How disappointing

[AANOTOK]

Likewise eolesen, the energy you spend trying to express your opinions on the "crap" labor and AA are fighting over or don't see eye to eye on is just as amazing. The things we waist our energy on have a direct impact on our lives. You on the other hand are just a bystander who periodically stops by to get your jabs in at labor and offer your two, sometimes three cents worth, which I will admit is more often than not, very informative.

But hey, it's what keeps these boards operating eh?

 

[Bagbelt]

I don't view management bonuses while working under concessions obtained while threatening bankruptcy as crap.

Directing effort at negotiations with the TWU is not only a waste of time but would come closer to being defined as crap in my opinion. This union is not a union of members with concerns that will be addressed by the negotiators. This union is instead a dues collection agency that is both an extension of AA Management and the Democratic Party.

This is why the attempt to change came about in the first place.

Just out of curiousity with your understanding of this dues collection agency, exactly where and how would you suggest effort be directed towards negotiations that will result in anything more than waste of time? It is obvious now that the stall in negotiations is to wait for Obama Care, have the company lawyers get an agreement based on that health care before the Bus Drivers, and Toolbox Billy Bobs get an understanding of the legislation. We have witnessed this before.

If the Democrat controlled Senate version passes, we will be charged 40% surtax on our current health plan to pay for those that have none. That is called right-to-work when it comes to union dues collection and non-payment by workers. Yeah those Democrats are real friends of labor and working men and women. :blink:

One of these days, the union members will wise up and figure out neither political party is our friend and things will begin to change. Maybe not.

It would actually be a 40% surtax beyond a threshold of $23,000 for a family plan, with a high cost of living adjustment which would be in the area of $28,000. It would also be indexed at the CPI+1 in later years. I doubt any guy on the floor at AMR would be affected. Either way, at current annual increase of between 8-12% at what point does insurance overtake wage costs?

 

[Buckky]

It would actually be a 40% surtax beyond a threshold of $23,000 for a family plan, with a high cost of living adjustment which would be in the area of $28,000. It would also be indexed at the CPI+1 in later years. I doubt any guy on the floor at AMR would be affected. Either way, at current annual increase of between 8-12% at what point does insurance overtake wage costs?

Are you indicating that healthcare legislation is not going to effect labor negotions?

 

[Bagbelt]

Are you indicating that healthcare legislation is not going to effect labor negotions?

I live in MA. so I can only relate how that works. But it looks increasingly like any final fed plan would be similar. If you allready have employer provided insurance it's status quo unless you want to buy a plan from the connector (exchange). For a single payer at 40 yrs. old it's about $250 a month for a high deductible plan. The only requirement if you keep your plan with your company you get a proof of insurance form with your w-2. Even what's proposed isn't going into effect until 2013 so I'm not sure how much it can affect the current contract negotiations. I'm not arguing ideology or right or wrong, there hasn't even been a law passed. However regulations can always change as well as AD's so I don't think it's much of an excuse for the co. to keep holding things up. I've always been amazed that someone with a 20 hour shift can c/s off half and have full medical.

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

Smisek's temporary pay cut is a PR stunt, nothing more. When the entire senior executive team at CO does the same that will be a real story.

I'll remind you once again that YOUR unions signed off on the execs taking stock payments in the PUP/PSP plan. And there's no cash component, so they are hardly taking food out of your mouths. Since when is it a surprise that a company's managers are well-compensated?

 

[wcs]

I'll remind you once again that YOUR unions signed off on the execs taking stock payments in the PUP/PSP plan. And there's no cash component, so they are hardly taking food out of your mouths. Since when is it a surprise that a company's managers are well-compensated?

First myth;OUR unions (therefore we) were given less then six weeks in 2002 to decide on a "take it or leave it" proposition. WE didn't have any real say on management compensation. Carty hid the "guaranteed retirement" accounts.
Second myth;It's not cash! The company sold stock to raise cash this past year. If the stock given to management was sold it would have raised-cash! Therefore if it's not sold then being removed from the operation.
It's only a surprise that a company's management is well compensated if they don't perform well. Coming in next to last among the other airlines in stock performance is not performing well

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

Six weeks to decide? How much longer could you possibly need? If I took six weeks for every important decision in my life I'd be a constant state of paralysis. Wait, now a lot of things about AA's labor relations are starting to make sense when thought of in that context...

As for the "it's not cash" thing: it's not cash. It's equity. Very different, and not coming out of your pocket unless you are willing to take a large chunk of your paycheck in stock as the senior execs do. Do you want to be out there in the market with them?

 

[Hopeful]

Six weeks to decide? How much longer could you possibly need? If I took six weeks for every important decision in my life I'd be a constant state of paralysis. Wait, now a lot of things about AA's labor relations are starting to make sense when thought of in that context...

As for the "it's not cash" thing: it's not cash. It's equity. Very different, and not coming out of your pocket unless you are willing to take a large chunk of your paycheck in stock as the senior execs do. Do you want to be out there in the market with them?

Six weeks to read the fine print. they only publicize the highlights of the contract.
And as for the stock, please spare me.

For the 120,000 paycut I took over the six years, I got 449 shares of the stock. If they give me thousands like they do an executive making twice or three times what I make, I might consider it.
So since the equity didn't "come out of anyone's pockets, then they should give us thousands of shares instead of hundreds. And the same percentage increases they receive.

Here's a good formula. If an executive makes, say three times my salary, I should get one third of what he/she makes?

Sound fair?

Sounds fair to me.

 

[The Goose]

Six weeks to read the fine print. they only publicize the highlights of the contract.
And as for the stock, please spare me.

For the 120,000 paycut I took over the six years, I got 449 shares of the stock. If they give me thousands like they do an executive making twice or three times what I make, I might consider it.
So since the equity didn't "come out of anyone's pockets, then they should give us thousands of shares instead of hundreds. And the same percentage increases they receive.

Here's a good formula. If an executive makes, say three times my salary, I should get one third of what he/she makes?

Sound fair?

Sounds fair to me.

Sounds fair to me, also. That's why the execs would never stand for it.

If the company was seriously being managed as an entity designed to produce income, I might consider taking equity in lieu of pay but - I trust the current crop of SOBs in Centrepork just about as far as I can throw a bull by the tail.

Only if the present executives and BOD were jailed and removed from their jobs would I put any trust in AMR.

 

[wcs]

Six weeks to decide? How much longer could you possibly need?
As for the "it's not cash" thing: it's not cash. It's equity. Very different, and not coming out of your pocket unless you are willing to take a large chunk of your paycheck in stock as the senior execs do. Do you want to be out there in the market with them?

You can get a large corporation to come up with a proposal, attempt a counter-proposal, get the resulting information to
a membership of three unions totaling over 50,000 members in less than six weeks? You're either an incredible manager of labor relations or you have no idea what you're talking about!
As for the stock not being cash; let's say your right. We could resolve the whole labor problem by having the "restore" done right away. Just pay the difference in stock. It's not cash so it won't come out of the operation, right? We're done, labor peace. Thanks for your help!

 

[Bob Owens]

As for the "it's not cash" thing: it's not cash. It's equity. Very different, and not coming out of your pocket unless you are willing to take a large chunk of your paycheck in stock as the senior execs do.

"Its not cash, its equity", that can be easily converted into cash, a few strokes on the keyboard or a phone call and its done. Why is it that when the company calculates in our benifits you basically say its a part of our paycheck that has a dollar -as in cash- value but then you try and spin the exec bonuses as something thats not the equivelent of cash? When the company gave us 433 shares at a real cost to us of over $300/share they certainly put a cash value to it.

Do you want to be out there in the market with them?

Sure, give me their salary and I'd be willing to dump just as much into the market as they do.

 

[eolesen]

Point of order, guys....

The "six weeks to decide" argument is a bit of a red herring here.

Both the Performance Share Plan (PSP) calling for bonuses up to 175% of salary and the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP) had been in existence since the 1990's, possibly the 1980's.

Go read the 1999 proxy statement, and you'll find both mentioned:

http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/6...9-99-012283.txt

Whether or not the rank and file knew about them is irrelevant - the fact is that both plans were common and public knowledge if you bothered to read the proxy statement...


Again, all the focus on executive pay is just a distraction. I'd suggest you stop fixating about what someone else at AA earns under their contract, and start worrying about your own contract...

 

[wcs]

Point of order, guys....

The "six weeks to decide" argument is a bit of a red herring here.
Again, all the focus on executive pay is just a distraction.

My "six weeks to decide" reference was about our own future, that's why there was little to no focus on management at that time. It started to become a focus when we discovered that the "shared sacrifice" was an out right lie. It continued to be a focus as negotiations drag on with no raises for the foreseeable future being offered.

 

[Hopeful]

Again, all the focus on executive pay is just a distraction. I'd suggest you stop fixating about what someone else at AA earns under their contract, and start worrying about your own contract...

Nice try at spin doctoring!
Executive pay is not a distraction in this debate. They have no problem paying the execs however they are compensated.
You want us to worry about our contract? We are..Don't just read the highlights that are posted and don't read the touching company slant on things on their AANegotiations website.

You think a 3% lump sump is generous? You think getting back 2 days at half sick pay is generous? 8 holidays generous?

Guess what, airline workers in bankruptcy didn't get this bad a deal.
And please spare me the "you still have a pension" shpeil.

We are hourly employees, pension and medical penefits are not considered part of my compensation package, regardless of the company's propaganda website information.

When I was hired long long ago, the hiring manager told me the starting wage. He added "AND HERE ARE THE BENEFITS."
Just like your hero execs, compensation is one thing, perks and benefits are another.

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

Maybe not generous, but 3% lump sum is probably the best you're going to get in this economy, especially from a company that continues to operate in the red.