This, For The If-you-don't-like-it, Leave Guys

[Light Years]

Stop the TORTURE!! :down: Your ramblings are killing us. No matter how much you whine and cry, me and many others will not quit . I still have one more NO VOTE to cast!

Its like being subjected to continual playing of "the Safety Dance" or "Macarana".

But, to be fair, we all kind of ramble on about the same things over and over on this board, myself included.

 

[mweiss]

Thanks for the response. It will be very hard for Management to get allot of cooperation considering the past.

You're welcome. And you're right, though I must admit that the changes that have already been implemented are all the right ones. Better late than never. I didn't have a lot of hope for Bruce, but he's been a pleasant surprise in many respects, and I very sincerely hope that it's not too late.

The reality here is, as diogenes stated very well to begin this thread, and I have now mentioned twiuce, is not that simple. People have families to fend for. Other jobs with similar pay scales, are extremely limited, particularly when your experience is 25 years of pushing back airplanes. These skills do not transfer easily into other occupations. While I am sure many folks at US Airways have other skills, the job market is still tight.

That pretty much sums it up. And the bottom line is that you're all looking at the same picture that the rest of us who aren't independently wealthy are looking at. We have an economy that shrank, and then started growing slowly, mostly without increasing jobs in the US. So we're all getting squeezed. And it's not fun by any stretch of the imagination. It is, however, a characteristic of the capitalistic society in which we reside. Like the legacy airlines, it has made things really good when the economy is good, and really bad when the economy is bad.

 

[mweiss]

Side note: How do you get a whole response in a quote, when what you're responding to has quotes in it?

Not sure exactly what you're asking. If you mean that when you click the Quote button on someone's post, it excludes what they were quoting, you're right. I have to manually add it in (you can do nested quotes).

Diogenes, I appreciate your reasoned response. It's far easier to get to the meat of issues when the rhetoric is left behind. So, point by point:

1. Change: As you noted, facism is not generally a good way to run anything, whether government or business. I'm not so much suggesting that facism is a good idea than to point out that business managers are all dictators by design. However, some are benevolent dictators, and others are facist dictators. The darwinistic nature of business tends to weed out the latter type, though not always as quickly as one might like. Carl Icahn killed TWA ultimately, but in a parisitic way that kept the host alive for a long time.

2. Business is not government: My point is that the rules governing the two are different. Government in this country is, by design, republican (little R), not democratic (little D). Business in this country is, by design, a dictatorship in some cases and a plutocracy in others, but almost never a democracy (the sole exception being where all employees own an equal number of shares, and all shares are held by employees...I don't know if this even exists in any instances, but that would be a case of a company being a true democracy), nor a republic.

3. and 4. Agreed. No need to rehash.

5. I appreciate your clarification of your position. On some level, though, it sounds like the Republican farce of suggesting that higher deficits are good because they rein in spending. I suspect that if a Yes vote brings wages to a level commensurate with comparable professions, it's probably where it should be from an economic purist's perspective. But that's more an academic exercise than anything else.

 

[mweiss]

You are joking and just trying to stir the pot right?

No, sir, I am not.

If it is a close vote and it goes the no's way then it is a travesty of justice that the majority have had their say?

Let me make it clearer. If those who voted No (or, for that matter, voted Yes) did so with one foot out the door, then it is a travesy of justice.

Would that be the same with any vote anywhere for anything? The presidential elections?

If a significant percentage of voters were moving out of the country, and they all voted the same way, and their votes threw the election, then yes, it would be the same.

Well why even have votes? Why let majority rule?

The issue is the legitimacy of the votes. You might as well allow me to have a vote.

 

[mweiss]

...we all kind of ramble on about the same things over and over on this board, myself included.

Say it ain't so!

 

[youngblood]

I just put myself in the shoes of an employee who would be willing to take the concessions rather than look elsewhere. If that employee were to be denied an opportunity because of people who voted no so that they'd have a last chance to "stick it to the man," that'd be a real tragedy.

Now, if there are almost no "yes" votes, that's one thing. But if the vote is really close, then it's a travesty of justice. It'd be the equivalent of letting non-US-citizens vote in an election, since the people who are "no-and-out-the-door" are effectively nonemployees at the time of the balloting.

Usually your posts are rather intelligent; however, I am sad to say this one is not.

Let me clarify. What you are saying is that everyone's vote only counts if concessions pass in a land slide? That what I ought to do is not take into consideration the ramifications of more concessions, but take into consideration how someone else may want me to vote? Since when is someone's vote determined by another's wishes?

And before you say those who vote no are on their way out anyway, think again. I truly believe that those left are people who like the job and loved the company and want to see it succeed. You fail to even acknowledge that it may be a possibility that U was once something to be proud of.

Have you ever tried fixing a leaking pipe with duck tape? It's okay for a little while, but it starts bleeding again eventually. To truly fix the problem you replace the parts needed and make sure it is put together properly. Most aren't denying changes are needed, they are saying don't ask for more concessions until you fix the leaks that you have duck taped for the past two years. They have the tools and parts needed but have miserably failed at fixing the problems.

 

[mweiss]

What you are saying is that everyone's vote only counts if concessions pass in a land slide?

Nope. You misunderstand, and it appears you're not the only one. I'm saying that if someone votes at all and was planning to leave immediately after the vote regardless of the outcome and the vote is close enough that the leaving person's vote changed the outcome, that would be a tragedy. Doesn't matter whether the person votes yes or no.

The same applies if someone votes No with the intent of having US file 7. It's just walking out the door and making sure the building falls down behind them.

And, as a final note, I am not naive enough to believe that the concessions alone would save the airline. But it appears that Lakefield is doing the right stuff so far.

 

[youngblood]

Michael,

Then I stand corrected. Sorry. I misunderstood your post, yet you have to agree that it seemed geared toward those who would possibly vote no.

You and I agree that Lakefield seems to be doing a better job than Dave, but what "seems to be" isn't always necessarily what actually "is". Forgive me for being a pessimist. My motto has become "My trust isn't freely given - you have to earn it."

BTW, CWA's last concession passed by a mere five or six votes. I guess that was a tragedy considering at least three times that many people left not long after.

 

[delldude]

Why hang on?

He figures he will get screwed out of severance, but there remains a slim chance of getting it.

there's also that remote thing of MAYBE THEY'LL PULL IT OUT....MAYBE.....
it may be a long shot......but i know some consider it..

 

[mweiss]

you have to agree that it seemed geared toward those who would possibly vote no.

Of course. But you have to recall the context in which the discussion started, many threads ago. Nobody was talking about voting yes and walking out the door. It was always a no.

BTW, CWA's last concession passed by a mere five or six votes. I guess that was a tragedy considering at least three times that many people left not long after.

Left because of layoffs? Or by choice? And, if it was because of layoffs, that brings up another related topic. Imagine what it would be like if Americans were able to vote to have an entire class of citizens removed from the nation...voting takes on a whole different cast.

You and I agree that Lakefield seems to be doing a better job than Dave, but what "seems to be" isn't always necessarily what actually "is".

No doubt. But I'd imagine you'd take what you can get. And I'd go further than saying he's doing better than Dave...Dave didn't do anything to fix the fundamental problems with the airline. Bruce seems to be focused on the fundamental issues. Shutting down the underperforming PIT, consolidating training and res (though I agree with [I think it was Clue] that redundancy is necessary in res centers), switching to point-to-point flying, eliminating unnecessary management jobs...it's pretty much right down the list of things we've been unanimously agreeing need to be done.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

You're welcome. And you're right, though I must admit that the changes that have already been implemented are all the right ones. Better late than never. I didn't have a lot of hope for Bruce, but he's been a pleasant surprise in many respects, and I very sincerely hope that it's not too late.

Mr Mweiss

Did Mr Lakefield come in and dream up the changes overnight? A more likely scenario was the changes were already part of dave's strategy but since the company could clearly see Dave was a liability now they withheld the changes until he was ousted so Mr Lakefield could present them as his own. Inspiring employee confidence in him. I still would say the changes are way to little and way to late.

QUOTE Mr Mweiss
Let me make it clearer. If those who voted No (or, for that matter, voted Yes) did so with one foot out the door, then it is a travesy of justice.
If a significant percentage of voters were moving out of the country, and they all voted the same way, and their votes threw the election, then yes, it would be the same.


I say...I do not think most the no votes are voting with the intention of leaving the company. Do many feel that there is no hope anyway? Probably. But I must ask If voting yes means voting yourself out of a job so you vote no does that count as voting with one foot out of the door?

Travesty of justice, well the world is not perfect and neither is our country nor USAirways but you either have a right to vote or not. Thats the way it is and always has been. Was it a travesty of justice when women were not allowed to vote? It sure was but we voted anyway and here we are today. The country was founded on the premise for equal rights and majority should rule (though with the electoral college some may want to debate that). Of course it was a different era back then so we have had amendments to refine the basic ideas. But I can't recall an amendment that says if you leaving the country right after a vote you can't vote. As a matter of fact I think after they leave they can still vote absentee. Seems we were waiting for those votes to be counted the last presidential election. Would you say if you have one foot in grave you shouldn't be allowed to vote? How about one foot in retirement?

QUOTE Mr Mweiss
The issue is the legitimacy of the votes. You might as well allow me to have a vote.

I sat.. The definition of legitimacy is...
[n] lawfulness by virtue of being authorized or in accordance with law
Why are these no votes you preach about not legitimate. Since when do you or anyone else judge the reasons a person votes how they do. I would guess you are in favor of standing in front of poll box and ask the reason someone is voting as they are and turn them away as you see fit or do think just telling them ahead of time their vote in illegitimate is enough?

 

[700UW]

what mwiess fails to remember that is not Lakefield's plan, it is Seigel's, it was passed by the BOD before Seigel was fired.

Same Orchrestra, Same Music, New Conductor.

 

[mweiss]

A more likely scenario was the changes were already part of dave's strategy but since the company could clearly see Dave was a liability now they withheld the changes until he was ousted so Mr Lakefield could present them as his own.

No cynicism in that comment, is there? I mean, geez, what do you want at this point? A time machine?

I still would say the changes are way to little and way to late.

Thus far, I'd agree. Would you have been happier if the decision was to continue business as usual? Or how about doubling everyone's wages so the airline can file 7 that much sooner?

But I must ask If voting yes means voting yourself out of a job so you vote no does that count as voting with one foot out of the door?

One of the more interesting twists in the balloting, isn't it? High-seniority employees get the opportunity to vote the lower-seniority employees "off the island." Another of the less seemly aspects of the whole thing.

...the world is not perfect and neither is our country nor USAirways...

So the imperfections of the world, our country, and/or US Airways are not travesties?

The country was founded on the premise for equal rights and majority should rule (though with the electoral college some may want to debate that).

Common misperception. The United States is a republic, not a democracy. The electoral college reflects this. There are reasons why we might as a nation choose to change this, but there are very good historical reasons why it was set up in this way.

But I can't recall an amendment that says if you leaving the country right after a vote you can't vote.

Nope. Generally, the number of people leaving the country is small, and their opinions sufficiently similar to the constituency as a whole, that the impact on the elections is insignificant. That doesn't appear to be true with the US Airways concession vote.

I would guess you are in favor of standing in front of poll box and ask the reason someone is voting as they are and turn them away as you see fit or do think just telling them ahead of time their vote in illegitimate is enough?

Nope. And I wouldn't try to stand in front of the balloting at US Airways and do the same. But it's important to consider the ethical implications of one's vote. Just as I find it reprehensible that Congress is fond of putting restrictions on everyone but themselves, I find it reprehensible that there are people on this board suggesting that they'd put other people out of work just to "stick it to the man." It's selfish, hypocritical behavior.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

No cynicism in that comment, is there? I mean, geez, what do you want at this point? A time machine?

Thus far, I'd agree. Would you have been happier if the decision was to continue business as usual? Or how about doubling everyone's wages so the airline can file 7 that much sooner?

One of the more interesting twists in the balloting, isn't it? High-seniority employees get the opportunity to vote the lower-seniority employees "off the island." Another of the less seemly aspects of the whole thing.

So the imperfections of the world, our country, and/or US Airways are not travesties?

Common misperception. The United States is a republic, not a democracy. The electoral college reflects this. There are reasons why we might as a nation choose to change this, but there are very good historical reasons why it was set up in this way.

Nope. Generally, the number of people leaving the country is small, and their opinions sufficiently similar to the constituency as a whole, that the impact on the elections is insignificant. That doesn't appear to be true with the US Airways concession vote.

Nope. And I wouldn't try to stand in front of the balloting at US Airways and do the same. But it's important to consider the ethical implications of one's vote. Just as I find it reprehensible that Congress is fond of putting restrictions on everyone but themselves, I find it reprehensible that there are people on this board suggesting that they'd put other people out of work just to "stick it to the man." It's selfish, hypocritical behavior.

No cynicism in that comment at all. I would say my comment has more truth in it then yours that it was all Mr Lakefields idea.

No to the business as usual and doubling the wages questions. Yes to using what they already have received i.e wages cuts and work rule changes and yes to a complete overhauling of the structure and culture of the airline and no for Band-Aids when a major operation needed first.

You didn't answer the question "But I must ask If voting yes means voting yourself out of a job so you vote no does that count as voting with one foot out of the door?" In other words is that one of the votes you consider illegitimate?

So you propose a world, country, Usairways with no imperfections? Please enlighten us. Or to live with the imperfections but change the rules as you see fit in your mind to prevent the so called Travesty of justice?


The primary reason popular vote wasn't wasn't used was out of concern that voters would only select candidates from their state without adequate information about candidates outside of their own state. Actually the members of the electoral college for each state are selected by the party that wins the majority vote of that state. Thus the electoral college represents the majority of that state.


It sure almost made an impact last election in this country. I thought generally when you take a small percentile of people from a group (say our polls on here?) the margin of error is to great to take them into consideration as representing the whole. So you are saying if the group is small but the opinions are sufficiently similar to the whole or the group is small and the opinions differ its ok to let them vote because it won't effect outcome anyway. But if the group is large and the vote differs from the majority that they should not be allowed to vote. Is that right? Um well how do you really know what the majority will vote in the first place? Again why have votes or elections if you already know the majority and you can selectively exclude voters at your whim?

I find it reprehensible you would use ethical or any other reason to limit someone's right to vote. I find it reprehensible you suggest that the only single reason some would vote no is to "stick it to the man". You are the selfish one to limit people right to vote because you think one way or another.

I have always believed that when you believe in something you stand up and fight for it you don't pick up and run. If you don't like what Congress does then change it. It seems your idea of standing up and fighting for something is to tell people that you don't agree with to either change their vote or pick up and quit . That my friend is a sad thing but its your choice and go ahead and fight to change it but remember you will have to live with it and sometime you will be on the other side.

 

[wench]

1- Diogenes--Well done!

2-Dcaflyer---**tips my hat to you**thank you!

Your're both correct..
The company should offer a decent buyout and not FLYING BENNIES only..I cannot pay my bills on **flying bennies only**

3-Let CCY white collar's resign with **flying bennies only*** it's the 'don't do as I do, do as I say snydrome..
.. Employees, there is MONEYT IN US'S pot, we've all seen it....Golden Parachutes...What ABOUT US!!!!

Our time is long OVERDUE..

NO excuses,Lies or other Garbage!!

I'll officialy **RETIRE**.* when the pot IS SWEETENED>>>