Us Airways Is Not Only One Facing Outsourcing

[USA320Pilot]

See Story

Group:

The world is changing and either we adapt, with ways to protect as many employees as possible, or we die. It's really simple.

Regards,

Chip

 

[AP Tech]

Chip,
I thought there was a labor "Coalition" forming on the property. The last one was in 92 but there was one group that joined and then the members broke away and made a deal to protect themselves!!!!! What you are saying in other words is "F*** Y** I have mine"? The idea here is having all labor groups working together. Your ideas did change a bit when "Dave" screwed ALPA with the pesion issue! Maybe when you loose your precious left seat your tone will change! Sure you gave up 60% of your salary, I will make about 40% less than last year...what about "Dave"? Open your eyes......we keep giving and he will be back for more. No word on "Dave" and his gang of thieves giving up any more from CCY!! Ever think of joining the ranks of mismanagment with U???? :angry:

 

[OldGuyinPA]

AP Tech...That's right

Eliminate all employees (Of course not Pilots). We can all save the Pilots Jobs.

Can't do that ...Who would be around to issue ID90's to the Pilots.

 

[airlineorphan]

True, Chip, The world is changing. In fact, it is always changing. And in the corporate world, it changes in periodic spasms such as the one we are experiencing in our industry.

That said, adapting does not simply mean going along with the changes dictated by our acclaimed master, the Marketplace. The market is effected by the collective challenges that labor musters as well as the impersonal forces of the economy. The degree to which labor organizes its challenge (or fails to do so) plays a major role in determining the contours and ultimate direction and shape of any restructuring. If we simply go along with it all, we end up being the handmaidens of our own demise. The impersonal forces of the market themselves do not play favorites. Adapting to them by passively going along with them as if they are a force of God or of Nature does not particularly improve or decrease chances of survival of a particular company.

As we adapt, we need to view the entire process critically, and ask impertinent questions, such as: Is a particular corporate strategy really about adapting to the market place in a way that benefits all parties involved, or is there a divergence of interests embedded in a corporate strategy? Is the strategy designed by management to take advantage of a difficult market condition so as to weaken the position of labor? Could labor adopt a strategy that adapts to the difficult market condition in a way that removes the price of labor from competition (for instance, organizing the outsourced operations and pushing for industry standard wages and solidarity instead of participating in the whipsawing of everyones standards downward)?

Your thoughts?

In solidarity,
Airlineorphan

 

[to much time to quit]

See Story

Group:

The world is changing and either we adapt, with ways to protect as many employees as possible, or we die. It's really simple.

Regards,

Chip

To ADAPT is not to disregard valid labor agreements!! If that is your way of protecting employees YOU are just as bad as the lowlife management pukes using these tactics. I think that should be simple enough for you to understand. Save your regards. :down:

 

[737nCH11]

Chip,

UAL's outsourcing agreements were done legally through contract negotiations through the various unions. U is trying to outsource outside of the IAM agreement. There is a huge difference. The judge wouldn't have upheld this if it weren't rock solid.

Every group comes to a point where they will make a stand. They shouldn't roll over when some inept CEO takes the easy route by slashing employee wages, and when things still don't work out he starts trying to end run the labor contracts. I believe the IAM is right on this one. However, they need to decide how far they are going to take this. Are you willing to shut down the company? I hope you the resolve to take it to the brink, because if you blink on this it will show Dave that he can get whatever he wants from you guys.

At UAL the pension issue is looming large. This is where I will take my stand. I have given enough, and our concessionary agreement was crafted around keeping the pensions intact. If they come back for that, it will mean that we were lied to back in May just to get the huge pay cuts in place. I am not in a giving mood any more, so I understand where you guys are coming from.

Keep the faith.

737

 

[ITRADE]

That said, adapting does not simply mean going along with the changes dictated by our acclaimed master, the Marketplace. The market is effected by the collective challenges that labor musters as well as the impersonal forces of the economy. The degree to which labor organizes its challenge (or fails to do so) plays a major role in determining the contours and ultimate direction and shape of any restructuring. If we simply go along with it all, we end up being the handmaidens of our own demise. The impersonal forces of the market themselves do not play favorites. Adapting to them by passively going along with them as if they are a force of God or of Nature does not particularly improve or decrease chances of survival of a particular company.

Ah yes. National Steel, Bethlehem and the like had similar view points. They're doing so well.

 

[airlineorphan]

ITRADE,

In your short quip, you missed my point. My view bears little resemblence to that of the USWA at Bethlehem and National Steel. In my opinion, the USWA has fallen down on the job of organizing mini-steel and misdirected their energies towards protectionism instead of building international solidarity with steel producing worker organizations. Had they taken those different approaches, there would have been more options to them at Bethlehem, National and elsewhere. Instead, they relied on shortcut "strategies" which bit them in the keister.

We operate within a market context, but some free market fundamentalists ignore the variety of strategic options available to labor, satisfying themselves with self-serving pronouncements about the one and only true path to salvation in that market context (bowing down before management). The fact is, there are a variety of strategic approaches available to labor, some of which will yield a stronger position for union members and some of which will yield a weaker position for union members.

The fact is, the USWA took an insular strategic approach instead of a broad solidaristic approach, and this yielded themselves a weaker position. A very different approach than what I would have proposed, had I been in any kind of position of influence in the USWA.

I do realize that we dramatically differ ideologically on the general questions of labor and the marketplace, but your criticism in this case is misdirected.

Sincerely,
-Airlineorphan

 

[repeet]

I think that what Chip and ITRADE mean is that the integraty of Contractual Law, as applied to the working class, must be sacrificed for the continued profits of the upper class.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

I think that what Chip and ITRADE mean is that the integraty of Contractual Law, as applied to the working class, must be sacrificed for the continued profits of the upper class.

That would about sum it up in a nutshell repeet. !!!

The haves continue to prey and prosper from the have nots as always.

 

[airlineorphan]

Repeet sez:

I think that what Chip and ITRADE mean is that the integraty of Contractual Law, as applied to the working class, must be sacrificed for the continued profits of the upper class.

Repeet,

I think you nailed a key contradiction in the logic of the free market fundamentalists. The sanctity of the Legal Contract is one of the key tenets of free market fundamentalism. Without it, the bedrock of the free market, property rights, crumbles to dust.

Whoo hoo!!

In solidarity,
Airlineorphan

 

[ITRADE]

I think that what Chip and ITRADE mean is that the integraty of Contractual Law, as applied to the working class, must be sacrificed for the continued profits of the upper class.

As usual Repeet, you think wrong.

I'm all in favor of contracts. The judge in the W.D. Pa made his decision. The company has appealed it. Whatever the 3d circuit rules is what the 3d circut rules.
And both IAM and the company will have to live with it.

However, there are some contracts that are so constrictive as to create unnecessary burdens. The repair contracts at companies like National and Bethlehem were just that way. As written before, it took four different work groups to repair an item that could have easily taken the efforts of one or two.

 

[USA320Pilot]

The issue is the industry is changing and either US Airways and its employees change or the airline will die.

In the case of my labor group, we provided two pay cuts and cut our pension by 50 to 70 percent to save the company. In addition, we were the only labor group to meet the company's cost cut targets. We adapted and now have contracts with pay, benefits, and retirement less than Southwest Airlines.

The network carrier airline industry has changed forever and it must lower its unit costs or legacy carrier's will become another Woolworth's, Amtrak, or Polaroid. Southwest, AirTran, JetBlue, and now United are all are or will outsource heavy maintenance.

Why? To lower unit costs to compete.

All I am saying is that the United mechanics agreed to outsource some of their maintenance. In regard to US Airways, what if a deal could be struck to permit A320 outsourcing and in exchange the mechanics received a no furlough clause. Could there be a procedure put in place to reduce head count due to attrition to permit the airline to lower its unit costs to help the airline survive?

This is what ALPA did.

I wish this industry was not facing the enormous LCC pressure, but it is and either we continue to restructure or we die. What's the benefit in winning the battle if we lose the war? Just ask Charlie Bryan and the Eastern Air Lines mechanics.

Regards,

Chip

 

[USA320Pilot]

737nCh11:

You repeatedly have said in previous posts that you were not a United employee or pilot, but now you indicate you are.

Why were you a sophist and why did you misrepresent yourself?

Regards,

Chip

 

[737nCH11]

Chip,

That would be my wife. She is not a UAL employee, but follows the industry closely.

Cheers,

737