Management Raises

[Ch. 12]

Well for 7 pages I stayed out of this one. It all comes down to marketability and what for some is the fatal flaw in the union construct. I'll use a current example at work.

Guy who sits next to me is a great guy, does a great job and has been there a year longer yet he makes $8,000/yr LESS than I do. WHY? because of 2 things.

1. He doesn't have the industry experience that I do. Like airline workers I have worked in one area of business my entire life. Different Jobs but same industry.

2. He wasn't in the position that I was. I had a job, he didn't at the time. His company went under. Consequentially he had no leverage. The company that recruited me knew I had other offers so they beefed up the pay to get me.

Fair? Who Cares it's the way the world works. Now in a union environment, we would have started at the same rate and gotten a lousy 3 percent raise and a lot more from a union. That's why some people don't like unions they stifle careers. I personally have enough trouble with one boss without a union in the middle of that relationship. But that's me. I'm not saying unions are wrong I just think you need to be aware of what you trade off in order to get seniority and a defined benefit pension. Right now seniority works against you as you start at the bottom if you switch.

Piney,

I've disagreed with you in the past, but I have to say that you've hit the nail on the head here. Though unions are good at providing a high level of security that is not given to management employees, union employees are also held back by the seniority issues. Management is paid (as a general rule) by experience and ability rather than strictly the number of years that they have been in their position. And by being restricted to one company and one position in order to move up in the union system, labor does not gain well-rounded experience that could be gained in other companies or positions. Hopefully union structures will catch up with the business world and realize that their models have to change somewhat to continue to keep happy members. Not nearly as many people choose to stay at one company for their entire life as people did a few decades ago.

 

[openview]

Hopefully union structures will catch up with the business world and realize that their models have to change somewhat

Change! Are you kidding. That would mean....ah...well...change. lol

 

[mweiss]

Which is, ultimately, why I argue that unions aren't necessarily the saviors they are portrayed to be.

 

[700UW]

Michael, let me give you some US Airways history.

Back in 1992, US had serious financial problems.

The company wanted concessions, ALPA agreed and gave concessions.

Then the Customer Service Agents and Fleet Service were non-union, the company then implimented new work rules and such.

They took 40% of the full time agents and made them part-time, laid of a bunch, outsourced frieght and mail, catering at most stations was outsourced also and mainline gave up working express flights which caused massive layoffs.

They imposed a paycut, took all thier vacation, sick time and occupational injury time away from them. Replaced it with PDOs which was used for everything, they had to take five days in put in a sick bank, and the rest of the time was used as vacation, a substantial reduction in time off.

They froze and eliminated their pension. No more retirement.

They cut the hours from 40 to 25 a week in the part time reduction, they also had to pay overe $300 a month for family insurance since they were now part time.

Also you had to have at least 13 years to keep full time employment due to the layoffs and reduction of hours. While you had unionized workers with three years with the company who were still employed.

While all the unionized groups took concessions, but took it on their terms, not imposed by the company without a say in it.

For any fleet or customer service agents, if I left anything out, please post.

So you see when the ramp and customer service agents had the chance in 1994 to unionize they jumped right on-board.

So you see history repeats itselfs to some degree, but now the majority of US' employees have the security of a union.

 

[PITbull]

I find it funny again that those who are not affiliated with unions are the ones who come on here and complain about unions, and most of the critics are either passengers or some "fly by night" folks.

Yea, real credible.

 

[USFlyer]

I find it funny again that those who are not affiliated with unions are the ones who come on here and complain about unions, and most of the critics are either passengers or some "fly by night" folks.

There are good and bad of both worlds, and I've been in both worlds over my career. During the large IT layoffs in 2001-02, I would have preferred to have had a union backing me up. Today, though, now that things have stabilized and the top people are finding ever better jobs, I'm very happy to be able to move among companies without starting over each time.

On the other hand, if this outsourcing trend continues, then you may find more of what we are calling "management" workers organizing into unions: Association of HR Professionals, Association of IT Professionals, etc.

 

[mweiss]

I understand the history, but allow me to draw a bigger picture.

First of all, the employer cannot reduce staffing levels beyond a certain point, because to do so means that necessary work is not getting done. To have staffing above that point, more is being paid than necessary to perform that work.

Secondly, if the alternative employment for a ramper at US is to be a ramper for another airline, and the other airline's rampers have unionized, then seniority is king at the other airline, reducing the value of switching from one employer to the other. This reduces the bargaining power that the ramper has at the non-union employer as well.

If, on the other hand, both employers are non-union, then the ramper will wish to work wherever the wages are highest. The employers will wish to have the highest-performing employees that their wages can buy. This will tend to shift the best performers to the highest-wage employers, and the worst to the lowest-wage employers.

Finally, if both employers are union, then the ramper will wish to remain with the same employer for as long as possible, because seniority buys additional benefits, such as protection from layoffs. This ends up giving the employer greater bargaining power, because seniority adds value to the job that can be compensated with lower wages, which makes the employees worse off overall. Further, there is little incentive to perform well, because the employee's compensation is no different regardless of the quality of the work. This makes the employer worse off overall.

It ends up requiring a more complex conclusion than simply "organizing makes you better off."

And, FWIW, I've been a union employee as well.

 

[Phantom Fixer]

700UW,

I agree with all that you have outlined here....but the "Security of a Union" is anything but secure in the classic sense of the word.

So far..the unions have not prevented the direct actions leveled against the employee's. The Airbus farmout going forward (pardon the term) is but the most standout issue of late. So secure is far from what we are by any stretch of the imagination.....yet it's only a tad safer than being an "at will worker"

The latest threat to our so-called security is the fact that over-time is being called in CLT Heavy Maintenance on 2 out of the 3 shifts , all the while people are not being called back to fill the voids created by deaths , retirements and even terminations within the ranks.

Simply put..the work is there , but the bodies to perform the work are clearly not. I think U is doing it's best to divide people by creating a rift between those eager to accept OT at the expense of others..and those that will not accept OT at the expense of others. Then you have the added factor of purely burning out what is already and aged worforce in place. These are not young men performing these tasks anymore....and it's beginng to show.

I have noted that the IAM is loosing an average of 10 per month due to retirements...and CLT has had a horrible run of luck regarding un-timely deaths of late. Last month netted 2 or 3 deaths alone..yet we are still seing people getting their notices as even more jobs are being abolished. The latest being the 2nd shift in the composite shop in CLT for example.


So for the sake of arguement....let's not drum the beat on security to hard , I think I have clearly outlined that nothing but nothing is secure here , unionized or not?


Remember the French feeling secure with the defense that the "Maginot Line" was supposed to provide them? Well we are seeing a classic example of the end run around all our contracts , just as the Germans executed around a static and toothless defensive position.

 

[700UW]

Phantom, I do agree with you, but just think what it would be like if you had no union and no contract, there would not be a CLT Base MTC.

Unions can't prevent all the bad things, but at least it gives you a course of action to address the wrongs and make them rights, even if it takes years.

The real problem is the laws take the strength of unions away. Look at Europe for an example, they shut a whole country down when the employers screw with them. Until people wake up and put politicians in office that actaully care about workers, nothing will ever change in this country, I suspect it will just get worse.

 

[blueoceans]

"Look at Europe for an example, they shut a whole country down when the employers screw with them. "

Yeah.. Paris officials recently wanted to have a single point for air traffic control (Charles de Gaul) to increase and better coordinate city-wide air security. What happens? Olry controllers go on stike and shut down 60% of flights out of the city. Paris backs down. Additional security compromised? Savings lost?

 

[openview]

Look at Europe for an example, they shut a whole country down when the employers screw with them.

Europe has it right! Oh please. Yes, just want we want: the ability for any union to effect millions of people in all walks of life, just because some labor leader feels he's been wronged.

 

[Phantom Fixer]

700UW,

I'll just have to refrain from looking at Europe or France in particular as an example of how to do things. You'll just have to indulge me on that.

However....I do have a problem with how un-binding our contracts seem to be...and I take particular issue with how certain "related" parties within the IAM seem to have less protection and no certain rights to immediate recall when a position happens to become open....and it's handled by a COB as if this was bringing in a "New Hire". Frankly...this is not the kind of representation a person in the so-called "Related" end should be paying equal dues for...this is in stark contrast to the rights a mechanic , stores or utility person enjoys...yet the related pays on an equal basis..without equal rights.

In light of what has transpired over the last , soon to be 3 years , when it comes to security with this Company , Union or anything else....I would almost feel more secure driving an un-armed , un-armored Mini-Cooper through the streets of Fallujah Iraq with an American Flag and a bulls-eye painted on it.

I'm glad that you feel secure and I wish nothing but the best for all involved , yet the facts of the matter and the actions to date , DO NOT spell certainty , equality or least of all security.

 

[PITbull]

I find it funny again that those who are not affiliated with unions are the ones who come on here and complain about unions, and most of the critics are either passengers or some "fly by night" folks.

Yea, real credible.

PITbull,

If the above is a swipe at me, I'm disapointed! Like any job there are pros and cons. The decision to work non-union or union is a deeply personal one. When I started in the Printing Business back in 1972 at age 18, I had a choice to make union or non union. I worked at a place that was United Pulp & Paper handlers for 60 days and I remember my starting wage of $4.00/hr. What convinced me that a union job was not for me was the fact that a guy named Frank who was teaching me the business and had 33 years with the company and made $5.65/hr! $1.65/hr for 33 years of loyalty just didn't strike me as a reason to hang around.

I went to another printer and got a job paying the same rate, no union dues and a bonus opportunity of $200/month which I hit every month.

No Bob, its not all about you....

 

[US1YFARE]

Even though I am just a "passenger", I felt compelled to add my "critical" 2 cents. I agree that management at the airline should not be taking bonuses at this time. What business awards bonuses when you are losing money month after month? I know my bonus structure doesn't work that way and if one of my partners lost money, they wouldn't get a bonus either. And, why doesn't Siegel sign on the dotted line now rather than waiting for everyone else to take a pay cut--give up that golden parachute now if you believe in your airline and its employees. I do believe in the airline and I keep flying them week after week after week. US F/A's are the best in the business. Changes do need to be made, but they need to start at the top.

 

[local 12 proud]

USIYFARE it comes down to one word "GREED" and it takes place alot in the upper ecilon. the ceo's, coo's, cfo's, etc... care little about what happens to all the rest as long as they get thiers!........sad indeed