Swa To Get Mediation In F/a Negotiations

[swflyer]

Our Chairman, Jim Parker, told a conference of analysts in January, (paraphrase) "How I treat my employees in the bad times is how I'm judged by them in the good". This was his answer to the guestion, "How can you afford raises for employees at this time?"

Jim Parker did not offer any dates for negotiations from Aug. 7 (date of last Union counter-proposal) until declaring an impasse on Sept. 10. During that same time, Company spokepeople stated, "negotiations are going fine", "employees had the right to engage in a public campaign", and "the parties were not near an impasse".<_<

After requesting a media blackout from the Union, in a letter dated Sept. 3 (which was refused), he declared an impasse.:angry:

I'm overjoyed we will FINALLY have some progress in our negotiations that have gone on for FAR too long.

IMHO

 

[wnfan37]

interesting read here - an anonymous source at sw provided me this memo below. seems like a nice proposal to me. what am i missing? the chart would not paste here, so it is not enclosed.


TO: All Flight Attendants
FROM: Jim Parker
SUBJECT: Company Compensation Proposal of 7/16/03
=====================================================
Since representatives of TWU Local 556 have apparently chosen to make selective disclosures concerning the Company?s most recent compensation proposal, I wanted to provide you with the real numbers.

Below is a chart, by which each Flight Attendant can see what their TFP rates would be from May 31, 2002 through May 31, 2008, under the Company?s actual proposal, including both annual seniority step increases and contract rate increases. To find your rates, locate your year of seniority as of 5/31/02 in the left hand column. Then read straight across to see what your pay rate was on May 31, 2002 (under the old contract); what it would be as of June 1, 2002; what it would be on June 1, 2003; June 1, 2004; etc.

For example, a 5th year Flight Attendant on May 31, 2002 received a TFP rate of $21.48, under the old contract, which would be increased (with full retro pay) to $22.98 as of June 1, 2002. On June 1, 2003, his or her TFP rate would become $24.14. By the end of the contract, on May 31, 2008, his or her rate would be $35.51, a 65.3% increase from the current rate of $21.48.

This offer was presented to the Union?s Negotiating Committee on July 16, 2003. In addition, the Company offered full retro pay to June 1, 2002; offered to increase our Flight Attendants? per diem pay to an industry-leading $2.15 an hour (equal to our Pilots? per diem); to reduce the time to topout from 17 years to 15 years; and to continue our industry-leading 7.3% 401(K) match. The total value of this compensation package (including trip pay, per diem, and 401(K) match) would exceed any other Flight Attendant contract in the airline industry. We have also agreed to numerous other contract enhancements which would improve our Flight Attendants? quality of life.

These are the real numbers proposed by the Company, which I wanted you to have access to, so that you may base your opinions on facts, rather than speculation.

Thanks for continuing to be the best group of Flight Attendants in the world, and contributing so mightily to the success of Southwest Airlines.

 

[missgoose]

If these numbers are real, then I don't see why our Union would not provide them to us and why the Company has to wait till after they request a Mediator to give them to us. They should have provided them way before now so our Union could have heard from the Flight Attendants and our opinion. This is the first time, in a long time, that we have a Union that actually wants to fight for what we need. Although there comes a time when we need to come to reality, we really are just asking for a contract that is comparable to other airlines.

Miss Goose

 

[missgoose]

BTW...

I also recieved this letter and seen the chart!

Miss Goose

 

[KCFlyer]

Miss Goose - your union most likely didn't provide those numbers because they are too focused on the "ground time" or "cleaning the plane" pay. I wish labor negotiations didn't work this way, but for the same proposal, one side is going to highlight what's lacking and play down the improvements, while the other side is going to highlight the good and gloss over the stuff that's lacking. I notice that Parker mentioned "selective disclosure". Now I'm not much of a union person, but that tells me that your union wants to be portrayed as "fighting" for the best, and omits the stuff (the wage) that IMHO, is the most important "meat" of the negotiations.

I realize that this is all pure speculation on my part, but I have an idea that if the company puts those numbers in writing to the FA's, they must have put it in writing to the union negotiators.

 

[swflyer]

WNfan37 and all,

I've attached Management's pay proposal to this post, and hope you will be able to view the copy. It's what was missing from WN's post. It's also a "selective disclosure" on the part of Mr. Parker, as his percentages include his pay increase of about 13% coupled with years of service increases to get his inflated totals.

For example: Starting Pay is $14.67, a person at this step will enjoy a total of 13.6% increase in pay and 6 or 7 years of service increases to achieve at 2008 payrate of $27.39. $14.67 to $27.39 is how to get to Mr. Parker's total of an 86.7% increase in pay.

Under our current contract, without an increase in pay, that same flight attendant would enjoy a payrate of $24.12 in 2008.

The difference between current contract raises and those proposed by management is 13.6% over 6 years ($24.12 vs. $27.39)

Following down the May 31 column shows the current contract's years of service increases.

BTW, KCFlyer, there is a lot more than just cleaning pay and ground time that was discussed today in the Lounges. B)

 

[KCFlyer]

SWflyer - Having had to work with numbers to "sell" a product, I can tell you that anyone can take the same set of numbers and make it look good or bad, depending on what you are trying to convey. Yes, managment offers "selective disclosure" as well as the union. They used the numbers to make it look good. You take the numbers and make it look bad. Same numbers, different results.

I noticed in the Parker memo a "per diem" of $2.15 per hour...How is this paid (how many hours) - and what does it cover? Food? Lodging? In other words, what does the company cover while you are 'on the road'? When I travelled mucho lots, some companies offered me a "per diem" and if I spent less, I kept the difference. It worked out to be an "unwritten" pay increase. Just curious, because other companies where I traveled a bunch only reimbursed actual expenses, not a per diem. So I'm kind of curious about that becuase I am sure that in some of the info pickets where the pay issue was being brought to the forefront that the additional "per diem" amount wasn't included in those numbers.

As an "outsider" I will say that your 401K match is VERY generous. Most companies cap it at 3%. 7.3% may be money that won't put food on the table today,but itt sure adds to the "nest egg" for the golden years pretty nicely.

Still hoping for a contract all parties find to be fair. Remember - liars figure and figures lie - I know, I've done it for years.

 

[SWAFA30]

SWFlyer,

I appreciate you taking the time to try to educate people on the status of our negotiations. Just keep in mind though that trying to make everyone agree with our point of view is an exercise in futility. People are free to share their opinions but remember, Our fight with the company is just that OUR fight. We are the ones that have to live with the outcome of these negotiations not anyone else. I wonder how our detractors would feel if we started a discussion on how much they ought to be paid at their jobs. Every opinon about our compensation package seems to be respected except for the opinions of those of us who actually do this job day in and day out. Stockholders, and SWA flight attendants are stockholders too, naturally have a vested interested in how all of this comes out. However, if any stockholders feel that this turn of events will put their holdings in jeopardy, they are free to sell their shares. By and large, the membership is unified, fed up and ready to see this through to the end.

In Unity

SWAFA30


KCFlyer,

Per Diem is currently 2.00 per hour and it is paid around the clock when we are away overnight. The company pays for airport transfers and our hotel rooms. We are required to pay the rest. Reimbursement for incurred expenses cannot be counted on as income. Our new hire and reserve flight attendants can often go weeks and months without being assigned trips where per diem is paid. A new hire is guaranteed 93.5 hours of pay per month when on reserve. If they are not used while on call...all they have earned for a month on duty is...a whopping $1371.65 BEFORE taxes. The 401k match is indeed generous but it does not help keep the rent paid, the lights on and food on the table. Lower the match, increase my hard pay and let me save for my own retirement.

 

[swflyer]

KC,

In addition to the great post by SWAFA30, the $2.15 number matches what the pilots have been receiving.

 

[KCFlyer]

SWAFA30 - I fully understand that the per diem is for food and other necessities. But when I was on a perdiem, I could buy a lot of food in a day for $48. (24 hours times $2.00 per hour). In fact, I could eat pretty well for under $20 a day, making a nice "profit" of $28 per day. So while it can't be counted on for income, it IS something that a lot of folks who are flying as passengers on your planes don't get. I don't know how many day's you're on the road any given month, but using 14 days as an example, that per diem amounts to a little over $8,000 per year...if you can live on $20 worth of food every day, that's an "income" of $4,000 per year.

I do have to ask this though - would the majority of the FA's prefer a cut in 401K match while the other workgroups are given more, and have their hard pay raised to "industry leading"? Or would they feel that they have been shortchanged because as they approach retirement, they find that they've been "ripped off" in their retirement plans? But I personally wouldn't want to anything that is subject to tax in return for giving up 7.3% of a tax deferred "gimme". I wouldn't even want my union to be THINKING that way. More power to you if you want to save for your own retirement - but IMHO, an awful lot of folks who are younger will tend to put off saving for retirement. I certainly didn't sock away money for my retirement when I was in my 20's. But if you run the numbers on how much you'll have to sock away per week in order to have a million bucks by the time your 65, it's shocking to see how much more it takes for a 35 year old than it does if you start at 20. And unfortunatly, many who aren't that disciplined won't start until they are in their 40's. That "forced incentive" savings plan is more valuable than you might realize.

But, IMHO, to even try to compare the FA's at LUV with the FA's at the other major carriers is a mistake on the part of the union...certainly they are downplaying the fact that AA told their FA's (the ones that weren't furloughed, that is) that they if they voted "no" to concessions, that they were going to ask the bankruptcy judge to set the pay rate well BELOW the FA's at SWA. In other words, the possiblity exists that you could end up with "industry leading" pay without getting a dime more.

But as I said...I just messed with some figures there...I'm sure you can do something with the same numbers to prove me wrong. Bottom line, I don't doubt that you are going to get a decent contract.

 

[swflyer]

KC,

Reducing the 401K match isn't even being approached and wouldn't fly. For exactly the reason you specified.

Appreciate your interest and candor!

 

[wnfan37]

Our fight with the company is just that OUR fight. By and large, the membership is unified, fed up and ready to see this through to the end.

In Unity

terrific, now it's gone to "what we deserve" to a "fight." wonderful - and only in a union. is it any wonder union memberships are down significantly across the board? by and large, i think the general populous is fed up with all the talk of fight and deserve. there are 1000s of former flight attendants that would gladly step in, knowing they have something they can't get at any other airline - job security.

 

[SWAFA30]

Our fight with the company is just that OUR fight. By and large, the membership is unified, fed up and ready to see this through to the end.

In Unity

terrific, now it's gone to "what we deserve" to a "fight." wonderful - and only in a union. is it any wonder union memberships are down significantly across the board? by and large, i think the general populous is fed up with all the talk of fight and deserve. there are 1000s of former flight attendants that would gladly step in, knowing they have something they can't get at any other airline - job security.

I stand by my choice to use the word "deserve". The $2 billion cash that SWA has in the bank was not put there by the toothfairy. It was earned on the backs of the hard work of every level of employee from senior manager to stock clerk. Salary is not charity it is compensation for work and when that work is continually above and beyond the call of duty, then the workers....all of them at all pay levels DESERVE to reap in the rewards.

When a mediator becomes necessary if you are not officially involved in a "fight" your are getting pretty darn close. Note: said mediator was called in after the company walked away from the table, not the union.


The general populous as it applies to the passengers that we encountered during informational picketing events and the journalists who have covered these events have been sympathetic, receptive, and positive.

Current issues aside, SWA remains simultaneously among the most unionized and successful airlines in the industry. Strong unions and prosperous companies are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Referencing the 1000s of flight attendants who are out of work is to suggest that SWAs flight attendants should just shut up, be glad they have a job and be content to negotiate a concessionary contract like our company is bankrupt or even struggling when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Cart Pusher]

SWAFA30 -

Your posts are extremely well thought out and intelligent. I think that you are dead on in that you should probably just refrain from further discussion on these boards where your pay is concerned and let the negotiations play themselves out. None of these people here would be asking for your input when they go into negotiations (or reviews, whatever you wish to call it) for their salaries. They are certainly entitled to their opinion but it is just that, an opinion and not one that has anything to do with your job and what you deserve, which by the way is pay that reflects what you give back to the company and nothing less. Southwest has risen to their position mostly in part due to the entire group of people that are on their payrolls and they deserve to be compensated with that in mind. Asking for more from your company while they continue to ask you for more is certainly reasonable.

KC Flyer -

I enjoy reading your posts as well. While I don't necessarily share the same thoughts that you do I respect your views and think that they are well written and thought out. In regards to the per diem that F/A's recieve I would like to point out that while you can make do easily on $20 per day, F/A's most often have to rely on room service or the hotel restaurant for most meals while traveling as we don't have transportation and often stay in the airport areas where food options are limited and sometimes it's not safe to be wondering around at night looking for food. As you know, I'm sure, most any reasonable meal purchased through either of these venues is going to run in excess of $20 alone. That's just one meal. Also, F/A's customarily give at least $2 of their per diem each day to the hotel van drivers as a gratuity for handling their baggage. It's certainly optional but customary amongst airline crews to tip these folks. On a three day trip that starts at around noon on the first day and ends at, say, 900p on the third day per diem is currently $114.00 for the entire trip. If you arrive at your hotel at around 930pm on the first day and haven't had dinner you order room service at 23.00 for a hamburger and a coke. Second day, breakfast at the hotel restaurant costs you 16.00, lunch at the airport is 8.00, dinner again that evening at the hotel is another 23.00. Third day, breakfast at the hotel again 16.00, lunch at the airport another 8.00 - tips for the van drivers total $4.00. That leaves you a little buffer of 16.00 which goes towards other miscellaneous expenses that you incur along the way. Not to mention that those hotel meal prices are conservative. Many hotels can cost much more than that and not everyone wants a hamburger and a coke for their only decent meal all day -- Just wanted to point that out. It's not the great big salary booster that many think it is. Sure you can bring some food along but how many business travelers pack a food cooler with them? Food will last for the first day generally unless you pack non-perishable items but most F/A's can not subsist on this type of food for three days.

 

[wnfan37]

I stand by my choice to use the word "deserve". The $2 billion cash that SWA has in the bank was not put there by the toothfairy. It was earned on the backs of the hard work of every level of employee from senior manager to stock clerk. Salary is not charity it is compensation for work and when that work is continually above and beyond the call of duty, then the workers....all of them at all pay levels DESERVE to reap in the rewards.

When a mediator becomes necessary if you are not officially involved in a "fight" your are getting pretty darn close. Note: said mediator was called in after the company walked away from the table, not the union.


The general populous as it applies to the passengers that we encountered during informational picketing events and the journalists who have covered these events have been sympathetic, receptive, and positive.

Current issues aside, SWA remains simultaneously among the most unionized and successful airlines in the industry. Strong unions and prosperous companies are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Referencing the 1000s of flight attendants who are out of work is to suggest that SWAs flight attendants should just shut up, be glad they have a job and be content to negotiate a concessionary contract like our company is bankrupt or even struggling when nothing could be further from the truth.

i feel ripped off - the toothfairy only left me a few dollars for my old molars. and, your're right, the money was earned by ALL parties - from the F/A's to even senior management, who by the way, isn't paid nearly what they could earn at other airlines. i think we are best to avoid the pay questions - since money and schedules are the most sensitive.

but with all respect, CEOs and management at other carriers are making MUCH more than those at WN. i'm sure they get their 3% merit raises, but they probably don't whine to the media either. and, i'm sure it's just as much the union's doing as managements that a mediator is involved.

i fly SWA out of BWI - and maybe you did hear some positive, sympathetic comments in other locations, but i heard folks pretty unsympathetic to your cause and again, the events are ill-timed. but if the union wants to spend $$$ on such stunts that's great, it doesn't drain the $2B in the company bank. just means union dues may creep up next year, which may cut into that industry leading pay of yours. incidentally, since everyone else has slashed F/A salaries, im sure right now you are not too far away from that golden standard of industry leading. im sure united enjoyed it while it lasted.

let's just get this dern contract worked out.