Unions vs. Executive Bonus

[Bagbelt]

The EFCA lets the traditional process stand if the workers opt for it. The one reason I have never favored the Republican party, even though I agree with them on many issues, is the knee-jerk anti-union stance no matter what. It is odd that many of the poor and middle class will defend the rights of CEO's to make millions while driving companies into the ground, but put all the blame on "outrageous" union demands.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

I have less of a problem with that, actually. Today, you still have the right to vote in private without fear of retribution.

All card check does is eliminates the right of a person to agree or disagree in private.

(Even you) Are far too smart of a guy to post "HALF TRUTHS" about EFCA/total secret ballots !

If the economy starts turning around(and the experts say it's not too far off)(another year and 1/4 is OK w/me), BEFORE the 2010 congressional elections,...................THEN(after the "additional " D's " are sworn in) will be the PERFECT time to STRIKE w/EFCA.
It very well could be the FIRST bill signed in 2011, BEFORE you get to turn you calendars from January - to - February.

 

[FA Mikey]

Card check has been on the books since the 1930s. Except that under the current policy the workers sign cards and then the company gets to decide whether or not there's a secret ballott.

We all know that neither of you could care less about workers rights or the secret ballott and that you want to preserve the corporate sides ability to threaten and coerce workers into rejecting unions. They hide behind free speech and make threats to captive audiences. If they really supported democracy then they would allow unions equal access to their members and allow a real debate.

By the way the fact that you guys speak out against the ad means that it was a good investment on the part of the union.

Very well said Bob. They fear and lie about the fact that the workers have a choice between the open or secret ballot.

 

[Hopeful]

Corporate America is terrified of this because since 1981 with the firing of air traffic controllers, companies realized that the government was fully supportive of union busting and they took the ball and ran with it. Now they fear the end zone is no longer a guarantee.
They are more fearful because of the potential backlash they face because of the current greed that is being exposed in the boardrooms across this country.
I think, given the chance, EFCA or not, union enrollment be on the upswing.

And their response will be to outsource more and more jobs...

How about FEDEX threatening Boeing and the government that they will cancel orders for 30 777 Freighters if the EPCA passes. they may order some Airbuses instead....

Talk about whining, FWAAA!

 

[The Goose]

The EFCA lets the traditional process stand if the workers opt for it. The one reason I have never favored the Republican party, even though I agree with them on many issues, is the knee-jerk anti-union stance no matter what. It is odd that many of the poor and middle class will defend the rights of CEO's to make millions while driving companies into the ground, but put all the blame on "outrageous" union demands.

If you'll think about it for a minute, consider the "professional" associations and other organizations the executive trash normally belongs to and pays dues to. There are a ton of these things out there and they exist for the same purpose as a trade union - to promote the ideas of their membership. These organizations are no more than white-collar unions, and many executives maintain memberships in a number of these outfits.

So you see, it's not that the execs dislike unions as they have many of their own - the simple fact is they dislike the competition and certainly dislike any assistance given their employees, whom they would prefer to intimidate and manipulate.

 

[Ed Norton]

If they want to join a union, then let them do it without the fear of reprisal for disagreeing with the guys in brown shirts and jackboots handing them the ballot with "Yes" already selected...

You are sooo right! I have seen the light!
Working class people organizing for their benefit is a terrible thing.
Exploitation of the working class by capitalist crooks is a good thing!

 

[Hopeful]

What everyone is not realizing is that executives have a union.....It's called the GOOD OLE BOYS' CLUB.......YOU WASH OUR BACK, WE WASH YOURS......................

 

[eolesen]

You guys are a bunch of hypocrites.

90% of the time, you piss and moan about how worthless the union is. But God forbid you ever consider having to work without their "protection".

I've found that the people working in non-union shops piss and moan a lot less about their employers. Why is that? Intimidation? Or is it perhaps because they have an environment more conducive for employees and their supervisors to interact & discuss things?...

You will always have large companies who will abuse the process. And you will always have unions looking to increase dues but not actually deliver anything significant in return.

Fact is union membership has been on a continuous decline, and it's not because of card check or the election process. It's because people have seen the industrial unions' track record.


Blast away at management for being out of touch, but when you look at the union executives themselves, they're no better than the executives in management.

Hell, the UAW spent close to $100K of membership money to have a "leadership conference" at a golf resort. Seems to me they could have done the same thing at one of the union halls or at the UAW *OWNED* golf course in Detroit.....

http://laborpains.org/index.php/2009/03/31...g-2008-turmoil/

 

[FA Mikey]

You guys are a bunch of hypocrites.


Hell, the UAW spent close to $100K of membership money to have a "leadership conference" at a golf resort. Seems to me they could have done the same thing at one of the union halls or at the UAW *OWNED* golf course in Detroit.....

Wow sounds a lot like the company executives.

 

[The Goose]

eolsen:

Were the UAW what we had to tolerate, I'm quite certain there would be a rather large amount of hell raised, but those turkey-lipped SOBs don't represent American's mechanics. Sounds like they have plenty of assets, though, to help Ron Stinkyfinger weather the upcoming storm and his (perhaps) eventual unemployment.

It's been said a company will get the union it deserves and the TWU certainly fits the bill - they're made for each other. Both love to sneak around the employees and stab them when they aren't looking (with the tacit approval of the other party). With what we have, it would be hard (but not impossible) to do worse.

American couldn't do without the TWU as the "union" performs many functions of the company and gets the employees to pay for it in dues.

You imply a better way would be to not have any representation at all - for some companies that may well work nicely but considering the lack of integrity and the need the play child-like games by the vast majority of what is termed management by American, any representation is better than none.

American Airlines has spent many years showing the employees the management cannot be trusted - they need to begin spending the same amount of time proving otherwise. 50 years ought to be a good showing to judge the company's fairness and consistancy - that's less time than it took to get here.

I'll trust the company only as far as I can throw a 1200 pound bull by the tail - the TWU even less. While the UAW quite obviously sucks big green ones, they aren't our problem - they belong to the automakers.

 

[Ed Norton]

You guys are a bunch of hypocrites.

90% of the time, you piss and moan about how worthless the union is. But God forbid you ever consider having to work without their "protection".

I've found that the people working in non-union shops piss and moan a lot less about their employers. Why is that? Intimidation? Or is it perhaps because they have an environment more conducive for employees and their supervisors to interact & discuss things?...

You will always have large companies who will abuse the process. And you will always have unions looking to increase dues but not actually deliver anything significant in return.

Fact is union membership has been on a continuous decline, and it's not because of card check or the election process. It's because people have seen the industrial unions' track record.


Blast away at management for being out of touch, but when you look at the union executives themselves, they're no better than the executives in management.

Hell, the UAW spent close to $100K of membership money to have a "leadership conference" at a golf resort. Seems to me they could have done the same thing at one of the union halls or at the UAW *OWNED* golf course in Detroit.....

http://laborpains.org/index.php/2009/03/31...g-2008-turmoil/

Try thinking outside your box. The U.S. labor movement is a shill for the corporations. Ever wonder why we don't have general strikes like in Europe or Latin America? Because the unions were set up to keep any real unionism in check, and any radicals marginalized. So a UAW golf course is... well...par for the course. Pun intended.
The AFL-CIO has undermined labor unions in Latin America in the 1960's and 70's who went against U.S. imperialist interests.
AFLID

 

[eolesen]

American Airlines has spent many years showing the employees the management cannot be trusted - they need to begin spending the same amount of time proving otherwise.

And, to be fair, the TWU, APA, and APFA do their fair share in villifying management to their members, implying that they can't be trusted. They have no choice -- if they don't at least show they're trying to provide value, why would you need them at all?


When I look at an airline like Delta, who has existed almost as long as AA, but without unions on property except for the pilots, the oft used argument "you can't have fair employment without a union" just doesn't hold up. Delta's had fairly good employee relations (perhaps with the exception of the Ron Allen years), and I don't think it's because they're afraid of unionization. Not having an artificial layer inserted between management and the front line encourages a lot of communication and participation in running and planning the business that just doesn't happen in the unionized workgroups.

 

[FWAAA]

Union spends workers' dues whining about how much management gets paid.

Anyone really think that will improve the workers' bottom lines? I don't.

As for public outrage about executive bonus payments, check out Fannie and Freddie and their $210 million in employee bonuses:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fannie-Fredd...f-14845980.html

 

[ArtTang]

Eoleson writes:
"Not having an artificial layer inserted between management and the front line encourages a lot of communication and participation in running and planning the business that just doesn't happen in the unionized workgroups."

I know this is getting a bit off topic for this thread, but I feel compelled to point out the fact that unions serve many purposes. Negotiating contracts is just one important function a union serves. Beyond this, unions can protect the employee against the company when the latter seeks to screw the former.

Ex #1: just one month ago, I was removed from my trip sequence because my passport was missing. I was originally scheduled to work from SJU to PHL with a layover in PHL to work back to SJU the following day. Because I did not have a passport, crew tracking wanted to remove me from the sequence in SJU and deadhead me to MIA, my home base. Instead, tracking allowed me to work to PHL and lay over to deadhead back to MIA the following day. This allowed the flight to PHL to operate without a delay or a crew shortage. Before leaving SJU, my monthly schedule correctly reflected the layover in PHL with the deadhead home the next day. However, after I completed my sequence the following day, I pulled up my monthly schedule and noticed the layover in PHL had been deleted and I had lost about 3 hours of pay as well as the per diem earned. I contacted crew tracking and they told me that I must contact pay comp because pay comp altered the sequence. I then called pay comp and they told me I had to resolve the matter with crew tracking. In other words, nobody was willing to assist me. It was clear I was not going to get the correct pay. I contacted my union base chair and he had the matter resolved in twenty minutes.

Ex #2: I realized way back in 1987 that the company will do anything it can to make it difficult for employees to seek redress for inaccuracies or any wrong doing that may benefit the company. In 1987, I broke my left ankle climbing the stairwell from operations to the terminal in Raleigh. The elevator was inoperative and it was pouring cats and dogs outside, so everyone was using the stairs, which were soaking wet. I was heading for the airplane to work the flight to Paris when I fell. I had four witnesses as well as a supervisor who assisted me in getting to the hospital for x-rays. Days later, I was denied an injury on duty because, the company claimed, "I was not performing any work related duties." As a result, my sick bank was drained and I started to receive voided paychecks. The company refused to change the occurrence to an injury on duty and I had to grieve the matter all the way to the level of a system hearing (a sort of "trial" in Dallas with two company reps and two union reps). After all the evidence was submitted and heard, I won the grievance. The company had to restore my sick time and reimburse me for the voided checks, etc. This whole ordeal took over 6 months to resolve. My point is: without a union, I would have been screwed in both instances. The company counts on employees to abandon such conflicts because they require a lot of patience and tenacity to rectify.

So, unions can serve a very important function when it comes to facilitating communication and resolving conflict between the company and the employee. If, as you claim, Delta employees have a healthy relationship with management, it must be because Delta has a management team that understands what fair play is all about (although I have serious doubts about your claim judging from what my friends who have worked at Delta for many years say).

Peace.

 

[Bob Owens]

If you'll think about it for a minute, consider the "professional" associations and other organizations the executive trash normally belongs to and pays dues to. There are a ton of these things out there and they exist for the same purpose as a trade union - to promote the ideas of their membership. These organizations are no more than white-collar unions, and many executives maintain memberships in a number of these outfits.

So you see, it's not that the execs dislike unions as they have many of their own - the simple fact is they dislike the competition and certainly dislike any assistance given their employees, whom they would prefer to intimidate and manipulate.

Most execs wouldnt work without a contract either, but they fight like hell to keep workers from getting them.