2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[roabilly]

I of course love the sentiment Roa but in all honest reality if you use that approach and say something like that to them you just may get the response "How many of you went to the Wharton School of Business"

The better approach is to try and attempt a package through comparing a cost analysis to keeping higher wage, older workers as opposed to bringing in lower paid younger ones. The problem with that also though is that you know they have already compared the data and it would be happening right now if there wasn't something financially preventing it? That's why in the past buyouts have been offered usually at the cost to someone who hasn't even walked in the door yet.

Should our Unions even consider entertaining harming the unborn so to speak anymore just because some of us would like to get the hell out of Dodge with a little gold in our satchel?

I hear ya WeAA...
 
And to the Wharton Business response, I would retort -- How many of you have off-loaded 10,000 LBs @ 112 degrees Fahrenheit tarmac ambient?! 
 
Now THAT would wrinkle their khakis and golf shirts... maybe even scuff them lil' Docksides loafers!

 

[roabilly]

P.S. WeAA...
 
If I were a betting man, I would say you are right in your prediction. I envision the Company entertaining a higher wage, as opposed to mass buy-outs. Especially, if Recognition & Scope are preserved, and the Airline maintains profitability and growth...

 

[T5towbar]

Oh, there is going to be buyouts. That's for sure.
The amount(s) will be the issue. In our case, the IAM came up with a convoluted scheme where it was nearly impossible for the ramp to get the top amount of 75,000. Plus most of the people that was cross-utilized considered themselves PCE, and they got nearly 60,000 (I think). The most ramp would have got was 35,000. 
 
If it was a straightforward number for both groups, you would have a lot of takers in which it would well went over the numbers that are needed. Now they want to offer 20,000 in this go around (and have to pay for flight benefits to boot). Which IMHO that is insulting. Give the people a decent package with a bridge and flying benefits, and will get plenty of takers. Problem is I think (again, this is my opinion) the union doesn't want it because of the potential loss of members. Plus the company isn't going to hire, because the contract allows temps to fill in where is needed. I'm cynical as hell with this District, and that's where the downgrading comes in: no loss of dues!!!
 
The questions will be the amount of the buyouts, and will new hires back fill open positions. Or contractors and vendors fill those spots due to outsourcing?
 
 

P.S. WeAA...
 
If I were a betting man, I would say you are right in your prediction. I envision the Company entertaining a higher wage, as opposed to mass buy-outs. Especially, if Recognition & Scope are preserved, and the Airline maintains profitability and growth...

 
I agree. The company will probably initially throw some money around at first. They will also attack Scope first. 

 

[ograc]

Oh, there is going to be buyouts. That's for sure.
The amount(s) will be the issue. In our case, the IAM came up with a convoluted scheme where it was nearly impossible for the ramp to get the top amount of 75,000. Plus most of the people that was cross-utilized considered themselves PCE, and they got nearly 60,000 (I think). The most ramp would have got was 35,000. 
 
If it was a straightforward number for both groups, you would have a lot of takers in which it would well went over the numbers that are needed. Now they want to offer 20,000 in this go around (and have to pay for flight benefits to boot). Which IMHO that is insulting. Give the people a decent package with a bridge and flying benefits, and will get plenty of takers. Problem is I think (again, this is my opinion) the union doesn't want it because of the potential loss of members. Plus the company isn't going to hire, because the contract allows temps to fill in where is needed. I'm cynical as hell with this District, and that's where the downgrading comes in: no loss of dues!!!
 
The questions will be the amount of the buyouts, and will new hires back fill open positions. Or contractors and vendors fill those spots due to outsourcing?
 
 
 
I agree. The company will probably initially throw some money around at first. They will also attack Scope first. 

 
In the end... I don't believe the company is interested in long term cost savings by offering a fair buyout to senior employees. IMHO... I believe the company will focus on job elimination in the hubs and outline stations. Outsource outline stations and anyone with seniority and age will retire rather than chase a full time job in another station with higher cost of living. Outsource and eliminate represented jobs in the hubs (catering/tower/CLP) and the senior agents will be forced to bump to the ramp for work. This will not be a viable option for many affected. Many more will choose to retire. The company believes they don't have to offer a generous buyout; they have other ways to get senior employees off the payroll. The JCBA NC will have to fight and oppose this agenda going forward. They will need the support of the combined membership. This issue is sure to be a battle front.
LOCK and LOAD Brothers and Sisters!
 

 

[T5towbar]

 
In the end... I don't believe the company is interested in long term cost savings by offering a fair buyout to senior employees. IMHO... I believe the company will focus on job elimination in the hubs and outline stations. Outsource outline stations and anyone with seniority and age will retire rather than chase a full time job in another station with higher cost of living. Outsource and eliminate represented jobs in the hubs (catering/tower/CLP) and the senior agents will be forced to bump to the ramp for work. This will not be a viable option for many affected. Many more will choose to retire. The company believes they don't have to offer a generous buyout; they have other ways to get senior employees off the payroll. The JCBA NC will have to fight and oppose this agenda going forward. They will need the support of the combined membership. This issue is sure to be a battle front.
LOCK and LOAD Brothers and Sisters!
 

Yes, Ograc.
I'm seeing this in action as we speak. Hence the lousy buyout packages being offered now.
They are trying to get rid of the senior people in the line stations hoping they will retire instead of chasing their job in a high cost city. The same as getting rid of cushy jobs and whacking the bottom as well, forcing people to get back in a pit or taking crappy days off.  This is a two prong attack from where I see it. Slowly get rid of the much senior while cutting the juniors, leaving no buffer and no future hiring. It's a cost saving move by the company as well.
 
Everybody knows it's happening and that's how the ranks will be thinned out. It would be OK if people retired and there was hiring at the bottom so people can move up. But I don't see that happened. There has been some hiring in the past, but they will be gone soon. In my hub, we haven't hired in over six and a half years. (there was about three or four dozen in '10, but they are gone now, along with 08 hires)

 

[PHXConx]

I find your argument that Democrats are to blame for the National Right to Work Act interesting, and convoluted...
 
First... The Taft-Hartley Act was orchestrated and written by Robert Alphonso Taft, and  Fred Allan Hartley, Jr. who were BOTH Republicans!
 
Second... President Harry S. Truman, who was a Democrat, vetoed the bill, and it was consequently overridden by the House and Senate in 1947 making it law.
 
Third... The argument that Democrats should have unraveled decades of State Legislation in the Republican majority "Right to Work States" (and since they failed to do so ) it has empowered Republicans like Rand Paul to seek anti-labor legislation like the National Right to Work Act is insane!
 
This is like saying that customers that keep their money in banks are responsible for enticing, and empowering bank robbers, because they have provided a catalyst for the crime to be committed in the first place -- so they are actually the criminals!

i just saw this so i apologize to throwing it out here again in a reply but if you read the first part of my post blaming democrats
 
i blamed democrats because of all the times they were in charge, where they were the majority of both houses and held the white house and why they didnt get rid of taft hartley then..
 
True this was passed by republicans but democrats never when they had the opportunity and there were many, over the years, never ever did anything about getting rid of it, including the first two years of obama...  seems like the political agenda of keeping it active was more important than doing something about it 
 
Its not like they had to wait long after passage in 1947...
 
the democrats gained 75 seats in the house in 1948
the democrats gained 9 seats in the Senate in 1948
 
Truman was still in office
 
yet Taft Hartley stayed in place...  even after an overwelming win where the democrats won back both houses of congress..  
 
you dont blame them.. but i do... i guess the party loyalty is too important to you its not to me...
 
of course im not a republican so i could give two s*its but i bet you are a democrat, and you obviously do...
 
we wouldnt have had to wait for states to put right to work in over 30 states, had the democrats fixed this in 1948. 

 

[roabilly]

i just saw this so i apologize to throwing it out here again in a reply but if you read the first part of my post blaming democrats
 
i blamed democrats because of all the times they were in charge, where they were the majority of both houses and held the white house and why they didnt get rid of taft hartley then..
 
True this was passed by republicans but democrats never when they had the opportunity and there were many, over the years, never ever did anything about getting rid of it, including the first two years of obama...  seems like the political agenda of keeping it active was more important than doing something about it 
 
 

OK... using your logic, why didn't the Republican Party “get rid of it" during the Republican Majorities during the 108th and 109th Congress when “W” was in charge of everything?
 
If you actually knew your political history, you would not imply full Democratic control during Obama's first two years. Due to the illness and death of Ted Kennedy and the appointment of Scott Brown during Obama’s first term... Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010... 4 MONTHS... not 2 years! Ironically, this does not account for the number of days Congress was not even in session during that time. If one subtracts the number of days Congress was out, the time that President Obama had a Democratic majority in Congress is further reduced by more than 30 days, or another full month. Of a possible 94 legislative days during that period, the Senate was only in session for 67 days, while the House only labored for 54, give or take the weekend.
 
 
 
Incidentally, I think this conversation was designed to be a Red Herring, to redirect the thread away from the discussions regarding the JCBA...
 
It won’t work...

 

[freedom]

Have to protect scope .....

 

[roabilly]

Have to protect scope .....

Keep the bottle tightly sealed to prevent evaporation. If you have children... place it in the medicine cabinet, or another safe place out of their reach... 

 

[WeAAsles]

Have to protect scope .....

"SCOPE" is already a foregone conclusion. Of course work and jobs performed must be at the very least protected and hopefully even improved on. That should be done with a keen knowledge of past contracts and the work that was lost due to no fault of our own (BK) The company is absolutely going to be throwing the word "competitive" at our negotiators in every bit of that conversation. So the question is going to be how do we give them that competitiveness but also be able to raise the bar not just for us but our brothers and sisters in the industry? That's why I've been saying that "Creative Solutions" MAY have to be considered? If we put up a stone wall on every issue it could lead to a much longer wait time for a JCBA to come our way and be voted on. Hopefully the emphasis for "creative" can be applied on both sides of the negotiating table?

Another area for us that has to be heavily discussed is "Retirement Savings" This is not the type of job that we should continue to be doing into our 70's even if Americans are living longer. It's just not physically rational to continue past a certain age. The IAMPF is one aspect that your side has and the 401k match is something we now have on our side. Our retirement futures were severely compromised through all the givebacks since 9/11 and we had to make modifications for that that affected our base wages. The toothpaste tube had to be squeezed from one end to support the other. 

Some have argued with me that they would like to see all of our compensation put into our hands to make our own choices on how best to save for our futures. I disagree with that. The reason why is because not everyone would make the commitment needed to fund their future. The old adage is the more you make, the more you spend. And people are adults yes but in a Union we have to consider the whole over the individual. So I do want to see a continuation of some of my wages being directed into retirement accounts that I can't touch until I leave the company. Hopefully securing our future so to speak.
 
The IAMPF is an easy solution. You guys want a larger contribution with a higher payout. And on the 401K I want to see a tiered formula that matches a greater percentage as I get older to make up for what I need to live comfortably later on. And of course higher wages that will put more money into those coffers.

 

[WeAAsles]

We may also want to take the conversation back a few steps and talk about the IAM/TWU Association since that is the first issue that is on the plate in front of us?

I support it because I can see the potential behind it. More so from my participation on this thread and the contacts that brought me. I reached out to your guys and your guys reached out back to me. That opened the doors to something that not everyone has had the same advantage, conversation.

My thought is whether or not the NMB says we have to vote doesn't matter. I would really like to see both unions start to sell what the advantages of the Association can be over either union standing apart. I think a shared web page that updates progress rather than going to the two separate one's would be a great avenue and tool for the memberships consumption. 

What do you guys think?

 

[freedom]

Competitive solutions to increase productivity. ..hmmmmm well for starters we could do more to self police our membership. .

Like I've mentioned before there are still people out there who I feel are not pulling their own weight ...at the very least the union as a whole could encourage the membership to work harder by reminding them our wages and benefits were not just given to us because of generosity. ..

 

[WeAAsles]

Competitive solutions to increase productivity. ..hmmmmm well for starters we could do more to self police our membership. .

Like I've mentioned before there are still people out there who I feel are not pulling their own weight ...at the very least the union as a whole could encourage the membership to work harder by reminding them our wages and benefits were not just given to us because of generosity. ..

That is up to all of us as individuals to emphasize to the membership Freedom. At least I'm glad that you didn't throw that weight on our Union or it's reps. That is actually not an area that they are allowed to go by law. The only duty that they are required to perform is to uphold the contract and make sure that it's not violated.

A Union cannot make a self determination between what is a good worker or a bad one. That is something that the company must do and follow there own policy guidelines. All a rep can do is inform what those guidelines are.

An IBEW secretary told me the best meaning on what a rep should do that was ever shared with me. Her comment was "Your job is to uphold the integrity of your contract" That was the comment that opened my eyes to what it truly means to be a Union rep.

 

[roabilly]

"SCOPE" is already a foregone conclusion. Of course work and jobs performed must be at the very least protected and hopefully even improved on. That should be done with a keen knowledge of past contracts and the work that was lost due to no fault of our own (BK) The company is absolutely going to be throwing the word "competitive" at our negotiators in every bit of that conversation. So the question is going to be how do we give them that competitiveness but also be able to raise the bar not just for us but our brothers and sisters in the industry? That's why I've been saying that "Creative Solutions" MAY have to be considered? If we put up a stone wall on every issue it could lead to a much longer wait time for a JCBA to come our way and be voted on. Hopefully the emphasis for "creative" can be applied on both sides of the negotiating table?

Another area for us that has to be heavily discussed is "Retirement Savings" This is not the type of job that we should continue to be doing into our 70's even if Americans are living longer. It's just not physically rational to continue past a certain age. The IAMPF is one aspect that your side has and the 401k match is something we now have on our side. Our retirement futures were severely compromised through all the givebacks since 9/11 and we had to make modifications for that that affected our base wages. The toothpaste tube had to be squeezed from one end to support the other. 

Some have argued with me that they would like to see all of our compensation put into our hands to make our own choices on how best to save for our futures. I disagree with that. The reason why is because not everyone would make the commitment needed to fund their future. The old adage is the more you make, the more you spend. And people are adults yes but in a Union we have to consider the whole over the individual. So I do want to see a continuation of some of my wages being directed into retirement accounts that I can't touch until I leave the company. Hopefully securing our future so to speak.
 
The IAMPF is an easy solution. You guys want a larger contribution with a higher payout. And on the 401K I want to see a tiered formula that matches a greater percentage as I get older to make up for what I need to live comfortably later on. And of course higher wages that will put more money into those coffers.

Since the advent of the 401k, and demise of the defined pension plans... Americans have steadily lost ground on retirement savings. A THIRD of Americans now have NO retirement savings because they can’t, or won’t save responsibly. The 401k program is the largest scam to ever be perpetuated onto the American Worker!
 
TIME on retirement deficiencies.
 
USA TODAY on retirement deficencies

 

[WeAAsles]

Since the advent of the 401k, and demise of the defined pension plans... Americans have steadily lost ground on retirement savings. A THIRD of Americans now have NO retirement savings because they can’t, or won’t save responsibly. The 401k program is the largest scam to ever be perpetuated onto the American Worker!
 
TIME on retirement deficiencies.

True but even Pensions are tied into market performance and is and has been the case the law allows for dramatic underfunding of those assets in many areas. Basically companies and local governments have been allowed to borrow from those assets. And putting your money in a savings account still won't provide the return that beats the market ultimately IMO.

What would be your solution or choice Roa?