Unions ...would You Be Safe With Out It?

[PHL]

Unions are a necessary evil.....without unions the CEO's would have free reign as would any dictator of a third world country. Surely you wouldn't want that......would you????

Not necessarily true. See, hard as it is to believe, upper management NEEDS the employees to run the business. You know it, they know it. It's how many they need, and at what price, that heats up the labor relations.

Why is it that myself and millions of other Americans go to work every day in non-management, non-union jobs and get paid well and get good benefits??? It might be because the market can bear it. Because our respective employers know that they need us and will continue paying what it takes to keep us.

But then the economy slows and revenues drop while the labor costs and benefits remain constant. Two choices - keep the labor costs the same and run further into the red, with the likelihood of closing up and putting everyone on the street. Or, start cutting costs to preserve some of the jobs. It's difficult and you can't believe that the upper management revels in cutting jobs.

If I've only been on the job for 2 years and my colleague has been on it for 5, who should get the pink slip when times get too tight to keep us both? A union advocate would say the 5-year employee for the simple fact that they've got seniority. A better answer would be to keep the one who performs the best. Because in the long run, that will save more jobs as productivity remains high and efficient. Why keep a stiff who's not performing at a level consistant with their peers?

Layoffs, benefit cutting, wage cuts, etc. are all a part of this dynamic economy we live in. Deal with it. Union or not.

 

[pitguy]

I can attest to the fact I have been personally pressured from management to release aircraft I felt were not safe. This is one reason I know we Mechanics here at this company must be unionized. Mechanics in a non-union environment are more apt to be pressured to release aircraft that they would not have released had they been represented by a union.

 

[diogenes]

Teflon, I don't remember an IAM campaign for c/s at U. Please help a failing memory.

 

[Teflon]

There was a campaign as I worked on it, it was an election between the CWA and IAM and the CWA won the vote.

It was after the IAM was certified on the ramp.

 

[Colby]

I am 110% behind unions... Only problem I have is how it's changed over the years. True...AFA has saved A LOT of F/A's jobs ...But the problem I have goes into those people that Slack-OFF, don't do their job and just wait for the Union to save them. How fair is that to the Worker that shows up when their supposed to and does the job they are supposed to do?


I was raised in a BIG GM town and UAW/GM makes up the majority of where I grew up.

As far as I'm concerned Union Representation is like Insurance; You may not always need it but when the time comes you'll be glad you have it.
<_< <_<

 

[PITbull]

Bob,

To put this kindly, the unions were able to protect jobs and stimulate employment through negotiations in our contracts. That did not come without a price to the unions. Rest assured that at no time did any management team on this property "give" employees or unions anything without an exchange through the years. And as you are aware, U made billions between 1196 and 1999. Unions protected jobs and many folks got to support their families and maintain a respectable standard of living. In exchange, management had loyal dedicated employees who provided excellent service to our customers which in turn effected U's bottom line. We also had over 400 aircraft in those fruitful years.

Your comment:" I harp on getting unions to think differently about how they can help a company turn a profit and then ultimately share in that profit".

PITbull responds: The "operating words in your above statement is "ultimately share".
You would think that. But, do you earnestly believe that this management will agree to "ultimately share" in those profits? Who determines fair share? (flight attendants received this recent distribution of 58 shares) You add it up.

We all realize that no gains in contract negotiations will be had unless the company turns profitable. But, as sure as I'm sitting here, with this current management,THERE WILL BE NO SHARING OF PROFITS WITH THE EMPLOYEES. The stock received through the "give backs" are a one-time-deal. And the future "lump sum" provisions in all our contracts that could be "triggered" in 2007 and 2008, our financial advisors told us that not to expect anything from that as the caps were set to have very little return, or none.

Again, I repeat that unions serve a purpose, and that purpose is to create a "balance" in our society for working Americans and corporations. They are not utopic, but do provide directly and indirectly, an element of "balance" for fairness.

Just so happens that presently, that balance has "shifted". And Corporations are ruling the day, and getting away with destroying families for the sake of a dollar savings. And, they can do this because of the downturn in the economy.

But, that will change eventually.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

I clearly see where some change is needed on both parties account.

(1) Management needs to concentrate on developing a profitable plan...and shaking loose the dated fare structure. The current methods ...and pull backs from so many cities have invited every jerk-weed on the planet that can finance an Airbus to become a player.

(2) Management needs to start being square-dealers and honor the contracts that they themselves agreed to and signed. BK is over....so the free ride on what to honor and what not to honor is over with it.

(3) The unions need to take a hard look at what they themselves do to hinder production as well. I have seen countless times where grievances are made over things that make no sense at all from a business standpoint....or anything that mimicks a logical standpoint.

My latest example is this.

Last week a B737-300 was grounded in CLT for a damaged or de-lamenated flap. The Duty Manager in PIT was having kittens over the fact that the required part shown in stock..was not actually there. I shared the frustration over this.

I asked the CLT Stores to go to the "Off-Sight" where the part was supposed to be located. They did....and due to this department not being staffed on 3rd shift , this becomes an automatic grievance for the "Off-Sight Stores" people.

For a company to have to pay a grievance to attempt to locate it's own property to repair a grounded plane is purely assinine in my opinion. This is where the rules go to far.

The issue was solved by my reccomendation to locate and evaluate the next higher assembly that we did show stock on....this worked and the assembly was robbed of the needed part and the Acft was repaired in a timely manner.

Using the Union way of thinking...I guess the IAM people in Maint. Control should be grieving me for thinking for them on how to resolve this problem.

The classic thing said during my exchange with CLT Stores was this.

(Stores Clerk) Hey man , you know when ever we have to go to the off-site...that's a grievance right?

(AOG-N-IT Replies)....and just WTF does a grievance matter Vs the cost of a B737-300 sitting on the ground at $5000.00+ an hour...and still not being ready to gross nickle one?

(Stores Clerk) I guess I see your point?

(AOG-N-IT).....Good...and do me a favor of never saying anything about grievances again. I realize the drill...but the drill does not stand between me and results. Do the job....and grieve away afterward !!! It will save us both time and wasted words.

 

[Teflon]

AOG, your post talks out of both sides of your mouth, on one hand you say the company should honor its contracts with the unions they signed and on the other you chastise the Stock Clerk for wanting to honor the very same agreement, can't have it both ways.

I see your point about getting the plane out, but once again the higher ups in the company made the decision not to staff offsite on third shift anymore and they made the decision to store it at offsite vs CLT-D.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Teflon....You missed my point completely.

It's about LOGIC...The rules need to be changed to reflect LOGIC.

and if the rules can be tweeked to facilitate logic and profit combined , it's a winning scenario.

Like the post intended...both sides need to take a step up to reality...and then both sides need to honor what's hopefully going to drag us out of the mud.

Again...both sides of the coin need to get thier act together for this to work for us all.

 

[E-TRONS]

Hey PHL, My post was speaking of the airline business in particular.

If the CEO's would realize that the EMPLOYEES ARE THE COMPANY perhaps things would be different.

Why should my coworkers of many years be furloughed while Dave Siegel reaps over $25 Million and a 20 year pension, 100%vested in only 5 years?? He is a ROBBER BARRON!!!!!!
This hypocrite says he shares our pain......."I'm labor friendly." :blink: You must be joking ??? This pirate continues to chip away at everything we ever worked for in spite of the $1.8 Billion in YEARLY concessions he secured until 2008........and he feels justified coming back for more.

Dave "Saddam-Lorenzo' Siegel is an expert where union busting, piracy and deceit are concerned and uses extortion openly to get what he wants. :down:

Just watch U-S Airways over the next year and see what transpires.....and feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

E-TRONS OUT.

 

[PITbull]

E-TRONS,

I won't ever correct you. I believe your sentiments above are right on the dime.



Over and out...

 

[Justaramper]

delldude.....I pay my dues and I have the right to be on any side I choose, be it against your opinion or for your opinion...Now, do I care what the "others" think...? Not really, I'm not into the "social status"....I just do my "8" and head to the house...

FYI...The IBT was "taken" from Fleet Service in a landmark case by the NMB..It had never been done before....PSA & USAir had voted in the IBT before the Piedmont merger...Did you have to re-vote....? Why not..? Did AA have to re-vote when they bought TWA...? 2 different unions, but not a vote cast..

Call me what makes you happy, for it's not a big deal to me

 

[delldude]

delldude.....I pay my dues and I have the right to be on any side I choose, be it against your opinion or for your opinion...Now, do I care what the "others" think...? Not really, I'm not into the "social status"....I just do my "8" and head to the house...

FYI...The IBT was "taken" from Fleet Service in a landmark case by the NMB..It had never been done before....PSA & USAir had voted in the IBT before the Piedmont merger...Did you have to re-vote....? Why not..? Did AA have to re-vote when they bought TWA...? 2 different unions, but not a vote cast..

Call me what makes you happy, for it's not a big deal to me

i see,you pay your dues and go home after your eight ..........the issue is not where you stand on the union thing...the issue is YOU....in one post you rant as to how you are willing to cross a picket line...then in another you say that you are the trade unionist example.....am i missing something here?
you can whine as you wish...but the reason IBT was "taken" was 50%+1 vote....take it to the bank.....

 

[T-bone]

.


If I've only been on the job for 2 years and my colleague has been on it for 5, who should get the pink slip when times get too tight to keep us both? A union advocate would say the 5-year employee for the simple fact that they've got seniority. A better answer would be to keep the one who performs the best. Because in the long run, that will save more jobs as productivity remains high and efficient. Why keep a stiff who's not performing at a level consistant with their peers?

Layoffs, benefit cutting, wage cuts, etc. are all a part of this dynamic economy we live in. Deal with it. Union or not.

Not so fast my friend. I also worked for a nonuninon company. An airline. And when things got tough, the good guys got let go and the butt kisser's and buddies remained.

Fact is Davy feels like 007 right now. A license to kill is in his back pocket. Untill he's stood up---Woe to us all.

Fraternally.

 

[T-bone]

Let's take a look at what I mean.

jet Blue has roughly 71FTE's/plane (FTE= Full Time Equivelants)
South West roughly 91 FTE's/plane
US roughly 103 FTE's/plane

So that means US has 32 more FTE's/plane then JetBlue.


US Airways has not currently or in the past done a great job with employees in general. These numbers are why I harp on getting unions to think differently about how they can help a company turn a profit and then ultimately share in that profit.

I mean the numbers don't lie, that's 50 million dollars per quarter that doesn't need to be in US's cost structure. The fact that it is there hurts every employees overall job security.

Hope I added to the debate

You sure do add to this debate. Some times figures lie, or is that liar's figure. Anyhow your example proves the point. Jet blue does not due it's own heavy maintenance, or deicing, or cateering etc. etc. so offcourse they don't have as many employee's per A/C.

However they still have to pay someone for those services. So it's definately not a free ride just to boast less employee's. In fact when people are not motivated by good pay, benifits, or long term employment prospects quality always drops. It will show when jet blues a/c comes due for major overhaul and their employee's get fed up with their 5 year individual contracts.

Freedom isin't free. Solidarity forever!