NWA FA Strike Blocked

[filejw]

Asking them to strike anyway is foolish, the American pilots will tell you that..They at one time were on the hook for about 40 million$.Many of these Fa's have houses condos etc and they don't need to put them at risk.

 

[Pilotbob3]

Asking them to strike anyway is foolish, the American pilots will tell you that..They at one time were on the hook for about 40 million$.Many of these Fa's have houses condos etc and they don't need to put them at risk.

yea...they should just let everything happen without a fight or risk.....name anyone who struck who didn't risk houses, condos....sheesh...you sound like someone who wouldn't strike for any reason

 

[crashpad]

I SUPPORT THE STEWARDESSES RIGHT TO STRIKE...just as long as it's not at my airline.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Follow Up...

Myself and about 30 - 40 thoussand active and retired pilots feel this way. Can you prove me wrong?

I think just about every ALPA member wishes ALPA was more effective. But you are like a ballplayer on the field with the score down. While some of us are trying to rally the organization all you can do is complain and grumble.

We can't beat the opposition with your attitude....

You are self defeating....

 

[Turtlesfly]

I think just about every ALPA member wishes ALPA was more effective. But you are like a ballplayer on the field with the score down. While some of us are trying to rally the organization all you can do is complain and grumble.

We can't beat the opposition with your attitude....

You are self defeating....

That's not true . . . we are not whining, we are VOTING

 

[fam62c]

The final insult.

This is just great, the final slap in the face to labor. Now, during a bankruptcy the union is bound by the Railway Labor Act but the company is not. The company gets the best of both worlds. Now when companies enter bankruptcy they will simply give the union a terrible "take-it-or-leave-it" offer knowing that if the union votes it down it doesn't matter........the company will always get it's way in the end. This is better for the company than not having a union at all. They can force the employees into a long-term, draconian "sweetheart deal" and the union can't do anything over the life of the contract and the mediation period.

It's hard to have any justice if the judges are politically controlled. This ruling was very, very wrong.

 

[XJohXJ]

Amen. It is wrong, plain and simple. And NWA management whining about "they could hurt the company with their strike" is just plain BS. If they're scared of the strike, all they gotta do is back off from the TA.

 

[filejw]

P3, You shouldn't be reading things into peoples post that aren't there Axxhole......I' would strike long before most and have.The point is the time for a little contempt of court may be coming, but not yet.

 

[aussiefly]

Does this rulling, if it becomes a long term precedent, sound the death knell for unions in aviation????

 

[Beetle007]

the union can't do anything over the life of the contract and the mediation period.

What contract? what amendable date?

The Flight Attendants played their cards smarter than anyone else because they aren't locked into anything. At any time a judge could give them the right to strike. Maybe next week, maybe the week after, maybe months or years. But, it puts continuing pressure on management. And again, they aren't locked into anything.

 

[Lear70]

Does this rulling, if it becomes a long term precedent, sound the death knell for unions in aviation????

Unless we have a major shift in political atmosphere... in a word... yes.

Not majorly surprising, but extremely disappointing. I sincerely hope there's a special place in hell for the management, attorneys, and judges who ruin people's lives like we've seen the last 2 or 3 years, just to see the airlines become profitable to such an extent that show the pay cuts were completely unjustified.

 

[Benhuntn]

Hey CoPilot....nice try with the right wing judge crap! The judge, The honorable Victor Marrero was appointed by none other than "Slick Willie"

 

[COpilot]

I guess we should not criticize any pilot group for taking it for the team; as we can see the right wing judges are all now in place to prevent any up rising by the working class.

Look I have to ask, do people on the right not see that this is really not fair, or correct?

No matter what side of the fight you are on; a company with a collective bargining agreement gets the thing tossed by a third party, then the union employees have no recourse. No union will ever succeed if this sticks, they have no leverage when judges can just TRO it everytime management files at the courthouse.

I don't know what you call this, I guess like someone above said "indentured".

I stand corrected the judge was apointed by Clinton.

I guess I should say how can any Union get a fair shake when "any" judge can throw a TRO at them.

I'm very disapointed when someone on the left does this. And yes I know what Clinton did on '94 Thanksgiving to the AA F/a's. It's not right for either side to scue the law their way.

 

[_BravoWhiskey_]

All I can think of saying is : "Damn, what a sorry state the airlines have gotten to"

 

[_BravoWhiskey_]

Damn <-seeing if it edits this

 

[_BravoWhiskey_]

LOL, I didn't type "dang"

 

[Dizel8]

Labor just had it legs chopped of at the knees! Indentured servants indeed.

If the F/A's were brave, then mass resignations would show up tomorrow, however, truth is, it should never have come to this, the judge should have said no contract, no RLA: "If you wanna play you gotta pay".

This isn't the end of unionism, but if the ruling is upheld, it sure is a vastly different world the unions live in.

 

[accinelli]

Yeah. Lets see how many FAs resign. This boils down to the "sense of entitlement" at every legacy carrier.

 

[filejw]

These people don't have a "sense of entitlement "at all.Most just want a fair cut of the action and I don't blame them.You think the same idiots that ran the place into the ground deserve more.

 

[pianoman]

Yeah. Lets see how many FAs resign. This boils down to the "sense of entitlement" at every legacy carrier.

Yeah what gives people the right to expect a living wage? Greedy bastards.

 

[Dodge]

Yeah. Lets see how many FAs resign. This boils down to the "sense of entitlement" at every legacy carrier.

It would be interesting to see how ALPA spins a mass resignation of FA's. They have already said that the FA's and the mechanics have no grounds to strike on. They don't understand the dynamics of the situation, blah, blah, blah.....It sure would be funny to see DW spouting off that the FA's had no right to resign and to pursue other ventures.

BTW, has Northwest Airlines been added to the list of business to boycott in the ALPA magazine?

 

[filejw]

Dodge,
ALPA never said AFA doesn't have the right to strike. In fact ALPA supported them in the BK Court and if you go to the ALPA Hotline for Aug 25 you will read more about NWAALPA support for the AFA and what AFA wants ALPA to do. How about a little research before you spout off.

 

[Jonny Sacko]

Although I am not a fan of DE you can see why Alp's plan is live to fight an other day.I give them credit for having an idea of the political climate.

That's absolutely the most moronic thing I've read in a long time. You are the reason we are in the mess we're in. The only explanation I can give is you are a Pansy. STAND UP AND FIGHT!

 

[filejw]

He buddy I voted no but it didn't work.And if you read the AFA stuff they don't want to fight either just be a thorn in NWA side.

 

[FDJ2]

This is just great, the final slap in the face to labor. Now, during a bankruptcy the union is bound by the Railway Labor Act but the company is not.

I understand your frustration and anger, however the judge has not ruled on this matter yet. He has simply ordered a temporary injunction while he reviews the arguments from both sides and I believe he has also not bought off on NWA's claim that the F/As must continue to labor under imposed terms while this is all sorted out, although he may not have ruled it out either. He has ordered both sides back to the court room next week.

 

[Lear70]

He buddy I voted no but it didn't work.And if you read the AFA stuff they don't want to fight either just be a thorn in NWA side.

They don't want to fight?

They don't mind the pay cuts and degradation of their QOL?

Seems kind of a lame reason for them to vote "NO".... "I just want to stick it to THE MAN!" ???

 

[FDJ2]

Does this rulling, if it becomes a long term precedent, sound the death knell for unions in aviation????

There has not been a ruling yet, just a temporary injunction while the arguments from both sides are sorted out.

 

[HalinTexas]

Having gone through this stuff myself, recently, you are all forgetting one thing.

The bankruptcy judge has to protect the interests of the creditors above all else, while the company is under bankruptcy protection. The idea is to keep the company operating while the claims from the creditors are worked out.

ILFC cannot come repossess all their aircraft either. Bankers/credit card companies can't come in and lock up equipment and buildings. Unions are just like any other claiment. They cannot unilaterally withhold services. Now, the company cannot just impose a contract. They have to make an honest effort to negotiate a deal. If not, then the judge has to make a call, but no judge has imposed a long term labor deal on any group. There is debate as to his authority to enjoin a labor group once the company is out of bankruptcy. The quesiton arises, "When is the RLA superceded, and under what terms? Is an imposed contract covered under the RLA?" No labor group, least of all ALPA, has had the nerve to test the law. So, I think the judge is justified in imposing a labor contract on a union while the company is under his protection, but I don't think any contract is enforcable when a company exits bankruptcy. That's the test.

 

[FDJ2]

The bankruptcy judge has to protect the interests of the creditors above all else, while the company is under bankruptcy protection.

The bankruptcy judge has ruled that he has no jurisdiction to enjoin a strike.

The idea is to keep the company operating while the claims from the creditors are worked out.

ILFC cannot come repossess all their aircraft either. Bankers/credit card companies can't come in and lock up equipment and buildings. Unions are just like any other claiment. They cannot unilaterally withhold services.

However, ILFC does not need to lease aircraft under terms it has not agreed too. BK allows a carrier to break its lease contract with ILFC and enter into negotiations for new terms, if at the end of those negotiations there is no agreement on new leasing terms, then ILFC is free to repossess its aircraft.

The union is not unilaterally withholding services, the union is responding to its contract being voided and having terms imposed on them they did not agree too.

Now, the company cannot just impose a contract. They have to make an honest effort to negotiate a deal. If not, then the judge has to make a call, but no judge has imposed a long term labor deal on any group.

This is the 1113 process that has already unfolded. However, the BK judge has also ruled that he has no jurisdiction to enjoin a strike. I think you are confusing the Bankruptcy Judge Gropper's rulings with a temporary injunction by a Federal District Judge Marrero, who has not ruled on the matter yet.

There is debate as to his authority to enjoin a labor group once the company is out of bankruptcy.

Correct, there is no debate that a bankruptcy judge has no authority to enjoin a strike outside of bankruptcy. As a matter of fact the bankruptcy judge in this case has already decided he has no jurisdiction to enjoin a strike even in bankruptcy.

The quesiton arises, "When is the RLA superceded, and under what terms? Is an imposed contract covered under the RLA?" No labor group, least of all ALPA, has had the nerve to test the law.

EAL and CAL both struck when their contracts were voided even though they were both covered under the RLA. The question is, does the creation of the 1113 process, which was designed to protect labor groups from the arbitrary rejection of their CBAs while a company is in BK, negate the right of a union to strike when their contracts have been rejected.


[FONT=arial, helvetica]Transportation[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]Strike Clock Ticking at Northwest
[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]By Ted Reed
TheStreet.com Staff Reporter[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]8/23/2006 2:09 PM EDT[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]URL: http://www.thestreet.com/newsanalysis/transportation/10305409.html


Four years after the first post-Sept. 11 bankruptcy filing by a legacy airline, a U.S. judge has ruled on a key but previously unresolved issue, deciding that bankruptcy law does not trump the Railway Labor Act.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper of New York, in an unprecedented ruling last week, rejected a Northwest Airlines (NWACQ) request to prohibit flight attendants from striking. Potentially, they could walk off the job as early as 9 p.m. Friday.

Northwest has appealed, an action specifically encouraged within the ruling itself, and a hearing is scheduled for 1 p.m. Friday in U.S. District Court in New York.


bizjournals.com
Judge delays NWA flight attendants' strike
Friday August 25, 9:11 pm ET
A federal judge on Friday ruled that Northwest Airlines Corp.'s flight attendants will have to hold off on plans to strike. U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said the flight attendants can't strike until he's prepared to issue a final ruling on the carrier's latest court appeal. Marrero said at a hearing in the Twin Cities Friday that he's not yet prepared to hand down a final ruling.

[/FONT]

 

[DAL737FO]

The bankruptcy judge has to protect the interests of the creditors above all else, while the company is under bankruptcy protection.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the bankruptcy judge rule that he would not give the company an injunction. This was done by a different judge. Just goes to show that you can shop around until you get the desired outcome.