MidAtlantic--The Promised Land of Zero Opportunity
- Thread starter mlt
- Start date
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/29/2003 3:34:07 PM Bradly71 wrote:
Umm.... what in the world gave you the idea that I worked for minimum wage at US? Perhaps my statment about making $8.50/hr more now made you think that I was, but I was not. What I make at the moment does nothing for either side of the discussion, but we shall leave it that it is over $25.00/hr with a firm my parents own. How I made my house payments and car payments and so on also don't really aide either side. I did it like anyone else did though, I worked and budgeted. I know everyone's situation is different and this thread has gotten way off the point from a discussion on the pay issue with the contract to personal shots at one another and quite a negative tone. However, in case it would make you understand something about my thoughts on the matter.. then fine :
Bradly71 = 31/GWM/Indiana/Bachelors In Fine Arts/Husband is Corporate Attorney for a major pharmaceutical company / worked for US for 3 1/2 years total.
I really don't see any further need for talk on this subject unless we stick to the topic.
----------------
[/blockquote]
mlt,
71 has a spouse that is an attorney. I'd say they could budget quite nicely, even with no job.
----------------
On 1/29/2003 3:34:07 PM Bradly71 wrote:
Umm.... what in the world gave you the idea that I worked for minimum wage at US? Perhaps my statment about making $8.50/hr more now made you think that I was, but I was not. What I make at the moment does nothing for either side of the discussion, but we shall leave it that it is over $25.00/hr with a firm my parents own. How I made my house payments and car payments and so on also don't really aide either side. I did it like anyone else did though, I worked and budgeted. I know everyone's situation is different and this thread has gotten way off the point from a discussion on the pay issue with the contract to personal shots at one another and quite a negative tone. However, in case it would make you understand something about my thoughts on the matter.. then fine :
Bradly71 = 31/GWM/Indiana/Bachelors In Fine Arts/Husband is Corporate Attorney for a major pharmaceutical company / worked for US for 3 1/2 years total.
I really don't see any further need for talk on this subject unless we stick to the topic.
----------------
[/blockquote]
mlt,
71 has a spouse that is an attorney. I'd say they could budget quite nicely, even with no job.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/28/2003 12:32:15 PM PITbull wrote:
Every Unionized worker should fight for a livable wage; be able to pay bills on time, and live respectably. As the economy improves folks will either fight for a better wage or leave. The wholly owns presently, have a 42% turnover of employement.... your thread above sounds like management words.
----------------
[/blockquote]
This is the problem. I guess only unionized workers deserve a liveable wage in your world. I was much better off, and would not have been kicked to the street if I were still an employee at will. And I took home more money.
----------------
On 1/28/2003 12:32:15 PM PITbull wrote:
Every Unionized worker should fight for a livable wage; be able to pay bills on time, and live respectably. As the economy improves folks will either fight for a better wage or leave. The wholly owns presently, have a 42% turnover of employement.... your thread above sounds like management words.
----------------
[/blockquote]
This is the problem. I guess only unionized workers deserve a liveable wage in your world. I was much better off, and would not have been kicked to the street if I were still an employee at will. And I took home more money.
You watch every penny and don't live beyond your means, something alot of people at US don't understand. Living where the general cost of living is low helps too. I claim my Tampa home as my main residence because taxes are lower but I live in Indy because the actual cost to a person is lower (food,gas,insurance). Again, not everyone's situation is the same, but they are all similar.
And speaking the post directly before this reply. I feel that if our work group had not been unionized it would have been handled a lot differently. Perhaps buy outs or early retirement offerings instead of office closings. I love to read the posts about people, especially in Res, complaining about being overworked and constantly watched. They soon forget that before the Union it was not like that. Without a Union the layoffs would have been done differently. Take for instance the Indy res office which had the highest seniority in the work group. Out of the 385 people in the office, 300 were maxed out, meaning top of the pay scale. I'm going to use numbers as an example to make my point here, they are not concrete. On average of those 300 agents, the median pay was $21.00/hr. The remaining 85 of us had median wage of about $11.00/hr (thanks to a new hire class). So, with those numbers and keeping in mind that it is only an example, for US to keep one SR res agt, they would have had to lay off 2-3 Jr agents. Thus making it seem busier when it really isn't. Without the Union it would have gone the other way. I still don't see the unions point that paying someone $21-24/hr plus benefits to do the same job that others are doing for $10-$15/hr makes any sense. I only use res/cust svc as my example because that is the group I am more familiar with.
I understand and fully expect more bashing and bad mouthing to follow. I have become accustomed to that on this board when myself (who rarely posts) or someone else states an opinion that differs from the majority, or at least the majority on this board (which in reality COULD be the minority). We politely sit back, read and ponder others comments, then question them or try to take them further even though they are oposite of our own. That is the adult thing to do.
Thank You
And speaking the post directly before this reply. I feel that if our work group had not been unionized it would have been handled a lot differently. Perhaps buy outs or early retirement offerings instead of office closings. I love to read the posts about people, especially in Res, complaining about being overworked and constantly watched. They soon forget that before the Union it was not like that. Without a Union the layoffs would have been done differently. Take for instance the Indy res office which had the highest seniority in the work group. Out of the 385 people in the office, 300 were maxed out, meaning top of the pay scale. I'm going to use numbers as an example to make my point here, they are not concrete. On average of those 300 agents, the median pay was $21.00/hr. The remaining 85 of us had median wage of about $11.00/hr (thanks to a new hire class). So, with those numbers and keeping in mind that it is only an example, for US to keep one SR res agt, they would have had to lay off 2-3 Jr agents. Thus making it seem busier when it really isn't. Without the Union it would have gone the other way. I still don't see the unions point that paying someone $21-24/hr plus benefits to do the same job that others are doing for $10-$15/hr makes any sense. I only use res/cust svc as my example because that is the group I am more familiar with.
I understand and fully expect more bashing and bad mouthing to follow. I have become accustomed to that on this board when myself (who rarely posts) or someone else states an opinion that differs from the majority, or at least the majority on this board (which in reality COULD be the minority). We politely sit back, read and ponder others comments, then question them or try to take them further even though they are oposite of our own. That is the adult thing to do.
Thank You
airlineorphan
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/29/2003 2:15:48 PM mlt wrote:
AirlineOrphan,
I stand corrected on the sick time. It should read 30 hours. I attempted to multiply pre-coffee; Big mistake!!
To determine the monthly salary I used the 2-3 yr seniority salary as most of our involuntary furloughees are in this category.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Thanks mlt,
One more correction though... the majority of the 1400 or so f/a involuntary furloughs are actually 1 year or less (about 840 of us). The remaining 550 or so have more than 1 year seniority.
-Airlineorphan
----------------
On 1/29/2003 2:15:48 PM mlt wrote:
AirlineOrphan,
I stand corrected on the sick time. It should read 30 hours. I attempted to multiply pre-coffee; Big mistake!!
To determine the monthly salary I used the 2-3 yr seniority salary as most of our involuntary furloughees are in this category.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Thanks mlt,
One more correction though... the majority of the 1400 or so f/a involuntary furloughs are actually 1 year or less (about 840 of us). The remaining 550 or so have more than 1 year seniority.
-Airlineorphan
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
71,
When I see folks make comments that are directly related to "blaming" Unions for their paraticular plight, of course, I am going to make adament comments. You are still going at it for someone who gently sit back and watches these boards. If you make comments, as we all do, get prepared for a lip lashing, otherwise to post. As you have stated in previous post, folks have a choice to leave the job, there is no "gun to anyones head". I say, don't post. No one has a gun to your head. Ohterwise, prepare for what comes.
You have implied above that perhaps if you were not union, the company would have worked out a better solution to furloughing you..like, buy out, or early retirement etc....
Trust me, that would not have happened. This co. claimed there was no money. Why would they pay folks to leave when all they had to do was negotiate severe concessions, that folks would just leave. You speak about your friends who are flight attendants who love, love their jobs. Have you ponder the question of why 85% of the furloughees are VOLUNTEER? Do you think f/as would rather take a furlough and look for something else than out right quit? Wouldn't that make some sense, that if you wanted to leave a job that could not pay your bills anymore, that a furlough may be your best interest? We have three Voluntary furloughs going on right now. Perhaps, when the co. will need to hire again f/as (especially when USA goes to war, and the airlines may be a target again) You can apply for a job here in our department. You get to be paid for your room, and meal expense and get to use hotel toilets and bathrooms...and get to stay on planes for 13-14-15 hours at a time serving "mini banquests" 5-6-7 times a day; short staffed to boot...fun, fun, fun! And all on a reduced wage for 6 years. Oh, in if you call in sick..boom you get a 5 hour penalty $200.00 "hit" right off the bat.
Again, I am trying to make a point, that we have every right to voice "discontent".
If that offends you, I am sorry. I have a difficult time believing that folks still today feel that no union is better than a union. Agents decided to get a union in 1999, because while they were non-union the company went after them on everything plus their kitchen sinks. They lost their "defined pensions" while other unionized workers got to keep theirs.
Unions are brought on properties when workers have had "enough" and don't have a voice in the work place. When mangement screws up and treats their employees with disrespect and disregard, even in the best of times.
That is why unions are voted in. When a mangement team treats their employees with respedt and fairness, they get loyalty and NO union.
When I see folks make comments that are directly related to "blaming" Unions for their paraticular plight, of course, I am going to make adament comments. You are still going at it for someone who gently sit back and watches these boards. If you make comments, as we all do, get prepared for a lip lashing, otherwise to post. As you have stated in previous post, folks have a choice to leave the job, there is no "gun to anyones head". I say, don't post. No one has a gun to your head. Ohterwise, prepare for what comes.
You have implied above that perhaps if you were not union, the company would have worked out a better solution to furloughing you..like, buy out, or early retirement etc....
Trust me, that would not have happened. This co. claimed there was no money. Why would they pay folks to leave when all they had to do was negotiate severe concessions, that folks would just leave. You speak about your friends who are flight attendants who love, love their jobs. Have you ponder the question of why 85% of the furloughees are VOLUNTEER? Do you think f/as would rather take a furlough and look for something else than out right quit? Wouldn't that make some sense, that if you wanted to leave a job that could not pay your bills anymore, that a furlough may be your best interest? We have three Voluntary furloughs going on right now. Perhaps, when the co. will need to hire again f/as (especially when USA goes to war, and the airlines may be a target again) You can apply for a job here in our department. You get to be paid for your room, and meal expense and get to use hotel toilets and bathrooms...and get to stay on planes for 13-14-15 hours at a time serving "mini banquests" 5-6-7 times a day; short staffed to boot...fun, fun, fun! And all on a reduced wage for 6 years. Oh, in if you call in sick..boom you get a 5 hour penalty $200.00 "hit" right off the bat.
Again, I am trying to make a point, that we have every right to voice "discontent".
If that offends you, I am sorry. I have a difficult time believing that folks still today feel that no union is better than a union. Agents decided to get a union in 1999, because while they were non-union the company went after them on everything plus their kitchen sinks. They lost their "defined pensions" while other unionized workers got to keep theirs.
Unions are brought on properties when workers have had "enough" and don't have a voice in the work place. When mangement screws up and treats their employees with disrespect and disregard, even in the best of times.
That is why unions are voted in. When a mangement team treats their employees with respedt and fairness, they get loyalty and NO union.
