Not Enough Money ?

[dc3fanatic]

AMFA has been preparing for a strike at NWA since the summer of 2001, when NWA declared war on their mechanics.

But don't let facts get in the way of your anti-AMFA diatribe.

[post="292373"][/post]​

How have they been preparing?

 

[700UW]

Guess Mikey you forgot about AMFA at Braniff and how they left the membership high and dry, AMFA at ACA now FLYi and AMFA at Trump Shuttle.

And if AA had now problems paying their bills why did the employees give concessions?

And the PBGC is funded by insurance on the pension funds paid for by the employers, not tax dollars.

And in AMFA's constitution says they have to have a strike fund of $100,000 but mentions no strike benefits for the members.

 

[keeptheodds]

Dell made $132,000 in 2003 according to AMFA's LM2, that is a fact.

[post="292353"][/post]​

That is how much he made on paper. It's the credit card purchases in AMFA's name that you have to look at.

 

[JS]

The reason why non-union people make what they make is because they "ride the coattails" of union people. Prime example is DL. When the unionized carriers would get a raise for their employees, DL would give their employees slightly more.

[post="292374"][/post]​

The discussion was unions in general, not just the airline industry. In most industries, unions don't exist, yet the employees aren't starving to death and enslaving their children.

 

[dc3fanatic]

The reason why non-union people make what they make is because they "ride the coattails" of union people. Prime example is DL. When the unionized carriers would get a raise for their employees, DL would give their employees slightly more.

[post="292374"][/post]​

Silly me. I thought supply and demand were some of the most influential factors in determining non-union salaries. I didn't realize the entire non-union population of the free world should be thanking unions for their wages.

I could have sworn it had something to do with supply, demand, skillsets and performance.

thanks for showing me the light. :blink:

 

[keeptheodds]

Silly me. I thought supply and demand were some of the most influential factors in determining non-union salaries. I didn't realize the entire non-union population of the free world should be thanking unions for their wages.

I could have sworn it had something to do with supply, demand, skillsets and performance.

thanks for showing me the light. :blink:

[post="292409"][/post]​

These union guys refuse to listen to reason.

 

[keeptheodds]

KTO, Just keep spewing your lies and B.S. Your postings are making many real veterans very angry. (edited) You better lie face down in that scab bus tomorrow and make sure you put a sack over your ugly head (edited)

[post="292278"][/post]​

Oh Princess how I love it when you are mad. (edited) Don’t you just adore those love-hate relationships?

Mod note- watch the linguistics and threats or there will be suspensions given out to all involved,

 

[FA Mikey]

The discussion was unions in general, not just the airline industry. In most industries, unions don't exist, yet the employees aren't starving to death and enslaving their children.

[post="292407"][/post]​

Enslaving children, well we do that outside the borders. Many people have a weak stomach for it. Unless its under a blue light special or a walmart sign. Then for some reason it is not so bad

 

[aafsc]

Silly me. I thought supply and demand were some of the most influential factors in determining non-union salaries. I didn't realize the entire non-union population of the free world should be thanking unions for their wages.

I could have sworn it had something to do with supply, demand, skillsets and performance.

thanks for showing me the light. :blink:

[post="292409"][/post]​

Who got the 40 hour week? Who got vacation time, sick, insurance and higher wages for working people? Answer: Unionized workers. I will say it again, non-union people have benefited from the gains of unionized people.If there were no unionized workers to ever obtain these benefits, we would have here today what China has now; sweat shops, child labor, 6/16 hour a day workweeks and life in a company dorm(sounds real exctiting). These conditions existed in this country in the 1800s and early 1900s. It is interesting that companies are closing up shop here and flocking to China; I wonder why? Maybe a return to the good old days?

 

[dc3fanatic]

Who got the 40 hour week? Who got vacation time, sick, insurance and higher wages for working people? Answer: Unionized workers. I will say it again, non-union people have benefited from the gains of unionized people.If there were no unionized workers to ever obtain these benefits, we would have here today what China has now; sweat shops, child labor, 6/16 hour a day workweeks and life in a company dorm(sounds real exctiting). These conditions existed in this country in the 1800s and early 1900s. It is interesting that companies are closing up shop here and flocking to China; I wonder why? Maybe a return to the good old days?

[post="292446"][/post]​

I know hardly no one that works only 40 hours per week.

I pay for insurance out of my salary . . . granted it's lower than cobra, but probably due more to volume negotiated discounts.

My per (week/hour/month) pay is most likely lower to cover me while I'm on vacation or home sick. This way I'm paid while not working instead of not being paid while not working. That's also why people get a vacation pay-out when they leave a company.

I still say market forces supply/demand/performance have something very influential to do with pay for non-union workers.

In the non-union world, companies ofter change wages to offset attrition, improve performance, etc . . . If there is an oversupply of workers, then the company gets a 'deal', while an undersupply might leave the company feeling 'shafted'.

AND we don't need a union to establish a child labor law. What that needs is visibility and a good politician. Now, if you could find a good politician . . .

 

[aafsc]

I know hardly no one that works only 40 hours per week.

I pay for insurance out of my salary . . . granted it's lower than cobra, but probably due more to volume negotiated discounts.

My per (week/hour/month) pay is most likely lower to cover me while I'm on vacation or home sick. This way I'm paid while not working instead of not being paid while not working. That's also why people get a vacation pay-out when they leave a company.

I still say market forces supply/demand/performance have something very influential to do with pay for non-union workers.

In the non-union world, companies ofter change wages to offset attrition, improve performance, etc . . . If there is an oversupply of workers, then the company gets a 'deal', while an undersupply might leave the company feeling 'shafted'.

AND we don't need a union to establish a child labor law. What that needs is visibility and a good politician. Now, if you could find a good politician . . .

[post="292458"][/post]​

You mean like Tom Delay?

 

[NWA/AMT]

And in AMFA's constitution says they have to have a strike fund of $100,000 but mentions no strike benefits for the members.

[post="292385"][/post]​

It says that such a fund may be established, not that "they have to have" one.

But again, don't let facts intrude into your diatribe.

 

[JS]

Who got the 40 hour week? Who got vacation time, sick, insurance and higher wages  for working people? Answer: Unionized workers. I will say it again, non-union people have benefited from the gains of unionized people.If there were no unionized workers to ever obtain these benefits, we would have here today what China has now; sweat shops, child labor, 6/16 hour a day workweeks and life in a company dorm(sounds real exctiting). These conditions existed in this country in the 1800s and early 1900s. It is interesting that companies are closing up shop here and flocking to China; I wonder why? Maybe a return to the good old days?

[post="292446"][/post]​

I agree with you that the unions of yesteryear are responsible for the passage of labor laws. But that was 100 years ago. The job is complete.

What unions at dying companies want today is completely different from what unions wanted then.

Equating the two is like saying that the Democratic Party is racist because they opposed President Lincoln. Things can change a lot in 100 years even if the name is the same.

 

[Bob Owens]

JS,Aug 25 2005, 11:04 PM]
I agree with you that the unions of yesteryear are responsible for the passage of labor laws. But that was 100 years ago. The job is complete.

Wrong on all counts. Unions only became strong after the Wagner Act in the mid 1930s, so around 70 years ago. However the protections that the act gave have been steadly eroded since by acts such as Tafy -Hartley which was put in place ten years later, and rulings from the courts.

The job was never complete and it never will be because as long as their is greed there will be a need for those without power to work collctively against those who poses power and are afflicted by greed. And there will always be greed.

What unions at dying companies want today is completely different from what unions wanted then.

Really? Tell us what you think they wanted then and want now. Are you even a union member?Seems to me they are fighting for the same things today as they were then.

Equating the two is like saying that the Democratic Party is racist because they opposed President Lincoln.

Or saying the Republican Party is not because Lincoln freed the slaves.

Things can change a lot in 100 years even if the name is the same.

Sometimes even quicker. The Republican Party of Lincoln in 1865 was the Republican Party of Morgan and Rockefeller just 15 years later. The fourteenth amendement, which Lincoln used to free the slaves, was later used to elevate the status of Corporations instead of people.

 

[keeptheodds]

BOB what happened to the estimated 500 million dollars that AMFA has collected from its members? Other than embezzlement how can you spend that kind of money? Today’s unions are here to steal and that is the bottom line.