Cost neutral for employees, but not Management!

[Sthrnboy]

In 2012 for the East amendable date...however, you may not see anything for a couple of years after that, as West can attest.

AMen PET BULL ours was 1999

 

[USCREW]

Pitbull, To answer your question. Yes its 2 seperate company's (operations). Until our payscales match the east side, wellllll nuff said. Show me the $.

If it's two separate airlines, then why are the Easties sharing THEIR profit sharing?

 

[The End]

Maybe the "cost neutral" employee's should have a combined sick day. It would certainly get the message across. Whining about it and doing nothing makes no difference.Alas we are just cowards wanting to be beat down yet again and asking for more. WIMPS!!! The End

 

[EricLv2Fish]

Union members upset that non-represented employees will get a 3% pay raise is bunk. Everything comes with a price, and that includes representation or non-representation. The way I see it, if I'm union and disappointed with my contract, I'd be pissed at my representation, not management. Okay, so you say the court forced a crappy contract on to you...one much worse than the original company proposal. Who is to blame? Sounds like a major backfire and a major miscaculation on the part of representation. 325 million bucks is a large price to pay for IAM representation the way I see it.

 

[PITbull]

If I remember correctly, didn't the non-union east employees get a hush-hush 4% raise while the union employees were taking a cut?

Yup.

Letter from Siegel in April 2003 to non-contract employees after emerging from BK, 4% to go into effect July of 2003, during a time when the war deferral went into effect for contract employees.

 

[EricLv2Fish]

IF I were on the negotiating team for any union representing US Airways I wouldn't except anything but a 3% raise for union workers. Cost Neutral? Keeping up with inflation is cost neutral and 3% is definelty on the low side...doesn't take a friggin rocket scientist to make that argument now does it!

 

[PITbull]

Union members upset that non-represented employees will get a 3% pay raise is bunk. Everything comes with a price, and that includes representation or non-representation. The way I see it, if I'm union and disappointed with my contract, I'd be pissed at my representation, not management. Okay, so you say the court forced a crappy contract on to you...one much worse than the original company proposal. Who is to blame? Sounds like a major backfire and a major miscaculation on the part of representation. 325 million bucks is a large price to pay for IAM representation the way I see it.

Let me say this to you Eric...you are right. It would have played out like this...

Instead of just IAM voting down their contract in concession #3 and having the judge just abrogate their's on Jan. 10, AFA, ALPA and CWA should have done the same. Let the judge then abrogate our proposals, and WE WOULD ALL WENT ON STRIKE. Result in chronilogical order:

1. Airline would have liquidated
2.There would have not been any investor money for a merger with AWA.
3. AWA would not have a merger partner.
4. AWA would have gone into BK by Sept. 2005
5. Dougie would not be cashing in his stock options making $9 million, but rather having his stock at "0".
6. No 3% increase for Eric, and a big possibility of no employment either.

If I knew what I know today...you best your azzz that I would have promoted a strike.

I don't think you actually read what you just posted. I said that the company instituted a 5% war deferral starting in April 2003 right after the ERAQ invasion by the U.S for contracted employees.

 

[Bear96]

If I remember correctly, didn't the non-union east employees get a hush-hush 4% raise while the union employees were taking a cut?

What's a "hush-hush" raise? And how does it differ from a "normal" raise?

Is it like, "Here's a 4% raise. But don't tell any union members or we're taking it back!"

Maybe the unionized workers should get rid of their unions, if they think non-union workers have it so good, just by virtue of being non-union?

 

[PITbull]

Bear,

Having the ability to conduct a legal strike,picket, inform the media making it difficult for the company to terminate you, is well worth being organized as labor.

 

[Bear96]

Bear,

Having the ability to conduct a legal strike,picket, inform the media making it difficult for the company to terminate you, is well worth being organized as labor.

Great! So then what's the problem?

Organized labor gets to strike / picket / inform the media / make it difficult for the company to terminate you, and non-organized labor gets a "hush-hush" (still waiting to find out what that means) 4% raise.

Sounds like a great trade-off. A 4% raise in exchange for being easier to manage, shutting up and going with the program. Or, no raise in exchange for the right to whine incessantly and cause headaches for management that costs money to deal with. Sounds fair. So you should be happy since you obviously put the right to complain above a little old raise, no?

(Somehow, I am guessing no.)

 

[Bear96]

Depends on marketability! If I have a skill that is in high demand a union is worthless, absolutely worthless as I can go out and cut a deal better than any union can give me.

If the services I provide are viewed as a commodity by most employers then a union has a great deal to offer.

Very true.

 

[PITbull]

Great! So then what's the problem?

Organized labor gets to strike / picket / inform the media / make it difficult for the company to terminate you, and non-organized labor gets a "hush-hush" (still waiting to find out what that means) 4% raise.

Sounds like a great trade-off. A 4% raise in exchange for being easier to manage, shutting up and going with the program. Or, no raise in exchange for the right to whine incessantly and cause headaches for management that costs money to deal with. Sounds fair. So you should be happy since you obviously put the right to complain above a little old raise, no?

(Somehow, I am guessing no.)

Bear,

What I remember is that no one in management discussed any increases for any group while they were asking us to come back to the table, or they would go back into BK. Labor found out about it from an inner-office e-mail that was circulated among non-contract employees. My ex-husband was one of them and wouldn't discuss the issue with me at all.

Regardless of Labor's protest, the company flew into BK again on Sept 12,2004.

But this is history and is moot.

 

[EricLv2Fish]

Depends on marketability! If I have a skill that is in high demand a union is worthless, absolutely worthless as I can go out and cut a deal better than any union can give me.

If the services I provide are viewed as a commodity by most employers then a union has a great deal to offer.

Perfectly said Bob. Marketability is the name of the game in keeping a paycheck coming in during tough times.

 

[N109UW]

Where is our 3% cost increase to our contract? And by the way, my first payraise will be 01/01/07 in the amount of 1% then 2% again on 01/01/08 and 01/01/09 then 1% raises there after until 2012...as an AFA member.

And by the way, that 1% equals 37.5 cents an hour. So, if I fly a 100 hour month, that equals an extra 37.50 in my check or $450 for the year. Who negotiated that crap? I used to think it was pathetic when my annual pay increase was 60 cents per hour. We weren't even close to the cost of living increase.

 

[whodoiworkfor]

Hooray now I have a good question to ask Mr Parker at the next meeting. "Why the hell is everyone at corporate getting a 3% raise while those of us out there making US profitable, who qualify for food stamps, must have a cost neutral contract?"