collective bargaining (unions).
All the cards are stacked against organized labor and given the recent history of Management/Executives/etc... contracts, I do not know of one that has been modified, much less abrogated.
Every KERP package delivered to the judges in the UAL, USAIR, NWA and Delta BK's were rubber stamped while labor got reamed.

And what did Labor do about it? Nothing. Buffy didnt take paycuts, neither did Hoffa or any of the other unions leaders that rolled us over. They were all hoping that one of the other airlines would go out of business and they could scoop up a few more dues payers without having to raid, since they wont. I'd been calling for a General Strike by all the airline unions, a political act against how the courts were dealing with and running over the RLA, but instead I was removed from office by our International. The even brought up how I was calling for a General Strike during the Kangaroo Court trial they put on. Now we see where states have upped the ante, they arent just going after wages and benifits of workers anymore, now they are going after their right to organize, well now they(the leaders) have something to lose and all of a sudden its time to fight back. They didnt want us to fight back when they stripped us of everything we pay dues for but now they want us to fight back because their ability to collect those dues are at stake, their asses are on the line, they may have to go back to the floor and work under terms they helped put in place!

That said, as bad of a job as these leaders have done we must preserve our right to organize and bargain collectively. If they take that right away from Government workers, workers in"essential Industries" , thats us, will be next. Just because our leaders have failed us it doesnt mean that the concept of unionism is a failure, we just need to fix the damage that these people have done to it.

As far as FWAAAs suggestion on getting fair laws put in place there is only one way that working people can achieve that, create so much disruption to commerce that the people at the top become concerned and decide to allow it to happen. The only way transport workers will be treated fairly will be when they create an intolerable amount of disruption, sure the government will come down heavy but if we stay the course they will eventaully come around because they need us to do our jobs. Thats how the RLA came about in the first place. Over the last 80 years they've steadily chipped away at everything the RLA provided labor but you have to remember that rail workers didnt have the right to strike prior to the RLA but they did it anyway.

May 1st is International Labor Day, a day of rememberance for the Haymarket martyrs. Could you think of better day for workers to send a message to Capitalists by calling in sick or refusing OT or working to rule? Think of the chills it would send up the spines of all the suits in Boardrooms across the country (and their underlings in the Halls Of Congress)if they saw millions of workers take part in a protest against their abuse. Sure its a Socialist Holday but that would make it even more effective at scaring the crap out of them, nothing scares Capitalists more than the thought of a resurgance of Socialism. Its often said that FDR saved Capitalism, because after the 1929 crash the Communist party was one of the fastest growing parties in the country. In response we got the Wagner act, Social Security and a host of other laws favoring workers. We saw the softer side of Capitalism because they feared the alternative.

They no longer see anything they fear so it only makes them bolder.

Doing something on MAY 1 would shake things up, a collective action, tied to that symbolic date would give them something to be concerned about, a much needed shot across the bow that if Capitalism doesnt have the capacity to share what we help produce there are alternatives, alternatives they would not like.

Or, we could sit back do nothing, and just accept that things will continue to get worse for us while the rich get richer.

 

[strikeforce]

Maintenance (experienced or inexperienced/in-house or MRO) should not be blamed for the peeling skin on the SWA 737-300. Boeing has accepted responsibility for this situation, as reported in the WSJ:

boeing should take the blame, but someone, whether in house or mro, missed the cracks. In SWA, the central american mro missed the cracks. And how much do those guys make a day? let alone the experience level?

 

[Bear96]

The RLA already says that once a contract is abrogated that we can strike. Thats been the law since 1926. Nowhere in there does it say that if they use Bankruptcty to abrogate the deal then we cant strike.This is still America, unless there's a law that expressly says we cant do something then we can do it. If they change our pay, benifits or workrules thats automatically a Major Dispute and we can strike.

The only appellate court to have directly addressed this issue disagrees with you.

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/483/483.F3d.160.06-4468-.06-4371-.html

Northwest, under the protection of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and with the bankruptcy court's imprimatur, has rejected the collective-bargaining agreement that until recently governed its relationship with the AFA and imposed new terms and conditions of employment upon its flight attendants. The AFA does not wish to accede to these terms and conditions of employment and threatens a work stoppage unless Northwest agrees to terms and conditions that are more favorable to the flight attendants.

. . .

We hold that Section 2 (First) of the Railway Labor Act forbids an immediate strike when a bankruptcy court approves a debtor-carrier's rejection of a collective-bargaining agreement that is subject to the Railway Labor Act and permits it to impose new terms[.]

 

[Bob Owens]

The only appellate court to have directly addressed this issue disagrees with you.

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/483/483.F3d.160.06-4468-.06-4371-.html

Yes and does that suprise anyone when judges retire then get jobs with companies that they ruled favorably for??

The Bankruptcy Act of 1933 prohibited the railroads from changing wages and working conditions except in accordance with the RLA and the 1932 Chicago agreement. Later in 1938 a PEB ruled that "workers should not be indirectly taxed to keep the roads running". Yet 75 years later that is exactly what this court did. Labor was at fault for not calling a General strike in defense of our right to collectively bargain with our property. If they had then its much less likely the court would have made all the false assumptions they did (saying that the workers would be better off accepting the concessions than risking the possibility of liquidation of the carrier) and stuck to the facts, that the RLA basically guarantees that workers covered under the act will not be forced to work under conditions they didnt agree to unless they were imposed by the elected representatives of Congress of the United States and only after exhausting all the steps as spelled out in the Act, not a couple of crooked Judges that have more to gain by ruling in favor of the carrier than by ruling in favor of workers rights.

"I say the question is whether Northwest abrogated the status quo unilaterally, and would hold that it did not."

This statement alone shows what a quack the guy was. He never elaborates as to how the imposed terms are anything but a unilateral abrogation of the status quo, only claiming that he holds they did not. The company was imposing terms that they unilterally decided upon, the court freed them to impose the terms and under the RLA that means we can strike. Court action under bankruptcy releases them from the contractual obligations but the court does not have the right to force us to accept those terms going forward either individually or collectively. As the PEB said in 1938 "workers should not be indirectly taxed" to keep the company going. Otherwise if that was the case, if our property can be confiscated going forward then so can anyone elses. The courts would also have the right to force Exxon to sell the carrier fuel at 10 cents a gallon even if it cost Exxon $1gallon to provide the fuel.

Lets look at what has happened in the interum, oil companies have more than doubled the price of fuel they charge the carriers, the Airports have increased what they charge for landing fees by more than 30% and parts suppliers and other vendors have also dramatically increased what they charge the airlines. I can only imagine how much more money the banks are pulling out of these carriers. So the only people that were really hurt going forward from the Bankruptcy going forward were airline workers. The banks used the BK as a reason to charge higher rates and fees. Thats how it happens that carriers that have increased their revenues in the $billion$ and slashed their labor costs anywhere from the hundreds of millions to the billions can still claim they arent making any money.

What this amounted to was a transfer of wealth, facilited by the Judicial system of the United States, from airline workers, all of them taxpayers, nearly all of them citizens, many of them veterans, to corporations and their shareholders.

What the courts did in this case was morally corrupt and I have no doubt that those guys will or have been handsomly rewarded for their criminality. When we look at our history it really shouldnt come as a suprise, courts usually rule in favor of the powerful and against those who seek justice, its only when their dirty deeds are revealed and an the public becomes agitated that they finally start to uphold what they swore to uphold when they took the job.

 

[Bear96]

Well, maybe so, though I disagree with you (and it is usually a sign of a weak position when someone who disagrees with a court's outcome starts calling the judge(s) corrupt).

Nevertheless, the decision does mean that this statement of yours is just plain wrong, at least under current law:

The RLA already says that once a contract is abrogated that we can strike. Thats been the law since 1926. Nowhere in there does it say that if they use Bankruptcty to abrogate the deal then we cant strike.This is still America, unless there's a law that expressly says we cant do something then we can do it. If they change our pay, benifits or workrules thats automatically a Major Dispute and we can strike.

 

[Bob Owens]

Well, maybe so, though I disagree with you (and it is usually a sign of a weak position when someone who disagrees with a court's outcome starts calling the judge(s) corrupt).

Nevertheless, the decision does mean that this statement of yours is just plain wrong, at least under current law:

What we have here is an interpretation by a few judges. was the ruling unanimous?

We need to go back to the writing of the 1926 law. The law was crafted by the Industry and Unions and the intentions were clear, that the status quo and the right to strike were linked to each other. If the ststus quo was unilterally changed then either party had the right to excercise self help. Agreements would stay in place until new agreements were crafted or until the parties are released by the NMB. The President could convene a PEB, and the parties had a right to reject the recommendations of the PEB and then the government could turn it over to Congress where in theory both sides would be given equal consideration when they make a determination. These intentions were ignored by the majority in this decision. The bankruptcy court does not give both parties equal consideration. It looks at the petitioner as the one seeking protection and inherantly gives them whatever they say they need as far as relief from debts or contracts. Its there to absolve them of the sins of the past and allow them to move forward without past debts or contracts holding them back. I dont see any examples where a BK court has imposed new terms going forward on anyone other than labor. Other than their interpretation I dont see anything in the statutes that grant them that authority, only conjecture based upon other decisions. They may approve the abrogation of current terms but as I said before do they have the right to tell vendors that they must agree to new terms going forward? I dont see that. I dont dispute the courts right to abrogate a deal, I dont dispute the courts right to allow a company to rewrite a deal what I dispute is the courts decision to impose the deal and deny workers their rights as provided by the RLA.

 

[700UW]

The RLA already says that once a contract is abrogated that we can strike. Thats been the law since 1926. Nowhere in there does it say that if they use Bankruptcty to abrogate the deal then we cant strike.This is still America, unless there's a law that expressly says we cant do something then we can do it. If they change our pay, benifits or workrules thats automatically a Major Dispute and we can strike.

The whole premise behind the prohibition on striking is the maintenance of Status Quo. The problem is the unions lacked the balls to act upon their rights and they let some quack Judge take that right away.

Actually you cant strike upon an abrogation, Bankruptcy Law trumps the RLA, NW and their FAs had a court case and it was ruled you cant strike upon an abrogation.

And a Federal Court has to declare it a major dispute in order for you to srtike, been there done that at US.

Court Affirms Ruling Against Airline Strike

By REUTERS
Published: March 30, 2007

Flight attendants at Northwest Airlines are not allowed to strike, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday, affirming a lower court ruling and lifting a cloud hanging over the bankrupt carrier.

The ruling, from the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, protects Northwest from a potentially devastating strike threatened by the workers after Northwest voided their labor contract last year with court permission.

It also seems to clear up a legal question about the rights of workers to take job actions against a bankrupt employer.

The appeals court agreed with Judge Victor Marrero of Federal District Court in New York, who said last year that Northwest’s flight attendants, represented by the Association of Flight Attendants, did not have the right to strike under the circumstances.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/business/30air.html?_...

 

[Bear96]

What we have here is an interpretation by a few judges. was the ruling unanimous?

I proivded the link to the decision for you. Let's see if you can figure that out.