When Is The Earliest Ua/amfa Can Strike ?

[767jetz]

I think with regard to the legality of a strike, people are missing an important point.

Some say that if there is no contract, then the union can seek self help. While this may be true, it is not relevant in BK.

The judge will not eliminate a contract. He legally imposes a new one, which becomes the new legal working contract. That is the whole point of the 1113 process. Therefore, there will be a contract in effect, and the new status quo must be maintained.

Then the lawyers can dispute whether or not it is fair or not. This is the part of the Railway Labor Act that is untested. But as for striking because the judge "cancels" your contract, it just doesn't work that way.

 

[Fly]

Do you stop accruing seniority till you return? Maybe that is what was happening. I really didn't pay much attention to LOA since I didn't want one. Thinking real hard about it now.

[post="244759"][/post]​

You continue to accrue seniority too. You keep everything, including seniority for boarding privledges.

 

[aafsc]

I think with regard to the legality of a strike, people are missing an important point.

Some say that if there is no contract, then the union can seek self help. While this may be true, it is not relevant in BK.

The judge will not eliminate a contract. He legally imposes a new one, which becomes the new legal working contract. That is the whole point of the 1113 process. Therefore, there will be a contract in effect, and the new status quo must be maintained.

Then the lawyers can dispute whether or not it is fair or not. This is the part of the Railway Labor Act that is untested. But as for striking because the judge "cancels" your contract, it just doesn't work that way.

[post="244824"][/post]​

Then perhaps the judge can re-write UAL's fuel contracts so that UAL pays 30 cents a gallon. While he's at it, why doesn't he just impose new lease rates so that UAL pays the aircraft leasing companies half of what they are getting now?

 

[aafsc]

This scenario has already been "tested" in COs first bankruptcy under Lorenzo. The judge abrogated, and the employees all walked out (strike).

 

[Bear96]

But as for striking because the judge "cancels" your contract, it just doesn't work that way.

[post="244824"][/post]​

I think you are getting hung up on phraseology. The issue isn't whether or not it is called "cancelling a contract" or "imposing a new contract."

The basic contract law issue is how can one party be legally obligated to perform under a change in terms to which they did not agree. If the new terms came about from "cancellation" or "imposition" is irrelevant.

 

[Fly]

Unfortunately, the biggest issue that AMFA had with this TA was the outsourcing involved. I doubt you'll see a strike, more like a 'lock out'. That's the problem. United wants to outsource their jobs; so to threaten strike seems pretty risky. (ie - 1980's ATC )

A few months back I had a Senior UAL Officer onboard, he said (paraphrasing here folks🙂 "We are in the people moving business, not the airplane fixing business. If you owned a limousine business, you wouldn't hire a mechanic, you'd bring it to the shop if there were a problem with the limo." Yikes!

 

[aafsc]

Unfortunately, the biggest issue that AMFA had with this TA was the outsourcing involved. I doubt you'll see a strike, more like a 'lock out'. That's the problem. United wants to outsource their jobs; so to threaten strike seems pretty risky. (ie - 1980's ATC )

A few months back I had a Senior UAL Officer onboard, he said (paraphrasing here folks🙂 "We are in the people moving business, not the airplane fixing business. If you owned a limousine business, you wouldn't hire a mechanic, you'd bring it to the shop if there were a problem with the limo." Yikes!

[post="244880"][/post]​

FLY, you are right. With almost all of their heavy maintanence capacity gone, I believe that UAL will try to replace the relatively few that are left if they strike, they don't have the numbers to be a force. If they do strike, one has to wonder how many scabs will be brought in (there were plenty of scabs at EAL). Additionally, there are management people who have their A and P. And just as there are contract companies that do heavy overhaul, there are contract companies that do line maintanence. There are about half a dozen at the airport I work at. Reading the debates between mechanics here, it seems that AMFA is mostly supported by line mechanics and that AMFA will sacrafice heavy maintanece for higher pay for line mechanics (just look at NW and Alaska). When it is time at NW, I believe NW will get rid of the other half that they did not lay off. The next four months gives UA management time to fine tune their possible plan to replace them once and for all if AMFA does not cave and accept concessions. But I believe that McCormick and Delle want to keep the dues flowing so I don't believe there will be a strike.

 

[atabuy]

Unfortunately, the biggest issue that AMFA had with this TA was the outsourcing involved. I doubt you'll see a strike, more like a 'lock out'. That's the problem. United wants to outsource their jobs; so to threaten strike seems pretty risky. (ie - 1980's ATC )

A few months back I had a Senior UAL Officer onboard, he said (paraphrasing here folks🙂 "We are in the people moving business, not the airplane fixing business. If you owned a limousine business, you wouldn't hire a mechanic, you'd bring it to the shop if there were a problem with the limo." Yikes!

[post="244880"][/post]​

Airlines are not the only business, that has been, affected by outsourcing.
I think the problems today are; increased costs, associated with benefits.
What compounds the airline problem is too much capacity.

All these obstacles aside, employees are electing to try to get blood out of a stone.
It ain't gone to happen, and with employees becoming more of a morale problem, it is a lot easier for management to just tell them to shove off.

You have our workers who do not want to take a 9% wage drop, and you have a work force on the outside that looks at it like a 20% wage increase.

It is all about the market place.

 

[Bob Owens]

COSTS COSTS COSTS. And idiocrisy.

ALL OTHER UNIONS voted for their TAs. AMFA doesn't have a CBA to stand on.

9.8% is just the start.

[post="244602"][/post]​

All the other unions? The IAM does not have a new agreement yet.

 

[767jetz]

I think you are getting hung up on phraseology. The issue isn't whether or not it is called "cancelling a contract" or "imposing a new contract."

The basic contract law issue is how can one party be legally obligated to perform under a change in terms to which they did not agree. If the new terms came about from "cancellation" or "imposition" is irrelevant.

[post="244874"][/post]​

Actually, that is my point. People are hung up on the phraseology of "cancelling a contract."

And the issue of one party being obligated to perform under a change they did not agree to is the whole point of the 1113 process. Negotiate... negotiate... negotiate... and when all else fails, leave it in the judge's hands.

I'm not saying it's fair, but it is what it is. The lawyers will challenge the decision, but if it is done legally, then the only option is to fight the law itself that gives the judge the power to do it, and have the BK law changed.

AMFA will negotiate some more and try to come up with a ratifiable TA. If they can't and decide that they want to leave it for the judge, then it's because they believe the judge will impose something less harsh than the company's final offer. Therin lies the gamble, and the final outcome is something they have to live with.

I've heard many say that they just don't trust management, and they would rather leave it up to the judge. That of course is their option. In ALPA's case and the AFA's case, the members decided that the risk of that gamble was too high. Perhaps AMFA feels differently.

But a (legal) strike is very unlikely since the end result will still be a legal contract in place. At that point people unwilling to accept the terms will only have the option of voluntary severence.

 

[aafsc]

Actually, that is my point. People are hung up on the phraseology of "cancelling a contract."

And the issue of one party being obligated to perform under a change they did not agree to is the whole point of the 1113 process. Negotiate... negotiate... negotiate... and when all else fails, leave it in the judge's hands.

I'm not saying it's fair, but it is what it is. The lawyers will challenge the decision, but if it is done legally, then the only option is to fight the law itself that gives the judge the power to do it, and have the BK law changed.

AMFA will negotiate some more and try to come up with a ratifiable TA. If they can't and decide that they want to leave it for the judge, then it's because they believe the judge will impose something less harsh than the company's final offer. Therin lies the gamble, and the final outcome is something they have to live with.

I've heard many say that they just don't trust management, and they would rather leave it up to the judge. That of course is their option. In ALPA's case and the AFA's case, the members decided that the risk of that gamble was too high. Perhaps AMFA feels differently.

But a (legal) strike is very unlikely since the end result will still be a legal contract in place. At that point people unwilling to accept the terms will only have the option of voluntary severence.

[post="244951"][/post]​

Then can you explain why striking after abrogation at CO was not deemed "illegal"?

 

[Bob Owens]

This scenario has already been "tested" in COs first bankruptcy under Lorenzo.  The judge abrogated, and the employees all walked out (strike).

[post="244872"][/post]​

Actually it was just the pilots. The IAM went through the NMB process. The pilots thought they were OK because they had a contract. When the IAM went on strike the Pilots refused to honor their picket lines (some AFL-CIO unity there ). The pilots figured that Lorenzo could not do anything to them but they were wrong, Lorenzo filed BK and the Judge voided the contracts. I'm sure that Lorenzo would have loved for the Judge to say that they could not strike but he didnt. However it did not matter, pilots were just as willing to cross their own lines as anyone elses.


Now for 767Jetz.
I think with regard to the legality of a strike, people are missing an important point.

Some say that if there is no contract, then the union can seek self help. While this may be true, it is not relevant in BK.

Oh really? Why do you say that? If the judge cancels the lease contracts does the airline keep the Jets?

If he cancels the fuel contract do the fuel companies have to continue to give the airline fuel?

Your claim makes no sense. Give us something, anything to back it up.

It does say that a Judge can impose temporary contracts, some would disagree but even then I would say that a strike is legal. Why wouldnt it be?

The judge will not eliminate a contract. He legally imposes a new one, which becomes the new legal working contract.

Read the law. He cant impose new contracts, he can only put in temporary ones if there is a dire need for it till the parties either come to a mutual agreement or an impasse. However nothing can force the other party to come to an agreement that will save the company.

That is the whole point of the 1113 process.

What is? Judge imposed new contracts? Where did you get that from?


Therefore, there will be a contract in effect, and the new status quo must be maintained.

A contract is an agreement between two parties, what you are describing is more like a mandate. Give me one example where such a thing has occured. Clearly if that is allowed then we may as well just scrap the entire labor movement along with the bill of rights.

Then the lawyers can dispute whether or not it is fair or not. This is the part of the Railway Labor Act that is untested. But as for striking because the judge "cancels" your contract, it just doesn't work that way.

Of course it does. Precedence has been set already despite your claims. Continental 1983.

Once again here in America people can do what they want unless it is expressly forbidden. Show me where private sector workers without a contract cant strike.

Show me where a BK judge, whose primary interest is preserving the equity of the creditors, has the right to force workers, or vendors, or suppliers to continue to do business under terms they did not agree to. Sure he can void out contracts but he cant put in new ones. Why would the law place the rights of one creditor over those of another? What would be the justification of taking the property of one party and giving it to another to insure that recieving party doesnt lose money that they knew was at risk?

Basically you are advocating Fascism. A "socializing of labor" where corporations have superior rights than citizens. People are reduced to being property where the government promotes policies where the welfare of the corporation is given priority over the welfare of people.

 

[aafsc]

Also, you said "negotiate, negotiate, negotiate, and if all else fails, leave it in the judges hands". Sounds to me that the judge then becomes a binding arbitrator. Except in this case the union has not agreed to binding arbitration. The judge can not make anyone work.

 

[Bob Owens]

767jetz,Feb 3 2005, 01:15 AM]
Actually, that is my point. People are hung up on the phraseology of "cancelling a contract."

Abrogate is the word. To abrogate is to abolish or annul by authority. Not to replace.

And the issue of one party being obligated to perform under a change they did not agree to is the whole point of the 1113 process.


What? Are you nuts? If that was the case then why wouldnt every corporation simply go Bankrupt so they can force everyone the do business with to perform under terms they did not agree to. This would not only apply to labor. Now the airline could say we can only pay $1 a year to lease a 777 and 1 cent a gallon for fuel.

Negotiate... negotiate... negotiate... and when all else fails, leave it in the judge's hands.

Negotiate, negotiate , negotiate and if you cant come up with an agreement the judge will tear up the contract and you are no longer bound to each other. THATS HOW IT WORKS!

I'm not saying it's fair, but it is what it is. The lawyers will challenge the decision, but if it is done legally, then the only option is to fight the law itself that gives the judge the power to do it, and have the BK law changed.

"if its done legally". Show us how a Judge can legally impose changes that extend beyond BK protection. Or do you think that UAL will simply stay under BK protection forevere? Show me where he has the power to put in anything other than temporary changes.
If the employees agree to a contract in BK till 2008, even if the company exits BK they are still bound by the agreement. However if a Judge imposes a tempporary contract those terms are are only binding while the company is in BK.

So in this case the workers are better off agreeing to nothing, and let the Judge impose temporary measures, (if he abrogates or takes too much, they strike),than to agree to another round of long term concessions that will still be in effect if UAL exits BK.


AMFA will negotiate some more and try to come up with a ratifiable TA. If they can't and decide that they want to leave it for the judge, then it's because they believe the judge will impose something less harsh than the company's final offer. Therin lies the gamble, and the final outcome is something they have to live with.

Sure in Bk. I would take my chances with the temporary cuts and agree to nothing. Then if UAL does survive you can get back what you lost.


I've heard many say that they just don't trust management, and they would rather leave it up to the judge. That of course is their option. In ALPA's case and the AFA's case, the members decided that the risk of that gamble was too high. Perhaps AMFA feels differently.

Perhaps they should. The ALPA and AFA have completely different lifestyles that afford them more time off. Pilots still have the opportunity to make a lot of money.Mechanics tend to work at least a 40 hour week, every week.

But a (legal) strike is very unlikely since the end result will still be a legal contract in place.

Not if they vote NO.

 

[Bear96]

And the issue of one party being obligated to perform under a change they did not agree to is the whole point of the 1113 process. Negotiate... negotiate... negotiate... and when all else fails, leave it in the judge's hands.

Well, sort of. In Chapter 11, certainly the debtor has the right to get out of contracts it can no longer afford to honor. They can negotiate with the other party (lessor, vendor, whatever). If the parties fail to reach an agreement, certainly the debtor can decide it no longer wants to be bound by the contract. But then the other side can say "see ya" as well.

That is what Bob Owens is saying. The debtor can decide its fuel contract with the fuel supplier is too expensive, and try to negotiate new terms with the supplier. If they fail to reach new terms, the debtor can reject the contract. But the fuel supplier does not have to keep on supplying fuel at the new terms to which it did not agree. And so on for other types of contracts.

All the relatively new Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code does is to add a couple of additional hoops for the debtor to jump through before it can reject a collective bargaining agreement. But the end result is most likely the same as with any other executory contract in bankruptcy. If the debtor and the "other party" (here, labor) cannot reach an agreement, the debtor is ultimately free to reject it. But the other party does not have to keep on performing under terms to which it did not agree.

You are right though that this is an untested area of law. It has never yet happened that a Railway Labor Act collective bargaining agreement has received judicial approval to be permanently rejected over the objections of a union. So no one really knows how a court will react.

But a (legal) strike is very unlikely since the end result will still be a legal contract in place. At that point people unwilling to accept the terms will only have the option of voluntary severence.

[post="244951"][/post]​

That is one of the interesting questions in all of this. If the debtor is given approval to reject a CBA, would the judge indeed say, "You (inidividual workers) of course are not forced to accept these terms -- feel free to leave the company at any time"? Possibly.

However, a major flaw in that theory is that in a unionized workplace, the debtor's contractual relationship is not with the individual employees so much as it is with the union. So I can easily see a legal argument that the party that refuses to work under the new terms is not the individual employee, but the union collectively, and refuses to do so in the form of legal collective self help.

It will certainly be interesting to see how this all plays out.