Cwa Reverses Position

[USA320Pilot]

CWA'ers to meet June 2 with US Airways management…

See Story

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[ClueByFour]

CWA local presidents and staff will meet with US Airways management on Wednesday, June 2, to hear management's information comparing US Airways' labor costs with Southwest and other carriers.
CWA'ers presented our own US Airways/Southwest passenger service comparison information at our May 17 meeting with CEO Bruce Lakefield and other executives. Click here to review that comparison.
CWA has also given management a request for information and data related to labor costs, productivity issues and staffing plans and we expect to receive a response to that request at the June 2 meeting. We will keep you informed of our meetings with management.

Now, let's take a look at what happened the last time CWA reps met with CCY:

CWA President Morty Bahr, CWA EVP Larry Cohen and CWA US Airways local presidents and CWA staffers met today with US Airways CEO Bruce Lakefield, EVP Operations Al Crellin, Sr. VP Marketing and Planning Ben Baldanza and Sr. VP Employee Relations Jerry Glass. The meeting took place at the CWA Headquarters building in Washington, DC.
Mr. Lakefield reviewed the company's financial circumstances and stated his view that a serious restructuring must take place for the airline to survive, to avoid bankruptcy and to thrive. He restated his view that all groups have to participate and said that he aims to form a partnership with each employee group to develop proposals for each group's participation in a restructuring.
CWA'ers pointed out several areas of concern to passenger service employees regarding concessions at US Airways:

* passenger services' history of drastic cuts beginning in 1992;
* our competitive cost structure compared to Southwest Airlines;
* the disproportionate passenger service job cuts due to automation; and
* the decreased focus on customer service in the airline.

CWA'ers said that, although we haven't heard any concrete proposal from management, it is hard to see what more could reasonably be asked of passenger service, especially considering our extraordinary productivity (which management acknowledged at the meeting).
US Airways executives replied that they fully intended to take into account the different circumstances of the various workgroups as they enter into discussions with each group.
The CWA'ers took the opportunity to protest the increasing lack of focus on service to our customers and the drive to cut agent and rep headcount. Recent examples were cited of inadequate service due to understaffing at PHL, DCA and Res locations.
US Airways Executives returned again the question of seniority and stated that the lower seniority at Southwest and other airlines was an advantage for those carriers over US Airways. CWA'ers replied that when management points to length of service as the problem, they are in fact claiming the employees are a liability. CWA'ers rejected that idea and stated that we will never embrace a solution that reduces employees to new-hire status or involuntarily eliminates them from the company.
Management responded that they do not have a concrete proposal to make about seniority or about concessions in general. They said they would listen to and evaluate anything we had to propose, including buy-out proposals. Both sides agreed to exchange information to make sure we are dealing with the same data.
There were no concession proposals made by the company and no negotiations have been scheduled. We agreed that CWA research economists would meet with company officials and to exchange data.
We'll keep you informed.

Here is comparison of agent costs that demonstrates that US already has lower costs than Southwest. In essence, management will admit that, but whine about the fact that most of the CWA agents are topped out.

Bearing that in mind, to take further cuts (versus the "low cost" carriers that the CWA has already undercut from a cost perspective), further cuts in compensation for the CWA represented groups would be de facto age descrimination. I would personally vote no.

The productivity thing is also a red herring--cross utilization has been possible for years, I'm told, but management rarely if ever chooses to utilize the contractual language it already has.

Finally, it's worth noting that there are many, many customers out there who will take their money elsewhere if forced to talk to a machine when they need an agent or when they are forced to talk to someone with a poor grasp of the US system and/or English. One of the things that US could learn from Southwest (particularly at PHL as I saw with my own eyes a week or so ago) is that the difference between a repeat customer and someone vowing never to fly the airline again is the customer service experience. To screw with this is foolish.

Forget about all of that: in the update prior to this update from the CWA, they refer to the June 2 meeting with management. How is that "resersing their position?" Spin alert, debunking on full.

 

[Tim Nelson]

keeping doors open and listening is a good thing.

regards,

 

[SalesGuyCCY]

One of the assumptions CWA makes in their comparision is that US and WN employees are at the same place in terms of wages. The fact is many more of our employees are at the top of the pay scale so its very hard to compare us to WN, HP, JetBlue, etc.

 

[USFlyer]

One of the assumptions CWA makes in their comparision is that US and WN employees are at the same place in terms of wages. The fact is many more of our employees are at the top of the pay scale so its very hard to compare us to WN, HP, JetBlue, etc.

It's called lying with statistics. Both companies and unions do this in every industry.

 

[tadjr]

One of the assumptions CWA makes in their comparision is that US and WN employees are at the same place in terms of wages. The fact is many more of our employees are at the top of the pay scale so its very hard to compare us to WN, HP, JetBlue, etc.

Just like Dave did with the Jetblue rez agents are happy working for $9 vs $21 comparison. US agents start at ~ $9.50/hr so our newhires are happy making that pay too.

CWA has always said they are willing to talk with management and see what can be done, not that they will agree to do it, but have never said no meeting that I am aware of. I think the title of the thread is VERY MISLEADING , but then again, I shouldnt be surprised.

Also now that our "comparison" carrier WN has offered an early out to its employees, will be interested to see what US chooses to offer so we can be more competitive. Its interesting that no one, company or union, chooses to actually publish what any of the other carriers payscales are (other than WN). I have yet to see a direct year to year comparison for US vs B6 and HP. That would help a lot in being able to decide how accurate everyones numbers are. (We already know that WN is above us on the W2 scale year/year at topout).

 

[chele5]

A320.....just how did CWA REVERSE their position?

We have talked before - talk is cheap.

Our position REMAINS THE SAME.

Simply because CWA has agreed to meet again with management does not mean a thing.

Please stick to the facts.

 

[diogenes]

The productivity thing is also a red herring--cross utilization has been possible for years, I'm told, but management rarely if ever chooses to utilize the contractual language it already has.

CX4,

Absolutely true.

The initial 1999 IAM-Fleet and CWA contracts prescribe 25% cross-ute in all class II operations.

If you remember, I started a thread some months back offering to pay money to anyone who could name a station that routinely scheduled cross-ute.

Every Benjamin is still in my wallet - you'd a thunk some Palace-type would have named one, just to show me up.

The company CONTINUES to pay ot in classification, rather than cross-ute.

Sooooooo, rather than efficiently manage their resources, the Palace would rather have employees subsidize their incompetence. If I follow the ALPA/AFA issue on duty rigs correctly, the gist of it is, current contracts penalize the company if they schedule crews inefficiently. Rather than schedule correctly, the company solution is do away with the penalty.

For you management=good/union=evil types, this is just one reason employees are reluctant to give some more.

 

[Fubijaakr]

It's called lying with statistics. Both companies and unions do this in every industry.

Figures lie, Liars figure.

 

[ClueByFour]

One of the assumptions CWA makes in their comparision is that US and WN employees are at the same place in terms of wages. The fact is many more of our employees are at the top of the pay scale so its very hard to compare us to WN, HP, JetBlue, etc.

So?

They (CCY) wanted sub-LCC scales, and got them.

What they really want is de-facto age discrimination. Or, they don't value experienced employees (which, in the customer service business, is just plain stupid).

 

[Reservation Agent]

A contract is a contract....

If a CWA worker wanted something and it wasn't according to the contract...The company would say..."Sorry... That's not in your contract that your union signed for you! ...." "End of story"....



WE ALREADY GAVE!!! ITS' YOUR TURN!!!

 

[deltawatch]

A320.....just how did CWA REVERSE their position?

We have talked before - talk is cheap.

Our position REMAINS THE SAME.

Simply because CWA has agreed to meet again with management does not mean a thing.

Please stick to the facts.

IV always enjoyed A320's post and thought folks were a little harded on him. But everytime he post something about the CWA, something I keep up with he's totally wrong. Maybe the board is right, maybe he never gets his fact right.

 

[geo1004]

So?

They (CCY) wanted sub-LCC scales, and got them.

Not true. They (CCY) wanted ACTUAL costs to be at LCC levels. Adopting the LCC scale doesn't do that as most of US's labor is at the top of the scale. It's a case of the LCC's labor pool costing less even while, on a scale-only comparison, it looks like they are making more. Cost per employee IS the issue, NOT where one company matches another on a payscale. That comparison ONLY works if both airlines share identical labor pools in terms of seniority.

Watch the spin...

 

[SalesGuyCCY]

Good post geo100!!

 

[wench]

Since the company is ADAMANT about Wn, let them match WN and OFFER A BUYOUT AS THEY ARE PROPOSING>>

YA HEAR THAT CCY?