US Airways cutting 52 employees at IND

[Iclubbabyseals]

So, Delta is not operating under truly free market principles. They are making a wise management decision to keep unrepresented labor groups happy and well paid so as to hopefully negate any possibility of losing a representational vote. Take that threat away and the rate Delta pays would be at a natural equilibrium set by the wage rates required to attract and retain qualified people, whatever that may be.

Delta flight attendants do the same with the threat of unionism with AFA (Association of Flight Attendants), inviting AFA who then spends, literally, millions to "woo" the DAL flight attendants, who then dutifully vote AFA down when management promises raises, all the while using other airline flight attendants dues money to fight their own battles with management. Classic.

"Free market principles". Vague enough to mean something different to each person. There is no "free market" in the US, at least on the corporate level.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Delta blah blah blah.....

So, Delta blah blah blah.....

US blah blah blah-----.

The short answer is, Delta has more sense than to act like US Airways.

 

[CallawayGolf]

The short answer is, Delta has more sense than to act like US Airways.

Or the Delta employees have more sense to remain unrepresented than US employees. More pay, no union dues and more satisfaction as evidenced by the fact that they could go into a union but know that doing so will cost them more than they would gain.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Delta hasn't tried the US model.

Pending Fleet union vote 1, job losses and pay cuts, Pending Fleet union vote 2, oursourcing and combining sick and vacation time in one bank. Pending Fleet union vote 3, more of the same. And the union won. The company turned CLT from a station with a half dozen union supporters to a hotbed of activity.

Of course it is ancient history now. Back when you were in Jr. High cruising the cafeteria for beaver shots.

 

[Black Magic]

Delta and it's non-represented employees are free to make whatever decisions they like and which makes sense for the business. However the real force behind Delta's rate likely has very little to do with a free-market wage rate. Instead the rates are based on the fact that Delta's employees, which were integrated with NW employees who were once in a labor cartel (government-endorsed extortion scheme) are probably very close to having enough vote to return a unionized workforce system wide. Delta management knows this and is willing to pay premium wages, even higher than what their peers with represented employees are paying, in order to stave off any attempts by the rampers to organize. Administratively it is much less costly to pay above union rates and avoid all of the costs and challenges that come with having a group enter a labor cartel.

So, Delta is not operating under truly free market principles. They are making a wise management decision to keep unrepresented labor groups happy and well paid so as to hopefully negate any possibility of losing a representational vote. Take that threat away and the rate Delta pays would be at a natural equilibrium set by the wage rates required to attract and retain qualified people, whatever that may be.

US employees could enjoy the same kinds of higher than union premium rates too, no matter the workgroup. All they would have to do is decertify their union and retain the threat against Management that they can and will reorganize if Management offers them less by being unrepresented than what they could achieve by being in a cartel. You don't have to have an MBA to figure out administratively that dollar for dollar an unrepresented labor group is cheaper than a represented one. For example, take two jobs that earn say $30k a year, one represented like a ramper, a CSA, a reservations agent or whatever, and then one that is unrepresented like an AP or AR accounting clerk and figure out the total cost of employing that individual. Both have a paycheck that reads $30k in net earnings for the year but the actual cost to the company might be $39k for the unrepresented employee and $45k for the the union represented employee. Multiply that times many thousands in a workgroup and you see a substantial savings of unrepresented over represented for the company. Smart employees will understand this and work to save Management money by being unrepresented so that they can take home more money than their represented counterparts. Most of Delta employees have this figured out, so good for them.

What you say is true(I already knew but wanted your take on it) and I agree with right up to the point of US Airways would pay the same labor rates as non-union Delta if the LCC labor groups ousted their unions. US Airways is the most penny pinching anti employee/customer airline there is and I would bet my head in the fire that LCC would NEVER pay deltas wages to rampers. Doug Parkers famous quote still echoes in my mind "we don't need a ramp with 20 years experience, indeed we shouldn't." Of any airline it makes the most sense to have a union at US Airways. At US Airways you could be "ramper of the decade at $20 an hr, having never once called in sick, worked holidays for management, put in extra effort, ect," but at a moments whim LCC would sell you down a river immediately for an outsourced $19 or so an hr employee if they could. Myself, I am very anti-union as I have seen how they operate but I consider them the lesser of 2 evils compared to US Airways. Its nice that Delta actually respects their employees and compensates them accordingly, as a standup business should.

 

[CallawayGolf]

What you say is true(I already knew but wanted your take on it) and I agree with right up to the point of US Airways would pay the same labor rates as non-union Delta if the LCC labor groups ousted their unions. US Airways is the most penny pinching anti employee/customer airline there is and I would bet my head in the fire that LCC would NEVER pay deltas wages to rampers. Doug Parkers famous quote still echoes in my mind "we don't need a ramp with 20 years experience, indeed we shouldn't." Of any airline it makes the most sense to have a union at US Airways. At US Airways you could be "ramper of the decade at $20 an hr, having never once called in sick, worked holidays for management, put in extra effort, ect," but at a moments whim LCC would sell you down a river immediately for an outsourced $19 or so an hr employee if they could. Myself, I am very anti-union as I have seen how they operate but I consider them the lesser of 2 evils compared to US Airways. Its nice that Delta actually respects their employees and compensates them accordingly, as a standup business should.

Seems we agree a quite a few points. Of course I don't exactly see everything your way. For example, the cost of recruiting, hiring, training, and terminating people in a revolving door type job is quite expensive even for people making $10-20 per hour. Therefore it would be financially no benefit whatsoever of terminating a productive and proven employee in order to save $1 per hour with a new hire that might not give the same effort as the good employee you just dismissed. The variance between the current wage and the new hire's wage needs to be greater than that.

That being said, if you have a very low-skill task and a endless supply of willing labors who can come in at a lower starting rate, then there is also very little financial incentive to pay wage premiums and institute employee retention programs when the skill gap between a new hire and a 20-year employee is practically zero after a month or two. Increase the level of skill, experience, training, and responsibility in a position and the gap between a new hire and a 5-10 year or more employee and retention becomes much more vital. So, practically speaking without allowing emotions to cloud the issue, Doug is likely correct that there is little if any value differences between a 1-year employee and a 20-year employee in that same entry-level position. And if that's the case, why should Management expend money and effort to retain longevity in such a position? Providing annual wage increases has a breaking point a few years into job that is easily staffed by entry-level candidates. The people doing those jobs for decades may be great people, but why would an employer want to have a huge pay disparity between two workers doing the same exact type of work be it loading bags on the ramp, picking apples in an orchard, washing cars, or tearing ticket stubs at the entrance to a movie theater? If you can substitute a new hire for the lifer with no loss in productive work, it simply doesn't make sense to tailor the job so that people will stay in that role for life when it was always structured to be entry-level.

I have no idea how Delta treats their employees, but they mere fact that they are mostly non-union tells me they must be doing things relatively well. I would also venture a guess that they have very few obstacles to dealing with under-performing employees who work in an at-will status. Having the ability to get rid of bad apples is a fundamental tenet of having a productive and motivated work force. In that environment it is easy to identify people with bad attitudes and a poor work ethic who need to be let go. There is nothing worse than being a motivated, hard-working employee who is surrounded by people who don't care about anything other than avoiding work and milking their paychecks. Unions ensure a high level of worker mediocrity and apathy because it is much more difficult and costly to terminate a represented employee. It only takes a few with this attitude to spread their misery like a cancer and infect the whole organization. This in turn leads to low productivity, higher operating costs and less overall pay for everyone in that job function. If the attitudes reflected on these boards is any indication, I would say US has a substantial productivity issue and throwing obscene amounts of money at that the problem will not fix it. Give someone twice the salary and it is extremely doubtful that they will offer a sustained doubling of their productivity. Studies have shown that pay raises motivate workers for less than two weeks before they return to normal IIRC.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Seems we agree a quite a few points. Of course I don't exactly see everything your way. For example, the cost of recruiting, hiring, training, and terminating people in a revolving door type job is quite expensive even for people making $10-20 per hour. Therefore it would be financially no benefit whatsoever of terminating a productive and proven employee in order to save $1 per hour with a new hire that might not give the same effort as the good employee you just dismissed. The variance between the current wage and the new hire's wage needs to be greater than that.

That being said, if you have a very low-skill task and a endless supply of willing labors who can come in at a lower starting rate, then there is also very little financial incentive to pay wage premiums and institute employee retention programs when the skill gap between a new hire and a 20-year employee is practically zero after a month or two. Increase the level of skill, experience, training, and responsibility in a position and the gap between a new hire and a 5-10 year or more employee and retention becomes much more vital. So, practically speaking without allowing emotions to cloud the issue, Doug is likely correct that there is little if any value differences between a 1-year employee and a 20-year employee in that same entry-level position. And if that's the case, why should Management expend money and effort to retain longevity in such a position? Providing annual wage increases has a breaking point a few years into job that is easily staffed by entry-level candidates. The people doing those jobs for decades may be great people, but why would an employer want to have a huge pay disparity between two workers doing the same exact type of work be it loading bags on the ramp, picking apples in an orchard, washing cars, or tearing ticket stubs at the entrance to a movie theater? If you can substitute a new hire for the lifer with no loss in productive work, it simply doesn't make sense to tailor the job so that people will stay in that role for life when it was always structured to be entry-level.

I have no idea how Delta treats their employees, but they mere fact that they are mostly non-union tells me they must be doing things relatively well. I would also venture a guess that they have very few obstacles to dealing with under-performing employees who work in an at-will status. Having the ability to get rid of bad apples is a fundamental tenet of having a productive and motivated work force. In that environment it is easy to identify people with bad attitudes and a poor work ethic who need to be let go. There is nothing worse than being a motivated, hard-working employee who is surrounded by people who don't care about anything other than avoiding work and milking their paychecks. Unions ensure a high level of worker mediocrity and apathy because it is much more difficult and costly to terminate a represented employee. It only takes a few with this attitude to spread their misery like a cancer and infect the whole organization. This in turn leads to low productivity, higher operating costs and less overall pay for everyone in that job function. If the attitudes reflected on these boards is any indication, I would say US has a substantial productivity issue and throwing obscene amounts of money at that the problem will not fix it. Give someone twice the salary and it is extremely doubtful that they will offer a sustained doubling of their productivity. Studies have shown that pay raises motivate workers for less than two weeks before they return to normal IIRC.

Maybe we should just hire HR and mid mngmnt people right out of college to run this place or ones in there mid years that aren't qualified to go elsewhere, oh I forgot we do! Maybe they should do at least a little homework! ftp://ftp.cba.uri.edu/classes/Beauvais/HPR412/Rynes_et_al_2004.pdf

 

[signals]

Hey if it keeps us 99.99%ers still employed that is what it is all about, right?

As long as you get yours

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

And we wonder why this airline and LUV aren't the same, or ever will be, quote calloway and the WEST attitude!

 

[Dog Wonder]

Let's see, what have we learned today.

US Airways management sees employees not as people, but as disposable commodities, to be discarded at the sole discretion of management.

One years experience is a good as five or ten years, or depending on the job, one month's experience is a good as twenty years.

Being in a union destroys work ethic, which is not an internal thing but guided by external forces. Except for wage increases which have no effect after two weeks.

 

[Black Magic]

Seems we agree a quite a few points. Of course I don't exactly see everything your way. For example, the cost of recruiting, hiring, training, and terminating people in a revolving door type job is quite expensive even for people making $10-20 per hour. Therefore it would be financially no benefit whatsoever of terminating a productive and proven employee in order to save $1 per hour with a new hire that might not give the same effort as the good employee you just dismissed. The variance between the current wage and the new hire's wage needs to be greater than that.

That being said, if you have a very low-skill task and a endless supply of willing labors who can come in at a lower starting rate, then there is also very little financial incentive to pay wage premiums and institute employee retention programs when the skill gap between a new hire and a 20-year employee is practically zero after a month or two. Increase the level of skill, experience, training, and responsibility in a position and the gap between a new hire and a 5-10 year or more employee and retention becomes much more vital. So, practically speaking without allowing emotions to cloud the issue, Doug is likely correct that there is little if any value differences between a 1-year employee and a 20-year employee in that same entry-level position. And if that's the case, why should Management expend money and effort to retain longevity in such a position? Providing annual wage increases has a breaking point a few years into job that is easily staffed by entry-level candidates. The people doing those jobs for decades may be great people, but why would an employer want to have a huge pay disparity between two workers doing the same exact type of work be it loading bags on the ramp, picking apples in an orchard, washing cars, or tearing ticket stubs at the entrance to a movie theater? If you can substitute a new hire for the lifer with no loss in productive work, it simply doesn't make sense to tailor the job so that people will stay in that role for life when it was always structured to be entry-level.

I have no idea how Delta treats their employees, but they mere fact that they are mostly non-union tells me they must be doing things relatively well. I would also venture a guess that they have very few obstacles to dealing with under-performing employees who work in an at-will status. Having the ability to get rid of bad apples is a fundamental tenet of having a productive and motivated work force. In that environment it is easy to identify people with bad attitudes and a poor work ethic who need to be let go. There is nothing worse than being a motivated, hard-working employee who is surrounded by people who don't care about anything other than avoiding work and milking their paychecks. Unions ensure a high level of worker mediocrity and apathy because it is much more difficult and costly to terminate a represented employee. It only takes a few with this attitude to spread their misery like a cancer and infect the whole organization. This in turn leads to low productivity, higher operating costs and less overall pay for everyone in that job function. If the attitudes reflected on these boards is any indication, I would say US has a substantial productivity issue and throwing obscene amounts of money at that the problem will not fix it. Give someone twice the salary and it is extremely doubtful that they will offer a sustained doubling of their productivity. Studies have shown that pay raises motivate workers for less than two weeks before they return to normal IIRC.

Believe me the old America West way on the ramp was to have a constant "revolving door turnover" of rampers to be hired and fired/quiting prior to the merger with US Airways. There was 2 or 3 training classes in session a month, as a low-cost carrier you were hired with the aspect that you would quit and the company wanted you do so as to keep costs low. This was the way it operated in many departments not just the ramp. The problem is the same management team still wants or wishes this practice in place with a merger of legacy airline. Team tempe had no problem paying all the expenses of classes to train and hire on new people as I'm sure the head accountants were crunching the numbers upstairs and it came out cheaper to do so. The kicker is that I do agree with Dougs statement about a 20 year ramp workforce being not as productive as a younger one generally, whether I agree with it or not however that isn't the issue as that isn't the way industry legacy airlines operate. US Airways loves to be two faced in that will claim low-cost carrier or legacy airline whenever it deems to justify itself in that particular argument, you can't have it both ways though to try and pull the sheet over the employees eyes. It all comes down to this company is run by a sherwd accountant who's only focus is numbers and everything from the top down in wages of employees, equipment, and service it will be done with the absolute BARE minimum of expense they can get away with. Anything and everybody is just a number to DP. If US Airways wants to claim it's a legacy airline then they can pay legacy carrier wages like the others.

 

[john john]

Believe me the old America West way

As long as there employment applications on file the company is paying too much

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

The STOCKHOLM SYDROME is alive and well for HP human resources and all it's past employees, we're your last chance qualifier at being an airline employee, and guess what, "THEY NAILED IT!"

 

[UPNAWAY]

The East people couldn't work for SWA. 10% or less of you have the fortitude and the work ethic much less the team spirit. They wouldn't hire you and you wouldn't last so bringing them up as examples is a moot point.

 

[700UW]

And would you please prove your point?

Many former east employees are now with WN, and why would you bring up WN?

They are the highest unionized airline in the industry, highest paid and most profitable, say it aint so? LOL!