----------------
On 5/31/2003 9:53:28 AM Bob Owens wrote:
----------------
On 5/30/2003 7:57:48 AM atabuy wrote:
SWA is a relativly new airline in regards to AA and they started out treating employees good, and in return employees work very hard for the company.
I would say if you put a SWA employee against a AA employee, Productivity would be much higher with the SWA.
You would say? Based upon what?
The biggest factor a swa employee has going for them is SWA makes money. AA isn''t.
And whose fault is that? Should AA pay less for landing fees, fuel and leases because they do not make money? Then why should they pay less for labor? Why do they pay more for management than SWA?
As I have said many times: It will not matter what union you have. It will matter if your airline makes money.
How would you know?
The purpose of a long contract with raises tied to profits is to assure the company they don''t have to put up with union employee bullshit every other year.
They will end up with more BS this way than that way.
I can''t blame them for this, and I don''t think anyone would want to, including yourself, if you were on the other side.
Sure I can. They went way too far.
This whole issue is a matter of common sense for all concerned.
Its common sense that you dont screw people over then expect them to give you their best.
You guys have a chance to make more. Work more of the 8.5 hours you are on the job. Be more productive.
We did that. Then they screwed us. No matter how hard we work, no matter how much more we produce, no matter how much money the company makes we will still be working for less. This deal only allows us to work more, not make more.
Everyone expects to be paid for the 8 hours they are there. Why wouldn''t the company expect you to work for those 8 hours?
I have no problem with working eight. The question is do they want someone to work for eight like a slave or a like a partner?
----------------
----------------
Bob,
When a person becomes more productive, they are more valuable to a company.
The problem is, workers want more for doing the same thing. That would be cost of living raises. Nothing more. No changes in work rules.
COLAs are not raises, they are adjustments to maintain the value of your labor. It means that your purchasing power stays the same. People on Social Security get COLAS. Are you saying that since they do no work therefore they can deliver no increases in productivity that they should be locked into a certain sum for the rest of their lives? Eventually inflation will remove the majority of their purchasing power.
If we keep negotiating away work rules for COLAs then eventually inflation will leave us with nothing.
( My point here is colas keep your wage from losing ground against inflation.
In order to get raises on top of that, productivity must be an issue. No one will pay you more to do the same amount of work as before.
The reason mechanics get more, than say a ramp man, is because they went to school for a license to perform work on aircraft. You should get more money in return for work rule changes, unless those work rules are obsolete in todays market, which some are. An illistration of this would be Ual''s R&D which should have been tossed out of their contract long ago. Paying people to do something which can be done by employees already working is ludicrus. These are, union member job protection, which should have been fazed out with attrition. )
I am not saying to just get rid of employees. Attrition would work for most jobs. What I am saying is some jobs are only to increase dues paying members.
When things were good companies did not want the hassle of fighting these issues. Now that push came to shove, all employees are feeling the hammer come down on them. They are taking a hit for what should have happened a long time ago. The employees getting laid off are employees that might not have had a job in the first place if these changes had been in place as the enviorment changed.
Before deregulation, unions held the hammer. Now that big airlines are competing against lower cost ones, the company is using the hammer just to survive.
Yea, I know! They are hiding money from everyone in order to screw you guys.
Just one of the many stupid theories posted on these threads.
No one likes change, but it has come, and all the bitching in the world will not stop this change from taking place.
Your choices are to fight these changes and maybe take the company down, or live with them and find some way to change the culture.
This last statement you made is part of the problem with your thinking.
I have no problem with working eight. The question is do they want someone to work for eight like a slave or a like a partner?
You are not a partner, just a worker who makes contracts with the company to do certain things for them. I doubt very much if you are working like a slave.
You are not a partner because you refuse to buy into AA.
Get all the employees to buy the airline with real money, and then you will be a partner. But you will still have the same problems as long as you think collectivly as you do.
Maybe if you all worked piece work you would work as much as you could to make the money you wanted. It sure would change how many employees you thought you needed to do the job.
Good luck
