W's Not Going To Help.

[Borescope]

No plans to intervene in Northwest Airlines-WHouse
Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:16 PM ET
WASHINGTON, Aug 15 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush does not plan to intervene to avert a possible strike by mechanics at Northwest Airlines Corp. (NWAC.O: Quote, Profile, Research) , the White House said on Monday.
"The National Mediation Board has found that a labor action at Northwest Airlines would not present a substantial disruption of interstate commerce," said White House spokesman Trent Duffy.

"The administration does not dispute this conclusion based on current information, and the President is not creating a Presidential Emergency Board," he said, referring to a panel that would examine the dispute and put on hold a strike or lockout.

 

[jimntx]

Why am I not surprised? Particularly since a strike is exactly what NWA management wants. They can take the company into bankruptcy and get an emergency court order to savage all contracts and hire scab replacements.

 

[7.5victim]

I disagree... I believe that the last thing NW wants is to file for CH11. If that were the case, they probably could do it today, wouldn't need to wait until this weekend. Jimntx, who do you think has fared better. Employees like you at AA, who took the painful hit, but preserved pensions, or those at US and UA, who now get a PBGC payout.

OTOH, who knows, maybe it would've helped if MI and MN had gone to W, or even if AMFA hadn't followed in lockstep behind Kerry....

 

[jimntx]

I disagree... I believe that the last thing NW wants is to file for CH11. If that were the case, they probably could do it today, wouldn't need to wait until this weekend. Jimntx, who do you think has fared better. Employees like you at AA, who took the painful hit, but preserved pensions, or those at US and UA, who now get a PBGC payout.

OTOH, who knows, maybe it would've helped if MI and MN had gone to W, or even if AMFA hadn't followed in lockstep behind Kerry....

[post="288437"][/post]​

The jury is still out on who fared better. I was furloughed with no furlough pay for 17 months, and if oil prices remain as high as they are right now, I'll probably be furloughed again. The fact that we have pensions right now is no guarantee that we will have those pensions next year.

The conventional wisdom in the financial community is that both NWA and DL have no choice now except to file for bankruptcy and soon. Bk is still the best way to abrogate union contracts and get a judge to give management whatever they want.

However, the changes to the BK law that are coming in Oct. make bk much less attractive from an executive's point of view. For instance, if company eliminates worker pensions, they will have to eliminate executive pensions also. Retention bonusses can not be paid unless executive proves to the court that they have had an actual job offer from another company. It's an outrage, I tell you! The very idea that execs will have to justify their bonusses. What is this world coming to?

 

[Bob Owens]

That could be why NWA is going after the mechanics prior to BK. How are they going to justfy spending millions housing and training scabs while in BK? How could the judge impose cuts on the mechs when he knows how hostile the situation has become?
If they break AMFA they can then get whatever they want from the other groups in BK because everyone knows that te IAM and ALPA wont resist.

AMFA was lockstep with Kerry? WEre they? If they were they certainly had cause since Bush slammed them with a PEB but I dont recall AMFA taking a position either way. Do you have any evidence of this?

Once again we can see how anti-labor Bush is. Back when airline workers were in a position to make gains he stated that he would not allow any major airline to strike. Now he is saying he does not plan to intervene. This leaves him open to change his mind should the mechanics actually strike and the scabs dont work out as planed. Clearly Bush has once again sided with management against the workers. I dont mind him staying out of it, if he does, but the way he is so obviously biased is disgusting. One thing for sure "He's not my President"

 

[The Drunken Duck]

Once again we can see how anti-labor Bush is. Back when airline workers were in a position to make gains he stated that he would not allow any major airline to strike. Now he is saying he does not plan to intervene. This leaves him open to change his mind should the mechanics actually strike and the scabs dont work out as planed. Clearly Bush has once again sided with management against the workers. I dont mind him staying out of it, if he does, but the way he is so obviously biased is disgusting. One thing for sure "He's not my President"

[post="288466"][/post]​

Ah...the inevitable "it's Bush's fault" post. Let's see how many we can rack up here.

Remember, situations change. What was appropriate at one time, may not be in the present. The US economy was in decidedly worse shape in 1Q 2001. So any President may have seen that situation as one in which the risk to the economy where to great. Be honest with your self, what ever Bush does or doesn't do will be incorrect to you. You're "He's not my President" quote proves it.

 

[JS]

Bush can't win, can he? If he stays out, he's behind management's evil plan to destroy the union. If he forces the mechanics back to work August 20, he's getting in the way of the union and all but enslaving the working man.

Don't get me wrong, I think Bush is one of the worst Presidents we have ever had. But give him a break and stop making up reasons why he must be behind management no matter what he actually does.

Personally, I think the RLA's application to airlines should be abolished. Unlike Amtrak, there is no monopoly or near-monopoly carrier in any sizeable market. Butt out, government!

 

[TheDog2004]

What is there for Bush to stop?

If AMFA doesn't strike then NW is going to lock them out.

Bush (or any Republican president) isn't going to stop a company from busting a union, which is what it appears NW wants to do (and I'm a Republican saying this).

In fact, I'm not even sure a Democrat would do anything. You don't want to look like you are interfering with the union's right to strike, but you also know that the company might just lock them out.

It's best that the government stay out of this and let Northwest and the unions fight it out.

 

[Bob Owens]

Ah...the inevitable "it's Bush's fault" post. Let's see how many we can rack up here.

Remember, situations change.

Exactly, thats the problem.
What was appropriate at one time, may not be in the present. The US economy was in decidedly worse shape in 1Q 2001.


Could you define appropriate? If workers are not treated fairly by the government who changes position in favor of corporations then the people are within their right to revolt against that government.

When Bush slapped the PEB on NWA mechs the airline was in much better shape. But the mechanics were in a better position to make gains. At the time I brought up how when workers are at a disadvantage and the intent of the company is to bust the union the government stays out but when the workers are able to make gains all of a sudden the government shackles the workers with a PEB.


So any President may have seen that situation as one in which the risk to the economy where to great.


We are talking about the same airline. If economic disruption is the criteria to blocking a strike then pretty much any strike is prohibited.

Be honest with your self, what ever Bush does or doesn't do will be incorrect to you.


Well going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. I cant think of anything else. Then again he screwed up Afghanistan by divering everything to the Iraq oil fields. Too bad there isnt much oil in Afghanistan, maybe we would have caught Bin Laden by now.

You're "He's not my President" quote proves it.

Hey he said it himself. He is the rich mans President. "Some people call you the elite, I call you my base".


What really pisses me off is that if AMFA goes on strike and NWAS scab plan collapses that Bush will reverse his position and slap them with a PEB, then NWA will go into BK and a Judge will try to impose concessions. So now what happens? They are under a PEB, the RLA states that the status quo is maintained, could a judge overide the RLA? Would they be free to strike? I would say yes. I would argue that if the government does not order the oil companies to reduce the price of jet fuel, (which is the main cause of the airlines problems and now the airlines greatest expense,)for the sake of the economy, then they have no right to make the employees accept less.

 

[JS]

What really pisses me off is that if AMFA goes on strike and NWAS scab plan collapses that Bush will reverse his position and slap them with a PEB, then NWA will go into BK and a Judge will try to impose concessions. So now what happens? They are under a PEB, the RLA states that the status quo is maintained, could a judge overide the RLA? Would they be free to strike? I would say yes.

I seriously doubt the President will order a PEB after a strike/lockout has taken place and NWA has filed for Chapter 11. It's too late.

I would argue that if the government does not order the oil companies to reduce the price of jet fuel, (which is the main cause of the airlines problems and now the airlines greatest expense,)for the sake of the economy, then they have no right to make the employees accept less.

What??????? You can't order oil companies to cap the price of juel fuel! Unless you want shortages. That would seriously injure the airlines, probably to the point of liquidation in a couple of months.

Oil is a world commodity. Not even the President of the United States can control its price.

 

[Emil.Howes]

Ah...the inevitable "it's Bush's fault" post. Let's see how many we can rack up here.

Remember, situations change. What was appropriate at one time, may not be in the present. The US economy was in decidedly worse shape in 1Q 2001. So any President may have seen that situation as one in which the risk to the economy where to great. Be honest with your self, what ever Bush does or doesn't do will be incorrect to you. You're "He's not my President" quote proves it.

[post="288483"][/post]​

DD,

Yes, most certainly situations do change but you are referring to what is and ignoring what should have been (and a lot of in between). If we were steadfast in our search for Osama (and actually caught him) then one might see things differently. We went to Afghanistan with a clear purpose that has been unfulfilled. Then we went to Iraq based on disinformation and half truths. (Half at best – Lies at worst).

JMHO&PO,
-Emilio The Round

P.S.
For a ‘Christian’ to submit to murder in the name of ‘Jesus’ is not only ludicrous but blasphemy in and of itself.
So, yes it ‘IS’ Bush’s fault as ‘THE’ leader ‘OF’ our country!!!

To deflect culpability is reprehensible.

 

[Bob Owens]

JS,Aug 15 2005, 11:15 PM]
I seriously doubt the President will order a PEB after a strike/lockout has taken place and NWA has filed for Chapter 11. It's too late.

Obviously you have trouble reading.

"will reverse his position and slap them with a PEB, then NWA will go into BK and a Judge will try to impose concessions."




What??????? You can't order oil companies to cap the price of juel fuel!

Oh really? They did it in the 1970s. Dont you remember "price controls"?

Unless you want shortages. That would seriously injure the airlines, probably to the point of liquidation in a couple of months.

No they would rather pay through the nose for fuel. Who are you trying to kid?

Oil is a world commodity. Not even the President of the United States can control its price.

The fact is the oil companies are making record profits. They are getting a windfall from increased prices meaning that not all the increase we see is due to the price of crude. Its immoral that the courts are imposing pay cuts on airline workers while the oil companies who have increased prices by over 50% in a year enjoy windfall profits.

Basically the courts are confiscating workers wages and giving them to the oil companies.

If the President can force workers to go back to work because of the economic impact he can force the oil companies to reduce their price for the same reason.

 

[JS]

Oh really? They did it in the 1970s. Dont you remember "price controls"?

Yes, and we also had stagflation. Price controls do not work. Just ask residents of the former USSR where everything was price controlled.

No they would rather pay through the nose for fuel. Who are you trying to kid?

Which do you think would be better for an airline's operations and finances -- expensive jet fuel or no jet fuel?

The fact is the oil companies are making record profits. They are getting a windfall from increased prices meaning that not all the increase we see is due to the price of crude. Its immoral that the courts are imposing pay cuts on airline workers while the oil companies who have increased prices by over 50% in a year enjoy windfall profits.

Basically the courts are confiscating workers wages and giving them to the oil companies.

If the President can force workers to go back to work because of the economic impact he can force the oil companies to reduce their price for the same reason.

[post="288530"][/post]​

Those are two different things. The courts cannot regulate oil companies, and Congress does not regulate wages and work rules. Congress and the President just signed a bill that gives oil companies a huge handout (yet another reason why this President will be recorded in the history books as an absymal failure), but that has zip to do with wage rates.

Crude oil is very expensive regardless of who refines it, and the world oil market is forcing airlines to bring down wages to a level that they should have been at a long time ago.

 

[Oneflyer]

You do realize that Bob is a Socialist don't you?

 

[Bob Owens]

JS,Aug 16 2005, 02:34 AM]
Yes, and we also had stagflation. Price controls do not work. Just ask residents of the former USSR where everything was price controlled.


Well arent PEBs and court imposed concessions a form of price contriol on wages?

Which do you think would be better for an airline's operations and finances -- expensive jet fuel or no jet fuel?

Your assumption is rediculous.

Those are two different things. The courts cannot regulate oil companies,

Why not? If the court can impose temporary concessions upon workers then why couldnt they do the same to the oil companies?

and Congress does not regulate wages and work rules.

They most certainly do.

Congress and the President just signed a bill that gives oil companies a huge handout (yet another reason why this President will be recorded in the history books as an absymal failure), but that has zip to do with wage rates.

What we are really discussing is our property rights and our ability to set a price on what we sell.

Crude oil is very expensive regardless of who refines it, and the world oil market is forcing airlines to bring down wages to a level that they should have been at a long time ago.

Based upon what? Where I live people with comparable skills with the same amount of time as I have earn considerably more than I do, not less. Maybe its not the old union rules that need changing but the Old Railway Labor Act that needs to be eliminated since it dictates that everyone within a class and craft as determined by the NMB must all belong to the same union regardless of location. This is the reason why someone on Oklahoma may be "overpaid" when compared to locals with comparable skills while someone in New York is grossly underpaid in comparasion.

In fact many are quitting despite the huge investment that they made to this profession and going outside the industry. The fact is that wages have steadily declined for over 20 years despite increased productivity. Normally increased productivity supports increased wages.