Strike Now

[aafsc]

Its amazing that in this country there are millions of people in good paying jobs that aren't in unions. Listening to you would make one think that everyone not in a union worked at Walmart. If unions are so great, why does membership continue to decline nationwide? I forgot, management is stupid, oh but wait the US GNP continues to grow every year. So how does the economy grow if everyone making the decisions is stupid? Maybe its because their not stupid, but that unions are fundamentally flawed. There goal being to increase employement by making their workers less productive, puting them at a cometitive disadvantage to everyone else. Thus reducing profits, forcing management to cut costs, which means slashing payroll, unions get bitter, work less productively, company becomes unprofitable, and ultimately goes out of business. Union member is stuck at local bar or internet forum talking about the "good old days" and raving about how stupid management is even though they're really to blame.

[post="205024"][/post]​

Since your talking about productivity, ponder this. There are now more people flying than before 9/11 in this industry. But right now there are 40% FEWER airline employees industry wide. That will increase to about 50% when all the airlines implement their latest announced layoffs. And the airline employees that are still working are working for much less (In AA employees' case 30% less). This means a lot more bags per ramper. We work non-stop one flight after another. SO DON'T YOU TELL ME WE ARE UNPRODUCTIVE. However, I can only work one flight at a time and I am not going to injure my back or shoulders. If you think we got it so good then enroll in the walk-a-mile program and take your candy A$$ to MIA and spend a nice hot summer day on the ramp

 

[aafsc]

See, that's the part that just gets my blood boiling. If you would rather not work and be poor, that is your decision. When you make that decision on my behalf is where you cross the line. You have no right to do that. I will make that decision on my on according to my own needs and circumstances. You are more than welcome to quite and find an alternate source of income but don't you dare assume that I give you the right to determine how I lead my life or who I choose to work for or for how much. That is my decision and my decision alone.

This is the perfect example of union mentality that I despise so much. You seem to think you are the protector. I do not want your kind of protection. I choose to make my own decisions.

[post="204945"][/post]​

How am I making the decision on your behalf? If we were to strike then the company would send you out to do my job. You can pay someone to work for them. I don't care what you do. But if you study history (back at the beginning of the industrial revolution) you can see the working conditions that the average worker had to endure, young kids working 16 hours a day 6 days a week for just enough to buy food. Then when they got their arm, hand, or hair caught in the machinery they were thrown out like garbage (no health insurance or anything) but that is history. However, it is the legal right of labor to unionize and you have no f*c*ing right to tell labor that they can not bargain collectively.
As far as protection, the unions obtained unemployment insurance (when people get laid off), worker's compensation (when you get hurt on the job), cobra insurance (so you have the option to buy medical insurance when you lose your job), Social Security ( so people who are not wealthy can retire and not starve), medicare (so you can get medical attention when your are old), and they also fought for workers who were exposed to radiation, asbestos, and other carcinogens while on the job and fought to prevent exposure to these items. Is that building that you work in free of asbestos? If yes then thank labor. If AA decides to lay off crew schedulers you may very well need that union won unemployment and cobra insurance. And with a crew schedulers' salary, that union inspired Social Security and medicare will look pretty good when you are old.

 

[aafsc]

<_< aafsc---- I've heard that story also! But in the version I heard, it was Continental that Icahn wanted!! And yes, you could say we have something in commen!!!

[post="204998"][/post]​

Hey MCI, we have one more thing in common, were despised by Oneflyer and Garfield because were in a union.

 

[Bob Owens]

Oneflyer,Dec 1 2004, 02:37 AM]
If unions are so great, why does membership continue to decline nationwide?

Because like many institutions many unions have not adapted to the new enviornment.

I forgot, management is stupid, oh but wait the US GNP continues to grow every year. So how does the economy grow if everyone making the decisions is stupid?

Because the workers are being more productive and the population is increasing.

Maybe its because their not stupid, but that unions are fundamentally flawed. There goal being to increase employement by making their workers less productive, puting them at a cometitive disadvantage to everyone else.

Do you have any facts to back that up? According to the ATA, hardly a friend to labor, productivity in the Airlines has outpaced the rest of the economy over the last thirty years.

Thus reducing profits, forcing management to cut costs, which means slashing payroll, unions get bitter, work less productively, company becomes unprofitable, and ultimately goes out of business. Union member is stuck at local bar or internet forum talking about the "good old days" and raving about how stupid management is even though they're really to blame.

With rising productivity and growth, management is responsible for the state of the industry. They have no problem claiming credit when they make money, and reward themselves with huge bonuses, but when things go bad, its all the workers fault.

Stupid management decisions? Yes, AA blew over $7 billion on unneeded expenses. Don Carty was on TV when we got the new first class seat modules on the 777 that he chuckeled about as he said "we really cant afford these". Those seats will never pay for themselves. Larger overhead bins, MRTC, and scores of other poor decisions burned up tons of money, now they want us to pay for it.

 

[aafsc]

Its amazing that in this country there are millions of people in good paying jobs that aren't in unions. Listening to you would make one think that everyone not in a union worked at Walmart. If unions are so great, why does membership continue to decline nationwide? I forgot, management is stupid, oh but wait the US GNP continues to grow every year. So how does the economy grow if everyone making the decisions is stupid? Maybe its because their not stupid, but that unions are fundamentally flawed. There goal being to increase employement by making their workers less productive, puting them at a cometitive disadvantage to everyone else. Thus reducing profits, forcing management to cut costs, which means slashing payroll, unions get bitter, work less productively, company becomes unprofitable, and ultimately goes out of business. Union member is stuck at local bar or internet forum talking about the "good old days" and raving about how stupid management is even though they're really to blame.

[post="205024"][/post]​

Yes, there are a lot of people in this country who draw a large salary. But, in order to draw that large salary, they have to work 12-14 hour days six days a week. I worked on the ramp with a guy who is a CPA and worked for one of the large accounting firms. I asked him what he was doing on the ramp. He said that even though he made more money as an accountant, he was constantly working. 12 hours at the office then he brought his work home and worked while he was eating his dinner. He also said that they would make him work his weekends and they would cancel his vacation when an audit would come up. He said when you divide the pay by the hours worked it was not such a good deal. He had no time to spend with his family. It is like this in a lot of those jobs. WHen I was in DFW there was an article in the Dallas Morning News about the tech bubble bust. It profiled a family living in Plano (a posh area north of Dallas). The man had a very large expensive home. But he only slept, shaved, and showered there. He could not enjoy it because he was always on the road working. Well, when the tech bubble burst, he lost that nice house and now lives in Oklahoma in a rural $40,000 house. When I was in DFW, there was a ramper that made $125,000 in one year (pre concessions of course) but this guy worked 16 hours a day 7 days a week for a whole year. He complained about having to take vacation because he was losing money when he did.

You talk about productivity, but people in this country are the most productive in the world. In Europe, they work 35 hours a week, 4-6 weeks vacation at the FIRST year of employment, government regulated health care (don't ever have to worry about losing everything if you get ill) and their pensions are protected (Don't have to worry about some CEO stealing it). They work to live not live to work. They enjoy more of their time in life with their families. But to each his own, just keep drinking that Bush koolaide(he just eliminated overtime laws for people like you) and work harder for even less and make the bosses in this country richer than their European counterparts (this is the true definition of "productivity").

 

[MCI transplant]

Hey MCI, we have one more thing in common, were despised by Oneflyer and Garfield because were in a union.

[post="205081"][/post]​

😛 😛 😛 😛 😛

 

[eolesen]

Since your talking about productivity, ponder this. There are now more people flying than before 9/11 in this industry. But right now there are 40% FEWER airline employees industry wide.

[post="205077"][/post]​

Wrong.... Air carrier employment has gone down, but not as much as you think:

2000 Total Form 41 Carriers 603,507 FT + 128,542 PT = 732,049
2003 Total Form 41 Carriers 507,091 FT + 102,310 PT = 609,401

Blended, job losses at the industry level are only about 16.7%. Part-timers have seen more job losses (20.4%) than full-timers (15.9%).

If you just look at the major carriers, 19.9% FT, 22.8% PT, 20.4% blended.

Do the math -- regional and national carriers are still growing at the majors' expense.

Full stats are available at:
http://www.bts.dot.gov/programs/airline_in...cated_carriers/

 

[aafsc]

Wrong.... Air carrier employment has gone down, but not as much as you think:

2000 Total Form 41 Carriers 603,507 FT + 128,542 PT = 732,049
2003 Total Form 41 Carriers 507,091 FT + 102,310 PT = 609,401

Blended, job losses at the industry level are only about 16.7%. Part-timers have seen more job losses (20.4%) than full-timers (15.9%).

If you just look at the major carriers, 19.9% FT, 22.8% PT, 20.4% blended.

Do the math -- regional and national carriers are still growing at the majors' expense.

Full stats are available at:
http://www.bts.dot.gov/programs/airline_in...cated_carriers/

[post="205482"][/post]​

The figures I posted was in the newspaper, USA Today, if I remember correctly.

 

[MCI transplant]

Wrong.... Air carrier employment has gone down, but not as much as you think:

2000 Total Form 41 Carriers 603,507 FT + 128,542 PT = 732,049
2003 Total Form 41 Carriers 507,091 FT + 102,310 PT = 609,401

Blended, job losses at the industry level are only about 16.7%. Part-timers have seen more job losses (20.4%) than full-timers (15.9%).

If you just look at the major carriers, 19.9% FT, 22.8% PT, 20.4% blended.

Do the math -- regional and national carriers are still growing at the majors' expense.

Full stats are available at:
http://www.bts.dot.gov/programs/airline_in...cated_carriers/

[post="205482"][/post]​

<_< Hey Moderator----- Who's numbers do we belive? That was a direct quate from "USA TODAY" money section dated Nov.30,2004, on page 2?????

 

[eolesen]

The figures I posted was in the newspaper, USA Today, if I remember correctly.

[post="205486"][/post]​

You actually expect McPaper to get their facts correct?....

 

[Bob Owens]

You actually expect McPaper to get their facts correct?....

[post="205611"][/post]​

How come you skipped 2001, 2002, 2003?

Our Local grew by 25% during that time frame.

 

[eolesen]

How come you skipped 2001, 2002, 2003?

Our Local grew by 25% during that time frame.

[post="230385"][/post]​

I didn't skip 2003 -- that's the last year shown above. 2001 and 2002 weren't all that relevant because each year trended downward, but since you asked:

   Year       FT           PT           Total
   2000       603507       128542       732049
   2001       545574       107914       653488
   2002       538761       104036       642797
   2003       507091       102310       609401

 

[Bob Owens]

I didn't skip 2003 -- that's the last year shown above. 2001 and 2002 weren't all that relevant because each year trended downward, but since you asked:

   Year       FT           PT           Total
   2000       603507       128542       732049
   2001       545574       107914       653488
   2002       538761       104036       642797
   2003       507091       102310       609401

[post="230449"][/post]​

Thats interesting. So while everyone else was shrinking, and we had thousands of ex-TWAers on the street AA was continuing to hire.

Why was that?

Oh yea, and aafsc could be right, he was probably referring to unionized workers, not management. We have more management now than in the 18 years I've been with this employer. Also the 40% less figure could be justified by comparing the number of airline jobs to the number of flights made.

 

[Oneflyer]

We have more management now than in the 18 years I've been with this employer.

You are wrong.

 

[Bob Owens]

You are wrong.

[post="230828"][/post]​

OK,Proportionately, we have more management now than in the 18 years I've been with this employer.