Keeing in mind agents have never been thru a regular contract renegotiation, I felt the following to be of interest.
During BK, management had labor up against the wall. They literally and readily could make "my way or the highway" stick.
It's a little different now that U is out of BK. Legally, the unions are under NO obligation to reopen contracts that become amendable in 2008. Legally, they could tell U, "see ya in 2008."
Management has the right to address their employees directly, as in the webcast. But I believe the webcast was also intended to convince employees that the upcoming unpleasantness is a continuation of the late unpleasantness, and that labor holds no cards. I also believe the webcast was intended to create an expectation of a vote. There probably will be one, but the company cannot mandate one.
Management can certainly part out or liquidate U. Do not kid yourself they cannot, or that the unions can prevent it.
My point is the unions have some leverage that was lacking in BK, and it is their duty to use it.
I am sure there are those in management who will be resistant to a changing corporate culture. The unions should assist Mr. Siegle in this matter.
Outstanding grievances should be expedited and resolved.
Matters such as these should be pre-conditions to a sit-down; not in exchange for concessions.
Employees should be assured a return on their sacrifices. Not profit-sharing - who trusts accountants these days? Not common stock - what happened to the last U stock you owned? Perhaps preferred stock, but I'll defer to the experts. At this stage, I do not believe this to be over-reaching. RSA controls U due to a $500 mil one-time investment. Employees are CURRENTLY making a $1 billion investment ANNUALLY. That investment is due proper respect and consideration.
Perhaps employees facing a hit of certain proportions could be grandfathered. NW grandfathered their agents during concessions some years ago.
I have no knowledge of if,when or what unions will hold discussions with management.
During BK, management had labor up against the wall. They literally and readily could make "my way or the highway" stick.
It's a little different now that U is out of BK. Legally, the unions are under NO obligation to reopen contracts that become amendable in 2008. Legally, they could tell U, "see ya in 2008."
Management has the right to address their employees directly, as in the webcast. But I believe the webcast was also intended to convince employees that the upcoming unpleasantness is a continuation of the late unpleasantness, and that labor holds no cards. I also believe the webcast was intended to create an expectation of a vote. There probably will be one, but the company cannot mandate one.
Management can certainly part out or liquidate U. Do not kid yourself they cannot, or that the unions can prevent it.
My point is the unions have some leverage that was lacking in BK, and it is their duty to use it.
I am sure there are those in management who will be resistant to a changing corporate culture. The unions should assist Mr. Siegle in this matter.
Outstanding grievances should be expedited and resolved.
Matters such as these should be pre-conditions to a sit-down; not in exchange for concessions.
Employees should be assured a return on their sacrifices. Not profit-sharing - who trusts accountants these days? Not common stock - what happened to the last U stock you owned? Perhaps preferred stock, but I'll defer to the experts. At this stage, I do not believe this to be over-reaching. RSA controls U due to a $500 mil one-time investment. Employees are CURRENTLY making a $1 billion investment ANNUALLY. That investment is due proper respect and consideration.
Perhaps employees facing a hit of certain proportions could be grandfathered. NW grandfathered their agents during concessions some years ago.
I have no knowledge of if,when or what unions will hold discussions with management.
