j7915 said:
[It maybe fair payback for the six figure salaries, but it does not do a thing about solutions. If members want to vent their anger, why not have special meetings for that, the five minute rant 0800-2359, every Wednesday, no beer just cafe, come one, come all.
Is/was AA loosing money? If yes why pretend, why the demagogery?
Are the only carriers that are making money using a different business plan? Maybe we have to try to assimilate some of their practices, but do it without throwing away members, and peoples livelyhoods.
Last I checked unions are supposed to be for their members benefit, not just those lucky few who have the seniority not to get laid off.
Fair payback would be to have the ability to vote them out, but since that is not an option then they will have to settle for giving them a verbal lashing.
Yes AA probably was loosing money, and losing money too. They were probably being loose with the money when they claimed that they lost $3.5 billion, nearly 1 billion of which was in "good will". Why didnt Jim Little go after all the AA execs that got packages instead of just Carty?
I do not favor layoffs, thats why we wanted a better scope clause, but that got scrapped.
The fact is that unions have always recognized that the Capitalist system produces booms as well as busts. Overproduction, not scarcity of goods ends up causing suffering. Lower wages will never address the problem of overproduction. The only solution is to hopefully temporarily reduce production, if possible until demand returns. That means layoffs, a cruel fact of the system we live in and another good reason why we should always try to maximize our earnings instead of chasing the mirage of security. If you want security, learn how to save money and avoid debt.
The seniority system was specifically designed to preserve gains, at the temporary expense of jobs, in the event of overproduction. Company's would prefer to use such events as an opportunity to lower wages across the board or layoff their highest paid workers first but unions as a matter of basic unionism resisted such moves by dictating through contractual language that the least senior, normally the youngest, workers are laid off first. What we have done is allow the company to continue to overproduce at the expense of all workers and to continue to enjoy the concessions gained now, at the worst of times, far into the future. When demand returns there is no guarantee that our pay and benifits will be restored and we will never make back what is lost in the meantime.The fact is that the company will still reduce production to meet demand meaning that our concessions in reality did not save any jobs, because after all the company will not continue to overproduce even if they can do it cheaply indefinately. They will not keep workers on payroll to produce what they can not sell.
I have no problem with trying to assimilate the management practices of other companies. Lets start with SWA's pay rates and move on from there.
Last I checked Unions were not supposed to put the company before the members. I've never heard of a union that puts the quantity of jobs ahead of the quality of jobs, thats always been the arguement of those who favor low wages like the NAM, RTW and other anti-labor organizations.
