Teddy Blasts Management
- Thread starter crazyincanton
- Start date
B
BottomFeeder
Guest
PineyBob said:
Bob,
Thanks for really listening.
You hit the nail square on the head.
Management thinks... it is all about dollars and cents and having a job no matter how bad the job is the key to happiness. Like the parent who throws money at their kids instead of spending time with them.
Most of the employees do get a feeling of satisfaction with a job well done. Here is the kicker and what I am hearing. Management has gone out of it's way to make the jobs as misserable as possible get them to quit. Then hire new lower paid replacements. Thus savings of severance, unemployement and additional savings in the benifts.
B
BottomFeeder
Guest
PineyBob said:
Bob,
It comes down to assets and liabilites. If you are talent then you are a asset. If you are not talent then you are a liability. The definition of talent, you can find by reading between the lines. This company's assets fall in the 20 to 30 range including the BOD.
How does a company survive with a balance sheet of such this one?
OldGuyinPA
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 700
- 8
obviously it doesn't....
you've been Al'd
you've been Al'd
B
BottomFeeder
Guest
Hawk said:
calibrator
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2004
- 558
- 0
BottomFeeder said:
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
Throughout this topic I have made two points that need to be perfectly clear:
-- US Airways is in violation of its profit sharing commitment made to its employees during the most recent round of contract changes. It appears the new investors pressured US Airways’ Board to change the profit sharing plan, and as such, management unilaterally violated union contracts.
In the case of ALPA, LOA 93 states that the pilots shall receive “10% of the first 5% of pretax profits, and 25% of all pretax profits after that, with ALPA's portion of the Company's profit-sharing pool being no less than 36%.â€
LOA 93 does not say that the investors can lobby the Board to unilaterally change the contract. I know, I know, the argument will be without the change and labor agreeing to give a concession again the investors will pull out of the deal. However, my issue is that the Board and then senior management attempted to make a major contract change without even discussing the issue with labor.
As I have said, every union should challenge management through the grievance process and objecting to any motion filed on this issue because of the blatant contract violation.
With that said, I believe this issue could be over taken by events. US Airways is still lowering its unit costs and it has not realized many of the benefits of its new contracts. In addition, energy prices will damper efforts to return to profitability in the near-term. Therefore, the company may not be profitable until the operational integration with America West is complete.
As the merger proceeds a Joint Negotiating Committee will be appointed and CBA’s agreement will be combined. These new labor agreements will attempt to cherry pick the best parts of each labor group’s contract, but Doug Parker will likely fight any union position that will increase labor costs. There is no question that there will be some things Parker wants and labor wants during the process, and in my opinion, profit sharing could be eliminated and exchanged for tangible and immediate contract items such as pay.
Thus, the profit sharing fight may not be a factor and over come by other events.
Does that mean labor should not fight for its rightful and negotiated profit sharing? No, of course not, because management cannot and should not be permitted to unilaterally and blatantly disregard a contract.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
-- US Airways is in violation of its profit sharing commitment made to its employees during the most recent round of contract changes. It appears the new investors pressured US Airways’ Board to change the profit sharing plan, and as such, management unilaterally violated union contracts.
In the case of ALPA, LOA 93 states that the pilots shall receive “10% of the first 5% of pretax profits, and 25% of all pretax profits after that, with ALPA's portion of the Company's profit-sharing pool being no less than 36%.â€
LOA 93 does not say that the investors can lobby the Board to unilaterally change the contract. I know, I know, the argument will be without the change and labor agreeing to give a concession again the investors will pull out of the deal. However, my issue is that the Board and then senior management attempted to make a major contract change without even discussing the issue with labor.
As I have said, every union should challenge management through the grievance process and objecting to any motion filed on this issue because of the blatant contract violation.
With that said, I believe this issue could be over taken by events. US Airways is still lowering its unit costs and it has not realized many of the benefits of its new contracts. In addition, energy prices will damper efforts to return to profitability in the near-term. Therefore, the company may not be profitable until the operational integration with America West is complete.
As the merger proceeds a Joint Negotiating Committee will be appointed and CBA’s agreement will be combined. These new labor agreements will attempt to cherry pick the best parts of each labor group’s contract, but Doug Parker will likely fight any union position that will increase labor costs. There is no question that there will be some things Parker wants and labor wants during the process, and in my opinion, profit sharing could be eliminated and exchanged for tangible and immediate contract items such as pay.
Thus, the profit sharing fight may not be a factor and over come by other events.
Does that mean labor should not fight for its rightful and negotiated profit sharing? No, of course not, because management cannot and should not be permitted to unilaterally and blatantly disregard a contract.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
Labor has not done well in bankruptcy court.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Regards,
USA320Pilot
- Banned
- #72
The company cannot just change a contract at will, it will have to go to arbitration.
And they cant file a 1113e and if they file a C it would have to be a total abrogation, and I doubt Mitchell would go for that once again.
The company won't use the courts, they will make the unions use the grievance procedure.
And I do believe labor just won the last fight in regard to the retention bonuses for the 23 executives.
But it was ok when they disregarded the IAM contract in regard to the Airbus outsourcing?
Did not see you speak up on behalf of the IAM represented mechanics then.
And they cant file a 1113e and if they file a C it would have to be a total abrogation, and I doubt Mitchell would go for that once again.
The company won't use the courts, they will make the unions use the grievance procedure.
And I do believe labor just won the last fight in regard to the retention bonuses for the 23 executives.
But it was ok when they disregarded the IAM contract in regard to the Airbus outsourcing?
Did not see you speak up on behalf of the IAM represented mechanics then.
USA320Pilot said:
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
700UW:
I agree the new investors, the Board, or the company cannot change a contract at will.
In regard to the Airbus outsourcing I believed the company would win the grievance process and they did not. However, the company did conduct outsourced A320 family aircraft heavy maintenance until they gave the IAM an offer to outsource A330, B767, and B757 maintenance and stop outsourcing A320 maintenance, which the members approved.
I do not believe you can call Judge Mitchell's ruling on the retention bonus plan a labor victory. There are two points here:
According to the Charlotte Observer in a 15-page ruling, Judge Stephen Mitchell acknowledged that retention plans "have something of a shady reputation" and said they have been used to reward "the very executives whose bad decisions or lack of foresight were responsible" for their companies' financial troubles. Yet in US Airways' case, he wrote, retaining managers would help keep the company afloat and allow it to complete its proposed merger with America West Airlines. "It seems clear that the company is experiencing a serious exodus of management employees that threatens its ability to reorganize and calls for immediate action in order to keep the organization functioning," Mitchell wrote.
Mitchell approved a new severance plan for non-executive managers. Would pay managing directors between 12 and 52 weeks base salary, depending on length of service that would pay other managers between 12 and 26 weeks. In addition, he approved the Retention Bonus Fund that allows payments of up to $50,000 per person on case-by-case basis. Cost: up to $5 million.
In regard to new employment contracts for the senior officers, Mitchell postponed ruling on the company's motion and this issue will be heard in front of the court probably later this year.
I believe people like payroll clerks, planners, secretary's, and other MSP employees deserve severance and retention pay, just like a union member deserves furlough pay. It's clear from is ruling Judge Mtichell does too.
You might be right about a grievance over the profit sharing issue. It's to early to tell how this will unfold, but I believe it could be over come by events such as no profits until the operational merger is complete and JNC contract negotiations could change the profit sharing provision.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
I agree the new investors, the Board, or the company cannot change a contract at will.
In regard to the Airbus outsourcing I believed the company would win the grievance process and they did not. However, the company did conduct outsourced A320 family aircraft heavy maintenance until they gave the IAM an offer to outsource A330, B767, and B757 maintenance and stop outsourcing A320 maintenance, which the members approved.
I do not believe you can call Judge Mitchell's ruling on the retention bonus plan a labor victory. There are two points here:
According to the Charlotte Observer in a 15-page ruling, Judge Stephen Mitchell acknowledged that retention plans "have something of a shady reputation" and said they have been used to reward "the very executives whose bad decisions or lack of foresight were responsible" for their companies' financial troubles. Yet in US Airways' case, he wrote, retaining managers would help keep the company afloat and allow it to complete its proposed merger with America West Airlines. "It seems clear that the company is experiencing a serious exodus of management employees that threatens its ability to reorganize and calls for immediate action in order to keep the organization functioning," Mitchell wrote.
Mitchell approved a new severance plan for non-executive managers. Would pay managing directors between 12 and 52 weeks base salary, depending on length of service that would pay other managers between 12 and 26 weeks. In addition, he approved the Retention Bonus Fund that allows payments of up to $50,000 per person on case-by-case basis. Cost: up to $5 million.
In regard to new employment contracts for the senior officers, Mitchell postponed ruling on the company's motion and this issue will be heard in front of the court probably later this year.
I believe people like payroll clerks, planners, secretary's, and other MSP employees deserve severance and retention pay, just like a union member deserves furlough pay. It's clear from is ruling Judge Mtichell does too.
You might be right about a grievance over the profit sharing issue. It's to early to tell how this will unfold, but I believe it could be over come by events such as no profits until the operational merger is complete and JNC contract negotiations could change the profit sharing provision.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
- Banned
- #74
The company did not file a motion for new contracts for the executives, Judge Mitchell in his ruling said the company can put retention bonuses in the POR which could contain new contracts for the executives.
And you were wrong, it took a bankruptcy judge's ruling to continue to permit the temporary outsourcing of the A320 aircraft, I was in court, did not see you there.
And like I said, since it did take money out of your pocket you could have cared less what the company did with the A320 mtc and you even sided with the company. Funny how now it effects your wallet you speak out against the company, are you going to be like you were when your pension was terminated, one day you hated Siegel and then you loved him again? You are not a union member, just a member of a union.
And there won't be new contracts negotiated because of the merger, just a intergration agreement, can you not understand that?
And you were wrong, it took a bankruptcy judge's ruling to continue to permit the temporary outsourcing of the A320 aircraft, I was in court, did not see you there.
And like I said, since it did take money out of your pocket you could have cared less what the company did with the A320 mtc and you even sided with the company. Funny how now it effects your wallet you speak out against the company, are you going to be like you were when your pension was terminated, one day you hated Siegel and then you loved him again? You are not a union member, just a member of a union.
And there won't be new contracts negotiated because of the merger, just a intergration agreement, can you not understand that?
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
USA320Pilot said:
USA320,
You do know that ALPA gets stock in the new entity? AFA was told that only ALPA gets stock. Why?
What makes ALPA so special that they get equity but the other labor groups have had the option taken away?
Is ALPA challenging the profit sharing piece or are you paying lip service to the other unions?
