Jobs-jobs-jobs

[fix_airplanes]

American Airlines tops all carriers in job cutbacks

Associated Press

FORT WORTH (AP) - American Airlines cut more jobs last year than any other carrier, according to a government report.

Fort Worth-based American shed about 2,900 positions in its domestic operation in 2004, the U.S. Transportation Department report said. Houston-based Continental Airlines was second, having cut 2,400 jobs for the year.

On a percentage basis, US Airways saw the most job losses. It cut 2,000 jobs, or 8 percent of its work force. American's cuts totaled about 4 percent of its work force.

American spokeswoman Sonja Whitemon said the job losses were unavoidable even though the airline has been able to reduce costs. The carrier has been squeezed by high fuel costs and intense competition from discount airlines.

Together, the major hub airlines cut more than 10,000 jobs last year, according to the report. Since 2000, the industry has lost about 140,000 jobs, a 32 percent drop.

Last year's cuts at American stemmed from attrition and concessions approved in 2003, which gave the carrier $1.8 billion in labor savings. American also offered some early retirement incentives.

American's losses were somewhat offset by new jobs at American Eagle, its sister carrier. American Eagle added about 1,400 jobs last year, the second-highest growth among the 31 airlines tracked by the Transportation Department.

Dallas-based Southwest Airlines shrunk by about 1,800 jobs despite growth in operations. The company had no layoffs, but many employees took advantage of an early retirement program.

 

[Hackman]

Jeez, that can't be! We have industry leading concessions and the twu saved our jobs. This must be somekind of mistake, only NWA and UAL have record layoffs. :unsure:

 

[WingNaPrayer]

Hmmm, I'm betting this is why AA is using an outsourcing company to verify benefits entitlement. Getting to see employee personnel files and medical claims/information has got to be the best way for an outsourcing company to help AA decide which employees and job classifications can be replaced with outsourced labor, saving the company $$$ on medical benefits.

Pretty slick huh?

 

[jimntx]

Paranoid, are we? The reason companies use outside niche companies like that is simply because it is cheaper than having people on payroll to do that when a company is self-insured.

The benefits verification company does nothing but that work for any number of companies. So, multiple company receive a service from the same number of people that one company would have to hire to do it themselves.

We have enough real battles to fight with management without going off on conspiracy theory tangents.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

Ooooooooo K, if you say so.

You know how it goes, if it looks like/walks like/talks like . . . . .

 

[jimntx]

Ooooooooo K, if you say so. 

You know how it goes, if it looks like/walks like/talks like . . . . .

[post="256069"][/post]​

There's a difference between looking like a duck to everyone and looking like a duck to one person. It could be a pigeon. And, one person saying that it looks like a duck doesn't make it a duck.

Besides. If AMR were the only company using 3rd party verification, your theory might have some credence. The truth is that the downsizing/rightsizing efforts in U.S. companies during the 90's eliminated a LOT of in-house service departments. You would be hard-pressed to find a single major U.S. company that does its own benefits verification these days.

If AMR had employees doing the verification, they would have to pay them on the same scale as employees in other departments doing comparable work. And, they would have to offer them the same benefits as other clerical, non-represented employees (assuming that like most AMR clerical employees they would be non-union). Analyzing and classifying non-exempt positions is a major job of most HR departments in this day and age. That's why you see similar job titles--like Staff Assistant I, Staff Assistant II--in multiple departments. Companies discovered a long time ago that you can not get away with paying clerks in one department more than clerks doing comparable work in another department. Employees talk to each other--prohibitions against discussing salary notwithstanding.

A 3rd party verifier pays its employees less than AMR would have to pay. Probably does not offer a pension other than a 401K (maybe). And, I would bet that its employees pay a lot more for health insurance than we do--smaller groups = higher premiums. All this translates into...it costs AMR less to hire it done than to do it themselves.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

It isn't the fact that they are doing it that is suspect, by all means every company has a right to verify whether or not the benefits they offer their employees are being applied correctly. What IS suspect is the choice of contractor, and the fact that the chosen contractor has a side business that is in direct conflict with what they are doing for AMR. You can't get carte blanche to employee records, especially those of a medical nature, and not expect them to employ that knowledge towards the fact that they are also a major outsourcing consultant. Call it paranoia if it makes you feel better; I prefer to call it a viewpoint from experience.

IMHO, of course. B)

 

[Bob Owens]

jimntx,Mar 16 2005, 04:11 PM]
Besides. If AMR were the only company using 3rd party verification, your theory might have some credence. The truth is that the downsizing/rightsizing efforts in U.S. companies during the 90's eliminated a LOT of in-house service departments. You would be hard-pressed to find a single major U.S. company that does its own benefits verification these days.

Why are they doing that anyway? They dont trust their employees? This thing is a real hassle.With all the information they are demanding it seems like they are looking for more than just to see if our dependants are really our dependants.

If AMR had employees doing the verification, they would have to pay them on the same scale as employees in other departments doing comparable work. And, they would have to offer them the same benefits as other clerical, non-represented employees (assuming that like most AMR clerical employees they would be non-union).

Analyzing and classifying non-exempt positions is a major job of most HR departments in this day and age. That's why you see similar job titles--like Staff Assistant I, Staff Assistant II--in multiple departments. Companies discovered a long time ago that you can not get away with paying clerks in one department more than clerks doing comparable work in another department.

Sure they can, and they do. Most companies have some sort of regional pay but AA pays a clerk in Tulsa the same as a clerk in New York despite the fact that in New York the clerk qualifies for food stamps.


Employees talk to each other--prohibitions against discussing salary notwithstanding.

Nothing like free speech!

A 3rd party verifier pays its employees less than AMR would have to pay. Probably does not offer a pension other than a 401K (maybe). And, I would bet that its employees pay a lot more for health insurance than we do--smaller groups = higher premiums. All this translates into...it costs AMR less to hire it done than to do it themselves.


Perhaps, but if this is a one shot deal why hire only to lay them off once the job is done?

 

[fix_airplanes]

Regardng employee & employee dependant medical verification proof now being sought by AA.

AA is about 1.5 years behind Delta Airlines in doing the same thing. If one looks at the large number of employees at all airlines, there is much room for medical calim fraud.

The airlines are negligent in not keeping tighter control of inelgible medical claims during the past decads.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

This is true. I believe I heard somewhere that when AA gave their grace period, that literally thousands came off the plan? During this grace period AA told employees we'll let you drop ineligible dependents from the plan no questions asked, but after a certain date, if you were found to have ineligible dependends on the plan, you would be charged back everything the plan paid out for the ineligible dependent. I think I have that right, someone correct me if I am wrong.

If it is true that thousands of dependants came off the plan during the grace period, AA was taking it up the fanny on this all to important benefit plan, and the fact that they not only suspected there was employee fraud taking place, but were going to allow people to drop out and get away with it just goes to show the fiscal irresponsibility with which management continues to operate this airline.

IMHO, if you suspect fraud, rather than give fraud a chance to run away and get off scott free, you knock on it's door and demand your money back or those commiting the fraud need to be given a guest pass to the nearest crossbar hotel!

I'm all for any company giving it's immediate employees a stellar health plan. A healthy labor force is a bonus in itself to any company. However, extending that health plan to employee dependents, while a nice idea, should not be at the same cost. Cheap for employees yes, but after that, anyone else they add to the plan should be at a premium that is in the very least, double the cost for the employee, if not more, much more.

Of course, I've never believed that any employer owes anything to an employee's spouse, dependents, common law or domestic partners. The fact that AA extends their health care plan to those people is a decision only they can determine, but it definitely should not be at the same low premium paid by the employee.

AA's health plan is not the best, far from it. But I imagine it could be a helluva plan if they increased the premiums for everyone they cover who does not actually work for the company, including retirees.

Ok, fire away! The titanium undies are locked in place!

 

[Bob Owens]

This is true. I believe I heard somewhere that when AA gave their grace period, that literally thousands came off the plan? During this grace period AA told employees we'll let you drop ineligible dependents from the plan no questions asked, but after a certain date, if you were found to have ineligible dependends on the plan, you would be charged back everything the plan paid out for the ineligible dependent. I think I have that right, someone correct me if I am wrong.

If it is true that thousands of dependants came off the plan during the grace period, AA was taking it up the fanny on this all to important benefit plan, and the fact that they not only suspected there was employee fraud taking place, but were going to allow people to drop out and get away with it just goes to show the fiscal irresponsibility with which management continues to operate this airline.

IMHO, if you suspect fraud, rather than give fraud a chance to run away and get off scott free, you knock on it's door and demand your money back or those commiting the fraud need to be given a guest pass to the nearest crossbar hotel!

I'm all for any company giving it's immediate employees a stellar health plan. A healthy labor force is a bonus in itself to any company. However, extending that health plan to employee dependents, while a nice idea, should not be at the same cost. Cheap for employees yes, but after that, anyone else they add to the plan should be at a premium that is in the very least, double the cost for the employee, if not more, much more.

Of course, I've never believed that any employer owes anything to an employee's spouse, dependents, common law or domestic partners. The fact that AA extends their health care plan to those people is a decision only they can determine, but it definitely should not be at the same low premium paid by the employee.

AA's health plan is not the best, far from it. But I imagine it could be a helluva plan if they increased the premiums for everyone they cover who does not actually work for the company, including retirees.

Ok, fire away! The titanium undies are locked in place!

[post="256499"][/post]​

Obviously the thing in them undies never produced any dependants.


Part timers are what drive our costs up. Many of these people only work for the benifits as they have businesses etc as their main source of income. So the company ends up with more liability for the same amount of hours than if they only had full timers, these costs are passed onto other employees. The company does this because it saves on wages, so while the company enjoys lower wages the Full time employees get saddled with higher premiums.

 

[Vortilon]

I have to agree with Bob on this part timer deal. Why should a part time ramper or agent working for beer money be entitled to the same benefits as a full time employee? This is not fair to the full timers, it devalues the benefit. These part timers are bleeding the company slowly but surely, and the full timers get to suffer the increased premiums to offset their burden.

 

[aafsc]

I have to agree with Bob on this part timer deal. Why should a part time ramper or agent working for beer money be entitled to the same benefits as a full time employee? This is not fair to the full timers, it devalues the benefit. These part timers are bleeding the company slowly but surely, and the full timers get to suffer the increased premiums to offset their burden.

[post="256659"][/post]​

Most of the part timers want to be full time but the contract says that the company can have a certain percentage part time. In some stations you have people with 15 years seniority that are part time through no fault of their own (some got laid off from full time to part time). The pay isn't all that much for a part timer so the benefits are the real compensation. Also AA is self insured and the part timers contribute their premiums like everyone else. And since they are the vast minority, they don't cost AA nearly as much as everyone thinks.And what do you think about a full timer who CS off a lot. Say they give away two days a week. They are then effectively part timers.

 

[twaokc]

Wing, you are an idiot. I am retired and I pay for my insurance. I am a TWA retiree and when I retired, my insurance was to be paid by the company for me. Part of my contract. Along comes good ole AA and now I am having to pay. What happened to the 5.5 million that TWA had for us TWA retirees health insurance? Good ole AA stole it and AA retirees do not pay for any health insurance.
I just wish someone could tell us TWA retirees where the 5.5 million went.

This is true. I believe I heard somewhere that when AA gave their grace period, that literally thousands came off the plan? During this grace period AA told employees we'll let you drop ineligible dependents from the plan no questions asked, but after a certain date, if you were found to have ineligible dependends on the plan, you would be charged back everything the plan paid out for the ineligible dependent. I think I have that right, someone correct me if I am wrong.

If it is true that thousands of dependants came off the plan during the grace period, AA was taking it up the fanny on this all to important benefit plan, and the fact that they not only suspected there was employee fraud taking place, but were going to allow people to drop out and get away with it just goes to show the fiscal irresponsibility with which management continues to operate this airline.

IMHO, if you suspect fraud, rather than give fraud a chance to run away and get off scott free, you knock on it's door and demand your money back or those commiting the fraud need to be given a guest pass to the nearest crossbar hotel!

I'm all for any company giving it's immediate employees a stellar health plan. A healthy labor force is a bonus in itself to any company. However, extending that health plan to employee dependents, while a nice idea, should not be at the same cost. Cheap for employees yes, but after that, anyone else they add to the plan should be at a premium that is in the very least, double the cost for the employee, if not more, much more.

Of course, I've never believed that any employer owes anything to an employee's spouse, dependents, common law or domestic partners. The fact that AA extends their health care plan to those people is a decision only they can determine, but it definitely should not be at the same low premium paid by the employee.

AA's health plan is not the best, far from it. But I imagine it could be a helluva plan if they increased the premiums for everyone they cover who does not actually work for the company, including retirees.

Ok, fire away! The titanium undies are locked in place!

[post="256499"][/post]​

 

[WingNaPrayer]

That's fine, the part time people are still employees. How about the multitude of dependants they bring along and dump on the plan as well? Does anyone else have an opinion as to whether dependants should receive the same healthcare package for the same cost as an actual employee?

The healthcare plans at most companies would benefit themselves if they had a different set of premiums and deductibles than that of a regular employee. I still think if you doubled the premium and the co-pay for non-payroll persons who are on the company's healthcare plan, it would still be an attractive plan at AA's rates but would surely lessen the burdon on the company's plan costs. In fact, you might find that many of the dependants would shift over to the plan of say a spouse perhaps, which may not be as good as AA's plan, which is why the employee lines up all their dependants and puts them on AA's plan. When last I spoke to someone about the plan, it sounded to me like the premiums were quite attractive, and the co-pays (except for the prescription drug plan, but anything to do with Medco is strife with problems from the beginning) were not all that unreasonable.

If the plan is good enough for most employees who enjoy it, why risk loosing it because dependants are eating up the bulk of the benefits?

I may be wrong, but I doubt it. I don't think AA would have gone through this massive dependant verification process if the plan wasn't strife with abuse. Making the plan not quite as attractive for dependants as for actual employees could easily lessen the burdon on the plan as well as curtail benefits abuse substantially.

Of course, those of you who may be sucking the life out of the plan by being attached at the teat as we speak are going to disagree with me.

There are a lot of companies whos plans don't allow for dependants at all and even plans that have limits on the number of dependants you can add per benefit enrollment year.