New Hire Update Clt

[MarkMyWords]

Man-o-live you boys get your panties in a wad over nothing.

My point wasn't that 7.17 is a liveable wage and that we would get the cream of the crop candidates.

My point was, when I began, we were paid a low wage and did MORE to support an aircraft. What you are paid should have no releveance on your abilities to work around a multi-million dollar airplane safely. Using your logic, then only people making 18.00 an hour or more are qualified to push/tow an airplane. That is total BS. If you have been trained properly even a new hire of 3 months could safely push an airplane (routinely) without fear of them running a muck and banging the thing into and stationary object on the airfield.

My second point is that anyone hired at todays rates know, up front, what their payscale and earning potential are. If they chose to come and work for that wage, that is their business.

Just so you all know, I am well aware of the CPI and inflation, I know that you get what you pay for and I do NOT support paying minimum wage for these jobs functions.

Geeze!!!! You boys need to learn to read and stop reading between the lnes. In my original post I was just stating that we did MORE (lav, water service, air starts, push back, etc) and it was never an issue of income related to job ability.

 

[jimntx]

A couple of years ago when there was a move to increase the minimum wage (to $6.50/hr, I think), some of the Repubs in Congress were bemoaning the young people who would lose their after-school jobs because employers would no longer be able to afford them.

The CEO of MacDonalds was asked if an increase in the minimum wage would cause MacDonald's to cut back on their hiring. His response, "An increase in the minimum wage to $6.50/hr will not affect hiring at MacDonalds at all. We have been paying a starting wage of $8.00/hr for some time now."

What does the management at US Airways hope to get at $7.17/hr if Mickey Ds pays $8/hr with a free meal included?

 

[noname]

A couple of years ago when there was a move to increase the minimum wage (to $6.50/hr, I think), some of the Repubs in Congress were bemoaning the young people who would lose their after-school jobs because employers would no longer be able to afford them.

The CEO of MacDonalds was asked if an increase in the minimum wage would cause MacDonald's to cut back on their hiring. His response, "An increase in the minimum wage to $6.50/hr will not affect hiring at MacDonalds at all. We have been paying a starting wage of $8.00/hr for some time now."

What does the management at US Airways hope to get at $7.17/hr if Mickey Ds pays $8/hr with a free meal included?

[post="205295"][/post]​

Mickey D's dropouts are what we will get!!

 

[local 12 proud]

Man-o-live you boys get your panties in a wad over nothing.

My point wasn't that 7.17 is a liveable wage and that we would get the cream of the crop candidates.

My point was, when I began, we were paid a low wage and did MORE to support an aircraft. What you are paid should have no releveance on your abilities to work around a multi-million dollar airplane safely. Using your logic, then only people making 18.00 an hour or more are qualified to push/tow an airplane. That is total BS. If you have been trained properly even a new hire of 3 months could safely push an airplane (routinely) without fear of them running a muck and banging the thing into and stationary object on the airfield.

My second point is that anyone hired at todays rates know, up front, what their payscale and earning potential are. If they chose to come and work for that wage, that is their business.

Just so you all know, I am well aware of the CPI and inflation, I know that you get what you pay for and I do NOT support paying minimum wage for these jobs functions.

Geeze!!!! You boys need to learn to read and stop reading between the lnes. In my original post I was just stating that we did MORE (lav, water service, air starts, push back, etc) and it was never an issue of income related to job ability.

[post="205292"][/post]​

SLICE IT AND DICE IT however you choose, bootom line is a person will ALLWAYS be more concientious about a "JOB FUNCTION" when their pay or license is on the line. let me lay it out a little more easier for you to understand MMW, if you pay me $7.00 and some change an hour to change your brakes on your auto, you will get $7.00 an hour quality workmanship, so what if i get fired i can always go to BK and get a raise plus a free meal IF YOU WANT AN APPLE YOU HAVE TO GO TO AN APPLE TREE!............savvvvvvvvy?

 

[MarkMyWords]

So you are comparing a brake change to doing lav service? I need a license to dump lavs, service water, push/pull airplanes, do an airstart or deice?

And it is obvious what type of employee you are from your above statement. I wish you luck with your future endeavors.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I need a license to dump lavs, service water, push/pull airplanes, do an airstart or deice?

[post="205305"][/post]​

Obviously, no. But do you want the same caliber of people who don't know how to make change at MickyD doing some of those things. (Just try giving them another 27 cents after they've already rung up your $5 bill for a $3.17 order)

Let's see....

The airhose for the airstart is laid out too close to the engine inlet and gets sucked up - what does an engine overhaul cost?

The guy driving the tug because he couldn't get the part-time job at B.K. thinks "that wing looks like it'll clear to me" - how much does an airplane out of service cost?

The $7 and change an hour deicer says "that looks good enough to me" and doesn't get all the ice from the freezing rain off the wings - what does a crash cost?

We don't have any "tail mounted engine" airplanes on mainline anymore, but Express does. What if that low paid part-timer thinks "that dump valve is hardly leaking" and the blue ice ball FOD's an engine at 35,000 feet - how much does that cost?

Jim

 

[MarkMyWords]

Again, each of those scenarios go back to proper training and oversight, not how much you pay the person per hour. How many air hoses got sucked up at PI when the ramp did airstarts? Was the ratio of aircraft ground incidents any higher when the ramp does pushbacks versus maintenance? And is there any proof that someone who is paid 20.00 an hour does a better job then someone paid 8.00?

Does that mean that I became a better employee in year 10 then I was in year 1 just because I was paid more? Or I am a less effective employee now because I am paid less now then I was in Sept? No. My work ethic has always been the same. I give the same now that I gave then, the only thing that has changed is the level of experienced I have gained along the way.

 

[BoeingBoy]

proper training and oversight

[post="205326"][/post]​

And if the pay is so low that you have a "revolving door" how much does that training cost? Plus the cost of that oversight - are you gonna pay $7-something for the one actually doing the job and $10-13 for the overseer watching them do the job? Why not just pay the person doing the job enough to keep them around long enough to become experienced?

As for who does the job (utility, fleet service, mechanic, etc, or non-union), I didn't even bring that up. In the abstract, I could care less as long as they do it properly. In the here and now, if someone's contract says they should do it, then so be it - the company agreed to that contract too.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

How many air hoses got sucked up at PI when the ramp did airstarts? Was the ratio of aircraft ground incidents any higher when the ramp does pushbacks versus maintenance?

[post="205326"][/post]​

This brings up something I occasionally think about. What would the IAM response have been, if in 1989 management had said to the IAM "We've got 1/2 the airline using ramp personnal to park/push back airplanes and no utility classification at all. How about we transition to that model over time strictly through attrition. We will guarantee in any form you want that no current IAM member will lose their jobs because of the change." By now we could have been well along with the process.

But, alas, it was "The US way or the highway". That "cool northern efficiency" thing.....

Jim

ps - I suspect that those ramp folks at PI were making more in constant dollars than what the company wants to pay now.

 

[sfb]

My point wasn't that 7.17 is a liveable wage and that we would get the cream of the crop candidates.

No, it wasn't. But you fail to see the point that $7.17/hour won't even get you adequate candidates. You really will get the bottom of the barrel -- the ones who didn't get an easy job at McDonald's or the ones UPS wouldn't hire. The ramp in PHL has enough problems as it is -- then add borderline functional rampers? You've got to be kidding me.

My point was, when I began, we were paid a low wage and did MORE to support an aircraft. What you are paid should have no releveance on your abilities to work around a multi-million dollar airplane safely. Using your logic, then only people making 18.00 an hour or more are qualified to push/tow an airplane. That is total BS. If you have been trained properly even a new hire of 3 months could safely push an airplane (routinely) without fear of them running a muck (sic) and banging the thing into and stationary object on the airfield.

Your point isn't valid, though. You got paid, on an inflation-adjusted basis, 150% of what the company is offering new hires. Thus, there was some reason to expect greater competence and ability to correctly perform the tasks you were assigned. You seem to believe that the people the company can scrape out of the bottom of the job market barrel can be trained to perform complex tasks involving multi-million-dollar equipment. The same people that couldn't get hired on at BK. No one said you had to pay people $18/hour -- but you do need to pay more than they could make cleaning toilets.

My second point is that anyone hired at todays rates know, up front, what their payscale and earning potential are. If they chose to come and work for that wage, that is their business.

This is true, but it ignores the very starting point of this thread -- that the company cannot get anyone reliable to work for those starting rates. DUH dude!

Just so you all know, I am well aware of the CPI and inflation, I know that you get what you pay for and I do NOT support paying minimum wage for these jobs functions.

If you are aware of the CPI and inflation, why would you persist in making your asinine assertion that the low wages being offered by the company today are comparable to what you made to start? I mean, Eastern charged $65 each way for a BOS-LGA Shuttle ticket back in 1985, so what US Airways charges today ($200+) has got to be a total rip-off, right?

Geeze!!!! You boys need to learn to read and stop reading between the lnes. In my original post I was just stating that we did MORE (lav, water service, air starts, push back, etc) and it was never an issue of income related to job ability.

You did do more -- but you also got paid a LOT more in real terms. You got called (rightly so) for b.s.

 

[firstamendment]

This brings up something I occasionally think about. What would the IAM response have been, if in 1989 management had said to the IAM "We've got 1/2 the airline using ramp personnal to park/push back airplanes and no utility classification at all. How about we transition to that model over time strictly through attrition. We will guarantee in any form you want that no current IAM member will lose their jobs because of the change." By now we could have been well along with the process.

But, alas, it was "The US way or the highway". That "cool northern efficiency" thing.....

Jim

ps - I suspect that those ramp folks at PI were making more in constant dollars than what the company wants to pay now.

[post="205341"][/post]​

Jim,
I agree with you here.

 

[Fatherknowsbest]

Boeing Boy,
I would have given my eye teeth if USAir would have been smart enough to keep all three Airlines seperate, but feeding traffic to each other. I think it would be a much different picture today (much more positive). I think it could have been a really smart move. Wish we could turn back the clock just this once...........



Father

 

[bobcat]

I'm sure everyone started at the bottom here because of the end result. You basically had to be a good employee if you wanted to reach the top payscale. That was the time that you worked hard, was proud of your work and your company and had something to look forward to. There is now nothing to look forward to and nothing to be proud of. It is all but gone.

 

[CS AGENT]

I started with PI in 1985 and at that time, the pay didn't matter. It was a nessacery evil to work a few years for nothing just to get your foot in the door of a great airline. The future in 1985 was without limits, if only we had a crystal ball. Anyone who gets into this industry in 2004, FOR ANY REASON is mentaly unstable. The only benefit US offers is free flight, Pass benefits today are almost worthless. Go online and buy a tkt for $129 anywhere you want. I still work here and buy my tickets now just so I don't have to hassle with nonreving...who needs it.
The sad part is when the management of ALL airlines wake up and realize their approach to labor is wrong, The entire industry will be a heaping pile of ash in the history books 🙁

 

[MarkMyWords]

How many people had made the same arguements when B scale started? There are a great number of employees that were hired under the B scale that are extraordinary employees. Guess we will have to wait and see.