15K to get rid of older workers with max vacation and sick time in the bank. The company made an offer that costs them nothing and allows them to keep cheaper workers.
APA files for declaratory judgment
- Thread starter FWAAA
- Start date
15K to get rid of older workers with max vacation and sick time in the bank. The company made an offer that costs them nothing and allows them to keep cheaper workers.
So instead you would rather take paycuts?
The pilots have a good idea, spread the pain but dont let the company gain from our pain. Given the option of working 25% less at the same rate of pay or getting paid 25% less while working the same amount of hours I would choose to work less, you still have the time and you can sell it somewhere else if you must. If you take care of your junior brothers they are more likely to stand up for you. Junior workers are less likely to break ranks and vote yes for concessions if senior guys look out for them too. The attitude of "I got mine" has been a major cause of the degredation of our standard of living, look around, being top dog on a pile of shyte stinks.
FrequentFlierCA
Veteran
- Feb 25, 2008
- 591
- 35
They sure did. And the early retirees get benefit out of the deal, too. And no one gets laid off. Unless I'm missing something, it looks like "working together" (god forbid) actually yielded a mutually beneficial result.
FrequentFlierCA
Veteran
- Feb 25, 2008
- 591
- 35
Working less for the same pay (less productivity) is not an option the company is going to give you. They are laser-focused on controlling cost and pilots are one of the biggest costs out there. I would expect them to ask for increases in productivity in exchange for concessions on their end. Just my opinion, of course...
jimntx
Veteran
Not really. Not in the case of the flight attendants. A great many of the f/as receiving the WARN letter were former TWA f/as. One of the few things they "got" out of the merger was TW DOH for pay purposes; so, all of them are at Top of Scale. Also among the "nAAtives" who received the WARN letter, there was no one with less than 5 years (and most had 6+) of seniority.
However, Bob, I agree wholeheartedly that unionism is seriously damaged by the attitude that "I earned" the right to forget about junior workers. Why bother with unions at all if the attitude is to be every man for himself?
Airline unions were weakened irreparably the first time one union crossed another union's picket line. The companies have had the upper hand ever since because individual workers don't feel they can count on the support of other unionized workers.
You know what, pal? I'm trying to make ends meet, too. Kids in college, maybe a wedding to pay for, retirement to think about. So tell me again why I should take a pay cut - the very thing we all swore we would not do again after 2003 - to save the job of some kid who will have a much easier time finding other work than this 60-something would.
I may take the VBR and I'll be glad to know someone junior can stay if I do, but that's my individual choice. It's wrong to force everyone to work and earn less just to avoid dealing constructively with the company because you have a vendetta against management.
Pal? Let me tell you some pertinent information also pal...You say these are kids? Hardly! THey too have lives, famlies, weddings, college, and retirement..You need to get over your "Super Seniority" complex and try to working together with your workgroup. Remember, everyone was promised this job. We have all taken sacrafices, and still do to make ends meet...Have you considered a second job? Third job? I have two jobs to make ends meet and would gladly take a third if I have too so my fellow co-workers won't be thrown on the street with NOTHING. Again, your selfishness is shining through right now...You would rather throw someone on the street because you have the "Seniority", and it's your right to do so...Give me a break..Get another job and a heart while you are at it!
Eric
A unions job is not only to honor seniority, but also to preserve members jobs...Seniority plays a key role when it comes to pay, bid/schedule holdings, etc...as well as jobs...The question remains has the union done all to exhaust all options before furlough? Then if that questions is affirmed "Seniority" plays a key role in job protection...Unfortuantely, the poster on the board is refusing to look at any other options for his/her co-workers to preserve their jobs..He/She feels like furlough is the "only" option, and let the junior ones go..BTW...How junior are we talking here? THat is a selfish, and uncaring attitude to take when other unions on AA's property have found ways to preserve jobs while protecting seniority. I can, for the first time since I have been employed at AA, say that my union (APFA) actually looked at all options, and found ways of preserving jobs, and keeping seniority entact to benefit all. So yes it can be done..Unfortunately the poster feels like they are entitled to all without anymore sacrafice. So in that reguard the poster should look for a non-union job where an entity (Union) isn't looking out for a group as a whole.
FrequentFlierCA
Veteran
- Feb 25, 2008
- 591
- 35
Your union did a very good job working with management on a single issue where it saw a common interest and benefit. TWU has apparently done the same, and hopefully that will result is less guys being let go. All that remains to be seen is whether APA is willing to modify their combativeness and strike a deal with the company.
Despite what you try to make it sound like, I'm not out to use my seniority to screw any younger guys. I just want what's mine, and that's a full-time job at a full-time wage. I think the APA's idea to force job sharing is pure idiocy because it's effectively a wage cut. What happened to no more concessions?!
As I said, the APFA situation is different because it's voluntary. APA should go that route instead of trying to force a wage reduction down its members throats.
As I said, the APFA situation is different because it's voluntary. APA should go that route instead of trying to force a wage reduction down its members throats.
So stop whining about it. Again, let me say this. You "Chose" a job that has a union..The union's job is too look out for All of it's members. I can hardly belive your union is going to make everyone work part-time in order to save jobs. If you don't like it then get a new job without a union. Thus, letting your experience, and work ethic dictate the salary you earn. It's a choice you have. So work with the union to find a solution to the problem, that benefits all who are part of the union, or get the h*ll out! It's that simple!
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,940
- 9,371
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.
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.
Its obvious that you dont work in this industry. The fact is that mechanics can be made to work more but they cant be made to produce more. Read Gordon Bethunes book "From Worst to First" and you will hear it from an airline CEO.
