Will they strike?

[nitrogen]

Spoken like a true spineless coward

What??? Guess what genius? Theres no legal precedence for that scenario. You know why??? Because its so ludicrous that even the most liberal thinker in the world couldnt justify that scenario. The company wants to void the contract and impose WHATEVER WAGE AND WORK RULES THEY SEE FIT ON THE EMPLOYEES. In essence if they want to pay everyone $6/hr they can. And your contention is that the employees have no power to say no????? Did they bring slavery back and I didnt hear about it?? What a moron.

Your contention is that a strike is illegal EVEN AFTER THE COMPANY VACATES THE CONTRACT???? Boy, thats rich. So the company says "We have to vacate your contract and impose whatever we want on you as far as paycuts and work rule changes HOWEVER REGARDLESS OF THE FACT WE HAVE COMPLETELY SHIRKED ANY RESPONSIBILITY WE HAD UNDER THE RLA, YOU AS EMPLOYEES MUST CONTINUE TO HONOR THE PROVISIONS OF THE RLA BECAUSE THE RULES ONLY APPLY ONE WAY.... TO YOU, THE EMPLOYEES?????
ARE YOU INSANE? THATS LIKE ME REPOSSESSING YOUR CAR BUT STILL REQUIRING YOU TO MAKE ALL THE PAYMENTS ON IT. YOU MUST BE UAL MANAGEMENT TO BE THIS DELUSIONAL.

People like you are the reason the industry is so pathetic. You'll take any concession they force on you and say 'Well, something is better than nothing'.
With people like you in this industry we will be working for minimum wage soon.
I find you lack of pride and self worth at best disturbing. Lets hope the people over at UAL don't have the mile wide yellow stripe down their back that you do.

I can imagine how upset the employees at UAL must be but I don't see strikes coming. I predict that the judge will allow the management to do whatever they want to do and the destruction of the contracts will be next unless the unions agree to go along peacfully and sign concessionary deals. The unions will make a lot of noise and threats but in the end I don't think there will be strikes. As ridiculous as it sounds I think that the courts will rule any strikes illegal because of the Railway labor act even though the RLA was violated by the company by not maintaining status quo until exhausting the process. I believe the courts will rule that the bankruptcy laws supercede the RLA when necessary to protect a corporation and that the RLA still applies to prevent work stoppages to protect the same corporations. The courts are an extension of the government and the government is all about protecting corporations and the people who run them and reducing and/or eliminating the influence of organized labor. Once this ruling is made the unions won't be able to take the risk of supporting a strike for liability reasons. Couple this ruling with an NMB that will no longer release unions from mediation and you have what airline management has always wanted, the effective end of union bargaining power in the airline industry.

I also think that, in the end, most of the employees would rather have jobs than no jobs; or at least have jobs while they look for other jobs. Everybody likes to talk tough until they come face to face with the prospect of havng no job, no income, no benefits and having to find another job and start all over. I also think that for many employees, even after all of the pay and benefit cuts, they may find it difficult to find a comparable or better job. This is different than a strike against a profitable corporation where everybody knows a deal will be reached and things will eventually return to normal. UAL is on the brink and a work stoppage could interrupt the cash flow and result in the final ending for the company.

 

[nitrogen]

Yeah, right

Not going to strike.

>>> You will have 20 year + mechanics applying to be a TSA screener. The flight attendants will have to go back to Denny's.>>>

Why, did they suddenly lose their A&P licenses??? Suddenly they're not mechanics any more? Flight attendants can walk into Walmart and get jobs that pay more than the airline right now. People want to stay at a company because it offers them more than they can get elsewhere. That is no longer true at UAL. Pension is gone and theyre going after their crappy pay again. Just what do they have to lose?? The only ones who will be cowards to the bitter end are the pilots. Maybe the most disappointing single group of humans ever existing. I am constantly shocked by how gutless nearly every pilot group is. Thank god for the FA's and Mechanics.

 

[crashpad]

I'm quite sure if they don't walk that the discouraged workforce will ultimately eat UAL alive. Human nature will have them getting back at UAL in all sorts of passive aggressive ways. I don't think UAL can survive that either.

Truer words were never spoken. I'm getting a months supply of buttered popcorn and heading out to DIA so I can watch the B Movie 'Dawn of the Dead Airline'.

 

[ILStoMinimums]

I'm sure lots of employees have had enough at UAL and will walk, I guess we will see soon. Amazing how fast UAL took a nosedive.......

 

[Dodge]

Nitrogen is on to something. Why should all these pilots just roll over and take what ever UAL Mismanagement hands out to them.

If this was any other business scenario, UAL would have been sued for breech of contract a long time ago. Unfortunately, pilots seem to have way too much sense of self worth. Pilots need to get it in their heads that we are nothing more than people contracted to provide a service. Pilots do not set ticket prices, negotiate fuel buying, set up financing for tugs, do the books with accountants, etc.... Pilots fly the planes, that's all.

When the company decides to breech the contract for those services, then there should be consequences. I can just see how well a truck company would come out if they decided to pay their dispatchers and drivers half of what the contract says. I know for a fact, as I have seen it first hand, that their trucks would be in every part of the country except for the state where the headquarters are.

 

[Carl_Spackler]

Going on strike would put the nail in the coffin for sure.

What do the FA's expect if they go on strike, to get their pension back? There is nothing to be gained from going on strike. Oh well, I guess United mgmt will have someone to blame for putting the company under.

"It's not our fault, we were going to come out of BK when the FA's went on strike. We would have made it if it were not for the FA's"

 

[fam62c]

Lighten up nitrogen

What??? Guess what genius? Theres no legal precedence for that scenario. You know why??? Because its so ludicrous that even the most liberal thinker in the world couldnt justify that scenario. The company wants to void the contract and impose WHATEVER WAGE AND WORK RULES THEY SEE FIT ON THE EMPLOYEES. In essence if they want to pay everyone $6/hr they can. And your contention is that the employees have no power to say no????? Did they bring slavery back and I didnt hear about it?? What a moron.

Your contention is that a strike is illegal EVEN AFTER THE COMPANY VACATES THE CONTRACT???? Boy, thats rich. So the company says "We have to vacate your contract and impose whatever we want on you as far as paycuts and work rule changes HOWEVER REGARDLESS OF THE FACT WE HAVE COMPLETELY SHIRKED ANY RESPONSIBILITY WE HAD UNDER THE RLA, YOU AS EMPLOYEES MUST CONTINUE TO HONOR THE PROVISIONS OF THE RLA BECAUSE THE RULES ONLY APPLY ONE WAY.... TO YOU, THE EMPLOYEES?????
ARE YOU INSANE? THATS LIKE ME REPOSSESSING YOUR CAR BUT STILL REQUIRING YOU TO MAKE ALL THE PAYMENTS ON IT. YOU MUST BE UAL MANAGEMENT TO BE THIS DELUSIONAL.

People like you are the reason the industry is so pathetic. You'll take any concession they force on you and say 'Well, something is better than nothing'.
With people like you in this industry we will be working for minimum wage soon.
I find you lack of pride and self worth at best disturbing. Lets hope the people over at UAL don't have the mile wide yellow stripe down their back that you do.

Hey Nitrogen, chill out:

One thing that I hate about these forums is that everytime you express an opinion someone has to behave like a child and start calling you names. I pray that the public doesn't read these forums because they make airline pilots look like uneducated, whiny, belligerent little crybabies. Can't you have a disagreement with someone without resorting to name calling?

I'm saying what I think will happen, I'm not saying I want it to happen or think it should happen. I even said in my posting "as ridiculous as it seems" which makes it pretty clear that I'm not in favor of potential strikes being ruled illegal after CBA's have been rejected. The courts and the government have a long history of backing up corporations where the interests of the corporation and the employees are at odds. UAL is a good example, the BK judge has essentially "rubber stamped" everything the management has wanted to do and totally ignored the employees; I don't see that changing. If the court rules the strikes are legal then the unions will have leverage and that's not what the government or airline management wants. Who do you think has more influence with the courts, labor or a major corporation that employs thousands of people and pays millions in taxes? I hope I'm wrong but I know where organized labor stands in the court system. I've been involved with unions, negotiations, the NMB, the RLA and I've walked the line in a strike so don't you dare call me spineless for expressing my opinion; I've earned the right to express my opinion the hard way. You are correct (as far as I know) in saying that there is no legal precedent as to what will happen if an employee group strikes because a contract gets rejected by the BK court. It's an unusual situation, the status quo has been violated but the NMB process has not been exhausted. Legal experts (I'm not one and after reading your post I KNOW that you certainly aren't) differ on what laws will govern this situation. I'm just expressing my opinion and it is that the courts will act to protect the rights of the corporation over the rights of unionized labor.......no matter how unfair and unreasonable that may seem. I hope I'm wrong.

What is your solution? The employees go on strike and win a pyrrhic victory when the company fails and everyone is on the street? It's not up to me because I don't work for UAL and I will respect whatever they choose to do, however, sometimes you have to know when to take it and live to fight another day. A strike is not going to cause the BK court to reverse it's decision. Normally you strike in an attempt to gain something; I don't see what a strike can gain here for the UAL employees although it may help other groups who will go through this in the future by making airlines think twice before they strip contracts by force. If they decide to strike for "pride" as you put it and be martyrs that's up to them. There's actually a time and a place for that and only the UAL employees can decide when it's gotten so bad that they would rather have no jobs than the jobs that they will be left with. Nobody is a "slave" as you put it; the employees can vote with their feet and leave the company on their own.....nobody can stop them from quitting and I suspect that many of them will. If it's me I would rather have a job while I look for another one. Having options is better than having no options. Either way it's not a decision I would like to have to make. As I said, this is different than a conventional strike where it's a pretty good bet that the company will survive the strike. I won't respond to any of your future posts unless you can prove that you are an adult not an angry child playing with Mom & Dad's computer.

 

[nitrogen]

Ignorance is bliss

>>

Hey Nitrogen, chill out:>>

Chill out? I will once people like you stop trying to hand this profession away without a fight. It's my future too. I'm eventually gonna have to fight some battles in response to what UAL employee groups do here. My biggest fear is that the majority think like you do.

>>UAL is a good example, the BK judge has essentially "rubber stamped" everything the management has wanted to do and totally ignored the employees; I don't see that changing. If the court rules the strikes are legal then the unions will have leverage and that's not what the government or airline management wants.>>

Yeah, and why do you think he's done that? What do you know about bunkruptcy law? Clearly nothing. He's there to make sure the primary creditors get paid. Thats his job. In bankruptcy, his job is definitely NOT to ensure the survival of the company. His job is to make sure that the guys who stuck their necks out and are primary investors in this company get something back out of it. They get paid first and foremost. Secured creditors, unsecured financiers on down. To do that he may order sale of assets, routes, planes, anything of value. In fact, in the end the company could still liquidate and the creditors will take what value they can out according to order of precedence. Sadly stockholders come in last. You think that ensures the survival of the airline?




>>What is your solution? The employees go on strike and win a pyrrhic victory when the company fails and everyone is on the street? It's not up to me because I don't work for UAL and I will respect whatever they choose to do, however, sometimes you have to know when to take it and live to fight another day. A strike is not going to cause the BK court to reverse it's decision. Normally you strike in an attempt to gain something; I don't see what a strike can gain here for the UAL employees although it may help other groups who will go through this in the future by making airlines think twice before they strip contracts by force.>>

Live to fight another day?? OMG. Guess what?? This is it.
That's the main fallacy of your thinking. An airline HAS NEVER EVER FAILED due to an employee strike. Never. Some have struck in the final death throws, but its never actually caused the end. The ability to strike is merely a tool to keep a bad management group from dumping its financial problems on the employees when it can't seem to solve them any other way. Ineptness is not an excuse to screw the employees. They're trying to see where the line in the sand is and push it as far as possible. The worst thing that the union leadership can do right now is lay down as you suggest and take whatever is given them. It's just a matter of who gets stuck in the end.

>>If they decide to strike for "pride" as you put it and be martyrs that's up to them.>>

Not once did I ever say they should strike for pride. Don't put words in my mouth.


>>There's actually a time and a place for that and only the UAL employees can decide when it's gotten so bad that they would rather have no jobs than the jobs that they will be left with. Nobody is a "slave" as you put it; the employees can vote with their feet and leave the company on their own.....nobody can stop them from quitting and I suspect that many of them will.>>

Now there's some union solidarity for you. Individuals who can't stand it any more just walking away. Boy that would be one sad union leadership that let it reach that point. Your line of reasoning truly baffles me. Or MAYBE they could ban TOGETHER as a cohesive unit and tell management they will not be devalued. Imagine that.

>>If it's me I would rather have a job while I look for another one. Having options is better than having no options. Either way it's not a decision I would like to have to make. As I said, this is different than a conventional strike where it's a pretty good bet that the company will survive the strike. I won't respond to any of your future posts unless you can prove that you are an adult not an angry child playing with Mom & Dad's computer.

>>

No options at all(fear mongering). This statement makes me wonder if you've ever worked for a real airline or you just work for your own best interests. Your constant statements that a strike would cause an immediate collapse of the airline is ludicrous. What it would cause is an immediate incentive for management to actually try to do some problem solving WITH the unions instead of just waiting for the bankruptcy judge to screw them over for them. That means good faith negotiation. In 2 1/2 years of bankruptcy they have yet to even attempt that yet. But this says it all about you. My guess is you'd still be showing up at quarter wages and no work rules as you "look for another job". By then they could pave the way to the obliteration of this profession as a whole. Sadly, its clear you'd be helping to contribute to that. UAL isn't going to fail suddenly and without warning. They have simply said they can't sustain a strike for any period of time. In the mean time theyre going to constantly test the waters to see how far they can push the employees using fear without them walking away. The more they give the further the bar is pushed and the more fighting the rest of the industry (us) is going to have to do later on. The experts have already said that the removal of the UAL pension programs paves the way for the other majors to do the same. I consider this opinion to be highly suspect, but thats their view. UAL is in this situation for one reason. Bad management. Barring that the rest of their cost structure could easily be supported at their current wage rates. I mean, they hardly pay any of their bills as it is. So whats killing them? Bankruptcy, contrary to popular belief, is an expensive business. For a revenue generation business like an airline its death. Its like being the bad credit guy who only gets offered secured credit cards at 25% interest instead of the 8% they offer everyone else.