Union Employees will never be satisfied with anything

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/19/2003 7:03:10 AM AAObserver wrote:



No, it isn't your business. They don't work for you.

Yes it is our business. We have a contract in place and they want to break it.

Who decides what a "fair deal" is? You? No, the economy and business markets decide what is "fair market" value.

Its not quite that simple. As I said before markets are subject to tampering. Who decided what was fair for mechanics ? Answer, the Federal government in the NWA and UAL PEBs. If we were allowed to strike we would have been making much more than we are now, why, because "the market" supported it. A supposedly neutral party determined that what we are making is fair and the UAL decision came out Post 9-11. Personally I think that the government is biased towards business more than labor.

You are not free, nor do you have a birthright to work for AA. Since they are the ones paying your salary, you should be free to work for them a) if you are doing the job you are paid to do, B) if economic conditions support your position, and c) if your attitude and overall performance enhance AA's business.

We are not free? Who made you the slavemaster?

The problem with unions is that they allow the "I'm free to work for AA no matter how lousy I may be at my job or how bad my attitude may be" ideal to sink workforce morale and performance. Without unions, you would probably be making a helluva lot more money if you were good at your job, but you would be out on your rearend if you had a bad attitude.

Wrong. Without Unions the company would have complete control over the market and drive all wages down. Your claim that unions keep bad workers on the job is not supported by the facts. The company can and does fire people for poor job performance. Its just that all too often its easier to just hide the person than go after them. I've worked in non-union shops and the attitude and performance of workers in non-union shops was no better than in union shops. Have you ever worked as a mechanic under both conditions? The fact is management is the primary force affecting morale not unions. Proof , SWA is the most heavily unionized airline yet it has good morale, pays its mechanics more than anyone else and makes a profit.

Either way, without unions AA would be in MUCH better financial shape and would provide MUCH better service to it's customers.

What do you base that on? Peoples express? New York Air? Airtran? Perhaps AA would be in better shape but its employeees would not be. And that is why we have unions.




----------------​

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 4/19/2003 7:25:47 AM AAObserver wrote:

The funny thing is that so many of you are bitter, hate your pay, and hate your bosses, but I seriously doubt any of you are looking for some other type of employment. Unions make it very convenient for employees to sit around and whine instead of looking for another job that will make them happier.
----------------​

Explain to us how "the unions make it very convenient for employees to sit around and whine instead of looking for another job that will make them happier"?

My retention bonus is next weeks paycheck, I do NOT have a double or triple bonus for staying around until 2005 or 2006.

It appears to me the "convenience to stay" is being propagated by management not the union.

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 4/19/2003 7:25:47 AM AAObserver wrote:

I'll repeat, if you truly believe this has anything in common with Enron, then you aren't very smart. The executive retention incentives are really none of your business in the first place since those executives are your employer, not vice versa. Executive retention is extremely common, legal, and is in place for competitive reasons.

----------------​

Why then did Carty write a letter of apology to the union leaders for the non-disclosure? If it was "none of our business", would the CEO need to apologize for not telling us?

​

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 4/18/2003 5:55:33 PM AAObserver wrote:

You prove my point. AA management''s comp is none of your business, and is irrelavent to employee pay. You work for them, not vice versa. If you don''t think you are paid enough or don''t like your management, you are free to leave the company.

----------------​

It is AA management that implemented "active engagement" discussions.

It is AA management that requested concessions.

It is the employee union leaders who requested to review financial data.

It is AA management that agreed to show finances as as long as the union leader would sign confidential agreements with the carrier.

At this point "AA management''s comp" damn sure did become our business and we have been duped and lied to. Carty and his cronies are not worthy of retention bonuses, nor should their pensions be anymore protected than ours.

My point is that when the discussions comes to concessions under threat and intimidation, management comp is our business.

It appears that Carty is attempting to emulate the threat tactics of Bob Crandall from 1983. The difference is Carty is a Dove and a Crandall is a Hawk. And the Dove cannot implement Hawk philosophies without ending up with a disaster, which is exactly where we are now.

If the AMR Board of Directors wants a Hawk, they need to hire one. Using a Dove to perform Hawk operations is like an industrial union attempting to emulate a craft union, which by the way is also assisting the current disaster.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/18/2003 10:51:38 PM AAObserver wrote:



Give me a break. Enron and WorldCom execs hid billions of dollars to make their companies appear profitable. AA''s legal (and generally accepted) retention bonuses have absolutely nothing in common with what happened at these two companies. If you think there is a correlation, you must not be very smart -- at all.

And I saw the Lou Dobbs piece you are talking about; it was nowhere near as dramatic as you are making it out to be.

Carty ought to just declare ch. 11 Sunday night, and let the unions fend for themselves against a bankruptcy judge. The bankruptcy judge wouldn''t be nearly as kind as AA is currently being; the creditors would replace the current contracts with what makes business sense in today''s economy, and you can bet it would be less than the proposed concessions.

You can bet the general public would have no sympathy either since the majority of them work in companies where hard work and the economy, not whining and seniority, dictate how much they are paid.


----------------​

"Generally accepted" by whom?

Nothing in common? How about the phrase "Lack of transparancy". Both appear to be decieving interested parties that they have an obligation to be honest to them. One, Enron was decieving sharholders to maximize the wealth of Enrons executives the other AA is decieving the unions and its employess to maximize the wealth of AA executives. There is more in common than you claim.

Yes you are right Carty should go into BK. We should tell the judge that if he changes our agreements without hitting the executives like at UAL and USAIR we will strike. Why drag this BS out. Lets get it over with and really see what is on the books. Not just what they want to show us.

Why would our concessions be more than UAL or USAIR?

 

[Buck]

----------------
On 4/19/2003 7:03:10 AM AAObserver wrote:

The problem with unions is that they allow the "I''m free to work for AA no matter how lousy I may be at my job or how bad my attitude may be" ideal to sink workforce morale and performance. Without unions, you would probably be making a helluva lot more money if you were good at your job, but you would be out on your rearend if you had a bad attitude.

Either way, without unions AA would be in MUCH better financial shape and would provide MUCH better service to it''s customers.




----------------​

It is the management team in place and their business plan that has caused American to dive towards bankruptcy. Everyone blames terrorism, the economy was on a downward trend in late 2000. Mangement failed to respond. Management has allowed for a $5 million a day cash burn without any major adjustments to the company structure. The $5 million a day X 365 = $1.8 Billion. This is the amount that the company demanded from the union workers. It is management that allowed this airline to be where it is today not labor. In fact it is labor that has most likely what has kept this company solvent.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/19/2003 7:25:47 AM AAObserver wrote:

----------------


 "Generally accepted" by whom?

----------------
​

IBM, Continental Airlines, AT&T and most American corporations who want to retain their top executives.


Then perhaps they should go work for those companies. Are those companies asking their employees to open their contracts and give massive concessions for six years?

----------------
Nothing in common? How about the phrase "Lack of transparancy".  Both appear to be decieving interested parties that they have an obligation to be honest to them. One, Enron was decieving sharholders to maximize the wealth of  Enrons executives the other AA is decieving the unions and its employess to maximize the wealth of AA executives. There is more in common than you claim. 

Yes you are right Carty should go into BK. We should tell the judge that if he changes our agreements without hitting the executives like at UAL and USAIR we will strike. Why drag this BS out. Lets get it over with and really see what is on the books. Not just what they want to show us.

Why would our concessions be more than UAL or USAIR?​

----------------​

I''ll repeat, if you truly believe this has anything in common with Enron, then you aren''t very smart.

Your opinion. Deception and a lack of transparency is common to both cases. They hid the truth. The company is the one that made the offer to "open the books" to the union because "THEY" wanted out of a duly enterred agreement. Management claimed that they needed relief and wanted to make a SHARED SACRIFICE. THAT IS WHAT GIVES US THE RIGHT TO QUESTION WHAT THEY MAKE!

The executive retention incentives are really none of your business in the first place since those executives are your employer, not vice versa. Executive retention is extremely common, legal, and is in place for competitive reasons. The Enron scandal, on the other hand, involved "cooking the books" to the tune of billions of dollars. Huge difference there.

The difference is that one was illegal, both examples are immoral and unethical.

And I agree with you that AA''s unions will end up strking and running AA right into chapter 7 liquidiation. Unions are outdated, and have no place in today''s business climate. They allow mediocre and bitter employees to stay around forever, while the best employees can''t get ahead because everything is based on seniority instead of merit.

Unfortunately one fact has not changed and that is why unions are as important now as ever. People have not changed. Selfishness and greed are just as prevelant as ever and some people feel that they are the only ones that should make money.How do unions hold anyone back? Unions only represent workers on the first level. The only advancement that is seniority based is Crew Chief and inspector. If anyone wants the job they can advance into non-union management. Unfortunately the company refuses to make it attractive enough. While the top rungs of management are extremely well compensated the bottom rungs are not. That is at the complete discretion of the company. Tell me how the union stops people from advancing?

The funny thing is that so many of you are bitter, hate your pay, and hate your bosses, but I seriously doubt any of you are looking for some other type of employment. Unions make it very convenient for employees to sit around and whine instead of looking for another job that will make them happier.

Well we do like our jobs, but we want to keep what we worked for, whats wrong with that? For the most part we like the people on the lower ranks of management but are disgusted at the mismanagement from the very highly paid idiots at the top. They come into this industry, screw things up, stuff a lot of money in thier pockets and sail off into the sunset on a sailboat, golden parachutes in tow. They could care less about this industry, the employees or the customers. For us this is a lifetime gig. We will do what we can to defend our investment, our profession and our careers and we will not succumb to your simplistic rulemaking. Who are you to tell us what we should to or tolerate?


----------------​

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 4/19/2003 7:25:47 AM AAObserver wrote:

I'll repeat, if you truly believe this has anything in common with Enron, then you aren't very smart. The executive retention incentives are really none of your business in the first place since those executives are your employer, not vice versa. Executive retention is extremely common, legal, and is in place for competitive reasons.

----------------​

[SIZE= 13pt]
Where do you get your information?


[url="http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/5671396.htm"]http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/5671396.htm[/URL]

Most airlines don't offer retention pay[/SIZE][SIZE= 8pt]
[/SIZE][SIZE= 7pt]By Jennifer Autrey and Bob Cox[/SIZE][SIZE= 8pt]
[/SIZE][SIZE= 7pt]Star-Telegram Staff Writers[/SIZE][SIZE= 8pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE= 9pt]American Airlines and Delta Air Lines were the only major carriers that chose to reward top executives with retention bonuses for merely staying on the job, regardless of the company's performance, according to a Star-Telegram analysis of recent government filings.[/SIZE]
[SIZE= 9pt]Other airlines offer their top managers lucrative pay plans, but most of the extras are tied to specific performance goals.[/SIZE]
[SIZE= 9pt]A spotlight has been thrown on how much airline executives are being paid as Congress imposed limits on compensation before doling out billions in aid and American was forced to drop retention bonuses after loud protests from its unions.[/SIZE]

 

[AAObserver]

----------------

 "Generally accepted" by whom?

----------------​

IBM, Continental Airlines, AT&T and most American corporations who want to retain their top executives.

----------------
Nothing in common? How about the phrase "Lack of transparancy".  Both appear to be decieving interested parties that they have an obligation to be honest to them. One, Enron was decieving sharholders to maximize the wealth of  Enrons executives the other AA is decieving the unions and its employess to maximize the wealth of AA executives. There is more in common than you claim. 

Yes you are right Carty should go into BK. We should tell the judge that if he changes our agreements without hitting the executives like at UAL and USAIR we will strike. Why drag this BS out. Lets get it over with and really see what is on the books. Not just what they want to show us.

Why would our concessions be more than UAL or USAIR?​

----------------​

I''ll repeat, if you truly believe this has anything in common with Enron, then you aren''t very smart. The executive retention incentives are really none of your business in the first place since those executives are your employer, not vice versa. Executive retention is extremely common, legal, and is in place for competitive reasons. The Enron scandal, on the other hand, involved "cooking the books" to the tune of billions of dollars. Huge difference there.

And I agree with you that AA''s unions will end up strking and running AA right into chapter 7 liquidiation. Unions are outdated, and have no place in today''s business climate. They allow mediocre and bitter employees to stay around forever, while the best employees can''t get ahead because everything is based on seniority instead of merit.

The funny thing is that so many of you are bitter, hate your pay, and hate your bosses, but I seriously doubt any of you are looking for some other type of employment. Unions make it very convenient for employees to sit around and whine instead of looking for another job that will make them happier.

 

[Bob Owens]

OK KCFlyer;
Now give me an example of productivity reducing language in the mechanics contract. If you want access to it go to www.TWU562.org.

 

[KCFlyer]

Aside from the flame baiting that this thread invites - A year ago, lots of folks were deriding SWA employees for "bringing the industry down". Yet now SWA employees will make more than the other guys. Productivity is cited as one of the reasons that this is possible. But unions are a business. They need dues paying members. In the gogo 90''s, it wasn''t beneficial to the union to agree to contracts that called for increased productivity. I don''t recall reading anything about any unions urging a "yes" vote to a contract that asked members to do more.

I was only in a union for a year. I worked as a laborer at a dairy. We were loading cases on to pallets and were getting bogged down. A supervisor grabbed a hook and helped us load. His help didn''t last much more than 15 minutes, and it was appreciated by most of us. However, one guy filed a grievance against the supervisor, claiming he was taking work from a union man. Nevermind that the guy who filed the grievance was sitting on his ass the whole time...his job was as an UNLOADER, not a loader, and he wasn''t going to help us, even for a few minutes, because "that wasn''t his job". No, he felt that we should have increased staff to allow only union loaders to touch the product. Bring a guy in for 8 hours because of 15 minutes of work. To this day, I cannot figure out the logic in that.

But back to the airlines... Increased productivity equals fewer employees. Fewer employees equal fewer dues paying members. That''s not good for the union, so they were reluctant to say the least about productivity issues. Now they find themselves boxed into a corner... for 10 or so years, they ''ve fought to keep "union jobs"..regardless of the real need for many of those jobs. Now they are facing concessions from everybody. Older guys don''t want them and feel they should trim staffing (and are now somewhat agreeable to increased productivity rules). Most junior guys want their jobs and think that everybody should sacrifice for the good of the group. That''s the other part of unions - one voice for all of us. The trouble is...which voice does the union represent - the older guys who are for job reduction, or the younger guys who are for job retention? My guess is that with unions being a business, they are going to speak for the side that can allow them to keep the most dues paying members. NO matter what they do, not everybody in a union is going to be happy. So the unions other job is to try to divert most of this dissatisfaction towards managment in an effort to maintiain that all important "unity".

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

----------------
On 4/18/2003 5:23:33 PM AAObserver wrote:

I''ve watched this board for sometime and have gained alot of insite on how AA union employees think. Simply said, the posts on here are just more proof that unions are the single biggest reason the failure rate of major US airlines is so high.

The AA retention bonuses that the unions are so up in arms over are common at most large US corporations, especially failing companies which offer less upside than more stable companies. There was nothing criminal about these bonuses, yet union employees are so out of touch with the real business world that they can''t understand this. In fact, it sounds like all three unions are more worried about sticking it to management than they are about their own personal welfare.

The pension issue is also a non-issue; it''s made up of money that the executives have already earned, but deferred for tax reasons. It''s underfunded, and the execs will get a payout that is taxed to death and less than what they are actually owed.

Regardless, the bottom line on the executive compensation is that it is none of your business. You are the employEEs, not the employERs. The employERs hired you to do a job, and if you don''t like the working conditions or pay then leave. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to work for AA.

As for the union concessions, the fact of the matter is that your airline is going down the tubes, and todays market does not allow the same payscales that you had back in the late 90''s economic heyday. If you are going to get mad at anyone, get mad at the government for allowing the economy to degrade, or get mad at the 9/11 terrorists, or get mad at President Bush for going to war with Iraq. Don''t get mad at the management.

Actually, if you are going to get mad maybe you should be mad at your unions. If it weren''t for them, those of you who really do a great job could be rewarded based on your merit instead of watching less deserving employees make more money simply because they have been with the company longer. If I were an FA who worked my butt off but had to work with lazy FAs with terrible attitudes who were making more money than me I''d be mad as hell. That''s what being in a union does -- it rewards long-term mediocrity instead of rewarding employees who do the best job.

I''m sure now that AA''s execs have rescinded their bonuses, the unions still won''t be happy. They will find something else to gripe about and will probably drag AA right down the tubes alongside Eastern, PanAm, and the other former giants who were brought to their knees by whiny, self-centered unions.



----------------​

AAObserver;

You sound "like" another poster on this board,

Connected1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NH/BB''s

 

[KCFlyer]

Bob...

What happens if a mechanic helps a ramper throw bags?

What happens if a supervisor helps a ramper throw bags?

What happens if a provisioning agent helps an FA clean up the cabin?

In other words - where is the wording in any contract that allows one work group to help another without fear of having a grievance filed against them?

 

[ualflynhi]

Bob,my question for you is if the judges abrogates your agreement is he
required to implement the companys final offer or can AA submit an even worse T/A as punishment??I thinking if the companies offer was turned down
then the company might not get a 6 year agreement.Here at UAL I'm thinking
we say hell no to their agreement then the judge institutes their last best offer for the length of time they will be in chap-11 instead of 6 more
years added to our contract.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

My take? This board has been taken over by a bunch of whiny cry-babies who are upset that they have still a job.

Go read the classifieds, folks, and find a job that pays $15/hour with benefits like AA has. Then go take it. There are plenty of people who would love for the opportunity to be recalled, and plenty more who will be glad to have someone who is a little more committed to making their company a survivor.

Sorry, but I don''t have any more time to sit here and #### about what I don''t have.