Labor Friendly Management ?

hack73

Advanced
Jan 17, 2003
169
0
If Lakefield is so "labor friendly",why is it that they are trying to ram another round of concessions down our throat,plus layoff more people?This man is the same as Siegle,a puppet on a string being told what to do by Bronner.They know nothing about running an airline.Then the are listening to the idiots who got us into this mess in the first place!I flew into PHL on Sunday nigh around 9:30,when we got on hte ground,the pilot comes on and says that we are number 12 for an open gate.Everyone missed their connections and were screaming at the poor crew.This is the crown jewel of the system?
A word to the wise,start looking for another job,these clowns are going to run this company into the ground.I will vote no for any concessions put in front of our union.Until the cut some of the 26 Vice Presidents out of CCY,I will never consider giving back one more cent.Lakefield is the same as Siegel,a liar!
 
hack73 said:
If Lakefield is so "labor friendly",why is it that they are trying to ram another round of concessions down our throat,plus layoff more people?
The answer is really quite simple. You have equated "labor friendly" with "everyone keeps their jobs and benefits".

The problem is that US does not have the revenue to support the number of people they employ at the current levels of compensation. If US did have the revenue and was profitable they would have no reason to come to labor for cuts.

Page two of the reality is that what could have been done, what should have been done, and what might have been done in the past are all hypotheticals that do not change the current financial plight of the airline. Labor cost cuts to the tune of approx. $800 million and operational efficiencies to the tune of approx. $700 million are what is being sought by management. If they get it, US might survive. If they don't the airline will probably seek a second re-org under BK. Or even worse, all the financing bails and the place gets chopped up and sold in what I will describe as a very sad corporate transaction.
 
So if a person is to be one of the people that will be let go or if they are one that feels that the job is not worth doing for the current or future price then why should that person vote to save your butt. What is in it for them?
 
Hehe Savy....He inspires folks to vote 'no'..........If he only realized....
 
Your absolutely correct. He doesn't realize {at least I hope he doesn't} all the damage and ill will he is creating! Savy :down:
 
CaptBud330,

Your funny. I feel it may be safe to assume by your name that YOU were one of the pilots that scabbed the IAM in 1992. It would be wise for you to ante up more and give enough concessions to cover the Mechanics portion since it appears you are the one that truly needs this place to continue. I will not offset your standard of living. If YOU want this place to work here then you need to give up cash big time 'cause I am not giving a dime. Why? Because I owe you nothing. Matter of fact pal you owe me. Now pay up! If not I am taking you out the door with me and you can not do a damn thing about it. Have a nice day.

--I am out of integrity. I gave it all away last round.
 
CaptBud330 said:
You want a reason? How about INTEGRITY? I was raised to do the right thing, were you?
in·teg·ri·ty (in tegÆri t"), n.
1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.
3. a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship's hull.
[1400–50; late ME integrite < L integrit!s. See INTEGER, -ITY]
—Syn. 1. rectitude, probity, virtue. See honor.
—Ant. 1. dishonesty.

Let's see: This doesn't look like management.

Does it look like a fellow union group who crossed their brothers’ picket lines?

Where is there honor to be found other then ones own mind, because by definition I can't find it.
 
pitguy said:
Your funny. I feel it may be safe to assume by your name that YOU were one of the pilots that scabbed the IAM in 1992.
Refresh my memory...after all the employees took an 11% pay cut in 1992, instead of joining with the rest and taking a cut, why did the IAM go on strike again?

BTW, the stock we all cashed in later was far more than the paycut....
 
Do you think you are going to get enough stock to cover all your loses here and now? I think not!
 
pitguy said:
Do you think you are going to get enough stock to cover all your loses here and now? I think not!
You did not answer this question:

Refresh my memory...after all the employees took an 11% pay cut in 1992, instead of joining with the rest and taking a cut, why did the IAM go on strike again?

BTW, you have no idea how much stock or profit sharing would be worth in the future...did you see the stock today?
 
UseYourHead said:
BTW, you have no idea how much stock or profit sharing would be worth in the future...did you see the stock today?
There is always tomorrow, and 9'11 was a tomorrow.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top