IAM Fleet Service topic

[Edward]

Folks with the way the other thread is going it's time for a new thread.

Please stay on the topic of what ever your contract issues are. I'm requesting certain poster to stop going back & forth with each other. If you must take it to pm. Thanks in advance.

 

[mike33]

"Why do you think I have contempt or would desire to lie to you and other fleet service members? Honestly, I speak what I believe to be the truth. "

That is exactly right ..what you believe to be the truth...nothing more.

" Where we differ is on those matters of a normative versus a subjective nature. I see things are they are, while you see things as how they should be. "

That is the difference between You - f.....m and most of us. We see things as they were and demand fair improvements because of the things we have made reality.

" When your beliefs crash head-on with reality of another subpar contract, then you will blame people like me in the union or the negotiating team or the former Canale supporters or company executive or some other scapegoat of the month. "

I think Usfurlough said it right when he asked if you and your family are willing to settle for what they give you.

" as such I need to get back to the Sand Castle and complete my Executive Summary as to how to destroy the FSA union and the American middle class from within my office cubical. "

And so you mock the same union that you will ride on the back of to the next contract...you r pathetic

 

[Jester]

GiantsFan,

You make an interesting observation your prior post, "I guess he cant comprehend US fleet never had a CBA when the CAB and regulation were enforced, notice how he skipped that post," not realizing that you hit upon two economic concepts in the process. One concept of "Rent Sharing" has been discussed months ago (and it still does not involved Mr. Roabilly's double wide being used by a half dozen rampers) and the "Rational Expectations" of economic agents.

Let us consider the situation of CAL ramp agents, and their compensation which was equal or better than US without having an union. Was it the magnanimous generosity of the CAL managers which provided high levels of pay? Probably not, but rather the "expectation" of poor pay would eventually lead to CAL fleet service agents voting to be represented by a labor union. Therefore, CAL management paid more to buy-off fleet service to avoid an union. It was "rational" and it was the "expected" outcome otherwise, thus "rational expectations".

In terms of "rent sharing", the concept of "rent" is not the layman's understanding but rather 'excess profits' which are defined as those profits which are above the expected profits for a risk-adjusted rate of return. Rent Sharing results from when managers desire a smooth operation and to avoid labor problems allows the "sharing" of these rents (excess profits) in order to keep the good times rolling.

So let us review your statement by which "US fleet never had a CBA when the CAB and regulations were enforced" as we now can understand a framework that US Air management was buying-off fleet service to avoid an union, and to due the guaranteed profits with the CAB had rents to share with its employee groups. Therefore, rents were available and would be continued to be available under a CAB cost-plus pricing system, and thus employee groups (unionized or non-unionized) were able to share in the excess profits above the expected rate of return.

Of course, we know the rest of the story.... deregulation happened, new cheaper competitors appeared, the CAB no longer provided for a high fare structure, profitability disappeared, the threat of unionization came to fruition, bankruptcies were filed, wages and benefits were slashed, and ramp agents still dream about the glory days 20 years later.

So Annotates Jester.

 

[Dog Wonder]

The pay at USAir in the late eighties was driven by Fleet Service being Teamsters in four cities, IIRC PIT, PHL, BUF, BOS. It wasn't practical to pay more in those cities than the non-union ones.

Unfortunately merging with Piedmont and PSA brought a large number of staunch anti-union agents into play and the Teamsters were narrowly voted out in a systemwide vote. There may have been 10 agents in CLT wearing Teamsters pins for that election.

The losses Fleet Service took before sense prevailed still have not been regained.

 

[NYGiantsFan90]

Guess you didnt realize CO's Fleet Service voted in the IBT, so since the CO's Fleet made more than the US Airways Fleet, they still voted to unionize, explain that one Lucy. (I all ready know the answer)

Ramp workers vote to join Teamsters Decision at Continental Airlines

The agents in PIT, PHL, BOS and BUF made less than their non-union counterparts on the US Air system, that was done so the rest of the US system wouldnt vote in a union. At the time of the merger US brought all of PI's Agents up to US scale so the Piedmont employees wouldnt vote a union in.

And DL and other legacy carriers who were non-union paid their workers more than or equal too their union counterparts for years to keep unions off the property, and all this occurred after 1978.

It took the blood bath of 1992 for Fleet to vote a union in several years later.

In 1992 US Air's management outsourced catering (except a few cities), mail, freight and turned express work over to the express carriers instead of mainline handiling them, they cut 40% of the workforce to part-time thereby increasing their medical costs to over $300 a month for part-timers, who were limited to a maximum of 25 hours a week, they froze their pension, took away their sick, oji and vacation time.

See now you know why Fleet has a contact and are unionized so they have a say in what happens to them and not let them be at the company's mercy.

Compare DL's non-union employees who had no say in bankruptcy what happened to them to their counterparts at the former NW, do you know NW's employees pay less for insurance, have a pension, have more sick and vacation time then the original DL employees? NW's employees got thousand of dollars in payments from the bankruptcy case, DL's got nothing.

Why is it ok for Doug and the executives have a contract, but not the workers?

"Education is Knowledge and Knowledge is Power"

 

[john john]

GiantsFan,

You make an interesting observation your prior post, "I guess he cant comprehend US fleet never had a CBA when the CAB and regulation were enforced, notice how he skipped that post," not realizing that you hit upon two economic concepts in the process. One concept of "Rent Sharing" has been discussed months ago (and it still does not involved Mr. Roabilly's double wide being used by a half dozen rampers) and the "Rational Expectations" of economic agents.

Let us consider the situation of CAL ramp agents, and their compensation which was equal or better than US without having an union. Was it the magnanimous generosity of the CAL managers which provided high levels of pay? Probably not, but rather the "expectation" of poor pay would eventually lead to CAL fleet service agents voting to be represented by a labor union. Therefore, CAL management paid more to buy-off fleet service to avoid an union. It was "rational" and it was the "expected" outcome otherwise, thus "rational expectations".

In terms of "rent sharing", the concept of "rent" is not the layman's understanding but rather 'excess profits' which are defined as those profits which are above the expected profits for a risk-adjusted rate of return. Rent Sharing results from when managers desire a smooth operation and to avoid labor problems allows the "sharing" of these rents (excess profits) in order to keep the good times rolling.

So let us review your statement by which "US fleet never had a CBA when the CAB and regulations were enforced" as we now can understand a framework that US Air management was buying-off fleet service to avoid an union, and to due the guaranteed profits with the CAB had rents to share with its employee groups. Therefore, rents were available and would be continued to be available under a CAB cost-plus pricing system, and thus employee groups (unionized or non-unionized) were able to share in the excess profits above the expected rate of return.

Of course, we know the rest of the story.... deregulation happened, new cheaper competitors appeared, the CAB no longer provided for a high fare structure, profitability disappeared, the threat of unionization came to fruition, bankruptcies were filed, wages and benefits were slashed, and ramp agents still dream about the glory days 20 years later.

So Annotates Jester.

Tell us about rent sharing with past HP customer service agents

 

[Jester]

Tell us about rent sharing with past HP customer service agents

John John,

Did you actually read what I posted? HP never had "rent" as defined as EXCESS PROFITS above the expected rate of return! Lucky to have ANY profits in 23 years of operation and HP did NOT come into existance until AFTER the CAB was all but eliminated!

Egads!

So Intoxicates Jester.

 

[Jester]

Guess you didnt realize CO's Fleet Service voted in the IBT, so since the CO's Fleet made more than the US Airways Fleet, they still voted to unionize, explain that one Lucy. (I all ready know the answer)

Were you attempting to be profound? Riddle me this, NYGiantsFan... in the past few years what financial measurement in the airline industry went down faster than LT on a line of blow? That's your answer, and as such, IBT was voted in after CAL's fleet agents were handed large pay cuts and that was only a few months ago... pretty much supports what I said before.... "CAL management paid more to buy-off fleet service to avoid an union." Stop the buy-off, institute large pay cuts, and CAL fleet agents voted for an union... not that difficult to understand.

The agents in PIT, PHL, BOS and BUF made less than their non-union counterparts on the US Air system, that was done so the rest of the US system wouldnt vote in a union. At the time of the merger US brought all of PI's Agents up to US scale so the Piedmont employees wouldnt vote a union in.

Does this conflict with what I have posted? "US Air management was buying-off fleet service to avoid an union..."

And DL and other legacy carriers who were non-union paid their workers more than or equal too their union counterparts for years to keep unions off the property, and all this occurred after 1978.

Airline Deregulation and the CAB did not create unions, per se, but rather the subsequent rents were used to keep unions off the property as much as possible. Your post supports exactly what I have been saying.

It took the blood bath of 1992 for Fleet to vote a union in several years later.

In 1992 US Air's management outsourced catering (except a few cities), mail, freight and turned express work over to the express carriers instead of mainline handiling them, they cut 40% of the workforce to part-time thereby increasing their medical costs to over $300 a month for part-timers, who were limited to a maximum of 25 hours a week, they froze their pension, took away their sick, oji and vacation time.

And Airline Deregulation and the CAB created rents were history by the early 1980's. Now there was competition, no guaranteed profits, accounting losses were being posted and management was looking for ways to save money. Not surprisingly, the union was eventually voted onto the property as the rent sharing days were over. Again, your post supports exactly what I have been saying.

See now you know why Fleet has a contact and are unionized so they have a say in what happens to them and not let them be at the company's mercy.

Compare DL's non-union employees who had no say in bankruptcy what happened to them to their counterparts at the former NW, do you know NW's employees pay less for insurance, have a pension, have more sick and vacation time then the original DL employees? NW's employees got thousand of dollars in payments from the bankruptcy case, DL's got nothing.

And this conflicts with what I was posting in what way? Rent sharing was over as there were no profits, not to mention excessive profits to continue high levels of benefits and pay for people who are relatively unskilled and easy to replace. Nothing compelling within your posts to conclude otherwise for those aforementioned airline managements' actions.

Why is it ok for Doug and the executives have a contract, but not the workers?

Parker and the Tempe Boys get fired for non-performance... Fleet Service Agents get a pay raise on their anniversary regardless of efforts. Does Parker need a collective of CEO's to negotiate his compensation? If not for the union, you could attempt negotiate a contract for yourself, right? So what's the difference between you and Parker... "explain that one Lucy. (I all ready know the answer)"

"Education is Knowledge and Knowledge is Power"

I have known plenty of educated fools.

So Concurs Jester.

 

[roabilly]

It’s amazing how much time and energy goes into the seemingly reasonable psychology for denouncing Unionism and maintaining the status quo...

Entire encyclopedias could be written with arguments to discredit and/or substantiate each side’s position. But just remember... this is a side that we have already chosen collectively.

The fact of the matter is this... the Fleet Service side will prevail in negotiations just as they have prevailed in this forum. We need to look no further than the reputations of the posters in these forums to see if the majority of the members are in agreement with their ideology!

Ain’t democracy a cool thing!

So primes the fuse...

BroBilly

P.S. "I have known plenty of educated fools." AMEN BROTHER!

 

[NYGiantsFan90]

Wrong CO's Fleet Service were not given paycuts, guess you dont know what happens.

Funny plenty of unionized employees get fired for job performance, guess you have no idea about just cause.

 

[mike33]

Wrong CO's Fleet Service were not given paycuts, guess you dont know what happens.

Funny plenty of unionized employees get fired for job performance, guess you have no idea about just cause.

The only thing "J" and "F" know is that they cant turn back now. They're locked into their own ideology.

 

[Jester]

Wrong CO's Fleet Service were not given paycuts, guess you dont know what happens.

Funny plenty of unionized employees get fired for job performance, guess you have no idea about just cause.

NYGiantsFan,

"Just cause"? I have seen napping, destruction of property, no show on flights, people racing belt loaders, three hour lunches, or disappeared all within the view or knowledge of managers... usually it takes theft, fighting or attendance issues with the later examples not exactly being "job performance". I recall guys propping their feet up on the baggage piers doing crossword puzzles, drinking coffee while eating a donut as the bags just passed them by as the managers watched and said nothing.

I know you will blame managers, but don't tell me people are being fired for "job performance" unless some manager has hard one for that person.

So Recounts Jester.

 

[Jester]

Wrong CO's Fleet Service were not given paycuts, guess you dont know what happens.

Oh, really?

"Several years ago Continental asked for employee concessions, and some of the ramp workers, including Bonilla, believe they ended up giving more than their share in wages and benefits."
You are calling the guy who is attempting to organize the CO's Fleet Service Agents a liar? http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/sixel/6814697.html

"And some Continental fleet service workers say they fared worse than the airline's union groups when the company required givebacks a couple years ago to cut costs."
I guess these workers are lying too?
http://www.northjersey.com/news/business/63734487.html

"Ramp workers saw their wages cut nearly 10 percent."
More lies?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/industries/airlines/stories/121407dnbustransportworkers.30b0d6.html

Enjoy the read.

So Corrects Jester.

 

[NYGiantsFan90]

Were you attempting to be profound? Riddle me this, NYGiantsFan... in the past few years what financial measurement in the airline industry went down faster than LT on a line of blow? That's your answer, and as such, IBT was voted in after CAL's fleet agents were handed large pay cuts and that was only a few months ago... pretty much supports what I said before.... "CAL management paid more to buy-off fleet service to avoid an union." Stop the buy-off, institute large pay cuts, and CAL fleet agents voted for an union... not that difficult to understand.


Does this conflict with what I have posted? "US Air management was buying-off fleet service to avoid an union..."


So Concurs Jester.

Lets see there is a difference from a few months ago as you posted versus several years ago as you posted again, so which is it?

Your article is from 2009, which says several years ago, they took concessions in 2005, thats five years ago, not several months.

They voted a union in this year, not several years ago, they took concessions five years ago.

They voted in a union this year because of the merger, not concessions taken five years ago.

 

[Harry Callahan]

As much as I hate to admit it, for the most part I've got to agree with Jester on employees not being fired on the performance issues. Speaking of where I work only (imo) we have some of the laziest there are who let others do the work & managers refuse to do a thing about it.