Mesaba MEC Gives Up!

[DetoXJ]

I hope you mean it this time. Last time you saw your Avro pay going away and panicked, then you took it out on the f/o's. Just because you get yours doesn't mean it is a fair deal.

I'll take you at your word this go round. Just be ready to walk the walk.

Please not another conspiracy theory about how the Captains sold the First Officers down the river. I know that the majority of the fo's that I know and fly with were in support of the the contract and they think we ended up with a fair deal. Just because you don't think it's fair doesn't mean you have the right to blame it on the Captains. I'm sorry you feel that I got mine but you didn't get yours. WTFO?

 

[Butters]

The MEC position is that if we didn't agree to the contract, we have the right under the RLA to strike. This is a very true statement and is clearly stated by the RLA. However, in this current situation the judge is making the decision for us. If the judge agrees that the management terms are fair and equitable, he/she can reject the contract. The company can then impose up to only the terms that were proposed during the 1113(c) process. The union, then has the right to bargin therefter and invoke NMB mediation. It would then have to be determined that the judges decision was not fair and equitable. In Mesaba's case, it would be nearly impossible to prove that the term sheet isn't warranted given the position NWA has put you guys in. The MEC can't simply strike because the imposed contract is not to their liking.

Imposed contract. Now that is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

If a contract is imposed, it is not a "contract." Ever read the definition of contract?

con·tract n. An agreement between two or more parties.


Hmm... so if we don't agree, we have no contract. No contract equals right to self-help which means the right to strike.

True, this has never been tested. But to say it can't be done shows your ignorance. Also, NWA is up a creek much more than Mesaba is.

Educate yourself.

 

[Butters]

Please not another conspiracy theory about how the Captains sold the First Officers down the river. I know that the majority of the fo's that I know and fly with were in support of the the contract and they think we ended up with a fair deal. Just because you don't think it's fair doesn't mean you have the right to blame it on the Captains. I'm sorry you feel that I got mine but you didn't get yours. WTFO?

Sorry... It's been withdrawn. I honestly had you confused with someone else and I apologize. Serves me for not doing my research on this board. I'm sorry I questioned you, which wasn't meant to be you. It was meant to be directed at someone else.

(Emotions getting the better of me.)

I'm just mad that I got bumped back to f/o and now we are going to take it in the shorts again. The person I thought you were, which you aren't, once told me in the crewroom that "f/o's shouldn't worry because this contract will allow them to upgrade soon enough." Right. I just don't like short-sighted logic which bites us in the rear.

Again, my apologies.

 

[gkrangers]

[FONT=&quot]CONTRACT:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] An agreement between two or more competent parties, upon sufficient consideration, in which an offer is made and accepted, and each party benefits. [/FONT]

 

[YourPilotFriend]

Imposed contract. Now that is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

If a contract is imposed, it is not a "contract." Ever read the definition of contract?

con·tract n. An agreement between two or more parties.


Hmm... so if we don't agree, we have no contract. No contract equals right to self-help which means the right to strike.

True, this has never been tested. But to say it can't be done shows your ignorance. Also, NWA is up a creek much more than Mesaba is.

Educate yourself.

If the judge grants the 1113 filing, by law that is a contract. In the end, you will see I was right. NWA pilots are in a totally different situation than XJ is, we already agreed to our paycuts. NWA can't show good cause as to why we need to outsource. Either way, both pilot groups will take it in the rear, welcome to bankruptcy, it sucks.

 

[Simon Says]

[FONT=&quot]CONTRACT:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] An agreement between two or more competent parties, upon sufficient consideration, in which an offer is made and accepted, and each party benefits. [/FONT]

It is actually called a Collective Barganing agreement.

 

[gkrangers]

It is actually called a Collective Barganing agreement.

Thats right..I guess thats where "each party benefits" gets thrown out the window?

 

[YourPilotFriend]

If you want my opinion on what you guys should do, you will have to ask nicely.

 

[Lear70]

If the judge grants the 1113 filing, by law that is a contract.

COMPLETELY INCORRECT.

The judge cannot impose a contract.

I used to be under that belief as well, but have had others tell me different then sought a friend who is a Corporate Attorney to EDUCATE me otherwise, so here is YOUR education, second hand of course, but I would HIGHLY advise you to discuss it with a corporate bankruptcy attorney before you come back debating, 'cause I have.

The bankruptcy judge's job is NOT to impose a new contract.

Read that again, very, very carefully before you go on. That is a FACT.

The bankruptcy judge's job is to decide whether or not the company is in dire enough financial straits to VOID your CURRENT CONTRACT.

Read THAT again, too... especially that last phrase.

That's ALL the judge can do. The company is then free to compensate you however they see fit and impose whatever RULES they see fit BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT, AT THAT POINT, HAVE A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT!

THAT'S why the immediate self-help clause of the RLA is available. If you had an IMPOSED contract (such as binding arbitration), you would then have to go through the NMB but, in this case, YOU DO NOT!

THAT'S why Delta and NWA pilots are threatening to strike, and that's why you see it in the news and in their public and private communications, BECAUSE THEIR ATTORNEYS HAVE TOLD THEM THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO SELF-HELP IF THEIR CONTRACT IS THROWN OUT !!!

In the end, you will see I was right. NWA pilots are in a totally different situation than XJ is, we already agreed to our paycuts.

Where did you hear that Mesaba's MEC has already agreed to Mesaba Management's proposed pay cuts?

If they have, why are you even having this discussion? It's your MEC that would have to call the strike vote, authorize the strike, and set the dates and terms of the strike for other carriers to honor. If the MEC has agreed to the pay cuts, why are you even discussing self-help?

 

[YourPilotFriend]

COMPLETELY INCORRECT.

The judge cannot impose a contract.

I used to be under that belief as well, but have had others tell me different then sought a friend who is a Corporate Attorney to EDUCATE me otherwise, so here is YOUR education, second hand of course, but I would HIGHLY advise you to discuss it with a corporate bankruptcy attorney before you come back debating, 'cause I have.

The bankruptcy judge's job is NOT to impose a new contract.

Read that again, very, very carefully before you go on. That is a FACT.

The bankruptcy judge's job is to decide whether or not the company is in dire enough financial straits to VOID your CURRENT CONTRACT.

Read THAT again, too... especially that last phrase.

That's ALL the judge can do. The company is then free to compensate you however they see fit and impose whatever RULES they see fit BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT, AT THAT POINT, HAVE A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT!

THAT'S why the immediate self-help clause of the RLA is available. If you had an IMPOSED contract (such as binding arbitration), you would then have to go through the NMB but, in this case, YOU DO NOT!

THAT'S why Delta and NWA pilots are threatening to strike, and that's why you see it in the news and in their public and private communications, BECAUSE THEIR ATTORNEYS HAVE TOLD THEM THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO SELF-HELP IF THEIR CONTRACT IS THROWN OUT !!!


Where did you hear that Mesaba's MEC has already agreed to Mesaba Management's proposed pay cuts?

If they have, why are you even having this discussion? It's your MEC that would have to call the strike vote, authorize the strike, and set the dates and terms of the strike for other carriers to honor. If the MEC has agreed to the pay cuts, why are you even discussing self-help?

No, if the judge rejects the contract, the copmpany can ONLY impose the contract changes it made in negotiations. They are NOT free to impose any rules they want. The judge decides whether or not the proposed changes the company wants to make are fair and equitable. He/She then rejects the current CBA and the company can impose the changes it seeks. The company is not allowed by law to impose anything more than the conditions of the 1113(c) filing. In other words XJ employees will not recieve more than a 19.4% wage cut and the proposed work changes. So going beyond that, the pilots would have to prove that the company imposed contract is not fair and equitable before a strike can be legal. At XJ, there is no possible way to prove that the pay cuts aren't warranted, MAIR has been taken out of the picture.

NWA determined what paycuts it wanted for the pilots and structured XJ in such a way as to make that possible. The choices are totally out of your control, you can either except the paycuts or quit.

 

[Lear70]

NWA determined what paycuts it wanted for the pilots and structured XJ in such a way as to make that possible. The choices are totally out of your control, you can either except the paycuts or quit.

You are so incredibly out of touch.

Can you please quote section and sub-section of the bankruptcy code that verifies that statement?

I didn't think so.

Interesting how EVERY OTHER CARRIER in this exact position is threatening to strike, yet you're saying that somehow Mesaba's Management is exempt from the same laws that DAL and NWA management have to adhere to?

Yeah, OK. What you said.

For the rest of the forum who wants the REAL truth:

THE ONLY WAY YOU'LL BE FORCED INTO THE PAY CUTS IS IF YOUR MEC AGREES TO THEM. OTHERWISE YOUR MEC IS FULLY ENTITLED TO SEEK SELF-HELP WITH A COURT-IMPOSED ABROGATION OF YOUR CBA.

Unless you have PROOF to the contrary (and I'm sure NWA and DAL management would love to hear it as well), why don't you quit scaring your coworkers.

Tool.

 

[YourPilotFriend]

(c) The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that— (1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection (b)(1);
(2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and
(3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such agreement.

(b)(1) Refers to the proposal management makes for the new imposed CBA. The new and imposed CBA must be determined to be fair and equitable to the judge who decides to reject the CBA. By the judge granting the 1113(c) motion, he/she decides whether or not the imposed contract is warranted. YOu still have to go to the NMB before you can strike. The only time a strike would be legal is the time between the rejection of the contract, to the time the new one is imposed. If the NMB determines that the judge did not rule accordingly and the terms are not fair and equitable, a strike can then be authorized.

 

[CubanSmoker]

Take a deep breath...

Guys, we need to unwind a bit here. The reality is that no pilot is going to know the final outcome of anything until someone above us (or the judge) tells us. Aside from a vote to strike (you XJ'ers had BETTER voted on that by now), picketting when you can, and telling your reps what your views are, there is little more that we as line pilots can do; except quit or take what's coming. YPF always plays the devil's advocate in a lot of arguments but I find them to be an interesting perspective on many things.

My point is: let's not keep jumping on each other here. We're all just throwing out opinions and nothing more. One thing is certain though, unless we're picketting, voting, or serving on our unions, we're certainly not doing anything constructive or going to change ANYTHING getting pissed at each other on this webboard.
Cheers

 

[xjmnpilot]

Guys, we need to unwind a bit here. The reality is that no pilot is going to know the final outcome of anything until someone above us (or the judge) tells us. Aside from a vote to strike (you XJ'ers had BETTER voted on that by now), picketting when you can, and telling your reps what your views are, there is little more that we as line pilots can do; except quit or take what's coming. YPF always plays the devil's advocate in a lot of arguments but I find them to be an interesting perspective on many things.

My point is: let's not keep jumping on each other here. We're all just throwing out opinions and nothing more. One thing is certain though, unless we're picketting, voting, or serving on our unions, we're certainly not doing anything constructive or going to change ANYTHING getting pissed at each other on this webboard.
Cheers

Well said.

BTW...for all you guys that think you "know" what the possible outcomes are, keep this in mind: There has NEVER been ANY precedence set in an 1113 case to reject a CBA under the Railway Labor Act. Therefore, NOBODY knows for certain.

 

[Mel Sharples]

(b)(1) Refers to the proposal management makes for the new imposed CBA. The new and imposed CBA must be determined to be fair and equitable to the judge who decides to reject the CBA. By the judge granting the 1113(c) motion, he/she decides whether or not the imposed contract is warranted. YOu still have to go to the NMB before you can strike. The only time a strike would be legal is the time between the rejection of the contract, to the time the new one is imposed. If the NMB determines that the judge did not rule accordingly and the terms are not fair and equitable, a strike can then be authorized.

Depends on who you ask:

That view is commonly held by management in the airline industry, according to attorney Bob Siegel, a partner at the law firm O'Melveny and Myers in Los Angeles. Siegel's firm has represented US Airways and United Airlines as a specialist on labor issues during their bankruptcies. He says the Railway Labor Act would require additional steps before a strike is permissible.

"The law is pretty clear, that the union does not have a right to strike unless or until it's been released from the bargaining process by the National Mediation Board," Siegel says.

During normal contract negotiations, airline unions can't strike until the National Mediation Board has declared talks are at an impasse, followed by a 30-day cooling off period.

But bankruptcy law scholar Douglas Baird of the University of Chicago says in the bankruptcy process, unions have the choice to strike.

"They don't have the right to strike if Northwest is willing to pay them what they're obliged to pay them under the contract," Baird says. "But what [Northwest] can't do is go to bankruptcy court, have the bankruptcy court change the contract, then have the bankruptcy court say, 'Guess what? These guys have to work under the terms of that contract.' That's just not possible."

I don't know if we can, and you certainly don't know if we can. Nothing is certain. You try to sound like an expert yet nothing you say is fact. Not even your arguments about NWA taking cuts and XJ not yet having to. It is the judge's opinion that matters and what that will be is anyone's guess.

Good day to you, Mr. "I Think I'm Nostradamus."

 

[Lear70]

First "Friend", you need to figure out how to quote properly. The following was NOT MY QUOTE, although you used my name in it:

Originally Posted by Lear70
(c) The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that— (1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection (b)(1);
(2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and
(3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such agreement.



Again, that's not my quote, and you did not quote your source of that information, but I suggest you read it again BECAUSE IT PROVES MY FU*KING POINT !!!

"The court shall approve an application for REJECTION of a CBA only if..."

Read it again, sport, and THINK before you answer this time, because you don't seem to be doing much of that.

Yes, the court can approve a REJECTION of a CBA, THEY CANNOT IMPOSE A NEW CBA IN ITS PLACE. How many times are we going to have to say it before you take a step back and listen to what's being said ??!!

Christ almighty man,,, are you really a pilot and being that dense?

(b)(1) Refers to the proposal management makes for the new imposed CBA.

That's not correct; YOU are changing the wording of that paragraph to fit your needs. If you will DIRECTLY QUOTE Section (b)(1) you will see that it NEVER calls it a "new imposed CBA", but simply call it a "proposal".

Again, the judge can't impose a CBA.

You know what, I'm gonna stop arguing with you, it's pointless and, as someone else has pointed out, "You can't fix stupid".

 

[AVoiceOfReason]

Mesaba guys be careful! DW was here in ATL this week, speaking to us here at ASA, and it sounded like ALPA wants you to be a sacrificial lamb for the mainline guys. He told us he wasn't going to sign your agreement.

 

[YourPilotFriend]

Mesaba guys be careful! DW was here in ATL this week, speaking to us here at ASA, and it sounded like ALPA wants you to be a sacrificial lamb for the mainline guys. He told us he wasn't going to sign your agreement.

Which brings me back to the original post I made in this thread.

 

[YourPilotFriend]

First "Friend", you need to figure out how to quote properly. The following was NOT MY QUOTE, although you used my name in it:

Originally Posted by Lear70
(c) The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that— (1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection (b)(1);
(2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and
(3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such agreement.



Again, that's not my quote, and you did not quote your source of that information, but I suggest you read it again BECAUSE IT PROVES MY FU*KING POINT !!!

"The court shall approve an application for REJECTION of a CBA only if..."

Read it again, sport, and THINK before you answer this time, because you don't seem to be doing much of that.

Yes, the court can approve a REJECTION of a CBA, THEY CANNOT IMPOSE A NEW CBA IN ITS PLACE. How many times are we going to have to say it before you take a step back and listen to what's being said ??!!

Christ almighty man,,, are you really a pilot and being that dense?


That's not correct; YOU are changing the wording of that paragraph to fit your needs. If you will DIRECTLY QUOTE Section (b)(1) you will see that it NEVER calls it a "new imposed CBA", but simply call it a "proposal".

Again, the judge can't impose a CBA.

You know what, I'm gonna stop arguing with you, it's pointless and, as someone else has pointed out, "You can't fix stupid".

The judge rules to reject the CBA, and the company can impose the terms up to that which was filed in the 1113 filing, but no more. You are under the belief that the judge is voiding the contract and the company is free to create a new contract. That's not true at all, if it were true, a strike would be legal under the RLA in that case. However, in a 1113 filing, the judge determines whether or not the terms of the new CBA are fair and equitable(arbitration), not the pilots. This is what makes it illegal for you to strike. The judge in Delta's case didn't rule because she felt it was out of her jurisdiction to act as the arbitrator. At no point, did I say the judge is making the new contract or imposing it for that matter.

 

[Mel Sharples]

AVoiceOfReason = YourPilotFriend

The name is similar, the message is similar... You think it's not???

Notice how he totally ignored my reply about whether a strike is "legal" or not. He is trying to sound like a know-it-all, senior, holier-than-though, aid to the regional pilot. But in reality, he is a trash-talking-tard.

YOU GOT BUSTED! YOU GOT BUSTED! YOU GOT BUSTED!

Now go away.

 

[Lear70]

Just ignore him Mel. I gave up arguing with the idiot simply because he can't concede a point he's lost - you can't argue with people like that and once you realize that, if you CONTINUE to debate him, you make an idiot out of yourself as well.

Ignore him long enough and he'll lose interest in arguing and go somewhere else where someone will listen.

 

[Rossa]

ASA guys have a point!!! - We should beware!!

I've seen a number of our ASA friends on here telling us to watch out! I know XJALPA is doing what they can, but this is an exercise in union busting! NWA MEC will throw us under the bus in a heartbeat - just watch!!
Our MEC HAS TO COMPROMISE, it has no choice - otherwise the judge will only see mngt's term sheet and guess what......that's what we'll get! DW will refuse to sign it, or there will be strike threats, etc... It will get REAL ugly! If this happens, our pilot group will be split between those whose family is dependent on them financially and those who have the luxury of pointing fingers and calling names!!
I'm not sure of the timelines here, but I'll guess that out of NWA, DAL and XJ, we could be first up (somebody correct me). If this is the case, we will be the test case for all of this. Someone very well respected in XJ told me that when the deadline is reached the judge will either do nothing (unlikely) or impose the latest term-sheet left on the table. By the way, if you look at the latest term-sheet it includes the Big Sky scope clause. If this is left on the paper when the Judge gets the case, it's all over!! We're done!
NWA guys better wake up, what happens to XJ pilots is going to have a huge impact on you guys.....don't even think we're insignificant anymore. This Judge could set a precedent for the industry.

Good luck to us all!

 

[screwed_again]

If the employee's could strike after a 1113 filing, it wouldn't even be in the bankruptcy laws.

Did you get a law degree after being furloughed at NWA or a real estate license???? I heard our lawyer state the law is gray as to the legality of a strike after an 1113c is filed and rule in favor of. And you are saying its illegal! Dude, stop the home tours and get registered at St. Thomas for law school buddy. Your a genius!

 

[mesaba2425]

Hear me now, listen to me later.

 

[screwed_again]

Hey Butters, how much do you think the fos could have after cuts if they had gotten the appropriate raises. If the rates had been split, then a concession off of a higher number would mean more pay afterwards. Good we got that growth contract, though.

New sticker: What does Tom Wychor do?

I want my 2% back you useless b!tches.

What does KaptainKarl do? Piss and moan, cry in his cheerios?

 

[Lear70]

I'm sorry. My browser won't load threads from that far back.

How long did it take you to find that, anyway?

 

[PCL_128]

The judge rules to reject the CBA, and the company can impose the terms up to that which was filed in the 1113 filing, but no more.

Completely incorrect. The judge rules on one thing, and one thing only: does the current CBA stay in effect, or is it completely rejected. That's it! If he approves of a rejection of the CBA, then management is free to impose whatever they choose, because a CBA no longer exists. Basically, the judge is determining whether the company is in such bad shape that it needs the latitude to make whatever necessary changes to pay and work rules. The company's last proposal is completely irrelevant after the CBA has been rejected.

 

[YourPilotFriend]

Completely incorrect. The judge rules on one thing, and one thing only: does the current CBA stay in effect, or is it completely rejected. That's it! If he approves of a rejection of the CBA, then management is free to impose whatever they choose, because a CBA no longer exists. Basically, the judge is determining whether the company is in such bad shape that it needs the latitude to make whatever necessary changes to pay and work rules. The company's last proposal is completely irrelevant after the CBA has been rejected.

Carte blanche? No! I'm sure i'm on ignore now by most in this thread. Anyways Rossa has a pretty good take on the situation.

The company does NOT have the right to impose any terms it wants, the judge determines if the provisions of the new contract are fair and then decides to reject the contract.

 

[Hawker dude]

Mesaba guys be careful! DW was here in ATL this week, speaking to us here at ASA, and it sounded like ALPA wants you to be a sacrificial lamb for the mainline guys. He told us he wasn't going to sign your agreement.

Be careful? This is the whole problem....Dwane Dipsh$*. Alpa has lost its vision. The only thing that will bring it back is NWA pilots going on strike. Any member of ALPA that will let ASA be a sacrificial lamb is a dumbs@(#.

Pilot's need to band together. Be strong and stop fighting with one another. I hope NWA strikes, if they don't...it will be interesting to see what unfolds.

 

[Juan Trippe]

God I loved all that pizza and beer!!!
I think that's what'll be missed most!