Glading's Delusions

[KCKKen]

The humor in this thread is that every posting management defender complaining about employee demands for better pay and benefits are NOT the employees who have worked under concessions for 9 years while management has lined their pockets are our expense. They don't even have a DOG in the negotiations fight. They are more like hired guns to monitor the boards and tow the company line. Even seems often the idea is to post information to troll for a response.

My thoughts exactly! What you have here are two classes of people that need to be IGNORED:
1) The management defender -- their sole purpose is to poke the animal in the cage to see what response they get. You're right, they don't have a dog in this fight, and it's really none of their (text excised) business -- but they can't help but stir the pot. If I were in your shoes (used to be) I'd simply dismiss their posts as worthless. They could care less about you and lack the spine to admit it. As long as their first-class ticket is no more than a Greyhound ticket everything's cool.

2) The "we can't afford to ask for anything/you're lucky to have a job" crowd. They sit quivering in the corner and pee on the floor like a Chihuahua in a Pit Bull's pen. They long ago lost their pair and the sack they were in, now they're afraid to stick their neck out and actually demand that they be treated with dignity by the arrogant leadership of this company.

It's true, your so-called "unions" (specifically the TWU) need to held accountable for their part in this debacle. After all, why in God's name didn't anyone demand verifiable and court-enforceable "shared sacrifices" from management as well as a set-in-stone "snap back" provision in the 2003 pitiful excuse for a contract?

Even though I also no longer have a dog in this fight I wish you the best -- I'll be joining another union once my new job's probation period's over and still believe union's are needed to protect worker's rights.

 

[Bob Owens]

My thoughts exactly! What you have here are two classes of people that need to be IGNORED:
1) The management defender -- their sole purpose is to poke the animal in the cage to see what response they get. You're right, they don't have a dog in this fight, and it's really none of their (text excised) business -- but they can't help but stir the pot. If I were in your shoes (used to be) I'd simply dismiss their posts as worthless. They could care less about you and lack the spine to admit it. As long as their first-class ticket is no more than a Greyhound ticket everything's cool.

2) The "we can't afford to ask for anything/you're lucky to have a job" crowd. They sit quivering in the corner and pee on the floor like a Chihuahua in a Pit Bull's pen. They long ago lost their pair and the sack they were in, now they're afraid to stick their neck out and actually demand that they be treated with dignity by the arrogant leadership of this company.

It's true, your so-called "unions" (specifically the TWU) need to held accountable for their part in this debacle. After all, why in God's name didn't anyone demand verifiable and court-enforceable "shared sacrifices" from management as well as a set-in-stone "snap back" provision in the 2003 pitiful excuse for a contract?

Even though I also no longer have a dog in this fight I wish you the best -- I'll be joining another union once my new job's probation period's over and still believe union's are needed to protect worker's rights.

Thanks KC, even though I suspect you miss working on the big birds you are proof to all that there is life after the airlines and we dont need to heed their threats.

 

[KCKKen]

Thanks KC, even though I suspect you miss working on the big birds you are proof to all that there is life after the airlines and we dont need to heed their threats.

Bob,

Still work on "heavies", they're just all painted low-visibility gray Got to enjoy Thanksgiving, my birthday, Christmas, wife's birthday, and New Year's on the flight line at LTAG with my souped-up 707's.

Nothing like watching a C-5 take on fuel at 20,000 feet

 

[FWAAA]

Isnt that pretty much what you do when you buy stock?

Except there's one big difference. When I buy stock on the hopes of improving prospects, it involves a gamble of my money that the company's finances actually do improve. If things don't get better or get worse, then I might lose, and lose big.

Employees demanding "restore and more" now want a guaranteed return now and for the next several years, regardless of how things actually turn out - they don't want to accept any risk that things don't turn out so well. I doubt the APFA is willing to accept contingent raises, that is, where they get a big payoff only if the rosy projections actually happen.

 

[Bob Owens]

Except there's one big difference. When I buy stock on the hopes of improving prospects, it involves a gamble of my money that the company's finances actually do improve. If things don't get better or get worse, then I might lose, and lose big.

Employees demanding "restore and more" now want a guaranteed return now and for the next several years, regardless of how things actually turn out - they don't want to accept any risk that things don't turn out so well. I doubt the APFA is willing to accept contingent raises, that is, where they get a big payoff only if the rosy projections actually happen.

The big difference is that what you have at risk is surplus wealth, you want to make money off your money, these people have their livelyhoods at risk and are putting their lives into the mix. If things dont get better you lose money that you didnt need, they lose their jobs.

 

[FWAAA]

The big difference is that what you have at risk is surplus wealth, you want to make money off your money, these people have their livelyhoods at risk and are putting their lives into the mix. If things dont get better you lose money that you didnt need, they lose their jobs.

Your "surplus wealth" is someone else's "retirement savings."

And no, the FAs want guaranteed raises even if things don't get better - things have to get significantly worse before they "lose their jobs."

 

[jersey777]

I liked the suggestion that someone else made at one point...

We make the offer to accept the company's offer on pay and work rules for another 3-5 years. In return, it would be written into the contract that there would be

1. No raises at any level of management from Flight Service Manager up to and including Arpey for the duration of the contract.
2. No raises for non-management employees working in management departments for the duration of the contract.
3. No bonusses for any level of management up to and including Arpey for the duration of the contract.

Duration of the contract under RLA means until a new contract is ratified--not just the non-amendable period.

They are serious about the need for no raises in order for the company to recover financially? Fine, but let's make it no raises for anybody, period. Let them find out how it feels to go to the grocery store and find that inflation has given you yet another paycut.

If violations of those 3 rules are discovered, particularly #3, immediate and retroactive 15% pay raise for all flight attendants.

Ya think they might go for that?






Jim,

Congratulations for making one of the most articulate and rational points regarding the idea of no pay raises for the next 4 years!

 

[Bob Owens]

Your "surplus wealth" is someone else's "retirement savings."

And no, the FAs want guaranteed raises even if things don't get better - things have to get significantly worse before they "lose their jobs."

Either way its surpluss wealth, most of us are going into debt every year because our wages have been cut so much while people like you are taking your surpluss wealth and investing it telling us basically that we should put our interests aside, sell our labor for less, so you can make money off your money.

 

[Skymess]

Of course we all know that AA Management never uses economic, industry, or company outlook forecast when making their statements or decisions in negotiations or the media.

They do when it's convenient for them. Remember when they wanted to follow Southwest's business model and keep us in line with them? Forget the fact that their business model has never been even close to ours to begin with. They just wanted the labor costs. Now they are the highest paid in the industry so AA management has stopped using them as the benchmark for cost comparison.

 

[Hopeful]

I agree....the bottom line is that AA wants to compete on business models and work rules but not on wages.
They want to be number one in that aspect only.

 

[jimntx]

Quote from Jersey777 post (couldn't get the reply feature to work correctly) "Jim,

Congratulations for making one of the most articulate and rational points regarding the idea of no pay raises for the next 4 years!"

Wish I could take full credit, but I actually heard the basic premise from a retired TW flight attendant. (They used to negotiate "me too" clauses and snapback provisions all the time.) I just fleshed out the details.

What I posted really should have been negotiated back in 2003. It may not have gotten us a raise now, but it sure would have put a stop to multimillion dollar bonuses being awarded on the same day we were reporting staggering losses (see also, April 15, 2008).

Though I must admit, it would be fun to make this offer to the company, and then take it to the public, and watch the company squirm as they tried to put negative spin on what is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. Particularly after we dug up the "Pull Together/Win Together" and "Shared Sacrifice" company bs and compared in print what they said to what they did. Thanks to Wall Street, et al, corporation executives are not on anyone's Christmas card list these days.

 

[frontline]

That's right, Bob thinks we should take no risk and get all the upside. If only it worked that way in the real world!

Glading, Hill, Little... I don't know what they are doing or why they can't see that locking in a short term deal now is the way to go. Might not have everything we want, but that is why it is called negotiation. Their numbers go up, ours come down, and we hammer out a deal that no one loves but can work for everyone.

 

[Hopeful]

That's right, Bob thinks we should take no risk and get all the upside. If only it worked that way in the real world!

Glading, Hill, Little... I don't know what they are doing or why they can't see that locking in a short term deal now is the way to go. Might not have everything we want, but that is why it is called negotiation. Their numbers go up, ours come down, and we hammer out a deal that no one loves but can work for everyone.

locking in a short term deal?

Did you even read the company proposal and all the language, frontline? You might as well not have a contract at all for what they want.
You have to be kidding me.

This company will not give you anything more than a pittance regardless of profits.
Keep bending over and taking what they force on you will permanently handicap you.

 

[Bear96]

I liked the suggestion that someone else made at one point...

We make the offer to accept the company's offer on pay and work rules for another 3-5 years. In return, it would be written into the contract that there would be

1. No raises at any level of management from Flight Service Manager up to and including Arpey for the duration of the contract.
2. No raises for non-management employees working in management departments for the duration of the contract.
3. No bonusses for any level of management up to and including Arpey for the duration of the contract.

Duration of the contract under RLA means until a new contract is ratified--not just the non-amendable period.

They are serious about the need for no raises in order for the company to recover financially? Fine, but let's make it no raises for anybody, period.

Does this mean you are willing to give up your guaranteed step / seniority raises for the same time period?

 

[The Goose]

locking in a short term deal?

Did you even read the company proposal and all the language, frontline? You might as well not have a contract at all for what they want.
You have to be kidding me.

This company will not give you anything more than a pittance regardless of profits.
Keep bending over and taking what they force on you will permanently handicap you.

Mr. Hopeful:

Another fellow who posts here refers to "Frontline" as "Flatline" - for good reason, obviously.