You must be kidding!
Profit Sharing will shut airline if this happens!
- Thread starter 320tech
- Start date
Hulagirl, Can you believe this? As I stated before let them do this and let the west not work during the holidays and thereby REDUCING their profit SHARING. I hope THEY dont have to work too hard! This would carry on into the future and to those that would benefit from this, I would say 3o pieces of silver doesnt go that far. To think what the NW mechanics went thru and this is how solidarity works? I hope your "karma" doesnt suffer.
MyOpinion
Member
- Dec 10, 2005
- 36
- 1
If the contract of the Mech's doesn't have provisions for profit sharing, and the transition agreement is still on the table, then they shouldn't get any profit sharing.
The employees who were forced to join the union should get the profit sharing if the contract they are under states they should get it.
As far as the transition agreement goes, I don't see it happening until well after the first of the year or never.
The employees who were forced to join the union should get the profit sharing if the contract they are under states they should get it.
As far as the transition agreement goes, I don't see it happening until well after the first of the year or never.
quoted by 700uw
"If you did not participate in the concessions you should not be part of the profit sharing."
then after a transition to the east cba, the west would then, in theory, be under said cba with the profit sharing, therefore entitled to it, but yet still not have given the concessions as said est has to deserve it, so then why not give it now in a good faith effort to solidfy the workforce???
"If you did not participate in the concessions you should not be part of the profit sharing."
then after a transition to the east cba, the west would then, in theory, be under said cba with the profit sharing, therefore entitled to it, but yet still not have given the concessions as said est has to deserve it, so then why not give it now in a good faith effort to solidfy the workforce???
sharktooth
Veteran
- Jan 27, 2006
- 1,846
- 0
It has nothing to do with what is "fair". You will never win based on logic. Those arguments were "used" in negotiations (right, guys?).
It is purely contractual, now. If the original contract said, all employees, then that how it is.
Perhaps those kool-aid drinking "Dougie loving" ignoramuses can prevail on their love-interest to have the company cough up the difference, which is by far the best solution originally presented by PITbull and Jim.
I saw the same moronic comments concerning Bethune, revealing total ignorance about corporate affairs. Is it pathological, this stupid thinking?
Agreed.
We are not children and should not play the part of the bully to our co-workers. If you must bully somebody, Parker is a good target. Get him to give you a profit sharing check.
what is the actual dollar amount that the m &r is due for the east and how does it break down for each person.
furthermore why don't we only pay on the profit that the east operations made, then that would be fair, correct? if you only want whatis in the cba from the bk, then it should be for the US that was in bk.
what about people who no longer work for US that worked any aprt of last year, should they get it??
furthermore why don't we only pay on the profit that the east operations made, then that would be fair, correct? if you only want whatis in the cba from the bk, then it should be for the US that was in bk.
what about people who no longer work for US that worked any aprt of last year, should they get it??
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #99
Let's see...
- the dollar amount for any group (M&R, for example) won't be known until the annual numbers come out - probably Feb 2007. For an individual, it will depend on the total for the group they belong to, the individuals 2006 W-2 earnings as a percentage of the groups, and who is included (only active, furloughed, retired, leave, etc??)
- Although paying based on East profits would seem to be fair to ma personally, it runs afoul of the contracts (assuming that the rest are like ALPA's). US Group signed the contract so profit sharing is based on US Group profit margin. Besides, FWIW, it would probably make no difference in the dollar amount based on the way the profits have been distributed so far - could even result in more money being available for profit sharing because of the way the amount is calculated.
- As I understand it, each union gets to decide whether to include those who have left the company but worked part of the year. ALPA has already decided to give profit sharing to any furloughed/retired pilot who has W-2 earnings for the year.
Jim
- the dollar amount for any group (M&R, for example) won't be known until the annual numbers come out - probably Feb 2007. For an individual, it will depend on the total for the group they belong to, the individuals 2006 W-2 earnings as a percentage of the groups, and who is included (only active, furloughed, retired, leave, etc??)
- Although paying based on East profits would seem to be fair to ma personally, it runs afoul of the contracts (assuming that the rest are like ALPA's). US Group signed the contract so profit sharing is based on US Group profit margin. Besides, FWIW, it would probably make no difference in the dollar amount based on the way the profits have been distributed so far - could even result in more money being available for profit sharing because of the way the amount is calculated.
- As I understand it, each union gets to decide whether to include those who have left the company but worked part of the year. ALPA has already decided to give profit sharing to any furloughed/retired pilot who has W-2 earnings for the year.
Jim
thanks for the answer jim, i don't like sounding like a nut job, but what it sounds like from the iam is that since we(ibt) wanted to force a vote for representation thus delaying the dues and transition to the east cba we are being penalized by them. there was an update put out last year that basically said that by forcing an unwinnable(sp) vote, it was delaying the west from getting in on the cba's pension. I take that as us be called not slart enough to roll over. the simple question remains for the east, much less a similarly named member on this board, that if US was in the same exact predicament as HP, would they just roll-over and give up what they want. now with this Delta deal in the works, we may have our answer
if you see my point the way i think i have said it.
still franke was the poster child for anti-union mgmnt. all of the cba's that he was invovled with were almost identical, everything that was gotten for the union members were not given up freely. he was just as happy as to see every group sit and suffer as long as it took to get what he wanted. so the argument of " well you should have bargained for it" is not accurate.
anyone ever hear of AWArd pay?????
if you see my point the way i think i have said it.
still franke was the poster child for anti-union mgmnt. all of the cba's that he was invovled with were almost identical, everything that was gotten for the union members were not given up freely. he was just as happy as to see every group sit and suffer as long as it took to get what he wanted. so the argument of " well you should have bargained for it" is not accurate.
anyone ever hear of AWArd pay?????
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #101
I understand your position, and if you think I'll argue that any union has no faults - well, you'll be disappointed. As far as I'm concerned, every union has warts.
I can only say what I've said before - take any provision that's better in your contract than it is in the East contract (vacation, sick, cost of medical, whatever). How would you feel if the IAM told you that you either got less or paid more so that those covered by the East contract could enjoy an equal benefit?
As for the rest - concessions, fighting the IAM in the representation battle, etc - it's all noise as far as I'm concerned. For example, if your group had willingly embraced the IAM from the start, there no guarantee that you'd have a transition agreement or be under a common contract now. So the situation could be exactly as it is today.
Jim
I can only say what I've said before - take any provision that's better in your contract than it is in the East contract (vacation, sick, cost of medical, whatever). How would you feel if the IAM told you that you either got less or paid more so that those covered by the East contract could enjoy an equal benefit?
As for the rest - concessions, fighting the IAM in the representation battle, etc - it's all noise as far as I'm concerned. For example, if your group had willingly embraced the IAM from the start, there no guarantee that you'd have a transition agreement or be under a common contract now. So the situation could be exactly as it is today.
Jim
I find this whole argument laughable because of the West's "dirty little secret". West employess have made many dollars this year in their 401-K plan because they hold AWA stock that was converted to the new LCC stock at the merger - that has more than doubled this year. They complain about a 1 time check that they might not get but have a nice bonus already on the stock. East employees do not have Company stock as an option and have not profited at all here.
Has the Company made it possible for East employees to profit from the Companies turnaround?
I don't think so.
Has the Company made it possible for East employees to profit from the Companies turnaround?
I don't think so.
Seems that it is time for everyone in thew West M&R to become dues objecters(sp) when the IAM comes calling for dues to be paid. Why pay dues to a union that is shafting a sement of the work group.
The IAM keeps saying solidarity, however, their actions are anything but.
The IAM keeps saying solidarity, however, their actions are anything but.
- Banned
- #104
Why do westies feel entilted to something they did not partake in?
I like how you keep ignoring BoeingBoy's questions, he makes a very valid point about giving the East things in your CBA that are better.
Bottom line is you did not partake in the concessions, you are not under the East IAM/US CBA, therefore you are not entilted to the profit sharing.
Nothing is stopping Doogie from giving you money from the general treasury and not out of the wallets of people that gave the concessions.
I like how you keep ignoring BoeingBoy's questions, he makes a very valid point about giving the East things in your CBA that are better.
Bottom line is you did not partake in the concessions, you are not under the East IAM/US CBA, therefore you are not entilted to the profit sharing.
Nothing is stopping Doogie from giving you money from the general treasury and not out of the wallets of people that gave the concessions.
I think you will find, that, there are alot of east people that literally lost most of everything they had on the companies stock. Not the west's problem really, but a point that may be concidered.
