Pay Raises

[BoeingBoy]

Do you mean Unions will allow companys to give raises to Union employees , even though said raises are not in their contract ?

Well, "will allow" is not guaranteed but if the union has no problem with it, it is certainly not against any rules. The contract, much like most of the FAA regs, set the floor of what the company can do compensation-wise and not the ceiling. I don't know about DL, but at US the company has a program that pays $50 to every employee if the company is in the top 3 of 10 named companies in the 3 primary DOT report metrics for a month, or up to $150/month. $12 million was paid out to the employees last year and the unions at US have no problem with that although it's not called for in any of the contracts. There's another program where elite members of the FF program hand out or send to US "Above and Beyond" cards for employees who provide excellent service. The cards go in a pool where winners are chosen by pulling cards out of the pool. Last year the company payed out over $1 million to the winners and the unions representing the winners had no complaints.

And don't forget that negotiations had to be held with the groups that have settled any representational issues in order to have a combined contract (if the group ended up being represented by a union). The company could certainly agree to better terms for the employees in those negotiations which could result in "industry standard" compensation.

Jim

 

[tech2101]

Delta has been planning this raise since they exited bankruptcy !

All companies plan on giving raises...They exited bankruptcy April 30, 2007. What is your point?

As to your previous question, Jim answered it.

All collective bargaining agreements have a pay schedule that sets out the minimum rate of pay for employees in different classifications. As long as the company increases the pay proportionally across the spectrum, the union does not complain.

Your hatred of unions is obviously fed by your ignorance of how they operate and how the collective bargaining process works.

What is funny (and sad) is that you have been enjoying the benefits of union wages for some time now if you work for any major airline, whether you are covered by a CBA or not.

 

[southwind]

All companies plan on giving raises...They exited bankruptcy April 30, 2007. What is your point?

As to your previous question, Jim answered it.

All collective bargaining agreements have a pay schedule that sets out the minimum rate of pay for employees in different classifications. As long as the company increases the pay proportionally across the spectrum, the union does not complain.

Your hatred of unions is obviously fed by your ignorance of how they operate and how the collective bargaining process works.

What is funny (and sad) is that you have been enjoying the benefits of union wages for some time now if you work for any major airline, whether you are covered by a CBA or not.

Implying the only reason for the raises are because of a union drive, in this case, turns out to be false !

Delta stated, back in 2007, they would be paying industry standard by 2010. I doubt very seriously, they new back then that the AFA and IAM would be dragging their feet on a vote at the same time ! What part of this statement do you not understand ?

Yes , at one time, I believe Unions were needed, but today, as you can see by the UAW , they are as much of the problem as the Companys you love to despise !

 

[tech2101]

Yes , at one time, I believe Unions were needed, but today, as you can see by the UAW , they are as much of the problem as the Companys you love to despise !

Where do you come up with "the Companys you love to despise !"?

The "company" is who pays the salary.

As I said before, you are clearly ignorant to what collective bargaining means. You prove it more and more with every post.

Hint; It means nothing close to despising the company that endorses the paycheck received by the union membership, who are employees.

 

[The Janitor]

A pay raise right during a union drive? Imagine that...

Here is a post from another site that I thought was interesting.

at usairways, we had a teamster vote after the Piedmont/USair merger. The vote dragged out enough time for management to give the non-union piedmont workers a significant pay raise, while the IBT was negotiating one. I think the non-union workers made like .50 cent more an hour after this. Because of it, the union got tossed out. Then the real hammering began. The pension was frozen, benefits were flushed, and pay raises were a thing of the past. So, 3 years later union got voted back in after the workers realized they got tricked. Then of course, they got an immediate 15% pay raise in their first contract, double time, more holidays, more vacation, etc. IMO, I think the same thing will happen at NW. I think workers, both union and non-union will be tricked by management and then lose their jobs by getting contracted out after the scope clauses are tossed. Then vote union back in.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Then the real hammering began.

Everyone gave concessions in '93, not just those formerly represented by the IBT. So if it was a ploy to get rid of the union, everyone ended up paying for it.

Jim

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

Implying the only reason for the raises are because of a union drive, in this case, turns out to be false !

I remember over the years the Res agents at AA were always trying to organize and had several elections.Without fail the company would come in, start doling out all sorts of goodies, extra week of vacation,a few extra cents an hour, scheduling flexibility, you name it.Every time the senior crones would nibble the carrot and say "Well, I guess we really don't need a union after all" and would either not vote at all or vote no.

Sure enough once the threat of representation passed, all the goodies the company had doled out were reeled back in and the res agents were left with sore backsides from the swift kick delivered by management.

 

[The Janitor]

Everyone gave concessions in '93, not just those formerly represented by the IBT. So if it was a ploy to get rid of the union, everyone ended up paying for it.

Jim

You don't understand. Yes there were concessions but I don't think you guys have your pension frozen back in 1993, plus I presume you had sick pay and holidays. Plus throw in the contracting out of several thousand ramp jobs.
There was a reason that 7,000 people voted union back in after two years of hammerings.

 

[BoeingBoy]

You don't understand. Yes there were concessions but I don't think you guys have your pension frozen back in 1993, plus I presume you had sick pay and holidays. Plus throw in the contracting out of several thousand ramp jobs.

I definitely know that you folks took the worst hit in '93, no doubt about it. As far as I remember, all the unionized groups did keep their pensions and I always thought it unfair that yours was frozen after the other groups kept theirs.

My point, however, was that the cuts you suffered weren't all due to a years earlier negotiating ploy by management to keep the union out of the combined operation. It was largely due the losses and every group was hit with concessions. In other words, it wasn't a case of giving something small to get rid of the union then taking it back from only you once the union was out.

Jim

 

[john john]

Everyone gave concessions in '93, not just those formerly represented by the IBT. So if it was a ploy to get rid of the union, everyone ended up paying for it.

Jim

Customer service and ramp concessions were more severe than the union groups. The pilots got company funded early retirement to get rid of the old braniff guys. Also all union groups got snap backs

 

[Airlinelifer]

Customer service and ramp concessions were more severe than the union groups. The pilots got company funded early retirement to get rid of the old braniff guys. Also all union groups got snap backs

John, Boeing, your talking in another language, lol. I don't think my Delta bretheren has a clue about "retro" pay or "snap back," it's not in their verbage.

Retro pay (retroactive pay) - wages due for past services at the new negotiated rates, applicable usually where wage negotiations extend beyond the last date of the previous wage agreement.

Snap back - an employee group agrees to a consessionary contract to help out the company with near-term financial problems, but have a clause that automatically restores the pay scale at a futute negotiated date.

$20.00 with a 10% pay cut $20.00 x .10 = $2.00,
$20.00 - $2.00 = $18.00

Snap back is 11.12%.

 

[john john]

I don't think my Delta bretheren has a clue about "retro" pay or "snap back," it's not in their verbage.

The non-union customer service and ramp agent at US and HP didn’t get it either that is why there union NOW

 

[BoeingBoy]

You're wrong, john john. The DB pension plan, funded by the company, always had early retirement provisions - over 50 and at least 5 years with the company and any pilot could retire - so that wasn't something we got in exchange for the concessions. Likewise, there were no snapbacks - just further concessionary agreements like Wolf offered that agents urged the pilots to ratify. "Sign it so we can get on with the growth" they said.

Since this is a thread about DL employees in the DL forum, that's the last I'll say about this.

Jim

 

[Dignity]

John, Boeing, your talking in another language, lol. I don't think my Delta bretheren has a clue about "retro" pay or "snap back," it's not in their verbage.

Retro pay (retroactive pay) - wages due for past services at the new negotiated rates, applicable usually where wage negotiations extend beyond the last date of the previous wage agreement

After the concessionary period at NW for Flight Attendant in the 1990's, and after nearly 4 years of negotiations, we received a retro payment. It was basically 3.5 percent of our earnings, not the new negotiated rate.

Actually, the retro payment did not cover the loss of potential income over that time period.

 

[SkyguyB727]

Regarding this pay increase, why is Delta management saying in writing, "We cannot make promises of what pay, benefits, and work rules will be if a union is not voted in." The statement seems very odd.