Why no notice of TPA closing

traderjake

Veteran
Aug 30, 2002
5,670
9,310
www.usaviation.com
When the mechanics went on strike in the early 90's somebody in LGA took all tow bar pins so that no airplane could be pushed back from the gate. IMO, the company gave no advanced notice in TPA to prevent similar mischief or vandalism from occuring. The majority, who are honest, suffer to prevent damage by a few malicious employees seeking revenge.
 

N786P

Advanced
Nov 8, 2002
144
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/29/2002 1:16:52 PM freedom wrote:

When the mechanics went on strike in the early 90's somebody in LGA took all tow bar pins so that no airplane could be pushed back from the gate. IMO, the company gave no advanced notice in TPA to prevent similar mischief or vandalism from occuring. The majority, who are honest, suffer to prevent damage by a few malicious employees seeking revenge.

----------------
[/blockquote]
Hey Freedom, then why did"t U do the same when they closed ROA,GSO,INT,ect...
bottom line is those who made the decision have the back bone of a Jellyfish..
and flatly do not care
 

Res

Senior
Aug 20, 2002
361
1
www.usaviation.com
I also agree that it was for safety reasons...and also so no additional damage could be done that would cost the company $$ in the long run.

Can't help but wonder was TPA a a strong NO vote on both the first and second round of voting? Wonder also if this didn't have something to do with the quick closing.
 

cat 111

Advanced
Aug 25, 2002
230
0
Dave is a man of his word. "LABOR FRIENDLY" What a piece of work.I guess he had two teachers. LORENZO AND WOLF.
 
Aug 20, 2002
167
0
how about the jetways that were destroyed....we could not pull up to the fifty percent of flights, that were flying......what about all the other damage they did.....yes many our good people, but i would bet anyone and know for fact there are still many of the good old guys still working.....thank you very much during that time.......i understand why the company did what they did that day......worried about what they will start doing now,,,,,,
 

N786P

Advanced
Nov 8, 2002
144
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/29/2002 3:14:51 PM Res wrote:

I also agree that it was for safety reasons...and also so no additional damage could be done that would cost the company $$ in the long run.

Can't help but wonder was TPA a a strong NO vote on both the first and second round of voting? Wonder also if this didn't have something to do with the quick closing.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Yes,TPA was a strong no vote the first time around, and many TPA employees were pushing hard for no re-vote.
 

MCORORES

Senior
Aug 19, 2002
317
0
www.usaviation.com
What is ironic is the attitude that Dave gave was "that was then and this is now". Maybe that was only ment for the employees and not management. And to think the company wants more. The basic prinipal in life is to treat each other with respect. TPA was NOT treated with respect.
 

ExUAW

Member
Nov 27, 2002
66
0
Visit site
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/29/2002 1:16:52 PM freedom wrote:

When the mechanics went on strike in the early 90's somebody in LGA took all tow bar pins so that no airplane could be pushed back from the gate. IMO, the company gave no advanced notice in TPA to prevent similar mischief or vandalism from occuring. The majority, who are honest, suffer to prevent damage by a few malicious employees seeking revenge.

----------------
[/blockquote]

yeah sure ... and I own a hangar in Tampa I'll sell ya!
2.gif']
 

JonC

Advanced
Sep 9, 2002
102
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/29/2002 1:16:52 PM freedom wrote:

When the mechanics went on strike in the early 90's somebody in LGA took all tow bar pins so that no airplane could be pushed back from the gate. IMO, the company gave no advanced notice in TPA to prevent similar mischief or vandalism from occuring. The majority, who are honest, suffer to prevent damage by a few malicious employees seeking revenge.

----------------
[/blockquote]

However, this is the exact corporate behavior that breeds that type of action. The way that TPA was closed was entirely uncalled for and was a direct violation of the supposedly "new and improved" US Airways management style. Until the stormtroopers showed up and kicked everyone out, the company was denying anything was going to happen. They lied to us, plain and simple. Any company that lies to their employees, for whatever reason is not worth working for.

As a "displaced" TPA employee, that is exactly why I am taking a furlough. I am tired to being lied to and spit on by my company. Enough is enough. The way that TPA was handled was a disgrace to US Airways.

That said, I've heard that there has been a complaint filed with the Department of Labor, as the WARN (Workers Adjustment and Relocation Act) has been violated. It is Federal law that a company laying off or relocating more than 50 employees at a location with over 100 workers must give 60 days notice to the employees and local officials.

US Airways, management friendly as they are, are in direct violation. US Airways also lied to the local authorities, as of a week ago they told the HCAA that they had no intention of closing the facility. So once again, US Airways has messed their own pants. They have opened themselves to a class action lawsuit and potentially problems with the Labor Department.

IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE TPA DISPLACED WORKERS, OR KNOW ONE! PLEASE KNOW YOUR RIGHTS:
http://www.floridajobs.org/pdg/quickquestions/warn/

Jon C.
 

Boomer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,139
70
I'm sorry for butting in here, but, it seems that some of your people have developed "Stockholm Syndrome," whereby they begin to identify with their attackers as a means of adjusting themselves to the reality in which they find themselves.

There is no excuse for treating individuals with callous disregard when they, as a group, had complied with your demands.

For negotiations to occur, there has to be established a defined cause and effect that is attached to the demands from the opposition. Reactions that fall outside the sphere of a cause and effect attached to a certain demand become irrational and therefore invite an irrational response.

Perhaps that is what Dearth Beagle is seeking.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 4:41:09 PM JonC wrote:

It is Federal law that a company laying off or relocating more than 50 employees at a location with over 100 workers must give 60 days notice to the employees and local officials.

----------------
[/blockquote]

Yes, but the Florida reference you were looking at is a bit misleading, in that it doesn't contain the entire text, so don't get to excited just yet... Check out the [a href=http://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/warn.htm]US Department of Labor[/a] website for a more complete text of the WARN Act.

Specifically, there are three exceptions to the 60 day notice, which function like a "force majeure" clause in labor agreements.

[blockquote]The exceptions to 60-day notice are:


(1) Faltering company. This exception, to be narrowly construed, covers situations where a company has sought new capital or business in order to stay open and where giving notice would ruin the opportunity to get the new capital or business, and applies only to plant closings;


(2) unforeseeable business circumstances. This exception applies to closings and layoffs that are caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time notice would otherwise have been required; and


(3) Natural disaster. This applies where a closing or layoff is the direct result of a natural disaster, such as a flood, earthquake, drought or storm.
[/blockquote]

#3 clearly doesn't apply, but there's a pretty good case for either #1 and #2. Closing the TPA facility in its entirety probably meets the definitions for item 1, and I'm sure that someone can make a case for "unforseen circumstances" if they needed to.