Northwest to share profits with employees

[Stratocruiser]

In response to all the vitriol toward Northwest (most of which seems to come from people who have never worked there)...

Northwest to share profits with employees

 

[Don Smith]

When the check arrives in the mail and the cash is in your hand...
nwa hasn't done this type of incentive bonus for contracted employees ever...EVER. I find it a little curious that Steenland and company would freely shell it out now. All part of my "been there, done that" suspicious nature that I developed while working for the Red Arse tail.

 

[jenny@nw]

When the check arrives in the mail and the cash is in your hand...
nwa hasn't done this type of incentive bonus for contracted employees ever...EVER. I find it a little curious that Steenland and company would freely shell it out now. All part of my "been there, done that" suspicious nature that I developed while working for the Red Arse tail.

let's see.... 50% paycut and then getting a portion of it back? Can I look at it this way?
So if we lose 25% then are they taking 25% on top of the 50% from me?

 

[exnw]

When the check arrives in the mail and the cash is in your hand...
nwa hasn't done this type of incentive bonus for contracted employees ever...EVER. I find it a little curious that Steenland and company would freely shell it out now. All part of my "been there, done that" suspicious nature that I developed while working for the Red Arse tail.

Wow! How genrous of them. I read elsewhere if you make
50,000 then your share is about 700. After taxes where
does that leave you? Is this supposed to improve labor
relations? Will upper management get a stake in this
along with its stock options/bonuses?

 

[daughter of the IBT]

When the check arrives in the mail and the cash is in your hand...
nwa hasn't done this type of incentive bonus for contracted employees ever...EVER. I find it a little curious that Steenland and company would freely shell it out now. All part of my "been there, done that" suspicious nature that I developed while working for the Red Arse tail.

Maybe they decided to take a page from the Anderson Window corporate book -- instead of wasting energy on the repeated rounds of negotiated concessions, snap backs, etc. -- why not establish a base that works no matter where the industry is in its endless good times/bad times cycles and share the profits during the good times? It has been working for Anderson for more than 100 years according to what I read.

 

[finman]

let's see.... 50% paycut and then getting a portion of it back? Can I look at it this way?
So if we lose 25% then are they taking 25% on top of the 50% from me?

Just out of curiousity, how do you come up with the 50% paycut figure? I know hourly wages were reduced by about 20%, but where does the remaining 30% come from? Here's my math; please correct me where I'm wrong.


Baseline (2005) Total Pay:

Pay Hours: 900 (75 hours per month)
Wage Rate: $45/hr (Avg. for 2005)
Total Wages: $40,500


Wages Under Imposed TA:

Pay Hours: 1,020 (85 hours per month)
Wage Rate: $36/hr (20% reduction)
Total Wages: $36,720


Net Reduction in Wages = 9.3%

I realize vacation was reduced, but that doesn't reduce your take-home pay; you just have to work more hours. Essentially, the work-month was adjusted to be more representative of a full-time employee.

The medical benefit reduction is roughly a $100/month reduction in subsidized premiums, so that contributes another $1,200 reduction, so that results in a fully loaded wage reduction of about 12.2%.

The upside potential is pretty significant as well, if only you guys had passed the T/A which would have included a sizable claim that is now worth almost it's full face value. That would have likely meant a $20K or more payout to each FA; which would offset the wage reductions forthcoming for the next 3-5 years.

 

[RobertD]

Let's admit it, it's a publicity ploy only.
The public has turned a blind eye to any bad publicity and only reads the good.

Makes the CEO's look great, period.

I have put a rose tinted pair of glasses on my Christmas list, hope they work. Highly doubt it though, been there, done that, lived it didn't love it.

(I am glad the employees are getting back a little of what was wrongfully taken away from them. There are far less employees which means a lot more work.)

 

[jenny@nw]

Just out of curiousity, how do you come up with the 50% paycut figure? I know hourly wages were reduced by about 20%, but where does the remaining 30% come from? Here's my math; please correct me where I'm wrong.
Baseline (2005) Total Pay:

Pay Hours: 900 (75 hours per month)
Wage Rate: $45/hr (Avg. for 2005)
Total Wages: $40,500
Wages Under Imposed TA:

Pay Hours: 1,020 (85 hours per month)
Wage Rate: $36/hr (20% reduction)
Total Wages: $36,720
Net Reduction in Wages = 9.3%

I realize vacation was reduced, but that doesn't reduce your take-home pay; you just have to work more hours. Essentially, the work-month was adjusted to be more representative of a full-time employee.

The medical benefit reduction is roughly a $100/month reduction in subsidized premiums, so that contributes another $1,200 reduction, so that results in a fully loaded wage reduction of about 12.2%.

The upside potential is pretty significant as well, if only you guys had passed the T/A which would have included a sizable claim that is now worth almost it's full face value. That would have likely meant a $20K or more payout to each FA; which would offset the wage reductions forthcoming for the next 3-5 years.

ah, yes. The key word is "Average"- not "staggered" payscale(people with x amount of years got a bigger paycut), plus no ground time pay, no short crew, less per diem, less lead pay, less purser pay, no crew meal (this can be counted as an asset/benefit/hidden part of your paycheck) Lousy insurance with high deductibles, unpaid training until your 3rd day or something to that effect...

This is what I could think of off the top of my head, and comparing this to last year's paycheck is interesting.

Well Northwest is known to be cheap with everything- so when my friend in AA told me about her 33K buyout (this was years ago for her...) she was just shocked how much the company was offering, and so was my freind @ Luftansa who had a more generous buyout and according to them it was more cost effective to just give out a feasable or reasonable one rather than argue with it and still have more costly employees on payroll.

All kinds of different ways of looking at things. So if AA buys us out will I be rubbing elbows and sharing a cup of coffee with the impressive and elusive finman? or am I just to lowly for your level of intellegence and candor?

 

[PurduePete]

Wow! How genrous of them. I read elsewhere if you make
50,000 then your share is about 700. After taxes where
does that leave you? Is this supposed to improve labor
relations? Will upper management get a stake in this
along with its stock options/bonuses?

If these "bonus" checks are handled anything like the furlough & separation checks that I received from NW, the employees should expect to get taxed around 45% on whatever they get from the company.

BTW, since NW is now poised to show a profit for 2006, when can all of the current (and former) employees who still hold shares from their 1993 bailout of NW expect to receive the payment that we are entitled to? <_<

 

[Kev3188]

If these "bonus" checks are handled anything like the furlough & separation checks that I received from NW, the employees should expect to get taxed around 45% on whatever they get from the company.

I used the calculator on the Radar site, and even if they don't tax it at the 45% rate, it'll mean about $329 at the end of the day for me (sidebar for Finman: $563 estimated payout x .78 for 401k cut x .75 for tax cut).

I'd much rather have back the 5700 in annual wages they took from me ( $2.97= difference between old and current rates x 160 x 12) . That, of course, doesn't even count insurance costs or lost holiday pay.

BTW, since NW is now poised to show a profit for 2006, when can all of the current (and former) employees who still hold shares from their 1993 bailout of NW expect to receive the payment that we are entitled to? <_<

I should know this, but I'll ask the dumb question anyway...Who's representing you guys (AMT's) in the quest for this $$$? Is it the IAM (since that's who struck the original deal), or AMFA????

 

[finman]

So if AA buys us out will I be rubbing elbows and sharing a cup of coffee with the impressive and elusive finman? or am I just to lowly for your level of intellegence and candor?

Not sure I follow. I work for NWA. BTW, still waiting for that reconciliation that shows the 50% reduction in total compensation. Here's the template you can use to build your analysis. My numbers are pre-TA estimates that you can change to your estimates. In the end, you'll have the total change in compensation for a full-time Flight Attendant.


Pre-TA total Annual Compensation - $56,800

W-2 Base Wages (900 hrs * $45/hr) - $40,500
W-2 Premium Compensation (lead, purser, short crew, ground, etc.) - $3,300
Med/Dental Benefits - $8,000
Per Diem - $5,000
Other - ??


Post TA Total Annual Compensation - $51,010

W-2 Base Wages (1020 hrs * $36/hr) - $36,720
W-2 Premium Compensation (lead, purser, short crew, ground, etc.) - $2,500
Med/Dental Benefits - $6,800
Per Diem - $5,000 (lower rate but more hours so likely a wash)
Other - ??

Total Compensation Reduction - 10.2% ($5,780 / $56,800)



Now, you can fill in your estimates and come up with an actual percent reduction in total compensation.

 

[jenny@nw]

Not sure I follow. I work for NWA. BTW, still waiting for that reconciliation that shows the 50% reduction in total compensation. Here's the template you can use to build your analysis. My numbers are pre-TA estimates that you can change to your estimates. In the end, you'll have the total change in compensation for a full-time Flight Attendant.
Pre-TA total Annual Compensation - $56,800

W-2 Base Wages (900 hrs * $45/hr) - $40,500
W-2 Premium Compensation (lead, purser, short crew, ground, etc.) - $3,300
Med/Dental Benefits - $8,000
Per Diem - $5,000
Other - ??
Post TA Total Annual Compensation - $51,010

W-2 Base Wages (1020 hrs * $36/hr) - $36,720
W-2 Premium Compensation (lead, purser, short crew, ground, etc.) - $2,500
Med/Dental Benefits - $6,800
Per Diem - $5,000 (lower rate but more hours so likely a wash)
Other - ??

Total Compensation Reduction - 10.2% ($5,780 / $56,800)
Now, you can fill in your estimates and come up with an actual percent reduction in total compensation.

I don't expect you to "follow". You don't work as a flight attendant, work with them nor recieve a pay check as one. I'm not going to argue with anyone who can't fathom such a statement.

We had a union meeting where we did all brought all our old paychecks to compare it with our new one and went over the whole thing together. It is, depending on who 40-50 percent less. You must understand that the purser,lead, shortcrew, ect. are all variables that fluctuate depending on the enviroment.


I suppose what you wrote there are all "averages" again.

Funny thing about this whole "paycut" is that those who the company really want to get rid of will hang on, while the most junior and middle people are leaving....

Now if there was a reasonable-feasable payout then the company would have accomplished it's goal of getting rid of all the higher paid f/a.

I hope the company will be able to keep the new f/a for 3 years to get their investment back.

 

[finman]

We had a union meeting where we did all brought all our old paychecks to compare it with our new one and went over the whole thing together. It is, depending on who 40-50 percent less. You must understand that the purser,lead, shortcrew, ect. are all variables that fluctuate depending on the enviroment.
I suppose what you wrote there are all "averages" again.

I don't believe your 40-50% figure, nor would anybody with a shred of intelligence. I happen to know a great deal about the old and new contracts, and have done significant analysis on the "real" compensation reduction. It falls in the 10-20% range based on step and type of flying normally done. Unless you can provide a real-life example or your own estimate that backs up your figure, then I think we can all rest assured that you are greatly exaggerating your loss. I'm sure you've snowed a lot of people on this board. For union harmony, complete clarity as to the magnitude of each group's concessions is necessary.

You know, exaggerating ones own loss is somewhat insulting to those that are truthful in what they lost.

 

[big jimmy]

I don't believe your 40-50% figure, nor would anybody with a shred of intelligence. I happen to know a great deal about the old and new contracts, and have done significant analysis on the "real" compensation reduction. It falls in the 10-20% range based on step and type of flying normally done. Unless you can provide a real-life example or your own estimate that backs up your figure, then I think we can all rest assured that you are greatly exaggerating your loss. I'm sure you've snowed a lot of people on this board. For union harmony, complete clarity as to the magnitude of each group's concessions is necessary.

You know, exaggerating ones own loss is somewhat insulting to those that are truthful in what they lost.

:blink: Do you have a life? Do you do these comparisons at home at your leisure or while on the clock? I ran into a pilot in the store last week, all he wanted to do was cry about working more for 40% less. I had to tell him it was his choice to do so. But if the pain is supposed to be spread, then Jenny's 40-50% is right. Finny do they really have a need for you? Your lies are only outweighed by your ignorance. Carl Rove could use you. At the company I work for now (Forbes top 100 of best companies to work for) the disdain for nwa is rampant, many employees knowing nwa all to well as far as friends working at nwa. Last semester the federal judge teaching my class was asking where I had worked previous, then asked if I would ever go back. I said I could not as I resigned some time ago, I had had enough. He just smiled and said very good, I could never work for them.

 

[finman]

:blink: Do you have a life? Do you do these comparisons at home at your leisure or while on the clock? I ran into a pilot in the store last week, all he wanted to do was cry about working more for 40% less. I had to tell him it was his choice to do so. But if the pain is supposed to be spread, then Jenny's 40-50% is right. Finny do they really have a need for you? Your lies are only outweighed by your ignorance. Carl Rove could use you. At the company I work for now (Forbes top 100 of best companies to work for) the disdain for nwa is rampant, many employees knowing nwa all to well as far as friends working at nwa. Last semester the federal judge teaching my class was asking where I had worked previous, then asked if I would ever go back. I said I could not as I resigned some time ago, I had had enough. He just smiled and said very good, I could never work for them.

It was analysis done as part of my job. Pilots got a 40% wage rate cut, and flight attendants got a 20% wage rate cut. Pilots got hit harder both on the rate (40% vs 20%) and on the step, since a lot of guys also got moved into lower paying aircraft as part of the resizing and work rule changes. They both gained some of that back in the ability to work more hours. Each pilot also just got a $20-$30K check as part of the sale of a portion of their claim, which the Flight attendants missed out on my not voting for their TA.

In order to back up your claim of my lying and ignorance, please explain in detail where my information is flawed. I'm waiting for Jenny to do the same. If you can't, then you might want to retract your statement. Of course, you likely won't, because you don't have any information to the contrary and have no interest in sorting out fact from fiction.

The last two-thirds of your post is meaningless junk, so I won't bother responding to it. Although; your judge story was very riveting (he smiled, eh, very interesting).