Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Splash, this applies to your post as well:

Very, very, true.

The most frustrating lie promulgated on us during the bankruptcy was that scope concessions were forced on us. If you look at the actual negotiator's notes and publications, ALPA was proud of the "credits" it received by selling jobs. In truth ALPA bargained scope rather than fight to clarify the murky gray area which exists between bankruptcy law and the Railway Labor Act.

There is a debate whether management can ask for, and a Judge agree to, interference in collective bargaining representation, or job protection provisions to remove scope in a 113c. The law is conflicting, but clearly the union should take the view that favors us, particularly in our case since Congress actually exempted us via their recognition of the Railway Labor Act in our bargaining.

While the Supreme Court has not weighed in yet, the decisions on the Federal Appellate Court level have been going in the favor of transportation unions. Certainly economic portions of agreements can be modified by the Courts, but thus far NO Judge has touched job protection provisions, or scope.

We should not forget the goal of a bankruptcy court is to facilitate the reorganization of a business so as to best protect stakeholders. The law is in the favor of employees who's livelihoods are more greatly effected by smaller changes (than say multi billion dollar investment banks) and of course employees are needed to staff the going concern if the business is to work its way out of bankrupcty.

(legalese warning):