Northwest to share profits with employees

[exnw]

Here you go. I've included the line items you discussed, and you can fill in the blanks. Use yourself or another particular FA as an example, since averages seem to so offend you. Feel free to change the before and after wage rates or any other input; this is just a template for you. If it’s easier, just pick a typical month in 2005 and extrapolate to the full year, and do the same for a typical month since the TA was implemented.
Baseline (2005) Total Pay:

Pay Hours: 900 (75 hours per month)
Wage Rate: $45/hr (Avg. for 2005)
Base Wages: $40,500
Short Crew Comp: $$$
Ground Time: $$$
Other (purser, lead, quarterly OT, etc): $$$
Total Wages: $$
Wages Under Imposed TA:

Pay Hours: 1,020 (85 hours per month)
Wage Rate: $36/hr (20% reduction)
Base Wages: $36,720
Short Crew Comp: $$$
Ground Time: $$$
Other (purser, lead, quarterly OT, etc): $$$
Total Wages: $$
Net Reduction in Wages = XX% ((TA Total – 2005 total) / 2005 total)

Since I am not a crew member I have the following
question. How do you interpret the Pay Hours shown.
2005 shows 900 hours versus the 2006 pay hours of 1020.
Does it mean one hay to put in 120 hours per month extra
to earn less money.

 

[ExAF]

Here you go. I've included the line items you discussed, and you can fill in the blanks. Use yourself or another particular FA as an example, since averages seem to so offend you. Feel free to change the before and after wage rates or any other input; this is just a template for you. If it’s easier, just pick a typical month in 2005 and extrapolate to the full year, and do the same for a typical month since the TA was implemented.
Baseline (2005) Total Pay:

Pay Hours: 900 (75 hours per month)
Wage Rate: $45/hr (Avg. for 2005)
Base Wages: $40,500
Short Crew Comp: $$$
Ground Time: $$$
Other (purser, lead, quarterly OT, etc): $$$
Total Wages: $$
Wages Under Imposed TA:

Pay Hours: 1,020 (85 hours per month)
Wage Rate: $36/hr (20% reduction)
Base Wages: $36,720
Short Crew Comp: $$$
Ground Time: $$$
Other (purser, lead, quarterly OT, etc): $$$
Total Wages: $$
Net Reduction in Wages = XX% ((TA Total – 2005 total) / 2005 total)

What a bunch of BS. You need to compare the same number of hours at the pre and post TA rates to make a valid comparrison. You can't say, "You don't make less because you are working more hours." That dog won't hunt. Most employees don't want to work more hours. That is in essence "another cut" in compensation. Those hours are fewer hours the employee has off to spend doing other things they would rather be doing that working at NWA. Get a grip! Typical mgt number crunching. If it walks like a turd and smells like a turd it is most likeley a turd. Something smells in Bldg A.

 

[groundcontrol]

What a bunch of BS. You need to compare the same number of hours at the pre and post TA rates to make a valid comparrison. You can't say, "You don't make less because you are working more hours." That dog won't hunt. Most employees don't want to work more hours. That is in essence "another cut" in compensation. Those hours are fewer hours the employee has off to spend doing other things they would rather be doing that working at NWA. Get a grip! Typical mgt number crunching. If it walks like a turd and smells like a turd it is most likeley a turd. Something smells in Bldg A.

What?
Are you suggesting that NWA employees want to work to live instead of living to work?

Welcome to the new NWA. :down:

 

[Kev3188]

Here's some food for thought:

As of 22.dec.06, I made $45,918. Of that, $8638.19 was overtime.

For the same period in 2005, my income was $51,308 of which only $4630.83 was overtime.

So, yes, the choice is either: A) Make do with less, or B ) Live at the airport.


Also, for those that don't work at NW, here's some more monetary background info:

Hourly difference between '05 and '06= -$3.10/hr.

Insurance (medical/dental) costs in '05= zero

Insurance in '06= $173.12/ monthly. This will increase starting this month, BTW.

 

[jenny@nw]

Here's some food for thought:

As of 22.dec.06, I made $45,918. Of that, $8638.19 was overtime.

For the same period in 2005, my income was $51,308 of which only $4630.83 was overtime.

So, yes, the choice is either: A) Make do with less, or B ) Live at the airport.
Also, for those that don't work at NW, here's some more monetary background info:

Hourly difference between '05 and '06= -$3.10/hr.

Insurance (medical/dental) costs in '05= zero

Insurance in '06= $173.12/ monthly. This will increase starting this month, BTW.

Working more hours is the same with the Scheduel holder F/A. I heard it at the AFA meeting, hearing it on the line.

In order to make the same amt of money, alot of them are flying 100 hrs. Before this, it would be 65 or so. (I hear, correct me if I am wrong)

Being that I'm a life reserve person, I would not know anything about the luxuries of bidding Minot layovers or someplace fun like Jackson Mississippi. 100 hours and just being able to hold DC9 trips? I think I'd quit too.

 

[jenny@nw]

I think it might be so she can witness the right cross to the jaw scabs like you will recieve from Dougie in the very near future.

I'd buy a ticket for that one.... :huh:

Real reason is that we have discussed this... but he said to stay so I am staying for the time being.
To me, there is no reason for me to be here but he made his case and proved his point....

I did fantasize about giving an good right hook....

but I'm more of the "peaceful" activist. :groovy:

When I was younger, I was actually harassed and hunted down by some guys who really wanted to represent me in women's boxing. This was ... ages ago.

Now I'm fat and my diet is a steady one of junk food.

 

[groundcontrol]

Here's some food for thought:
Insurance in '06= $173.12/ monthly. This will increase starting this month, BTW.

Just curious...
Since more and more people are paying monthly costs for their own medical insurance, is that monthly payment x 12 mos. a write off come tax time? It should be.

 

[Bob Owens]

Here's some food for thought:

As of 22.dec.06, I made $45,918. Of that, $8638.19 was overtime.

For the same period in 2005, my income was $51,308 of which only $4630.83 was overtime.

So, yes, the choice is either: A) Make do with less, or B ) Live at the airport.

You have another choice, lets try and start a new union and throw out all the company unions that give away our pay and benifits, talk about neccisary sacrifices, and then give themselves pay raises.

I also stayed a lot of OT, probably would have done more actual "work" on straight time at the old rates, thus negating the need for OT, but hey, we have to make it up somehow right? They can make us stay at work more hours, getting us to produce more for less is another story.

 

[Kev3188]

You have another choice, lets try and start a new union and throw out all the company unions that give away our pay and benifits, talk about neccisary sacrifices, and then give themselves pay raises.

Bob--

As you know from our talks on other threads, I'm more than ready for change. The question is; where does one start? I know how to get "A" cards for existing unions, but after that????

Kevin--

 

[Redbone]

Just out of curiousity, how do you come up with the 50% paycut figure? I know hourly wages were reduced by about 20%, but where does the remaining 30% come from? Here's my math; please correct me where I'm wrong.
Baseline (2005) Total Pay:

Pay Hours: 900 (75 hours per month)
Wage Rate: $45/hr (Avg. for 2005)
Total Wages: $40,500
Wages Under Imposed TA:

Pay Hours: 1,020 (85 hours per month)
Wage Rate: $36/hr (20% reduction)
Total Wages: $36,720
Net Reduction in Wages = 9.3%

I realize vacation was reduced, but that doesn't reduce your take-home pay; you just have to work more hours. Essentially, the work-month was adjusted to be more representative of a full-time employee.

The medical benefit reduction is roughly a $100/month reduction in subsidized premiums, so that contributes another $1,200 reduction, so that results in a fully loaded wage reduction of about 12.2%.

The upside potential is pretty significant as well, if only you guys had passed the T/A which would have included a sizable claim that is now worth almost it's full face value. That would have likely meant a $20K or more payout to each FA; which would offset the wage reductions forthcoming for the next 3-5 years.

Please don't arm chair unless you know the facts...and from your statement it is clear that you do not.

Bottom line. This is the SAME group that has WASTED over $5 1/1 Billion dollars of EMPLOYEE earnings since 1993. At what point do you stop filling the pockets of incompetent wanna be leaders? This company is doomed if it does not remove EVERY single BOD...and the carpetbaggers that stole Northwest in 1989.

 

[tech2101]

Please don't arm chair unless you know the facts...and from your statement it is clear that you do not.

Bottom line. This is the SAME group that has WASTED over $5 1/1 Billion dollars of EMPLOYEE earnings since 1993. At what point do you stop filling the pockets of incompetent wanna be leaders? This company is doomed if it does not remove EVERY single BOD...and the carpetbaggers that stole Northwest in 1989.

Without doing any research, I feel quite sure finman was not around when we were LBO'd by Cecchi and the boys. He was obviously not around for the 1993 concession.

 

[finman]

Please don't arm chair unless you know the facts...and from your statement it is clear that you do not.

Feel free to amend my figures or assumptions to help shed light on this situation. Simply stating that I don't know the facts, but not bothering to provide the correct facts does really not contribute anything to the conversation.

 

[ExAF]

Finney,
Still waiting for your answer to post #32. You still maintain that the cuts aren't as big (specifically greater than the base wage 20%) since they are working longer?) They shouldn't have to work longer. The cut is what it is. You can't cut rate and add hours to pretend the cut isn't actually greater than 20% all things considered.

 

[finman]

Finney,
Still waiting for your answer to post #32. You still maintain that the cuts aren't as big since they are working longer?

Ah yes, I remember. Yes, that would be correct. They can now work more hours, so the total compensation for a full-time flight attendant is less than it would otherwise be. Since they only worked roughly 12 days a month prior to the TA, the new contract basically makes their position more like a full-time equivelant.

Even if you don't count the increased hours as an offset, the most you can likely come up with as far as a compensation cut is probably about 30%. Still a far cry from the 50% claim.

 

[Kev3188]

Just curious...
Since more and more people are paying monthly costs for their own medical insurance, is that monthly payment x 12 mos. a write off come tax time? It should be.

Good question. I doubt it is, but I guess I'll find out here soon enough.

Even if you don't count the increased hours as an offset, the most you can likely come up with as far as a compensation cut is probably about 30%. Still a far cry from the 50% claim.

Finman--

I think what everyone is trying get you to see (or at least acknowledge) is that while base rates may have only been cut by "X" percentage, when you factor in all the other variables (purser pay, DH pay, etc., etc) the real cut is much greater.

On the ground ops side, our base rate was cut 11.5%. But factor in the loss of shift differential, longevity pay, and other factors (eg. my insurance now costs me roughly $1.25/hr), and the number goes up by quite a bit.