court. Marathon did not address and, therefore, did not say that only Article III judges could resolve claims against a bankrupt estate. Accordingly, it ought to be clear that 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and the other corresponding provisions were not passed to satisfy Marathon. The 1984 amendments were enacted to resolve a number of “problems” aside from the jurisdictional crisis created by Marathon some two years earlier. Recall: Consumer creditors lobbied to tighten the screws on consumer debtors. Result: The' Consumer Credit Amendments, which included a potpourri of minor and not-so-minor impositions on consumer debtors. Recall: labor unions lobbied to overturn the Supreme Court’s then recent decision in NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 104 S.Ct. 1188, 79 L.Ed.2d 482 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Result: 11 U.S.C. § 1113. Finally, recall:
holding that oral agreement made in connection with reinstatement should be treated as part of collective bargaining agreement holding that a debtorinpossession could reject a collective bargaining agreement holding that antidiscrimination rights under title vii cannot be waived by a collective bargaining agreement holding terms of collective bargaining agreement only a factor in weighing reasonableness of accommodation holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union