Unions. Food for thought.....

[700UW]

Two Courts ruled, that is all that matters.

 

[Bear96]

What we have here is an interpretation by a few judges.

Oh, is that all. 🙄

Yes, that is indeed what we have here.

Which is how questions of law in the U.S. generally are settled: judges interpret statutes.

 

[FWAAA]

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

Yes, some federal judges resign their position to seek big money but the number is very, very small. Lifetime appointments tend are pretty effective at securing employee loyalty.

. . . 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.

Crooked? Any evidence the judges were crooked?

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.

The good news is that the courts, even in bankruptcy, cannot force Exxon to sell fuel to the airlines at lower prices than Exxon agreed to under their contract with the airline AND the courts (again, even in bankruptcy) cannot force/coerce/order any airline employee to sell their labor to their airline employer at any price, as every employee is free to withhold their labor by resigning their position with their employer. Unfortunately, bankruptcy courts are empowered to abrogate contracts and under current law, employees cannot strike.

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.

So are all judges "crooked," "morally corrupt" and "criminals" or do those labels apply only to judges who decide cases differently than you would if you were in their shoes?

I've won appellate cases and I've lost appellate cases and I've never even privately referred to any of the judges who ruled against me (and my clients) with the terms you employ in this post. If all those Wall Street analysts you recently visited happen to publish articles in which they take AMR's side (and reject yours), will you apply similar labels to them as well? Next time you're wondering why union membership among non-government workers continues to decline, take a look at your post.

Funny part is that I agree with the view that you should be able to strke upon contract abrogation. I posted that view on this website when the NW FAs kept threatening to strke but kept granting NW extension after extension, seemingly waiting until the court ruled against them. I taunted the NW FA union posters on this website and told them they lacked the stones to strike, as it would have been better for them to immediately strike, impose the damage on NW and force NW to try to obtain an injunction (and enforce it - good luck with that) than to wait and wait and wait.

But my view ain't the law of the land. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees with us. The difference between us is that I am content by disagreeing with the court, without the need to label their actions as "crooked, corrupt and criminal."

 

[eolesen]

I also happen to think unions should be able to strike upon arbrogation. But that's not how the courts have ruled.

It was uncharted territory until the AFA screwed up by waiting when NWA threw out their contract. And now you have precedent which is not in labor's favor.

And not just one judge from a lower court, but a panel of judges at the appellate level...

I don't recall if the Supremes refused to hear an appeal or if AFA's legal counsel finally saw the writing on the wall and didn't pursue an appeal.

Either way, the fact that there's a precedent means you're looking at an injunction and damages the moment you try to walk out after a S1113 proceeding. Maybe it's still worth doing. But if it risks bankrupting the union in the process, I'd advise you to think twice about it.

 

[Bear96]

It was uncharted territory until the AFA screwed up by waiting when NWA threw out their contract. And now you have precedent which is not in labor's favor.

I do not see how that would have mattered. Had AFA gone on strike, NWA would have just filed for an injunction. The court would probably have ruled in NWA's favor at that point, ultimately reaching the same conclusion about the issue using the same reasoning and setting the same precedent. At least I don't see anything to indicate a different outcome.

I don't recall if the Supremes refused to hear an appeal or if AFA's legal counsel finally saw the writing on the wall and didn't pursue an appeal.

I do not see a record of cert. denied, so it looks like AFA did not appeal the Second Circuit's decision.

 

[700UW]

What Bob is referring to is a section in the RLA, it covers railroads and abrogations, not airlines.

It was explained to us but Sharon Levine, one of the US' leading attorneys in the US, especially the RLA.

 

[Hopeful]

But my view ain't the law of the land. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees with us. The difference between us is that I am content by disagreeing with the court, without the need to label their actions as "crooked, corrupt and criminal."

In your field, you can be content with the ruling of the court. You win some, you lose some!
the difference being that organized labor has been losing to the combined efforts of corporate America and the government, be it by legislation or by judicial appointments. There has hardly been a win for labor!

 

[FWAAA]

In your field, you can be content with the ruling of the court. You win some, you lose some!
the difference being that organized labor has been losing to the combined efforts of corporate America and the government, be it by legislation or by judicial appointments. There has hardly been a win for labor!

Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with being angry when judges employ specious reasoning to make decisions that are not logical (in my or your opinion). But there's a huge difference between being angry when your side loses and spouting nonsense about the judges being "crooked, corrupt and criminals" every time you disagree with a judge's decision. It's all about how someone expresses their anger and disappointment.

The "crooked, corrupt and criminal" blather is up there with the constant drumbeat that Arpey and other corporate executives routinely hide money and maintain a separate set of books so they can screw the working man.

 

[Deleted member 17588]

The "crooked, corrupt and criminal" blather is up there with the constant drumbeat that Arpey and other corporate executives routinely hide money and maintain a separate set of books so they can screw the working man.

You're so right. Arpey et al don't need to hide anything from us in order to screw us over. They do it right out in the open.

 

[Deleted member 17588]

Apparently some Boards of Directors are having second thoughts about their rubber stamp approval of excessive CEO pay. But I don't expect the majority to take the issue seriously enough to make any drastic and meaningful changes. In the meantime, excessive CEO pay continues to widen the compensation wedge between them and their workforce.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/business/10comp.html?pagewanted=1&wpisrc=nl_wonk&_r=2

 

[Hopeful]

Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with being angry when judges employ specious reasoning to make decisions that are not logical (in my or your opinion). But there's a huge difference between being angry when your side loses and spouting nonsense about the judges being "crooked, corrupt and criminals" every time you disagree with a judge's decision. It's all about how someone expresses their anger and disappointment.

The "crooked, corrupt and criminal" blather is up there with the constant drumbeat that Arpey and other corporate executives routinely hide money and maintain a separate set of books so they can screw the working man.

I see a much larger picture. AMR is doing nothing different than the rest of corporate America. About 30 years ago, the right wingers teamed up with the government to destroy UNIONS....The "working man" was collateral damage, union and non union alike.
As you have recently seen with the anti-union legislation in Wisconsin and Illinois, and others, the extreme right as made unions the enemies as if they and they alone are responsible for state deficits.
This is all an excuse to break unions.
For instance, the governor of Wisconsin signed into low that the teachers' unions need to re certify their union annually?

Tell me, what does THAT have to do with the budget?

Now, where the republicans are in control, they have the legal right to pass whatever laws they see fit. All's fair!
But, let's not hear all the cries when the dems take control and stick it to the managment of these companies.

If unions were to disappear tomorrow, the next thing you would see is all workplace and environmental regulations disappear as well.

Anything that hurts the bottom line of a company will be reversed.

Union workers now.....Non-union workers next...

The pendulum will eventually swing back to fairness for unions and all workers alike.
At that time, I truly hope that all the greed of corporate America will be fairly legislated....just like in Wisconsin!

 

[strikeforce]

I also happen to think unions should be able to strike upon arbrogation. But that's not how the courts have ruled.

It was uncharted territory until the AFA screwed up by waiting when NWA threw out their contract. And now you have precedent which is not in labor's favor.

And not just one judge from a lower court, but a panel of judges at the appellate level...

I don't recall if the Supremes refused to hear an appeal or if AFA's legal counsel finally saw the writing on the wall and didn't pursue an appeal.

Either way, the fact that there's a precedent means you're looking at an injunction and damages the moment you try to walk out after a S1113 proceeding. Maybe it's still worth doing. But if it risks bankrupting the union in the process, I'd advise you to think twice about it.

AMR can go into BK tomorrow and cancel our contract.....but, you'll be surprised as to the condition of the company during BK. People don't have to strike.....they don't care anymore and they'll just stay home. Just another form of strike. Corporate America just doesn't get it....you have screwed with the middle class enough, either by paycuts, higher fuel prices, and taking our collective bargaining rights away, but we're on to your game and people have had enough. I don't give a rats ass what the BK courts rule....I'm just not coming to work anymore because I'll be better off living on the U.S. coin.....Welfare!

 

[700UW]

Wrong, they cant just cancel your CBA, go look at Section 1113, the laws were changed after Lorenzo raped CO.

11 U.S.C. § 1113, “Rejection of Collective Bargaining Agreements,” codifies under what circumstances collective bargaining agreements may be rejected in a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. When a company seeks to reject or modify a collective bargaining agreement under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Code §1113, entitled Rejection of Collective Bargaining Agreements, clarifies the circumstances under which such agreements may be rejected. Section 1113(B) and (c) generally require the following steps:

* The debtor must make a proposal to the union to modify the collective bargaining agreement anytime after filing a petition and before an application seeking rejection of the agreement.
* The proposal must be based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time of the proposal.
* The proposed modifications in employees' benefits and protections are those necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor.
* The proposed modifications must assure that all creditors, the debtor and all of the affected parties are treated fairly and equitably.
* The debtor must provide the union with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
* The debtor must meet at reasonable times with the union between the time of the making of the proposal and the hearing on the application to reject the collective bargaining agreement.
* The debtor must confer in good faith with the union in attempting to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of the agreement.
* The union must have refused to accept the debtor's proposal without good cause.

The balance of equities clearly favors the rejection of the collective bargaining agreement.

 

[eolesen]

Yes, the laws were changed, but the only material change I see with S1113 is that there has to be a hearing and an attempt to settle consensually first. It slows down the process by a couple weeks, and since most bankruptcy judges are crooked and on the take, it's a rubber stamp once the hearing is held and the union's demands are ignored.

Seriously, has there been a case where a management team hasn't gotten their way in a S1113 proceeding? I really can't think of one.

I do hope you guys don't have to find out firsthand, but that seems to be more and more likely every day oil stays above $100...

 

[Hopeful]

Yes, the laws were changed, but the only material change I see with S1113 is that there has to be a hearing and an attempt to settle consensually first. It slows down the process by a couple weeks, and since most bankruptcy judges are crooked and on the take, it's a rubber stamp once the hearing is held and the union's demands are ignored.

Seriously, has there been a case where a management team hasn't gotten their way in a S1113 proceeding? I really can't think of one.

I do hope you guys don't have to find out firsthand, but that seems to be more and more likely every day oil stays above $100...

That's exactly the point. Management ALWAYS gets its way. let em file...Just remember, the morale issue will worsen. If one thinks that a bankruptcy filing will magically make AA's financial picture change overnight is sadly mistaken.

All they can do is force a new contract on us. They can NEVER stop a mechanic or pilot from keeping an aircraft grounded until we say it is safe to fly.
They can never change the "service" passengers will experience by customer contact employees.

Let em file... most of us will still be employed by the new AA... And if you think their image is in the toilet now,,,,,just wait!