Union''s Fault

----------------
On 3/14/2003 7:52:13 AM Hopeful wrote:

Union tactics cost jobs



Stephen Moore

The latest statistics released this month from the U.S. Department of Labor indicate 2002 was another dismal year for labor unions. Private sector unions lost more than 400,000 jobs. Only the public sector gained union jobs. At no time in the last 50 years have unions represented a smaller percentage of the American work force than today.
To understand the sad demise of the unions, consider the case of the unions spat with United and American Airlines. United and American both lost roughly $3 billion last year, or almost $5 million a day. Both these once great and profitable airlines are perilously close to being grounded permanently — as were Eastern and TWA in the 1990s. One factor behind the sudden fall of these airlines is extravagant unionized salaries that have risen to in some cases 50 percent above the industry average.
The machinists, pilots and flight attendant unions have refused to budge in renegotiating contracts with these companies that are bleeding cash. Meanwhile, discount airlines that are much less hamstrung by unions, like Jet Blue and Southwest, are whipping United in every category of service and efficiency.
One can only wonder whether the union bosses fighting United and American have lost all sense of economic reality. With salaries that can exceed $100,000 per worker, if labor costs are not cut in the next several months, there will be no jobs at all for the union to fight for. Federal officials cited out-of-control salaries as a primary cause for turning down United''s recent $1.5 billion bailout request.
The purpose of unions is to negotiate favorable salaries for their workers — but certainly not at the expense of extinguishing jobs. The union movement in America is losing hundreds of thousands of card-carrying members every year precisely because new 21st-century industries refuse to deal with militant unions.
The airlines case is not the only one where unions have engaged in self-destructive behavior of late. Last year, Transit workers went on strike demanding massive pay increases from an all-but-bankrupt municipal agency.
The transit workers already receive salaries 30 percent to 40 percent above comparable skilled private sector jobs.
The dockworker work stoppage in California this past October involved union complaints against the evils of technological progress.
Before President Bush invoked the Taft-Hartley Act to suspend the work stoppage, the American economy was losing an estimated $1 billion a day in output and throughout the economy.
Most recently, the Communications Workers of America launched a $2 million ad campaign against Verizon, the Baby Bell of the Northeast. As even the most casual investor knows, the last three years have been brutally unkind to the telecom industry. In 2000, the telecom sector contracted by 28 percent and bled almost $1.7 trillion in lost share values. More than half-a-million telecom workers have lost their jobs.
The CWA strategy of blasting Verizon for laying off 3,500 workers makes as much sense as Kobe Bryant and Allen Iverson running TV ads encouraging fans not to go to anymore NBA games.
Union membership as a share of the work force has fallen by half over the past 30 years or so, according to the Public Service Research Foundation. Today only roughly 1 in 6 workers is a dues-paying union member and the percentage of private sector union workers is much lower than that. Only public sector unionism is growing. Pollster Scott Rasmussen has pointed out that on Election Day, 3 times as many voters were stockowners than union members. These workers understand that their 401(k) plans and their individuaol retirement account nest eggs depend on the profitability of American industry.
As a United Airlines frequent flyer traveler, I sure hope the unions come to their senses and allow new management to make the reforms necessary to cut costs. There is no law of economics that says airlines have to lose money. Southwest has proven that.
Saving United and American airlines will save union jobs. But only when union officials realize that in this industry, as with telecom, and so many others, when they destroy the companies that hire their workers, they destroy themselves


----------------​
I pay my power bill every month because I like heat and lights. They give me nothing free and they set the price...I have no recourse. These airlines have been under pricing the product for too long to subsidize "frequent fliers". Now..what makes a frequent flyer? Is it the guy who flys 20 trips a year at rock bottom prices from Priceline? Is it the guy who buys his groceries on his airline affiliated credit card? Is it the guy that waits around for the oversales and grabs 2 free tickets tho he is on his first flight of the year? Is it the expense account guy who racks up miles not from actual $$ he spent but from the coffers of his employer?...hmmm And you wonder why employees demand good wages. Arrogance and a sense of entitlement started with the pax...the employees are just reflecting it.
 
----------------
On 3/20/2003 5:12:56 PM eolesen wrote:

Bob asked for examples of featherbedding in the mechanic's agreement.

Here's a few to chew on...

1) Inability to cross utilize an inspector to also work in an AMT capacity

2) Inability to cross utilize an AMT to perform stock clerk functions.

3) CC ratios. SAN has 30 mechanics. Excluding the tech CC, there are 4 line CC's. Why?

4) Inability for a CC to cover both AMT's and stock clerks. Using SAN again, there are 6 stock clerks, and 1 CC stock clerk. SFO has 32 stock clerks and 5 stock CC's. Why? The mechanics I've worked with could do the stock job with their eyes closed... Are line CC's overworked or unable to comprehend what a stock clerk does?

I won't say that there isn't justification for some of the language that is in the contract, but these in particular have me wondering if the language is simply there to create as many jobs as possible. It certainly looks that way.

----------------​
1) They cant? Thats news to us. Show me the language that says that Inspectors cant do AMT work as long as it does not interfere with their duties as an inspector. An inspector can not do work on something that he is going to work on in his capacity as inspector but that is not contractual, its company policy that was encouraged in order to establish standards that the FAA would find acceptable. In Aircraft Maint there is a concept called Safety, that overrides all other concerns, even making money. Thats not from the contract, its from the companys own policy.

2) Once again its not the contract that prohibits this, its company policy. Stock clerks recieve specific training in the shipping & handling of hazardous materials. Improper handing can result in huge fines that would greatly surpass any savings.

3) CC ratios are a systemwide fiqure and Tech CC are part of the ratio. The company choses to go beyond that ratio for operational requirements, not contractual. Ask SAN management why they have so many CC. I guess they feel it improves the operation.

4) CC's can do mechanics work but you are not going to cut his pay when you make him do work outside his classification. (If you type in some information into the computer should the company pay you less for the time you spent doing a clerks job?) Where does it say he cant? Where does it say he cant do Stores work?Article 1 "except nothing herin shall prohibit the Company from scheduling or assigning any employee to perform such work in any classification under the Maintenance and/or Stores Agreements,,,". There are protections but nothing determining how many they have to have.The key is it cant interfere with his primary duties as a CC. Thats not featherbedding, its common sense.

Contractually we do try to get the work. Thats indisputable but the contract does not determine manpower. Contractually the work is ours depending upon the number of flights into a station. Its up to the company to determine how many people it takes to do the work. It has been my experience, in three different stations, that flexibility goes both ways. If management works with the guys and focuses primarily upon the operation the guys tend to be more flexible even well beyond the flexibility that the contract gives them. However if management simply wants to show who is the boss then the guys become more rigid. Lets face it, the mix of good supervision and bad suervision is about the same as the mix of good workers to bad workers. Some would argue that some of the bad workers go into management to get out of getting their hands dirty. We have had "The Golden Wrench Award" for what 15 years? Here at JFK not one of the recipients has gone into management. What does that tell you? We had people that were not even off probation go into management. What does that tell you? What it should tell you is that we do not get our best to go into management. Its not a job thats sought. In all fairness we do get some pretty good guys going in but some are not so good. Some have absolutely lousy people skills are are out to prove something, something that if they had been good workers when they were on the floor they would not have to prove. These supervisors are not protected by the contract yet the company does not fire them, so much for blaming the union for protecting bad workers. The company fails to get rid of bad supervisors and that is why they fail to be able to build cases on bad workers. Poor supervision even leads to ruining good workers. Our contract provides a lot of flexibilty to the airline. The company has enjoyed this flexible language for over twenty years but has failed to put it to use. This company has enjoyed much more flexibility than UAL and USAIR. Apparently, since we are headed towards bankruptcy also, the company squandered what we gave them. In other words we gave for nothing.

PS Are you still driving two miles out of your way to save 3 cents a gallon?
 
----------------
On 3/21/2003 12:43:37 AM stewbear wrote:
These airlines have been under pricing the product for too long to subsidize "frequent fliers". Now..what makes a frequent flyer? Is it the guy who flys 20 trips a year at rock bottom prices from Priceline?
----------------​

No, but most priceline sales do not accrue FF miles and the seat would have gone empty anyway. How much is an empty seat worth after it leaves the gate?


----------------
Is it the guy who buys his groceries on his airline affiliated credit card?
----------------​

You know AA makes a ton of money by selling miles to CC companies.


----------------
Is it the guy that waits around for the oversales and grabs 2 free tickets tho he is on his first flight of the year?
----------------​

Most oversales are when too many full fare customers buy tickets close to the date of travel. So if you "pay" someone $1000 DBC but the person that effectively bumped him payed $3000 for the seat the airline wins. Also most DBC are vouchers so AA get''s all that money back. While this might always be the case AA is renowned for their yield managment so in goes down like this in more cases than not.



----------------
Is it the expense account guy who racks up miles not from actual $$ he spent but from the coffers of his employer?
----------------​

Is his employer''s money not green? Biz travelers historically travel on higher fares, so again AA wins.


----------------
...hmmm And you wonder why employees demand good wages. Arrogance and a sense of entitlement started with the pax...the employees are just reflecting it.
----------------​

Your gripe here is with management and the state of overcapacity in the industry. Noone is stealing the product.

I don''t mean to be harsh but blaming customers is not the answer. The point of a FF program is to make a customer choose your flights when they are not the most economical or convenient to them. Sometimes this backfires, but in general it makes alot of sense. If noone had a FF program why in the world would I choose a connecting flight or a more expensive ticket to fly on a particuler airline? Service? I don''t know many people that consider this product (any airline) to be service oriented. You fly buses.
 
----------------
On 3/24/2003 1:32:47 PM KC tirechanger wrote:

Bob, My freinds tell me that you can cross utilize an Inspector, as far as the F.A.a. is concerned, but by doing so he could no longer be utilized as an Inspector on that paticular Aircraft! (F.A.A. regulations, not A.A.''s, or TWU''s!)

----------------​

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
633 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10017
May 11, 1971
Mr. James F. Horst
International Executive Vice President
Transport Workers Union of America, AFLCIO
1980 Broadway
New York, New York 10023
Re: Assignment of Inspectors at JFK
Dear Mr. Horst:
During the discussions leading to the signing of this Agreement, the Company assured
the Union that at the John F. Kennedy Line Maintenance Station, while designated to
perform field base checks, back checking required to be performed in the hangar will be
performed by Inspectors assigned at that location.
On the day and afternoon shifts where there is less than full time Inspector work,
including back checking to be performed, the Inspector may be required to perform
maintenance duties within the types of work for which he is qualified. However, he shall not
work on the same job assignment in the capacity of both Mechanic and Inspector.
It is not the intent of this letter to change the duties of Inspectors on FBC shifts. Should
the FBC shifts be changed, this letter may be amended accordingly.
Very truly yours,
C. A. Pasciuto
Vice President
Employee Relations
Agreed to this 11th day of May, 1971
James F. Horst
 
Bob, My freinds tell me that you can cross utilize an Inspector, as far as the F.A.a. is concerned, but by doing so he could no longer be utilized as an Inspector on that paticular Aircraft! (F.A.A. regulations, not A.A.''s, or TWU''s!)
 
No, Bob. I''ve just decided that time with my family and kids is more valuable than spending time in chat rooms.

You''ve responded to one item with a letter from 1971. What about the other items, though??
 
On 3/25/2003 8:07:17 AM eolesen wrote:
No, Bob. I''ve just decided that time with my family and kids is more valuable than spending time in chat rooms.

You''ve responded to one item with a letter from 1971. What about the other items, though??


Eric,
The letter from 1971 is part of the existing negotiated contract between the company and the union. Are you indicating that any part of the contract which is dated in the last century not be binding? What does it matter what the date is? If the company and union agree that it should remain contractual.


As for the AMT performing Stock Clerk functions:


Every day at TUL, mechanics and Crew Chiefs go to the parts department ( known as Home Depot ) and order their parts or go to the supply window and order their Rotables parts and move the part themselves. AMT''s do this without Cross Utilization, it is just done and the Union and it''s Stock Clerks condone it.


Crew Chief ratios:
This is a contractual item. Why does the company not enforce this to their favor? You ask a union member to take the responsibility of contract enforement and allow the company to just sit there?

(1) In those cases where management determines that the work to be performed requires a level of responsibility equivalent to that of a Crew Chief, an employee in the Crew Chief classification may be assigned to that function, even though he has no other employees assigned directly to him
You''ve responded to one item with a letter from 1971. What about the other items, though??

Eric,
The letter from 1971 is part of the existing negotiated contract between the company and the union. Are you indicating that any part of the contract which is dated in the last century not be binding? What does it matter what the date is? If the company and union agree that it should remain contractual.

As for the AMT performing Stock Clerk functions:


Every day at TUL, mechanics and Crew Chiefs go to the parts department ( known as Home Depot ) and order their parts or go to the supply window and order their Rotables parts and move the part themselves. AMT''s do this without Cross Utilization, it is just done and the Union and it''s Stock Clerks condone it.


Crew Chief ratios:
This is a contractual item. Why does the company not enforce this to their favor? You ask a union member to take the responsibility of contract enforement and allow the company to just sit there?


page 52

(1) In those cases where management determines that the work to be performed requires a level of responsibility equivalent to that of a Crew Chief, an employee in the Crew Chief classification may be assigned to that function, even though he has no other employees assigned directly to him.
 
Im not sure about now, but at one time SAN had a large aircraft washing operation on the midnight shift. Im not sure if it''s AMT''s or whomever did the washing, but somebody said the washers were covered under the maintenance agreement. This may be why SAN has a larger C/C ratio.
 
----------------
On 3/25/2003 8:07:17 AM eolesen wrote:

No, Bob. I''ve just decided that time with my family and kids is more valuable than spending time in chat rooms.

You''ve responded to one item with a letter from 1971. What about the other items, though??

----------------​

The date of the letter is not relevant, its still in effect. Besides I did not put it there even though it does support my position. Which items did I not adress?
 
Buck, I did say they could do that! But if you check F.A.A.regs, you''ll fine that an Inspector can not be "forced", by A.A., or the TWU, to wear two hats! It''s either one, or the other! I don''t care what your letter says!!!!
 
----------------
On 3/26/2003 12:47:42 AM KC tirechanger wrote:

Buck, I did say they could do that! But if you check F.A.A.regs, you''ll fine that an Inspector can not be "forced", by A.A., or the TWU, to wear two hats! It''s either one, or the other! I don''t care what your letter says!!!!

----------------​
Do you work for American Airlines and are you now represented by the Transport Workers Union of America; AFL-CIO?

If you do and you are then the letter applies. If you have evidence that this letter in in violation of the FAR''s, then it is your duty to report this violation. It would also be your duty to bring charges against your union for Duty of Fair Representation violations. Now are you going to be able to prove that the letter of 1971 that is part of the contracual agreement, has no validity?

It is not my letter, it is part of the contract.
 
Buck,
You are talking to KCtirechanger who is TWA/IAM and always will be. They don't care about any AA/TWU contract. They do things the way they want to over there at MCIE.
 
Bags, Your right! I was TWA/IAM! But I am now A.A./TWU! We have our own Local here, Local 530! And yes, maybe we look at things differently at times. But that can be good thing for everyone!
 
You can look at things differently all you want. The fact remains that this letter is part of your contract. You have the TWU to protect you.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top