Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WN has line mechanics and someone will always make more than someone else ( not really something I lose sleep over, as some do, trying to compare themselves to pilots).Glenn Quagmire said:Are you that dense?
WN mechanics are making $10 /hr more than you and have layoff protection.
Are The dues worth $20000 per year to WN mechanics?
Btw, they have never had a layoff.
Yes.yoyodyne said:Are you sure about that?
Who's to say it wouldn't? It's a bit early for all that, though.southwind said:1. What makes you think "IF" you get a union your healthcare will go down $100.00, next go 'round!
Do the $9/hr Swissport employees see a similar return on their IAM dues? Air Wisconsim? Hudson General? Hawaiian Part Time Reserve?Kev3188 said:Yes. Who's to say it wouldn't? It's a bit early for all that, though.My example was in response to a poster that claimed union people have less take home pay, and to show that my experience didn't reflect that.
You mean ZW is no longer IAM? News to me, got a link for that? When did HA decertify the IAM? What about Hudson General? The IAM wouldn't walk away from those dues payers with no fight.700UW said:And from reading around I only see Swissport unionized at LAS.
And the unionized ground workers do better than their non-union counterparts.
See he cant stick to the topic of the debate so he has to constantly change the subject.
And in regard to the profit sharing, the FAs are realizing how much they actually lost due to the reduction to 10% and have also realized they funded their own raise.
Regional Carriers dont make wages like mainline, thats a fact in all work groups, Pilots, FAs, Ramp, CSA, and Mechanics.737823 said:You mean ZW is no longer IAM? News to me, got a link for that? When did HA decertify the IAM? What about Hudson General? The IAM wouldn't walk away from those dues payers with no fight.
Josh
Not one? You sure?no, the FAs did not lose anything due to the reduction in the profit sharing percentage.
This is a rather cyncial line of thinking coming from you. I happen to agree with it, but it's interesting nonetheless.DL wasn't going to pay profit sharing to the pilots or any other group at the 15% rate they had paid before. They knew they were entering a period when profits would continue to grow and it was no longer viable to continue to pay profit sharing at the percentage it had been paid before.
Of course you can. That you personally choose not to does not void the premise itself.you can't argue that DL is free to change the terms of employment for non-contract employees and then argue that they lost anything when DL does exactly that.
You can't argue that DL employees are at will and then also accept the larger pay (in this case the total profit sharing) that the company actually provided.
Maybe not this year, but what happens when the industry cycles downward again?If DL reduced profit sharing percentage and then the total profit sharing went down, then there would be a point. But that didn't happen.
Indeed.DL is able to move the pieces of compensation around...