Enough to send a chill up the spine of every working American.

[sleuth]

Alexandria, Va. (AP) - The head of the flight attendants' union says it's enough to "send a chill up the spine of every working American."

A bankruptcy court judge in Alexandria (website - news) has canceled the collective bargaining agreements between Arlington-based US Airways and its machinists union.

The ruling offers the airline hundreds of millions of dollars in annual savings, enough that the airline says it can now stave off liquidation.

The judge also approved a request to terminate the pension plans for machinists and flight attendants, declaring that even a billion dollars in potential savings over five years may not be enough to keep the bankrupt airline alive.

linkage: http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0105/198889.html

This seems like a big overstep of a judge's power, doesn't it? It's quite alarming.

 

[Larry Gude]

Enough to WAKE UP...

...every working person.

Being beholden to a corporation for healthcare and retirement has been the greatest abuse of US citizens for over 50 years now.

You are a contractor; you are performing a task in return for cash that the market deems acceptable, just like the price of any good or service you buy.

Does you company get paid by it's customers in long term promises to provide future benefits?

No.

Why?

Because that is bad business; TOO RISKY to give a cheesburger today for double the price tomorrow. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?

People ought to think about voting for representatives who will quit selling their future down the river and start thinking about yourselves as responsible for your own welfare.

You should have the option of paying your own state, federal and SS taxes and you should have the option of recieving every dime of healthcare and retirement promises and learn to manage them yourselves.

The only worker uniting that should be going on is in search of independence.

Or...leave it to US Air to manage your money. Or Enron. Or...

 

[sleuth]

I can't imagine this not being overturned.

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't think you understood what Larry was trying to say.

Unions served a purpose back in the day - there was a glut of workers and only so many jobs, so unions protected workers from true abuse, i.e. 18 hour days, way low pay, physical abuse, etc. These days, workers think they're being abused if they're not making $100k and getting free lattes in the breakroom.

Like the NAACP and NOW, the unions' day is done. Mission accomplished, now go find something else to ##### and moan about. At this point, like those other organizations, they're causing more harm than good.

Which is better - to take a pay cut or to have the company go bankrupt so you become unemployed? Pro-unionists are anti-business and they think payroll and benefit money just comes from God or something.

There's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees you a specific job at a specific pay with specific benefits.

 

[sleuth]

I don't think you understood what Larry was trying to say.

Unions served a purpose back in the day - there was a glut of workers and only so many jobs, so unions protected workers from true abuse, i.e. 18 hour days, way low pay, physical abuse, etc. These days, workers think they're being abused if they're not making $100k and getting free lattes in the breakroom.

Like the NAACP and NOW, the unions' day is done. Mission accomplished, now go find something else to ##### and moan about. At this point, like those other organizations, they're causing more harm than good.

Which is better - to take a pay cut or to have the company go bankrupt so you become unemployed? Pro-unionists are anti-business and they think payroll and benefit money just comes from God or something.

There's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees you a specific job at a specific pay with specific benefits.

I understood what he was saying Vrai...
but I was just thinking that a judge doesn't have the power to simply "throw out" a collective bargaining agreement, i.e. a contract, unless there's something wrong with it that makes it invalid.

I agree with Larry in that I ought to be more in charge of finances relating to me, rather than letting my employer do it. I also agree with your point about the pay-cut.

But still, the airline made a written agreement with its employees. They should be required by law to honor it.

 

[Pete]

I don't think you understood what Larry was trying to say.

Unions served a purpose back in the day - there was a glut of workers and only so many jobs, so unions protected workers from true abuse, i.e. 18 hour days, way low pay, physical abuse, etc. These days, workers think they're being abused if they're not making $100k and getting free lattes in the breakroom.

Like the NAACP and NOW, the unions' day is done. Mission accomplished, now go find something else to ##### and moan about. At this point, like those other organizations, they're causing more harm than good.

Which is better - to take a pay cut or to have the company go bankrupt so you become unemployed? Pro-unionists are anti-business and they think payroll and benefit money just comes from God or something.

There's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees you a specific job at a specific pay with specific benefits.

Hey Sparx, did the paramedics have to carry you out of your office when this judgement came out?

What is the AFL-CIO's position? Would they rather have their memebers have a job at a lower wage or none at all? you guys have a win-win situation. If the airlines go bust and they are all unemployed your party can wail "see we were right, the Republicans are mean unemployment is up" or they can say "Republicans are mean union busters who hate the little guy" when in fact your union did it. Genious

 

[vraiblonde]

but I was just thinking that a judge doesn't have the power to simply "throw out" a collective bargaining agreement, i.e. a contract, unless there's something wrong with it that makes it invalid.

Okay, I see.

The judge also approved a request to terminate the pension plans for machinists and flight attendants

So someone must have made the request initially.

What would make it invalid is that bankruptcy judges won't approve your bankruptcy if there's another way out of your financial problems. You can file for bankruptcy all you want, but if you have assets you could sell or lifestyle changes you could make to pay off your debts, that's what they will insist you do. (Unless you get the right judge and can grease his palm sufficiently)

 

[crabcake]

But still, the airline made a written agreement with its employees. They should be required by law to honor it.

But as a business owner, if my company is gonna go bankrupt, and I've tried to negotiate with these folks to find a solution and they won't budge, I'm gonna do whatever I have to so I can save my company.

There's no way to forecast the future ... things like 9/11 happen and the economy goes down the crapper along with jobs. I'd be thanking my lucky stars I still had a job vs. pitching a fit about a few bucks and losing it altogether.

I see this union thing at work a lot (though I'm not in the collective bargaining unit) and it's ridiculous the griping that goes on. No one is being made a slave in the workplace. If you work over time, you get paid for it. Everyone (where I work) gets at least 2 or more weeks of annual leave plus sick leave, and a bonus at the end of the year if you perform. We have good benefits (health, life ins. leave, retirement, etc). I may b!tch about my boss (who doesn't) but as far as what I get for what I do, not a peep! And if it came down to taking a pay cut or losing my job, I'd gladly take the pay cut and keep working vs. sit on my azz and collect unemployment (which is far less than the pay cut, I'm sure).

 

[Larry Gude]

Also...

But still, the airline made a written agreement with its employees. They should be required by law to honor it.

The airline has contracts, written agreements, with their vendors. Bankruptcy is using the law, the courts, to negate agreements in order to find a viable, survivable solution.

The court, in effect, puts the vendors out, so, why not the employees as well?

The vendors typically negotiate in good faith, absorbing loses on old debts in order to help ensure future business. The vendors lose real money to look to the future.

Unions are not asked to give back a single dime for service rendered. They are being asked reduce future commitment.

I think the judge acted because he felt the union was not acting in good faith.

 

[Lenny]

I think the judge acted because he felt the union was not acting in good faith.

Which is something that's never reported in articles or news papers. It's too easy for a reporter or headline writer to try to sell papers by writing as inflammatory or emotion-laden words as possible. The headline and the baiting quote from the flight-attendants' union spokesperson (not from the machinists' union spokesperson) was designed to inflame the pro-union populace and to sell newspapers. The AP is one of the worst for doing this.

 

[Bruzilla]

I watched the unions destroy Pittsburgh, and I have no love for them at all. Would these poor, pitiful, workers be better served by having the union hold out and the airline going bankrupt? Would they better served by a pay cut or a job cut? After the messes these employees caused to travel over the past holiday, I would like to see the airline fire everyone who didn't show up on those days and have a big job fair for replacements. Cut back on their routes until they have the staff to expand, and send those no-loads out on the streets uneligible for unemployment.