Profit Sharing will shut airline if this happens!

320tech

Senior
Oct 10, 2005
267
0
PHX line Mx
Visit site
This is a response from an e-mail to mgmt about the profit sharing and how it will be handled, if the IAM does have control of it like Al says and it all goes to the US east side and the west side gets shafted this airline will never make it we will shut it down, nothing will leave on time! this is not the way to bring the work forces together if it wasn't for this merger the east side would be no more they would of liquidated!!!

this is the e-mail with te names taken out of the guy who sent it!

XXXX,

Since I am most familiar with the profit sharing rules, I wanted to write back and offer some information. I assume you are in the mechanic and related employee by your
remarks.



In any case, the restructuring agreements (which contain the profit share provisions) provide that the monies allocated to each ground Union group is distributed based on W-2 earnings, and therefore the unions do not have the authority to decide to make distributions on any other basis. So they could not decide to give part time employees the same amount as full time because the distribution must be based on W-2 earnings. The ground Unions can decide three things, first whether to include West employees in the plan, second, whether to include eligible retired employees who had company W-2 earnings during the year, and third whether to include eligible furloughed employees who had W-2 earnings during the calendar year.



We are in process of getting back these answers from each union and the data is nearly complete. Assuming you are in the mechanics group, the IAM has, at this point in time, elected to not include the West employees in the plan and they have elected to include eligible furloughed, or retired employees who had W-2 during the target year.


These are contractual issues. The union cannot decide to distribute to part time the same as full time as the plan requires distribution based on W-2 earnings. On the other three decisions, i.e. the inclusion of West employees, and the inclusion of retired
and/or furloughed employees, those decisions are solely up to the Union and on those points the Company has no authority.



The IAM has indicated to the Company that the basis for their decision to not include West mechanics under the plan was the fact that the West mechanics are not currently covered under the IAM agreement, which is the contract which contains the profit share rules.



While I know these are not the answers you were hoping for, I hope this at least helps answer what can
and cannot be done and who is responsible for what decisions.

Best regards. Al H.
:angry:
 
Good move by the company.
Further disenfranchise their employees by blaming the onion.
Unfortunately, most of you easily follow this ploy and exacerbate the company propaganda.
Unless there is a side LOA that makes this demand (which should be provided or a link if not).

B) UT

FYI, The company can exceed the contract(s) if they desire to do so. Pay rates and benefits are the 'minimum' that are contractually required but the 'company' can exceed them anytime it 'wants' to.
 
Speaking from a East point of view this member thinks that profit sharing should be shared with west employees!
 
Playing devil's advocate:

Did you take concessions?

Did you have 50% of your mechanic and related workers laid-off?

Did you lose your pension?

Did you lose your health insurance upon retirement?

Do you get 50% for your first five sick days?

Did you lose vacations?

Did you have your paycut?

If you did not participate in the concessions you should not be part of the profit sharing.

If the company wants to allocate money for the west, they can make that choice out of the general funds.

But the west M&R are not covered under the CBA that contains the profit sharing language.

And if the west and the ibt did not file for an election the west M&R employees probably would have been under the east CBA by now.
 
Playing devil's advocate:

Did you take concessions?

Did you have 50% of your mechanic and related workers laid-off?

Did you lose your pension?

Did you lose your health insurance upon retirement?

Do you get 50% for your first five sick days?

Did you lose vacations?

Did you have your paycut?

If you did not participate in the concessions you should not be part of the profit sharing.

If the company wants to allocate money for the west, they can make that choice out of the general funds.

But the west M&R are not covered under the CBA that contains the profit sharing language.

And if the west and the ibt did not file for an election the west M&R employees probably would have been under the east CBA by now.
your not the advocate, you are the devil! :up: oh yea, you don't even work for US anymore, so.... shhhh!
 
Last time I checked anyone can post here, dont like it, dont read it.

Stick to the topic at hand.
 
Playing devil's advocate: Stop playing devil's advocate. It isn't becoming.

Did you take concessions? Hasn't everyone in this industry at one time or another? HP had one previous BK so yes, concessions were taken. Your point? TIE.

Did you have 50% of your mechanic and related workers laid-off? Are you sure about the 50%? Yes, mechanics and others were laid off in BK. Your point? TIE.

Did you lose your pension? Nope. Never had one. Moot point. TIE.

Did you lose your health insurance upon retirement? Anyone retiring doesn't receive health insurance. TIE.

Do you get 50% for your first five sick days? H*ll no. One for the west.

Did you lose vacations? Not yet.....depends on how the union handles it. Could be a tie.

Did you have your paycut? Yes, pay cuts happened. TIE.

If you did not participate in the concessions you should not be part of the profit sharing.
SHARING. 1. the full or proper portion or part allotted or belonging to or contributed or owed by an individual or group.
2. one of the equal fractional parts into which the capital stock of a joint-stock company or a corporation is divided.
–verb (used with object) 3. to divide and distribute in shares; apportion.
4. to use, participate in, enjoy, receive, etc., jointly: The two chemists shared the Nobel prize.
–verb (used without object) 5. to have a share or part; take part (often fol. by in).
6. to divide, apportion, or receive equally.


If the company wants to allocate money for the west, they can make that choice out of the general funds. Refer back to the definition of sharing.

But the west M&R are not covered under the CBA that contains the profit sharing language. Doug Parker spoke about profit sharing to ALL employees. Not the IAM.

And if the west and the ibt did not file for an election the west M&R employees probably would have been under the east CBA by now. Something to really strive for. Refer back to your original post. Wonderful, isn't it???

You really should let your past go and move forward........to a better, happier place.
 
Playing devil's advocate:

Did you take concessions?

Did you have 50% of your mechanic and related workers laid-off?

Did you lose your pension?

Did you lose your health insurance upon retirement?

Do you get 50% for your first five sick days?

Did you lose vacations?

Did you have your paycut?

If you did not participate in the concessions you should not be part of the profit sharing.

If the company wants to allocate money for the west, they can make that choice out of the general funds.

But the west M&R are not covered under the CBA that contains the profit sharing language.

And if the west and the ibt did not file for an election the west M&R employees probably would have been under the east CBA by now.

Cry me an ef-n river,will ya?
 
Last time I checked anyone can post here, dont like it, dont read it.

Stick to the topic at hand.

Hey 700, just remember this and you can let Frank and the rest of the clowns you work with know, That if it wasn't for the AWA people and Parker they would not of had profit sharing to share an they would be in the unemployment lines. and for your comments about all they gave up! we never made the kind of money you guys made so we always have been living in this lower wage world that you guys are just starting to enjoy!!!!!

The last time I checked we are all US Airways and ALL the people at US AIRWAYS should get the rewards of making this airline go!!!!
 
Actually, Al H. e-mail leaves the company OFF the hook!!! The profit sharing piece comes directly from EAST concessions.

Doug Parker needs to come up with a profit sharing plan for the West labor groups. The negotiated profit sharing is in the East contracts, therefore, until such time that these transition proposals between the company and Labor are voted on and ratified by the members and there is a single agreement, the company should be working out the terms of profit sharing with the West. The airline is NOT merged yet, and neither are the contracts.

This is another Jerry Glass and Al Hemminway divisiveness...pitting one group aginst the other to cause much friction. In the meantime no one is looking at this mangement that obviously has approx $8 billion to spend!!!

What's wrong with you people! :angry: You leave Doug and team off the hook yet A-GAIN!!!

Last time I checked the SEC report, the major majority of the profit operation comes from the EAST operation.
 
Hasn't everyone in this industry at one time or another? HP had one previous BK so yes, concessions were taken.
So why didn't you negotiate profit sharing in return for those concessions? East unions did for their members (as well as non-union East employees).

SHARING. 1. the full or proper portion or part allotted or belonging to or contributed or owed by an individual or group.
This is the only one that matters because the profit is shared between the company and those employees that negotiated profit sharing. The profit sharing was negotiated by the East unions as part of the "give and take" of concessionary negotiations. It belongs to the East union members for whom it was negotiated and whom agreed to the concessions. Again, just how much profit sharing did you negotiate in exchange for concessions, lay offs, no pension, no retiree medical, etc?

Refer back to the definition of sharing.
I just did - that 1st definition is the only one that applies.

Doug Parker spoke about profit sharing to ALL employees. Not the IAM.
How very true. Therefore isn't it Doug's responsibility to provide profit sharing to ALL employees instead of offering to share the East employee's profit sharing? Doug could have done just that - increase the size of the profit sharing pool so that everyone benefited without taking it from the East employees. He didn't, did he?

No, Doug offered something that wasn't his to offer - the East employee's money, due them per their contract. Since the West pilot's make more than I did, would it be ok with them if Doug offered to share their pay with me? I don't think so.

I think most West employee contracts have more vacation than the East contracts - maybe Doug can offer the East folks some of your vacation. I presume that'd be ok with you - sharing, right? Or would it be a different story if you had to give up something so an East employee could have it?

Having said all that, I personally had and have no problem with including the West pilots in the ALPA profit sharing. Doug sure isn't going to pony up the money to do it, therefore it's a relatively small price to pay for unity.

However, it's neither my nor ALPA's place to tell the other unions what they should or should not do regarding profit sharing. And neither is it the place of the West employees. Profit sharing was negotiated by East people, for East people. It's their money and their decision, group by group, whether to include the West employees.

Just remember - including the West employees isn't costing the company a single dime. That money comes directly from the pockets of the East employees.

And 320tech - I seem to remember that you were pretty vocal in your opposition to the IAM and distaste of it's contract. Until the IAM members may get a benefit that their negotiated contract provides, one that you don't have. Now that money may be paid out courtesy of the IAM and it's contract, you demand that the East IAM members turn over some of their money or threaten that the airline will be shut down. Can you spell "hypocrisy"?

Jim
 
Hey 700, just remember this and you can let Frank and the rest of the clowns you work with know, That if it wasn't for the AWA people and Parker they would not of had profit sharing to share an they would be in the unemployment lines. and for your comments about all they gave up! we never made the kind of money you guys made so we always have been living in this lower wage world that you guys are just starting to enjoy!!!!!

The last time I checked we are all US Airways and ALL the people at US AIRWAYS should get the rewards of making this airline go!!!!

No dog in this fight, however I will lean towards 700's viewpoint. You my friend are an employee and saved no one.
Got it! I do not pretend to know to know the contractual ins and outs of IAM agreements. We are not in a socialist economy. As I have said to 700 in other topics....be a Man and fight your own fights.

FA
 
Speaking from a East point of view this member thinks that profit sharing should be shared with west employees!

Yes, management types do think this way!

Again, taking money from the employees of the East instead of the company. Another concession for the east employees.

AFA ended up doing this and voting on it this past January, because they didn't THINK it through and the MEC made an uneducated decision based on some hog wash Mike F. brought forward. The Transition team should have pressured Labor Relations in the transition negotiations last January to provide for the West f/as profit sharing as THEY (west) are in section 6. But instead, Mike Flores brought some stupid information back to the MEC trying to link provisions together...which never had to be that way. Don't ask the right questions, get screwed! If I were at the table...MY ANSWER WOULD HAVE BEEN NO, NO, NO!

Company makes out a-gain!

Therefore isn't it Doug's responsibility to provide profit sharing to ALL employees instead of offering to share the East employee's profit sharing? Doug could have done just that - increase the size of the profit sharing pool so that everyone benefited without taking it from the East employees. He didn't, did he? No, Doug offered something that wasn't his to offer - the East employee's money, due them per their contract. Since the West pilot's make more than I did, would it be ok with them if Doug offered to share their pay with me? I don't think so.

Just remember - including the West employees isn't costing the company a single dime. That money comes directly from the pockets of the East employees.

Jim

Jim,

You and I are definitely on the same page. You and I both witnessed this BS with the company manuvering the MECs of both ALPA and AFA...they are just two weak to put Doug and company's feet to the fire and cough up a west profit sharing proposal.

Again, another concession for the East employees.

The WEST NEED to go to their CEO and demand profit sharing instead of beating down their respective labor groups to share it.

I'm all for sharing, BUT WOULD NOT BE LETTING THE COMPANY OFF THE HOOK FOR ONE DAMN DIME!
 
Just remember - including the West employees isn't costing the company a single dime. That money comes directly from the pockets of the East employee.

Just remember we all made this profit didn't we!! so it seems your taking money from us! if you want to put it your way. and as me being against the IAM, I and the rest of our techs on the west still want nothing to do with the IAM and it is even stronger after weve seen how they handle things. the best thing that can happe is this Delta stuff goes thru and the non union workforce gives them the boot! thats what the company wants!