Nor'Easta
Veteran
Maybe on certain articles, but the entire Alaska contract is not industry leading.
The unions are coming, the unions are coming!
- Thread starter bagboy
- Start date
Maybe on certain articles, but the entire Alaska contract is not industry leading.
Why is AFA then raising their dues to match that of CWA? During the initial organizing I was in support of Delta becoming part of AFA, now as I find out more information I am sitting on the fence. AFA and CWA have nothing in common and it makes me wonder why they had to merge in the first place. With AFA representing so many airlines, I find it difficult to understand how each airline can remain independently run and make its own decisions on what is best for its F/A's. I feel as though it is a conflict of interest, how can AFA fairly represent each airline? A prime example is the current situation at USAir. US and HP are currently one airline and yet the F/A's are operating under two seperate contracts, one being a better than the other. Here is a group of F/A's working for the same airline, represented by the same union, and yet one makes considerbly less.
There are also promises/hopes/misinformation of us getting everything back that we lost in the last 5 years. History shows AFA carriers lost a lot since since 2002 and we all suffered when that began. As each AFA negotiated agreement got worse, with the exception of NW, the F/A's voted yes to these agreements. Even with NW, F/A's voted to strike and when the BK judge denied NW request for an injunction AFA backed down and postponed the strike. Now we have AFA telling us at DL we can get everything back. How is this possible, when AFA gave it all away in the first place. I am beginning to feel as though AFA wants to use us as a guinea pig.
North by Northwest
Veteran
And airline management pay is NOT 400% MORE (how's that for a REALITY CHECK!) than it was 15-20 years ago...WITH multi million dollar bonuses. Why don't you try this "intelligent concept"...management pay tied to employee pay+ tied to product/service/performance.
Better yet...tie management's pay to their ability to mimic Southwest's hedging skills.
Why do you think that is genius? Have you ever heard of Gobalization? Have you ever had the presence of mind to think about why men banded and band together to form unions. Do you think the greedy bastards of the world want to see Joe Shmoe driving a nice car, having a family, enjoying himself? If they did no one in this world would be starving. Cubans wouldn't go on a ninety mile trip across the Florida straights in an overloaded spit and baling wire raft.
Oil prices are rising because we need more billionaires. The ever expounding circle of greedy bastards aren't happy to be millionaires.
The economy is going belly up because Americans don't have it to spend. LCC's. Less income, fewer tickets sold.
You want to talk about the political agenda of these people? That's what it's truly about. Total control of your ignorant existence.
Danny Campbell
Advanced
- Mar 29, 2008
- 114
- 0
Jakesworld: You wrote...
...With AFA representing so many airlines, I find it difficult to understand how each airline can remain independently run and make its own decisions on what is best for its F/A's. I feel as though it is a conflict of interest, how can AFA fairly represent each airline?...
Excellent question. The answer is that AFA operates the same way our 50 "United" States of America works. Each carrier (like a state) has it's own government - and the local governements (Master Executive Councils) are autonomous - in other words, all carriers make ALL the important decisions that impact that carrier). The reason the 50 states come together to form the United States of America (under a federal government that respects 'states' rights) is the same reason that all 21 AFA carriers form together to work on issues that impact ALL US flight attendants - we have more power and resources that way.
In regards to your statement about the NWA negotiations (and the bankruptcy court's injunction against our CHAOS strike), the situation is a little more complicated than you stated above. Our push to "self-help" was the first ever 'test' of whether an airlines group could strike under the new bankruptcy code. After the first court ruled that we could, it would have been a terribly stupid thing for us to engage in strike activity while we were waiting for the appeal court. It's almost like spitting in the courts face - and asking for an injunction. We you test a law for the first time, especially when it involves something that you hope will create "sustained" leverage, you don't want to shoot yourself in the foot right out of the gate. As you now, the appeal court GRANTED the injunction - making it illegal anyway. But, most legal analysts would agree that racing into a strike WHILE waiting for the appeal decision most likely would have done one thing and one thing only -- it would have SPED UP the decision. And, so what would the point of the whole CHAOS exercise have been? Sure - it would have made a lot of us (at NWA) maybe "feel good" that we could have released that angst we felt. But, it wouldn't have created ANY leverage - and it surely wouldn't have changed the outcome.
...With AFA representing so many airlines, I find it difficult to understand how each airline can remain independently run and make its own decisions on what is best for its F/A's. I feel as though it is a conflict of interest, how can AFA fairly represent each airline?...
Excellent question. The answer is that AFA operates the same way our 50 "United" States of America works. Each carrier (like a state) has it's own government - and the local governements (Master Executive Councils) are autonomous - in other words, all carriers make ALL the important decisions that impact that carrier). The reason the 50 states come together to form the United States of America (under a federal government that respects 'states' rights) is the same reason that all 21 AFA carriers form together to work on issues that impact ALL US flight attendants - we have more power and resources that way.
In regards to your statement about the NWA negotiations (and the bankruptcy court's injunction against our CHAOS strike), the situation is a little more complicated than you stated above. Our push to "self-help" was the first ever 'test' of whether an airlines group could strike under the new bankruptcy code. After the first court ruled that we could, it would have been a terribly stupid thing for us to engage in strike activity while we were waiting for the appeal court. It's almost like spitting in the courts face - and asking for an injunction. We you test a law for the first time, especially when it involves something that you hope will create "sustained" leverage, you don't want to shoot yourself in the foot right out of the gate. As you now, the appeal court GRANTED the injunction - making it illegal anyway. But, most legal analysts would agree that racing into a strike WHILE waiting for the appeal decision most likely would have done one thing and one thing only -- it would have SPED UP the decision. And, so what would the point of the whole CHAOS exercise have been? Sure - it would have made a lot of us (at NWA) maybe "feel good" that we could have released that angst we felt. But, it wouldn't have created ANY leverage - and it surely wouldn't have changed the outcome.
Danny Campbell
Advanced
- Mar 29, 2008
- 114
- 0
P.S. I respect your opinion about "shoping around" and looking at other FA unions, but our experience at NWA is rather unique in that perspective. We spent 27 years in an industrial style union (Teamsters), then we tried and failed MISERABLY with our independant union (PFAA) -- and when the chips were down more than they had every been, we knew AFA was the only union with the expertise and resources to salvage our careers. I just wish we had made the move 6 months earlier -- we could have saved a lot more.
USAir757
Veteran
North by Northwest
Veteran
Based on your logic (the "little" people should not be asking for raises, the economy is bad. We can only afford exhorbident raises for the top...it's working out pretty darn good (and highly profitable) for the few at the top. Including the few scumbags imported from US air.
USAir757
Veteran
This may come as a surprise to you, but I dislike the exhorbident compensation for top management as much as you do! But I don't support government regulation over it... so what's the other alternative? Go on strike until the airline only agrees to pay top management what the unions consider "reasonable"? I'd like to see what kind of individuals would apply for the top job at NW for $250k/yr, and the "expertise" they'd bring along with them. My bet is the airline would sink like a rock.
Bottom line, your concept is great in a utopian world.... unless you have other suggestions???
Nor'Easta
Veteran
North by Northwest
Veteran
That's an interesting position...Cause they sure run (a helluva lot more SUCCESSFUL) airlines in Europe and Asia for HALF what incompetent thieving idiots in America are paid. Your argument is ridiculous. Few in this industry have proven their "skills", or are worth 1/3 of what they are paid. Most have done FAR more damage to the industry as a whole then achieve what others paid less have no difficulty in doing.
The market doesn't support their pay, their BOD flunkies do. IF..the market reflected their skills they wouldn't have an issue tying it to employee/company performance. Unskilled amateurs run companies into the ground and declare bankruptcy (then of course, you have shareholders whom think you can force employees, in a SERVICE industry to perform in a manner to build share price)
The level of idiocy in this industry is based on blind greed praying on easy money (how many times does a Northwest LBO have to happen). The legal loopholes are for robbery, but when employees demand a share, the industry suddenly becomes "vital to the economy".
We will have to break this boot to the neck with an industry wide shut down one day. Let them dine on the injunction for lunch.
USAir757
Veteran
Well you definitely have the problem pretty well defined, but you're short on solutions. This isn't an industry problem, it's a problem across many industries. I'm not arguing that upper management compensation hasn't been artificially inflated. In fact, I'm really not arguing at all... I'm agreeing. There are very few CEOs that bring a ROI to justify their pay. But in America, anything (or anyone) is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. So long as shareholders at large stand for the mismanagement of their investments (or perhaps stand to gain from the "mismanagement"), the market will be there. Again, what's the alternative?
Serious suggestion?
Serious suggestion?
2BlacknBlue
Senior
- Oct 4, 2007
- 327
- 47
...and King Richard knows that if the flight attendants @ DL vote yes for a union, the first item on the agenda is to abolish the social security offset. Then let the King explain to his non-contract, non-pilot, non-union subjects that a union can't help you! Hell, that alone is worth the union dues!
North by Northwest
Veteran
End the "no strike clause" (which surfaced in the 1980's, and effectively killed inter Union support) in ALL aviation contracts. Form inter-company coalitions. Meet airline management with a united front. Utilize a balanced Board of Directors formula used in Germany, with Labor having real BOD veto power.
No truer words ever said!
Having a 'No Strike' and/or a have to 'Cross' clause in 'any' Union contract is unacceptable.
It defeats the purpose of having unions at all.
Unfortunately, that it may be too late.
B) UT
Similar threads
