Big Airlines: Not Much Runway Left
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
Spindoc writes:
You seem envious of corporate executives. Let me remind you
CAV REPLIES:
There is a BIG difference between earning and stealing. What the corporate raiders did to OUR company because they could in the name of the all mighty MBA is immoral, taking millions and millions with them as the ship sinks, and they did this with the BOD's blessings.
I could write a book, but the short and long is life is not fair no matter at what station one happens to be in, this I agree with you on. But to believe unions are not necessary is plain ignorance of the realities of the injustice going on all around you.
Spindoc replies:
Fairness is a word that was made up by the union
CAV REPLIES:
No I don't buy that shovel full of crap! Fairness is letting the working man survive without hardships while the corporate elitist live as kings. The gap is so wide anyone that can think rationally can see the glaring difference and know by instinct that is just NOT fair.
Spindoc replies:
I have been in both management and union positions since graduating from
college in 1989.
CAV REPLIES:
And so have I and unlike you I can see where without unions we would all be like the Chinese working for pennies an hour and begging for food while the elitists live as Gods.
In 1989 you say, you are just a kid and so far have not hit some of life’s very rough turbulence but when you do your views will change, if not sooner they will before you die this I am sure of.
I must get some of life’s chores accomplished and will not be able to provide further responses, just so you know I am not just here, but willing and very able to debate this kind of thing as I have lived life enough to know the score, and it's rigged.
Bob it's scary because you are making "some" sense.
Bob wrote:
"what value can organized labor provide in a rapidly global zing economy and high technology workforce?"
CAV REPLY:
To keep it from growing even worse than it currently is maybe?
I mean, what would you have us do? Lay down and give up and submit, hence die a slow death?
Bob wrote:
“unions were started when factories employed large numbers of relatively uneducated and often foreign workers who had little if any economic leverage. Those types of jobs and the workforce to fill them has shrunk dramatically due to automation & jobs going overseas to a workforce that is priced to the skill setâ€
CAV REPLY:
I can show you many shops that require skills that not everyone is capable of, one must know complex mathematics and understand properties of materials and basic physics. Some of these shops that HAVE unions pay less than $12.00. Now imagine what a non-union environment would produce! I will tell you, NON-LIVEABLE WAGES where one is better off on welfare and why they are.
Bob wrote:
Large traditional unions have changed little in their approach to management and as a result we see 1,000's of union jobs lost yearly as union membership in the private sector slips to a mere 8%.
As union membership ages they have focused more and more on pension, seniority and job security issues instead of making themselves attractive to younger workers who also tend to be more educated and far less inclined to buy into the 40 years and a pension point of view that make up the bulk of current union workers.
Unions also tend to be inflexible in an economy that requires more and more flexibility for companies to compete in the global market. The concept of unionized and collective bargaining is sound, the delivery of the concept is failing, supported by the falling numbers of private sector unions.
Profit Sharing, 401K, work at home are all avenues to pursue for unions to maintain and gain members. The only constant in business is change. And Capitalism by it's very nature is NEVER fair.
CAV REPLY:
I will start with the last remark first. I agree Capitalism is not fair, but it was never meant to make exploitation the norm and acceptable practice is has become.
Unions are losing membership for more reasons than just lack of management changes. We have the rich and powerful who make the rules, they are the ones making a global economy a reality, a reality where Americans will see their standard of living driven into the ground while the rest of the civilized world is lifted out of poverty. Flexibility you say: Hell you say! How much more flexible can we become given what has been taken from us and they want more and more and this is not to even mention the numbers of people that are now jobless.
It’s real easy to tell people to get an education when some don’t process the mental felicities or their life’s circumstances of personal responsibly makes that am impossibility. Not everyone can become a MBA, we need Indians as well as chiefs to make the world go around. Trouble is the chiefs are exploiting the uneducated taking advantage of a bad situation with the blessings of a government who looks upon the working class with distain with the passing of laws that give business all the breaks and no breaks coming to the working class. Like Regan-nomics as they called it, the trickle down effect they called it, when in reality the little guy was feeding off the crumbs and discards of the wealthy.
I am not complaining one little bit, most people couldn’t walk in my shoes. I am just pointing out facts and realities where checks and balances are absolutely needed and even then it’s still rigged and slanted towards the wealthy, it has always been this way and always will be. The people calling for the end of unionism don’t know what life is really about or haven’t faced tough times. They were born of privilege or had good heath and brains and earned an education making their life a little easier. To that I say GOOD for them, but they had better stop and count their blessings and remember the guy who struggles to survive because but for the grace of GOD that could become even the wealthy man's reality of daily struggles.
Bob wrote:
"what value can organized labor provide in a rapidly global zing economy and high technology workforce?"
CAV REPLY:
To keep it from growing even worse than it currently is maybe?
I mean, what would you have us do? Lay down and give up and submit, hence die a slow death?
Bob wrote:
“unions were started when factories employed large numbers of relatively uneducated and often foreign workers who had little if any economic leverage. Those types of jobs and the workforce to fill them has shrunk dramatically due to automation & jobs going overseas to a workforce that is priced to the skill setâ€
CAV REPLY:
I can show you many shops that require skills that not everyone is capable of, one must know complex mathematics and understand properties of materials and basic physics. Some of these shops that HAVE unions pay less than $12.00. Now imagine what a non-union environment would produce! I will tell you, NON-LIVEABLE WAGES where one is better off on welfare and why they are.
Bob wrote:
Large traditional unions have changed little in their approach to management and as a result we see 1,000's of union jobs lost yearly as union membership in the private sector slips to a mere 8%.
As union membership ages they have focused more and more on pension, seniority and job security issues instead of making themselves attractive to younger workers who also tend to be more educated and far less inclined to buy into the 40 years and a pension point of view that make up the bulk of current union workers.
Unions also tend to be inflexible in an economy that requires more and more flexibility for companies to compete in the global market. The concept of unionized and collective bargaining is sound, the delivery of the concept is failing, supported by the falling numbers of private sector unions.
Profit Sharing, 401K, work at home are all avenues to pursue for unions to maintain and gain members. The only constant in business is change. And Capitalism by it's very nature is NEVER fair.
CAV REPLY:
I will start with the last remark first. I agree Capitalism is not fair, but it was never meant to make exploitation the norm and acceptable practice is has become.
Unions are losing membership for more reasons than just lack of management changes. We have the rich and powerful who make the rules, they are the ones making a global economy a reality, a reality where Americans will see their standard of living driven into the ground while the rest of the civilized world is lifted out of poverty. Flexibility you say: Hell you say! How much more flexible can we become given what has been taken from us and they want more and more and this is not to even mention the numbers of people that are now jobless.
It’s real easy to tell people to get an education when some don’t process the mental felicities or their life’s circumstances of personal responsibly makes that am impossibility. Not everyone can become a MBA, we need Indians as well as chiefs to make the world go around. Trouble is the chiefs are exploiting the uneducated taking advantage of a bad situation with the blessings of a government who looks upon the working class with distain with the passing of laws that give business all the breaks and no breaks coming to the working class. Like Regan-nomics as they called it, the trickle down effect they called it, when in reality the little guy was feeding off the crumbs and discards of the wealthy.
I am not complaining one little bit, most people couldn’t walk in my shoes. I am just pointing out facts and realities where checks and balances are absolutely needed and even then it’s still rigged and slanted towards the wealthy, it has always been this way and always will be. The people calling for the end of unionism don’t know what life is really about or haven’t faced tough times. They were born of privilege or had good heath and brains and earned an education making their life a little easier. To that I say GOOD for them, but they had better stop and count their blessings and remember the guy who struggles to survive because but for the grace of GOD that could become even the wealthy man's reality of daily struggles.
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #97
I firmly believe those who spend their time voicing their displeasure with the company on this message board and are in denial regarding realities of the marketplace, are the people without job options.
If they had options and US Airways is such a miserable place to work, then why not leave the company? Why? It's their best option to remain at the company.
What is going to be interesting is to see what happens to any union who does not voluntarily participate in the new business plan in bankruptcy court. The company could seek deeper cuts in bankruptcy, which would make the airline more profitable going forward. Thus, it makes sense from an economic perspective for the company to seek deeper cuts in this rapidly changing industry.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
If they had options and US Airways is such a miserable place to work, then why not leave the company? Why? It's their best option to remain at the company.
What is going to be interesting is to see what happens to any union who does not voluntarily participate in the new business plan in bankruptcy court. The company could seek deeper cuts in bankruptcy, which would make the airline more profitable going forward. Thus, it makes sense from an economic perspective for the company to seek deeper cuts in this rapidly changing industry.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
Dilligas
Veteran
When the dust clears, the destructive attitude and callous disregard for the people who built the franchise (exhibited by the tactics and behavior of the individual you cited) will be the overwhelming reason for the ruin of US Airways.PineyBob said:
PS: Wow...now that Piney Bob is calling for his head I bet he's really nervous.
- Banned
- #99
The IAM gave the company numerous ways to accomplish the airbus work inhouse, it was IGNORED.
The IAM gave the company $100 Million in Cost savings it was IGNORED.
During round one the IAM came up with better and cheaper medical insurance only to get screwed by ALPA as they signed off on medical after the IAM asked them to wait so the IAM could present the better and cheaper insurance.
This company is hell bent on destroying its employees and turning it into another ValuJet and we all know what happened to them!
The IAM gave the company $100 Million in Cost savings it was IGNORED.
During round one the IAM came up with better and cheaper medical insurance only to get screwed by ALPA as they signed off on medical after the IAM asked them to wait so the IAM could present the better and cheaper insurance.
This company is hell bent on destroying its employees and turning it into another ValuJet and we all know what happened to them!
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
What doesn't make sense are your messages and your constant failure to defend them. Ok I will give you the second one because you can't defend what is defenseless.USA320Pilot said:
I firmly believe the "then just quit" crowd who spend their time voicing their willingness to give and give to USAirways on this message board have been brainwashed that there is no life after USAirways and are people without job options.
If they had options that were better then USAirways then why not leave the company? Why? It's their best option to remain at the company and try to convince all the "just say no" crowd to change their vote and save the scared puppies jobs (In their own minds).
What is going to be interesting is to see what happens to any union who does voluntarily participate in the new business plan. How much will the company ask the next time? The company could seek deeper cuts a forth time because they still have not fixed the real problem within the company and insist on blaming the employees for all their woes. So the airline loses more and more money going forward. Thus, it makes sense from an economic perspective for the company to seek deeper cuts because they are still broken..
Dilligas
Veteran
Hmm, I didn't see that COB. But obviously no airline experience is required. Must be an entry level job.mweiss said:
PS.... Someone tell me how you folks do those multiple quote thingys in one post... thank you.
FIRST Bob, it's NOT "WE" as you are NOT an employee but it sure makes it sound like you have a big stake in our fate, strange as that is.PineyBob said:
I have to agree with the WE HAVE A CONTRACT crowd, because we do. If we simply disregard that fact then the union becomes moot and management would act accordingly. The contracts do not say: Until there are tough times then the contracts become null and void.
The IAM for one DID make money saving suggestions only to be totally ignored.
The people saying if only the unions, to that I say if only management managed.
TO THE GOOD CAPTAIN: Believe what you may it’s obvious that your narrow minded thought process will not be altered likewise the posters such as myself on this board will NOT see clear to agree with your never ending posts of SUBMIT or the JUDGE will kill us. I say let the judge come, bring him on I and many others are more than ready to face whatever lies around the corner. What you need to do captain is simply accept that fact and stop wasting bandwidth preaching out of both sides of your mouth.
Change is good thing captain and I promise, it won’t hurt.
Air conditioned
Advanced
- Mar 18, 2004
- 216
- 0
Piney Bob,PineyBob said:
From what I understand you are not even an airline employee.
You certainly do get fired up about all of the happenings at U!
A sandbag wall only keeps the water out if the wall covers all possible points of entry. Otherwise, it's just a wall surrounded by water.cavalier said:
Sounds to me like there are too many people wanting to do the work, relative to the demand for such people.
In a sense, it was. That was supposed to be the point of such regulatory bodies as OSHA and the FDA.
In the short run, certainly. Not in the long run. Incidentally, did it ever occur to you that the argument that the jobs should stay in this country is much the same as the argument that the wealthy should keep the money in their families? Shouldn't families in India and China have "livable" wages, too? Just because their version of livable involves a lower number than yours isn't a reason to deny them.
Of course. But it's scarcity that creates value. If you have too many Indians (of either type), you have low wages for them because there's a greater supply than demand. The same applies to MBAs, incidentally; the value of an MBA has diminished significantly over the past decade. Now it's much more important where you got an MBA than simply whether you got an MBA.
In a sense, yes. But sometimes that's done as a defensive measure rather than an offensive one. If you don't do it, your competitor does and you and all of your employees are out of work. And, in the end, the result to the industry remains the same.
Yes, they are. But they have to be airtight or they are completely ineffective. The checks and balances of the United States government work most of the time because there is no competing government. By design, it's a monopoly. Those are airtight if they're regulated as mandatory monopolies.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #105
USAirways is a classic case of how to fail in change management. The changes US is asking its employees to make is monumental but is insurmountable when the company has "violated" some of the basic principles of change management including making everyone involved part of the change process, having a clear vision of what the organization is to be at the conclusion of the change process, and clearly communicating througout the process - among others. No organization has ever made changes of the magnitude US is asking and ended up succeeding.
I would simply like to ask those who do not believe its time to shut the door to tell me how they propose US should become a viable, ongoing enterprise, keeping in mind the cultural mandates for change which have been ignored time and time again.
I would simply like to ask those who do not believe its time to shut the door to tell me how they propose US should become a viable, ongoing enterprise, keeping in mind the cultural mandates for change which have been ignored time and time again.
