By agreeing to 15-30% wage cuts instead of taking job losses and preserving pay in 2003, at least one of the unions wound up giving part time pay for full time hours.
Asking members not to pick up overtime that they're legal for is simply trying to continue to preserve jobs for those at the bottom of the list at the expense of everyone elses' quality of life.
Wage reductions never saved anyones job.
In Title I we were threatened with either 25% pay cut or 2500 jobs. They got the paycuts and proceeded with eliminating 3800 jobs, now they want to eliminate another 1300. All our paycuts did was save the TWUs $3.1 million a year and provide bonuses for the executives.
A unions primary job is to get as much money per hour as they can.
Its not the job of the union to create jobs, thats why when there are no layoffs, if the reductions are due to attrition, or if other events create unforseeable temporary increases in workload, its accceptable to work OT, as long as it doesnt strip workers of too much off time.
Once someone is paying dues the union should try to keep those workers in employement, paycuts wont do that but not working more than the standard number of hours will. It makes perfect sense for a union to tell its members that if they volunteer to work OT while the company is laying off workers that they are in fact taking that workers hours and are enabling the company to displace workers.
If the company is claiming these workers are no longer needed then they should not be calling for OT. If they are calling OT it means they dont have enough workers to cover the workload.
By working more hours it allows the company to get rid of more workers. If senior workers are not willing to make such a minor sacrifice then they should not be suprised when junior workers have no respect for their seniority.
Paycuts do not save jobs because layoffs are triggered by workload, paycuts dont affect the workload and I have never, in 28 years in this industry, seen where paycuts triggered more work.