Laura Glading is an unsung hero

[bigjets]

Are you saying that the NO voters DIDN'T get profit sharing, two year deal, and a pay raise better then delta's pay from the arbitrator? Who saw this coming? I'll tell you who saw this coming, the people who live in the real world and voted yes!!!!!!



Hopefully bob will give a long explanation on how the arbitrator was wrong, and how he should have ruled.


It would be interesting to know how Trice (cool name) is still spinning his version of what should have happened, and 5 years from now when the realization of how much money that each FA could have brought home.

 

[Bob Owens]

Sorry Bob, but history has shown again and again, the best, most successful unions are ones that have a good working relationship with management, not an antagonistic one.

Really? What history is that and what do you have to back it up? If you are willing to give and give and give to maintain a good working relationship guess what, that relationship isn't good. 
 
Its easy to have a good working relationship with management when management is willing to pay a fair wage-ie SWA, but when a Union puts having a good relationship with a management team that is the exact opposite of SWA management, ie Doug Parker and his team, you can kiss ass all day long and they are still going to screw you ala "the Farmer and the viper" from Aesop. 
 
The TWU tried such a collaborative effort with management, in return we lost half the headcount, half our pay, our pensions, retiree medical , even petty things like PV days, uniform laundering etc after giving them millions in productivity improvments. 

 

[Bob Owens]

Stockholm syndrome, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

You got it! 

 

[Bob Owens]

Good point, SWA has had great relationship with unions they're a successful company and well paid employees ensuring a bright future, now there will be union people who say we are company sucks, but let's look at how well having an adversarial relationship has worked for us.

First off when has the relationship been adversarial between the TWU and AA? Even the corporate media says we area "docile" union. 
 
 
We now may have an adversarial relationship because they keep demanding more and more concessions with nothing in return. Pay us what SWA gets and I'm more than willing to be as accommodating as they are. I don't seek adversity, I seek fair compensation. 

 

[Thomas Paine]

Are you saying that the NO voters DIDN'T get profit sharing, two year deal, and a pay raise better then delta's pay from the arbitrator? Who saw this coming? I'll tell you who saw this coming, the people who live in the real world and voted yes!!!!!!



Hopefully bob will give a long explanation on how the arbitrator was wrong, and how he should have ruled.


It would be interesting to know how Trice (cool name) is still spinning his version of what should have happened, and 5 years from now when the realization of how much money that each FA could have brought home.

 
 
Hopefully the UAL FAs will do better. 

 

[kirkpatrick]

Since we've lowered the bar, UA can't point to us and say "we want what they have".  The no vote will affect over 24,000 AA FAs and tens of thousands elsewhere.
 
MK

 

[Tim Nelson]

she didn't have the confidence of her membership after she set a low bar and binded the membership to a game that management was all too willing to play. All for a quick contract.  Disappointing indeed.  Not that her acceptance of management's suggestion of binding arbitration in return for a quickie was wrong, but the negotiated terms of the framework put her membership unnecessarily on a collision course that doomed them for 5+ years.  Hopefully, the other unions can learn.  If they choose the binding arbitration route, then make sure there are better terms to what can and can't be done. Otherwise, the members are held captive to a TA they are forced to submit to, regardless, unless they want to involve themselves with friendly fire and hurt themselves. A little more delication and wisdom is what is needed when entering these binding arbitration deals with management.

 

[Bob Owens]

Since we've lowered the bar, UA can't point to us and say "we want what they have".  The no vote will affect over 24,000 AA FAs and tens of thousands elsewhere.
 
MK

The TA would have lowered the bar, the TA had defined terms where 5 years from now the FAs had a fixed rate no matter what other groups were able to negotiate with carriers earning billions in profits. The arbitrated deal says that they will revisit the "aggregate" when UAL gets a contract. If anything this is less encumbering than the TA on other FA's. 
 
You seem to forget that all the current rates that are set at AA, DL and UAL were set in BK, in some cases after several rounds of BK. You seem content to be okay with deals that will keep you at compensation levels obtained in BK because in real terms, at best the average FA at AA would be no better off in 2015 than they are now even though the company will have amassed billions in profits. 
 
They should have argued for a shorter term. Due to the extreme changes we have seen in the industry the need for long term contracts is not what the company argued in court. They should have argued for a two year deal which would grant the company the flexibility they always claim they want and granted the FAs the ability to alter their terms to keep up with what could be a much improved aggregate.  
 
This would have given them a lot more leverage than the "please sweeten the pot" argument. The company would have had to argue for something the NPA was silent about, and if the resulting agreement can be longer then it can be shorter as well, once they opened the deal its open. The NPA already spelled out that the new deal had to be more than the current deal. What would the company have argued as far as making the deal longer? 

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

she didn't have the confidence of her membership after she set a low bar and binded the membership to a game that management was all too willing to play. All for a quick contract.  Disappointing indeed.  Not that her acceptance of management's suggestion of binding arbitration in return for a quickie was wrong, but the negotiated terms of the framework put her membership unnecessarily on a collision course that doomed them for 5+ years.  Hopefully, the other unions can learn.  If they choose the binding arbitration route, then make sure there are better terms to what can and can't be done. Otherwise, the members are held captive to a TA they are forced to submit to, regardless, unless they want to involve themselves with friendly fire and hurt themselves. A little more delication and wisdom is what is needed when entering these binding arbitration deals with management.

 
Nice Monday morning quarterbacking. I will retract that if you can show where you were against the NPA back when it was agreed to and signed.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
Nice Monday morning quarterbacking. I will retract that if you can show where you were against the NPA back when it was agreed to and signed.

I read the NPA, didn't see anything that would have stopped them from going for a two year deal instead of a five year deal. If its ok for the company to ask that the JCBA be longer than the present deals then its ok for the Union to say it should be shorter.
 
The company wants long term deals because it locks the employees into terms set in a climate thats unfavorable for workers, should things turn worse they can always go and get additional concessions either through BK or the threat of BK. Under current interpretation of C-11 long term contracts do not provide any real security for workers, they only prevent them from making gains. 

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Its easy to have a good working relationship with management when management is willing to pay a fair wage-ie SWA

Wow, you just betrayed a huge ignorance of the history of Southwest Airlines. For decades they were paid well below industry averages-- it was a combination of adept management and collaborative relationships with labor that put their pay where it is now: on the top. For you to not know something so fundamental is... frankly, unsettling.

 

[bigjets]

I read the NPA, didn't see anything that would have stopped them from going for a two year deal instead of a five year deal. If its ok for the company to ask that the JCBA be longer than the present deals then its ok for the Union to say it should be shorter.
 
The company wants long term deals because it locks the employees into terms set in a climate thats unfavorable for workers, should things turn worse they can always go and get additional concessions either through BK or the threat of BK. Under current interpretation of C-11 long term contracts do not provide any real security for workers, they only prevent them from making gains.

When we came out of bk, you should have just told AA we want 12% 401k contribution, you should have told AA we want a $40 an hour base rate, 12 sick days, 10 holidays, etc.....LG got back contractual items back why didn't you, LG got a 9.9% 401k contribution why didn't you?

But what you did is extend our bk contract 5 years. You're full of advice and criticism but when you're at the plate you swing and miss, and bad mouth everybody around you, it's everybody's fault but yours. All you do create division and weaken the union.

The only reason I don't want a union, is guys like you have a vote on my future pay, and you have been wrong about everything. You got your union job and salary, now is the time to stop campaigning and do something.

 

[Bob Owens]

When we came out of bk, you should have just told AA we want 12% 401k contribution, you should have told AA we want a $40 an hour base rate, 12 sick days, 10 holidays, etc.....LG got back contractual items back why didn't you, LG got a 9.9% 401k contribution why didn't you?
 

I did say most of that. Why didn't we get it? Because guys like you keep voting YES then say they don't want a Union. Unfortunately there were more guys at the table like you than me and the people who were in charge were exactly like you. 

 

[Bob Owens]

Wow, you just betrayed a huge ignorance of the history of Southwest Airlines. For decades they were paid well below industry averages-- it was a combination of adept management and collaborative relationships with labor that put their pay where it is now: on the top. For you to not know something so fundamental is... frankly, unsettling.

Their pay today in real terms isn't much better now than it was then, they didn't  pass us, we fell below them. For you to not realize that is more than unsettling, its sad. 
 
I say that the wage at SWA is fair, not good, but fair considering the rest of the industry. The compensation at UPS is good, not great but good, its about what we used to get in real terms. 

 

[bigjets]

I did say most of that. Why didn't we get it? Because guys like you keep voting YES then say they don't want a Union. Unfortunately there were more guys at the table like you than me and the people who were in charge were exactly like you.

I voted yes 2001, 2010
Voted no 95, 2003, 2012

Like I said earlier, everybody's fault but yours. You are the single voice.....

It's a good thing you were the only negotiator in 2001 we might of really been in trouble.

You scare me when you say a $193m contract is worse then a $112m contract.