"employee Cost...seniority(?), To Be Addressed"

[dbcooper]

Quote from the transformation plan:
"Employee costs will need to be compared along five dimensions: rate of pay; seniority; benefits; productivity and scope."
"The new USAirways labor cost structure must be based on that of our profitable competitors, such as America West... and Jet Blue."
Exactly what is ment by addressing the cost of seniority as compared to American West and Jet Blue. And I wonder why profitable competitor Southwest was left out of the labor cost comparasion?

 

[cltbay1homie]

Quote from the transformation plan:
"Employee costs will need to be compared along five dimensions: rate of pay; seniority; benefits; productivity and scope."
"The new USAirways labor cost structure must be based on that of our profitable competitors, such as America West... and Jet Blue."
Exactly what is ment by addressing the cost of seniority as compared to American West and Jet Blue. And I wonder why profitable competitor Southwest was left out of the labor cost comparasion?

sounds like they want all new employees, with low pay, no benefits, and no contract..sounds like a no brainer to Me...Vote NO...if you ever get the chance. h34r:

 

[<./']>]

A ratio of 1 for 3 is being looked at by management. This will effectively reduce seniority, pay and benefits for CWA represented employees to 1/3 of what they are now. (ie. 30 year seniority= 10 year pay and benefits)

 

[AlabubbaRegional]

Exactly what is ment by addressing the cost of seniority as compared to American West and Jet Blue.

It's obvious .... they want to lay off starting with the highest seniority rather than the lowest. Wouldn't you if you were them? Guess that's why everyone's voting NO.

 

[cavalier]

It's obvious .... they want to lay off starting with the highest seniority rather than the lowest. Wouldn't you if you were them? Guess that's why everyone's voting NO.

How could that be accomplished anyway?


Other than saying, OK. that is.

 

[Dilligas]

[quote name='<' date='./'']>,May 30 2004, 03:53 AM]A ratio of 1 for 3 is being looked at by management. This will effectively reduce seniority, pay and benefits for CWA represented employees to 1/3 of what they are now. (ie. 30 year seniority= 10 year pay and benefits)[/quote]
Do you have any source or background for this statement?

Do you wish to infer that you speak for u management?

They may as well save everyone some time and park 'em today if this is the plan. I don't think it will "fly".

 

[tadjr]

A 1 for 3 for a 30 year employee would still be topout pay since 10 years is the top of scale. It would hit them in vacation time though losing 3 weeks a year.
The cutoff on where it would hit big time in pay would be 12-14 year employees or less since it would drop them down to 4th year pay <$12/hr. The step between 4th and 5th year is the jump from about $12 to $17 (I dont have the updated payscale since I never got a revised contract and dont feel like searching cwa.net for it, but those numbers are close.)

 

[USFlyer]

A 1 for 3 for a 30 year employee would still be topout pay since 10 years is the top of scale. It would hit them in vacation time though losing 3 weeks a year.

Just curious, how many weeks of vacation do people get? Why no just give everyone company-wide a standard 3 weeks, with 2 weeks for folks in their first or second year? As for the sick time nonsense, why not just switch to a PTO model and forget about classifying days off as one type or another?

 

[tadjr]

Just curious, how many weeks of vacation do people get?

For CWA
Starting 1st year 2 weeks
Starting 6th year 3 weeks
Starting 12th year 4 weeks
Starting 19th year 5 weeks
Starting 25th year 6 weeks

All of these are now paid at 75% of pay according to the revised contract from the last round of cuts.

 

[PBIRAMP]

Any seniority issues like the 1/3 deal should insure a NO VOTE!

 

[PITbull]

Quote from the transformation plan:
"Employee costs will need to be compared along five dimensions: rate of pay; seniority; benefits; productivity and scope."
"The new USAirways labor cost structure must be based on that of our profitable competitors, such as America West... and Jet Blue."
Exactly what is ment by addressing the cost of seniority as compared to American West and Jet Blue. And I wonder why profitable competitor Southwest was left out of the labor cost comparasion?

SW is left out now because their labor costs are more than ours. Its the business model of U that is inefficient and that is why the new business plan was formulated. It is a plan that is soley subsidized by Labor in order to ensure the plan address and "holds up" the inefficient business model.

We are compared to HP and B6, and these two airlines DO NOT fly Internationally, don't go to the carrigean and don't have FC.

U is trying to get us to lower our "bar". Those posters who are on here telling the "naysayers" to quit is because they never got educated and prepared themselves or improved their skills. They now expect those of us that are prepared and have other skills to "lower our bar" to accomodate them out of some "nobility".

 

[hp_fa]

Whoopsie. HP has F/C and it goes international to Canada, Mexico and Costa Rica.

 

[tadjr]

A more accurate statement would have been to split them.
B6 does not have FC and does not fly International.
HP does have FC with limited (narrow body) International service to Canada, Mexico and Costa Rica.

US does have FC on all mainline jets, growing Caribbean/Central American/European service and widebody jets as well. All of these factors alone are something that seems that is not taken into consideration when talking about comparing US to the other carriers.

Just having an international flight is going to require more. More regs and requirements for the plane and in general, staffing (customs and immigration issues) coming and going, larger planes (more staffing required), time and effort in getting a plane cleared (safety and customs issues). In addition to this, throw in the mix anything to do with Star and the matters just became more complicated in many instances. We are not B6/WN/FL or HP.

 

[javaboy]

i believe the general theory (just an opinion) is something like this

HP/JB contracts.

employees look at it and see pay rates (cuts in dollars per hour) they see TOS (top of scale) when they (employees) look at the comparisions

Management probably is looking at it as you can look at TOS but think like you are starting over try year 5 or 1/2 up in addtion to the per hour pay cut.

when referencing seniority issues.

of course its for "pay purposes only"

mostly because you can lop of 5 years of seniority from pilots probably 10 from f/as maybe 7-9 from IAM and 15 from CWA and still end up with TOS seniority since the UAIR groups have decades of experience as compared to much less at other places.


just a guess but i think that's generally what each side "sees"

 

[E-TRONS]

Well, If this proposal is true then it's safe to say that UAIR has no intention of bargaining in good faith.....and I would say that this backs it up :down:

Don't fool yourselves.....Bronner wants this company to end up in front of a BK Judge so he can pour his crocodile tears all over the court!!

Alas.....our unions will not cooperate with our "reasonable" demands your honor. I hereby petition the court to do what is right........

HOSE the employees once again....abrogate their "high" cost labor agreements so we can squander another $1.9 Billion dollars on who knows what......It's the only way we can survive your honor.....Honest :blink:

Have a plane write it in the sky......HELL NO...........NFG :down: