close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

[CT]Court rules struggling company can't lay off union workers

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by harlenm, Feb 5, 2010.

  1. harlenm

    harlenm Millennium Member

    Messages:
    9,847
    Likes Received:
    913
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 1999
    Location:
    CT
    Pratt jobs saved, company to appeal


    2/5/2010 10:02 p.m.
    An injunction was issued tonight by the US District Court that will keep Pratt & Whitney jobs in Connecticut for the duration of their union contract.

    Last July, Pratt announced that they would be closing two of their Connecticut facilities, putting more than 1,000 people out of work. The company wanted to move the jobs to Georgia, Singapore and Japan.

    The Machinists Union filed suit against Pratt, saying the company violated their collective bargaining agreement and did not make "every reasonable effort" to preserve the work in Cheshire and East Hartford.

    The court decided late Friday night that Pratt did in fact breach their contract and granted a permanent injunction.

    The collective bargaining agreement that the court upheld expires on December 10, 2010.

    Pratt released the following statement on the decision:

    While we respect the court's ruling, we are disappointed and disagree with the decision and after reviewing it will consider our options, including an appeal. We believe we upheld our contractual obligations to act in good faith and made every reasonable effort to keep this work in Connecticut. The fact remains that we face a declining aerospace market, a shifting customer base, and a significant and permanent volume drop at these two facilities. To keep the company competitive and retain high-technology jobs in the state, we need the flexibility to react to these changing market conditions.

    UTC remains the largest private employer in the state of Connecticut with approximately 26,700 employees. P&W has nearly 11,000 employees in the state and we will continue to evaluate ways to remain competitive.
     
  2. Isaiah1412

    Isaiah1412

    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Location:
    Abingdon, Maryland
    Now instead of 1,000 people losing their jobs 11,000 people probably will. GO UNION! :faint:
     

  3. harlenm

    harlenm Millennium Member

    Messages:
    9,847
    Likes Received:
    913
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 1999
    Location:
    CT
    If I was UTC, I'd close the whole plant first thing Monday morning and tell all the employees to piss off. This state is so damn stupid. They have no idea how to budget money, and obviously UTC needs to lay off workers in order to meet their budget. With the extra 1,000 on payroll, who knows how much they ar gonna be in the red. (on a side note, my wife works for another UTC division).
     
  4. Mushinto

    Mushinto Master Member

    Messages:
    7,556
    Likes Received:
    9
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Location:
    Melbourne, Florida, USA
    If they have a contract, then the court was correct in forcing them to honor it.

    After the contract expires, they can do something else.

    What's so hard to understand. :dunno:

    ML
     
  5. snair

    snair

    Messages:
    792
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Location:
    Salt Lake
    this....
     
  6. Armchair Commando

    Armchair Commando Long Range Guru

    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Bunker in the Midwest
    Highly doubtful, You would pay dearly for it!
     
  7. shavedape

    shavedape

    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Location:
    Whoville
    The only thing hard to understand is why no one cares that UTC is being forced out of CT. The court might have ruled in favor of honoring the contract, but that doesn't change the reality that CT will probably lose in the long run. Pratt & Whitney are in the driver's seat no matter how you slice it.

    Buh bye jobs! :wavey:
     
  8. SheepleNoMore

    SheepleNoMore

    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Mid America
    The Machinists Union filed suit against Pratt, saying the company violated their collective bargaining agreement and did not make "every reasonable effort" to preserve the work in Cheshire and East Hartford.

    Union contract doesn't say jobs are guaranteed, just the UTC would make reasonable efforts to maintain the business division jobs in CT. UTC is saying they need to relocate and/or eliminate the jobs in response to a changed business environmemt.

    If every location has that in the Union contract and the company needs to downsize, every location can sue and get an injunction against the company eliminating jobs at that location. That makes no sense to me. Where is the company supposed to get the money to pay the workers it is prevented from laying off to achieve the necessary downsizing to respond to the market conditions? BAIL OUT money? I sure hope not.
     
  9. blackjack

    blackjack

    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2000
    Location:
    Sand Springs OK
    Too bad we don't have journalists worthy of the name. This article is lacking any specifics in the judge's ruling or in trial arguments on exactly how the company failed to show good faith efforts to keep jobs in CT. With that information, it would be easier for the reader to evaluate the judge's decision and the company's efforts. That said, it looks likes the company got out-lawyered twice: once when negotiating the contract and then in the court.
     
  10. kahrcarrier

    kahrcarrier FAHRENHEIT

    Messages:
    6,086
    Likes Received:
    32
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Location:
    Southern IN
    Just a matter of the calendar.

    They WILL move out.
     
  11. ElevatedThreat

    ElevatedThreat NRA Member

    Messages:
    3,947
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Now there is some good union-type thinking.

    Perhaps the judge can also order the company's customers to buy more product from them, at higher prices, so the company can afford to continue to pay its union employees.

    In fact, if courts all over America would just order employers to hire more people, we could solve this pesky little unemployment problem right now.

    Selfish employers...always wanting to run their businesses at a profit....

    :upeyes:

    -ET
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2010
  12. Javelin

    Javelin Got Glock? Silver Member

    Messages:
    13,775
    Likes Received:
    5
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    N. Dallas
    This crap has got to end.
     
  13. Gary W Trott

    Gary W Trott Prickley Fan

    Messages:
    5,011
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2002
    Location:
    West Warwick, RI
    All the judge can do is make a ruling based upon the arguments and evidence presented in regards to the contract dispute...and that's what was done. That's how our system works and contracts are enforced.
     
  14. Gary W Trott

    Gary W Trott Prickley Fan

    Messages:
    5,011
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2002
    Location:
    West Warwick, RI
    Nothing hard at all to understand for anyone who believes in the American legal system and the importance of contracts.
     
  15. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    Messages:
    16,521
    Likes Received:
    6,202
    Joined:
    May 4, 2003
    You mean like the AIG bonuses that were contractually guaranteed? Or the guys who held bonds from auto companies, and were contractually guaranteed compensation?

    I seem to remember the unions having a different position when those contracts made the news.
     
  16. AC37

    AC37 SystemicAnomaly

    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    337
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2000
    Location:
    Provo, UT

    Exactly.


    I believe in honoring contracts made, but honoring it won't make work suddenly growing on trees. They're leaving, like it or not, sooner or later - much of American labor has simply priced itself too far out of the market.
     
  17. Teufelhunde

    Teufelhunde

    Messages:
    378
    Likes Received:
    17
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008

    PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASE don't try to confuse people with facts...........


    YMMV

    Lon
     
  18. ElevatedThreat

    ElevatedThreat NRA Member

    Messages:
    3,947
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    That's the standard response I get when observing that unions are driving their employers under with unreasonable labor costs -- "Well, the company signed the contract, so now they owe the union workers a job regardless of whether they are making a profit or not...." That's a depressingly juvenile attitude for grown men to take.

    The language of the contract requires only that the company make "reasonable efforts" to avoid layoffs. So the judge is interpreting what is "reasonable" in this case.

    If the company has no work for the employees to do, or can't make a profit at current market prices, then all the judge is doing here is rendering a political, rather than a legal, ruling.

    This is no different than judges ruling that banks can't foreclose on bad mortgages, because of the current economic recession.

    Sorry, but a judge's ruling can't thwart market realities in the long run, either in the labor market nor in the housing market. As some wise person once observed, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

    -ET
     
  19. berto62

    berto62

    Messages:
    1,278
    Likes Received:
    434
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Location:
    Alachua Fl
    Pratt & Whitney is hardly a struggling company.This is from their website.

    Pratt & Whitney, a United Technologies Corp. company (NYSE:UTX), is a world leader in the design, manufacture and service of aircraft engines, industrial gas turbines and space propulsion systems. Pratt & Whitney reported an operating profit of $1.84 billion in 2009 on revenues of $12.58 billion. The company's 36,000 employees support more than 11,000 customers in 195 countries around the world.

    http://www.pratt-whitney.com/About+Us/An+Overview

    I believe that its more about busting the union than saving money.I bet they would send all of the jobs overseas if they could. Why pay an American a decent wage when you outsource to a foreign country and get it done for almost nothing.
     
  20. Jeff82

    Jeff82 NRA Benefactor CLM

    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    119
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Location:
    USofA!
    Bust it now or bust it later. Unions are a communist tool.

    Fix the overly aggressive corporate tax rates the congress is screwing all businesses with and you'd see jobs staying Stateside (provided there isn't a union available to run them off).

    These decisions are economic in nature. Quit playing the class warfare charade. That's being a democrap tool.