Guest neo Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 I'll leave that particular hypothetical to you, sustainable. Feel free to offer advice to any individual such as the one you're refering to. I'm sure it will be appreciated! My comments to Virtual are not hypothetical, they are real. They are an unavoidable consequence of voting without knowing what the Keller Award states. If you feel that myh personal situation somehow affects the principles that I'm supporting, then no need to be coy about it, why don't you just come out and say what you want to say? But think about it, sustainable. I can do NOTHING, not one damned thing about my fate under Keller. My choice of vote on the T.A. has no influence on Keller whatsoever. But Keller has an enormous influence on how some people might choose to vote on the T.A. That is, unless you feel that everyone has to vote yes, regardless of how badly they felt about their treatment under the T.A. And if that's the way it supposed to be, WHY HAVE A VOTE AT ALL? If you support the right for people to vote on their fate, then you HAVE to support their right to know what their fate is. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 That's great, Virtual. And you have to believe me when I say that I appreciate even more when someone can look at what I write and accept it at face value. To answer your question, it's difficult to say. On another forum, an poll suggests that 75% of the pilots are preparing to vote 'no'. Would the Keller Award change that vote in some way, assuming the poll is a reasonable reflection of pilot sentiment? I honestly don't know. As a strictly personal guess, I imagine that if the Keller Award comes out and seriously disadvantages EITHER group, that there will certainly be a polarization of the vote along pre-merger lines. I further believe that there will be a number of pilots, and I have no idea how many, that out of fear of the unknown consequences of rejection will vote in favor of the T.A. regardless of how the Keller Award turns out. That choice is of course their right, and I have no problem with them taking that position. I simply expect them to support my right to know what the consequences of my vote could mean. Best wishes, neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollywud Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 Hi Neo, Thanks for you reply. Believe me when I say this; I actually understand and accept what you say has merit. The points you raise certainly make one stand back and think for a moment. But (and this is a big but), I think this is a classic case of 'the cart before the horse.' Clearly, if the Keller award could come out before the creditors call it a day then great... more info for you all before your final vote. However, if you should not have that luxury, then why vote 'NO' when the certainty is unemployment. IMHO, if I was an AC pilot I would want to ensure that I have a job first, and then worry about the seniority issue later. Cheers, Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 "Then WHY HAVE A VOTE AT ALL, Goggles? Why not just let the courts and the monitors tell us what we're going to get?" Voting and agreeing lets the bankruptcy court and creditors know that we're going to go along with the changes, despite the fact that we took serious cuts. A no vote is really a non-confidence vote, and a "I won't play ball with you" message. In this case, the creditors, the bankruptcy judge and those who would own the company would not have any incentive to keep it going, because trying to do so without employee concurrence would mean that the operation would not be viable. So, in the latter case, better for them to cut their losses now, sell what they can splinter off the company, in order that the surviving pieces work under new management and new (much cheaper than now) labour contracts. This is not a normal bargaining process, because the company has a gun to our head. It cannot absorb any more losses due to industrial action.. everybody knows that. We got $crewed, but it's up to us to move forward, so that we can recover some of what we've lost along the way. What I'd like to see changed is the company's attitude towards organized labour and the lack of respect to the collective agreement. Specifically, the union must move against CR because he bargained in bad faith by double dealing. In the future, the union must insist that the contrat be respected.... or else. And that leads me to another point: the contract itself sucks. It's so full of holes that in many cases, it's wide open to interpretation. For example, the Reserve rules start out by saying that the contract can't cover all possibilities... what krap! The union shot itself in the foot before the thing was even ratified. Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Virtual Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 I agree with what you say. It's also not the creditors' fault, or all the other unions' fault, that our two unions couldn't make our own merger agreement or then agree when an arbitrator did it for us... so why should they pay the ultimate price? Let's pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and move forward together..... as that's what we are ... together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 >>>>And that leads me to another point: the contract itself sucks. It's so full of holes that in many cases, it's wide open to interpretation. For example, the Reserve rules start out by saying that the contract can't cover all possibilities... what krap! The union shot itself in the foot before the thing was even ratified.<<<< You might want to give them a chance. Maybe this is exactly why they are still working long hours to make sure it's done right. All we've seen is a very rough first draft. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groundeffect Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 If you are refering to the ezboard vote, I suggest you re-read it. 75 % said that they would not vote differently not having the Keller award published. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 Please understand what my position is, Goggles. I do not ask you to vote 'no'. I do not say that we must reject the T.A. What I say is, we MUST know the consequences of the Keller award before we vote. Otherwise the entire exercise is a cynical sham. Before there is any liquidation, any futher action by management, creditors or courts, there must be a vote on the ACPA T.A. Do you agree that we have a right to vote on our fate under the T.A.? And do you believe that we have a right to know what that fate is? Let's get our priorities in order. Doing so gives us confidence that we have chosen the right path. Doing otherwise virtually guarantees that we've made a mistake, much like the ones that you pointed out in your post. Best wishes, neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 But you may not have a job, hollywud. That's just it. (I say you, but what I mean is that 317 individuals will be laid off and we don't know who they are.) Before anyone loses a job, before the courts order anything further, there must be a vote on the ACPA T.A. I can see that you accept (in some way) that it's reasonable to want to know what the consequences of your vote might be. The remedy is so simple and straight-forward that I do not believe anyone can argue sensibly against it. Release the Keller Award before the vote on the T.A. To do otherwise makes a cynical sham of the entire exercise. The Keller Award was scheduled for release last Friday. There is no reason that it cannot be released prior to the vote on the T.A. Best wishes, neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kal Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 "There is no reason that it cannot be released prior to the vote on the T.A." There is a dam good reason why the award should not be released prior to the ratification vote. And you my friend have put a great big spotlight on it. That being that that a few misguided, disgrunted individuals can play on the emotions of the results of a seperate process to corrupt the issue the vote is addressing. There is infact plenty of precedence to put an arbitration in the can until the vote is complete for that very reason. C'mon Dick, what do you expect to happen if Keller is released and the REAL AC pilots decide to take their frustration out on the TA? There will be no "renegotiation" of the TA. That time has past . It's gone bro. The rewind button is inopped. There's no going back to the well. Even if there was an oportunitee to tinker with the contract what could be done? Change the terms to satisfy the percieved damage to one group at the expense of the other?? C'mon man think about it. And what do you think the trade of would be, because you have to know you as a group will give far more than you'll get back in this instance? What would that action do to the other labor groups?? I suspect you will be kicking over a rather large domino that will end with the destruction of the airline. The other groups will demand the same right to rejig their own deals if for no other reason than to protect their pre concession position in a liquidation. Dickster, the best thing your group (or any of the others)can do is to emulate the CAW. Ratify the deal with a result that is sufficiently amiguous. The goal of this round is different than an traditional bargaining round. You are playing against a different, more malevolent crowd. They couldn't give a rat's a$$ if the airline continues or not. They are protecting their money, not the airline. The reason you having a vote Dick, is to help convince the folks that may or may not agree to allow you to continue in your employement, that you have recognised the seriousness of the situation, have agreed to accept pain with them and that that pain will translate into an enterprise they can recoup some or all of their losses. No more no less. You, amigo, are not helping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 "we MUST know the consequences of the Keller award before we vote." ASAIK, we're going to find out in the next few days. Do you have any indications to the contrary? Have I missed something? All the best, Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 17, 2003 Share Posted June 17, 2003 The call has been answered, my request has been granted, and thanks for your reasoned debate. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 17, 2003 Share Posted June 17, 2003 Looks like your worst dream just came true, Kal. I guess everyone will know just how bad things are now that Keller has been released. It may not change how people vote, but they won't be voting blind as you hoped. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 17, 2003 Share Posted June 17, 2003 I can't re-read anything on that forum; I don't belong to it. But going with what you said, if: a) 75% of the pilots are voting 'no' based on a bad T.A., then why would you expect negative seniority consequences under Keller to make them change their minds? neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groundeffect Posted June 17, 2003 Share Posted June 17, 2003 I don't 'expect' anything. I was merely pointing out that the vote is not asking if one would vote no, but rather it asks if one would vote differently should keller be released...and a resounding majority said no...ie it would not make a difference how they would vote. The vote is not a yes or no to the TA. regards DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.