Harry Callahan
Veteran
USA320Pilot
You really get off on this crap dont you ? Your turn will come.
You really get off on this crap dont you ? Your turn will come.
F/a's Receive Company Counterproposal
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
USA320Pilot said:
This from an article on the FA negotiations. I would say this has much more to do with booking away than a strike vote that is months away from happening IF it happens.
"Officials at the Arlington-based airline say they may liquidate the carrier if they don't get the cost savings."
If CCY is so good at spinning things, why arent they calming the publics fears about a strike that is months off if at all? Why do THEY keep throwing this little line around for everyone to see? We all know that CCY isnt to blame for any of this mess so its no surprise they'd pile it on our backs as well.
Saw a sign the other day at a vets office that fits this scenario well.
"Prevent foot in mouth disease. Keep your mouth SHUT!"
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #63
"What is your point, I think that it is very reasonable to ask for such. "
I thought I made that in my original post - maybe you missed it...
"CWA's grandstanding stunt with the Strike Vote, heck ya they should "pay mire" as a result of the decreased bookings."
And I suppose they should "pay mire [sic] for Bronner's talk of liquidation? Or various analysts that discuss our prospects?
"I also fail to see where the judge is going to feel sorry for the IAM having to pay for the increased costs when they refused to negoiate prior to bankruptcy."
I never said that the judge should "feel sorry" for anyone. I merely pointed out the descrepency between what the company told the judge they wanted and what the company is actually seeking.
"It is not like the company has not been building a case for sometime now, to show the Judge that they warned the unions what would happen."
Agreed, as long as you mean the case that our labor costs are higher than the LCC competition and that 1113c would happen if agreements couldn't be reached. On the other hand, show me the "case" that the company has been building to convince the judge that labor costs lower than the LCC's are necessary.
"Are you happy paying that extra couple of precent of your salary just so the RC4 can get some of their legal exposure covered by the company...? Just curious."
Talk about a strawman. If this were the case, I'm just curious how you view the GAG's negotiating 100% of their legal exposure covered by the company for termination of the DB pension without a vote.
"This is simple negotiations, but you need to realize that this is the "perfect storm" of conditions where the company can take a position and offer little flexibility, and still show "good faith". It is called Bankruptcy, and it is called looming Liquidation."
Good faith - that would mean leveling with the unions (and judge) and saying up front that the amount of concessions depends on factors other than "competitive labor costs".
"W survive only by what cash we have on hand, so management can easily show that they need an increased ask when stunts like the CWA pulled cost them $$$. They can easily show the increased costs of survival in BK, because it is not BS, it is real..."
Then let them make the case that they want cut employee pay/benefits enough to offset these factors. Somehow, I don't think that is the case they will attempt to make.
"The closer we get to the edge, the more it will take to pull back, the more momentum we have towards liquidation, the more effort (and concessions) it will take to reverse course."
Assuming the course is reversible, naturally. Again, let the company make that case before the judge, but I don't think they will.
"That is just a simple physical principal Jim applied to our economic condition. If labor wants to #### about not being able to "accept" the deal that was ofered a long time back, then they have no one to blame but themselves."
Interesting choice of words, that "physical principal" you mentioned. You mean like Newton's three laws of motion? Perhaps the most applicable is the third: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The company pushes the employees and at least some of the employees push back.
I know you're lusting on the left seat of that shiny new Emb-190 in what - a year, a year and a half, two years if everything works out. That'll make the "sacrifice" you made leaving the left seat of the Dash to go to right seat at MDA worth it, won't it. Especially if someone else is making the real sacrifices needed to make it possible.....
Jim
I thought I made that in my original post - maybe you missed it...
"CWA's grandstanding stunt with the Strike Vote, heck ya they should "pay mire" as a result of the decreased bookings."
And I suppose they should "pay mire [sic] for Bronner's talk of liquidation? Or various analysts that discuss our prospects?
"I also fail to see where the judge is going to feel sorry for the IAM having to pay for the increased costs when they refused to negoiate prior to bankruptcy."
I never said that the judge should "feel sorry" for anyone. I merely pointed out the descrepency between what the company told the judge they wanted and what the company is actually seeking.
"It is not like the company has not been building a case for sometime now, to show the Judge that they warned the unions what would happen."
Agreed, as long as you mean the case that our labor costs are higher than the LCC competition and that 1113c would happen if agreements couldn't be reached. On the other hand, show me the "case" that the company has been building to convince the judge that labor costs lower than the LCC's are necessary.
"Are you happy paying that extra couple of precent of your salary just so the RC4 can get some of their legal exposure covered by the company...? Just curious."
Talk about a strawman. If this were the case, I'm just curious how you view the GAG's negotiating 100% of their legal exposure covered by the company for termination of the DB pension without a vote.
"This is simple negotiations, but you need to realize that this is the "perfect storm" of conditions where the company can take a position and offer little flexibility, and still show "good faith". It is called Bankruptcy, and it is called looming Liquidation."
Good faith - that would mean leveling with the unions (and judge) and saying up front that the amount of concessions depends on factors other than "competitive labor costs".
"W survive only by what cash we have on hand, so management can easily show that they need an increased ask when stunts like the CWA pulled cost them $$$. They can easily show the increased costs of survival in BK, because it is not BS, it is real..."
Then let them make the case that they want cut employee pay/benefits enough to offset these factors. Somehow, I don't think that is the case they will attempt to make.
"The closer we get to the edge, the more it will take to pull back, the more momentum we have towards liquidation, the more effort (and concessions) it will take to reverse course."
Assuming the course is reversible, naturally. Again, let the company make that case before the judge, but I don't think they will.
"That is just a simple physical principal Jim applied to our economic condition. If labor wants to #### about not being able to "accept" the deal that was ofered a long time back, then they have no one to blame but themselves."
Interesting choice of words, that "physical principal" you mentioned. You mean like Newton's three laws of motion? Perhaps the most applicable is the third: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The company pushes the employees and at least some of the employees push back.
I know you're lusting on the left seat of that shiny new Emb-190 in what - a year, a year and a half, two years if everything works out. That'll make the "sacrifice" you made leaving the left seat of the Dash to go to right seat at MDA worth it, won't it. Especially if someone else is making the real sacrifices needed to make it possible.....
Jim
BoeingBoy said:
Just curious how the company would be able to prove that the CWA strike vote has hurt bookings while the guy in charge is threatening liquidation (months before any talk of a CWA vote) hasnt? And he hasnt just mentioned it once, but many times. How would you decide what percentage of "booking away" is cause by each and how many people just dont want to fly this year? Are we going to poll the people who flew on us last year and ask why they didnt book on us this year?
(Nevermind the fact that we've cut more cities and services, added fees and charges and continue to think that wont affect bookings as well.)
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #65
Labor professors interviewed Wednesday, though, were unsure if a (US Airways CWA) strike would be legal.
It typically takes years of impasse before a strike occurs, said Neil Bernstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis and a labor arbitrator. Federal law prescribes a lengthy schedule of requirements, from negotiations to mediation to a 30-day cooling-off period before unions can strike.
And even if the union were to strike, the airline would likely ask for an immediate court injunction to force them back to work, said Clyde Summers, a University of Pennsylvania law professor. "Courts are not very sympathetic to unions these days, to say the least," said Summers, who has testified before Congress on the Railway Labor Act.
Complete Story
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
It typically takes years of impasse before a strike occurs, said Neil Bernstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis and a labor arbitrator. Federal law prescribes a lengthy schedule of requirements, from negotiations to mediation to a 30-day cooling-off period before unions can strike.
And even if the union were to strike, the airline would likely ask for an immediate court injunction to force them back to work, said Clyde Summers, a University of Pennsylvania law professor. "Courts are not very sympathetic to unions these days, to say the least," said Summers, who has testified before Congress on the Railway Labor Act.
Complete Story
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
Tadjr, if that is the case, then rock and roll amigo...
If you can start over with better (or could reach better), then go for it.
But, that "possibility" does not pay for food, nor rent. And it only makes sense to keep this place afloat, until you can leave for something better (rather than seeing it fail).
Like I said, the proposals I have seen for all but Utility are a better deal whan Unemployment offers. Plus I can tell you from experience that it is easier to get a job while working than it is with the stigma of unemployment/desparation/reputation affecting your chances.
What I see is many people that you claim "could find better", making the tough choice to stay and work at "Mainline Express", Express, or Midatlantic because the "possibility" of new employment is more elusive than they thought, or the tradeoffs of changing jobs outweighs the reasons for staying.
Ready to move...? That might be a very real consideration.
It makes little sense to "shoot the horse" and force yourself to walk, just because it has become slower than it used to be. (Geeze, that sounded awful Dr. Phil-ish)
Reality is what people need to deal with, not possibilities. If your skills can gain or regain the pay/lifestyle you have become accustomed to elsewhere, then you are very smart to move on. But few on here can argue that finding and obtaining such is an easier task if US Airways folds.
If you can start over with better (or could reach better), then go for it.
But, that "possibility" does not pay for food, nor rent. And it only makes sense to keep this place afloat, until you can leave for something better (rather than seeing it fail).
Like I said, the proposals I have seen for all but Utility are a better deal whan Unemployment offers. Plus I can tell you from experience that it is easier to get a job while working than it is with the stigma of unemployment/desparation/reputation affecting your chances.
What I see is many people that you claim "could find better", making the tough choice to stay and work at "Mainline Express", Express, or Midatlantic because the "possibility" of new employment is more elusive than they thought, or the tradeoffs of changing jobs outweighs the reasons for staying.
Ready to move...? That might be a very real consideration.
It makes little sense to "shoot the horse" and force yourself to walk, just because it has become slower than it used to be. (Geeze, that sounded awful Dr. Phil-ish)
Reality is what people need to deal with, not possibilities. If your skills can gain or regain the pay/lifestyle you have become accustomed to elsewhere, then you are very smart to move on. But few on here can argue that finding and obtaining such is an easier task if US Airways folds.
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #67
New offer for (F/A) union
US Airways has told leaders of its flight attendants union that it needs $150 million in labor concessions, including termination of the flight attendants' pension plan, union leaders said.The airline gave the union a new proposed contract Tuesday that union leaders say closely resembles an earlier proposal. Both call for 15 percent pay cuts, reductions in benefits and fewer job protections. US Airways had initially asked flight attendants for $116 million in cost-cutting this summer, the union said.
US Airways' proposal is probably unacceptable to a majority of flight attendants, said Charlotte union leader Mike Flores. The union will probably submit a counterproposal by the end of the week, he said.
Complete Story
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
P.S. This topic was created to discuss the AFA contract proposal(s) versus other union issues. Could we return it to the AFA situation? Thanks.
US Airways has told leaders of its flight attendants union that it needs $150 million in labor concessions, including termination of the flight attendants' pension plan, union leaders said.The airline gave the union a new proposed contract Tuesday that union leaders say closely resembles an earlier proposal. Both call for 15 percent pay cuts, reductions in benefits and fewer job protections. US Airways had initially asked flight attendants for $116 million in cost-cutting this summer, the union said.
US Airways' proposal is probably unacceptable to a majority of flight attendants, said Charlotte union leader Mike Flores. The union will probably submit a counterproposal by the end of the week, he said.
Complete Story
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
P.S. This topic was created to discuss the AFA contract proposal(s) versus other union issues. Could we return it to the AFA situation? Thanks.
jimntx
Veteran
To Pitbull, 700UW, et al.
It just occurred to me that the reason the ALPO members are trying to convince all of you to rollover and take it without Vaseline is...
If you stand up to the company and force them to bargain in good faith, you may actually get a better deal than they did. I think they would rather see the company fail than that happen.
Unless the judge is totally corrupt, I don't think that the company will be able to say they bargained in good faith if all they did was keep sending the same offer back time after time and ignoring any offers from the union.
Hang in there, guys.
It just occurred to me that the reason the ALPO members are trying to convince all of you to rollover and take it without Vaseline is...
If you stand up to the company and force them to bargain in good faith, you may actually get a better deal than they did. I think they would rather see the company fail than that happen.
Unless the judge is totally corrupt, I don't think that the company will be able to say they bargained in good faith if all they did was keep sending the same offer back time after time and ignoring any offers from the union.
Hang in there, guys.
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #70
The judge's primary responsibility is to the creditors, who are requiring the changes to union contracts. The longer a union waits to reach a TA the worse the deal will be.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #71
jimntx said:To Pitbull, 700UW, et al.
If you stand up to the company and force them to bargain in good faith, you may actually get a better deal than they did. I think they would rather see the company fail than that happen.
[post="197954"][/post]
jimntx,
I certainly wouldn't discount that. Egg on the face because all the predictions of "agree or feel more pain" proved wrong wouldn't be pleasent, I'm sure.
But I wouldn't discount the fear that another labor group's intransigence could result in liquidation and loss of the job that some have been so willing to bend over and take it to preserve could be a major factor.
Jim
- Banned
- #72
USA320Pilot said:
What you are talking about with a 30 day cooling off period is section 6 negotiations, no union is in section 6 negotiations with US Airways.
Keep trying, once again I told you that once a contract is abrogated a new one is not put in place, the company puts in place a policy which they can change at anytime and the employees are free not to work under those terms.
An employee at will cannot be forced to work for a company, slavery was outlawed under Abe Lincoln.
Damn Straight.
I have been very uprfront in regards to my reasons for, and views upon this situation.
If this sucker survives, there will be growth and gains for all those that endured, far and above what we all would get if it collapses.
What is so sinister about that...?
You think I should feel bad about taking the seat vacated by a pilot senior to me, returning to the Airbuses...? Umm, do not hold your breath on that one.
I feel no sorrow towards someone that has sacrificed less than I have already, unwilling to do what is necessary to keep this place afloat. I gave up 40% plus of my pay and work rules so far, so I yeah I can sleep at night when others are asked to do the same.
Not quite sure how my sacrifice is any less "real" than anyone elses Jim. Just because I "might" see something for it in the future is only contingent upon the rest of the company surviving and succeeding as well.
Making ends meet with a house payment and new baby on my 36K gives me the moral authority to expect the same or less from those around me, if that is what it takes to make this all work. The exit door is still open to those who feel no need to do so themselves.
I play the cards I am dealt with Jim, that is the way the "game of life" goes.
Do you realize who your audience is? A lot of beat up and badly bruised employees who are being told they need to take a few more kicks in the teeth, the head and square in the face for their own good....give these individuals some credit for saying enough is enough and whatever happens, happens. You are so right, it IS the game of life. That game has more than one player involved, different views and beliefs.Rico said:
