What will YOU do when....

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/19/2003 10:23:51 PM Hopeful wrote:

Kcflyer repsonded out of context. I was merely looking for either humorous responses or serious ones. thats all.
----------------
[/blockquote]

My response was dead serious. But you're right - henceforth all replies to you are "megadittoes rush". HAve some more kool aid, won't you?
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #17
Keep in mind one thing, KCFLYER, I'm the person who puts my signature in the logbook of the very aircraft you fly on. I'm the one stating your aircraft is in airworthy condition. I'm the one who holds a federal license stating I'm responsible for that aircraft and the lives aboard it. And I'm one of thousands of airline employees nationwide who are repeatedly asked to bear the brunt of helping the airlines lower their costs. So, you, being a consumer can enjoy your low fares to all those marvelous destinations while some airline employee braves all climates to load your aircraft, clean your aircraft, maintain your aircraft, serve you on board that aircraft and fly that aircraft. That's not all your beloved CEO's doing these tasks. So, as one of these employees, I have earned more of right to dissent with mangement on this board or anywhere more than you have a right to state that labor has to help the airlines financially. I don't recall any airline going to their employees during the profitable years and saying "we want to talk to our unions about raising their salaries because we are doing so well."

And to top it off, American wants its unions to lower salaries and change work rules, and get rid of thousands more employees, while at the same time Carty is testifying in Congress on the urgency of taking away a union's rights to self help. Gee, I wonder who would have the upper hand in "Baseball style arbitration" for airline workers since the CEO's are pushing for it in Congress. And as a further reward, the government wants to pass legislation screwing millions of workers in their penions to relieve the companies of their pension obligations.

I suppose KCflyer would consider this working WITH mangement and NOT aginst them!
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/20/2003 8:57:51 AM Hopeful wrote:

And once again, KCFLYER, please explain to me how do expect workers to trust mangagement when they want to "work together," but at the same time they lobby Congresss to take away union workers' rights. That's what I am asking you. Please explain to me how you want us to trust management.

As I said before, if you want to work with management and completely negate their efforts to take away union workers rights - tie YOUR increases to managments increases. But that was unacceptable because if Carty gets a 5% raise, it translates into $30,000 versus $3,000 for the common man. In case you haven't noticed, management makes more than the line worker. Always has, and always will. In an earlier post, you were complaining that you only got a 1% average annual increase - yet muy suggestion was unfair because management got a bigger chunk of change with their pay increases.

But you said in an earlier post that management wasn't knocking down the doors to give you a raise in the good times - could it be because they had a contract that negotiated the raises up front? That's a "low risk, low reward" system. Why not take a wee tad more risk and tie your increases to managements increases...That way, you'd be guaranteed a raise when management got one, and management couldn't say that they didn't have the money, because after all, they agreed to a contract that said labor gets a raise when they get one. For them, no pain, no gain. For you, no risk, no reward. Net effect - you are all in it together. Labor has a real incentive to help keep costs down in every way...and management now has a reason to listen closer to employee input for cost savings. But when I suggest that, I am either partaking of the managment kool-aid, or I am management's PR rep, take your pick.

By the way, I'm a slow learner. But given the state of the industry, this will be my last airline job, whether by choice or by circumstance.

Good for you. As soon as you get the other 99,999 employees of AA to agree to allow "circumstance" to dictate who they will work for in the next few years, I'll shut up completely about working together with management.
----------------
[/blockquote]
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #21
And once again, KCFLYER, please explain to me how do expect workers to trust mangagement when they want to "work together," but at the same time they lobby Congresss to take away union workers' rights. That's what I am asking you. Please explain to me how you want us to trust management.

And you bet your ass I have superior wisdom over you as an airline employee with three airlines under my belt.


By the way, I'm a slow learner. But given the state of the industry, this will be my last airline job, whether by choice or by circumstance.
 
Just throwing in the towel hopeful. Conceding that I do not know everything there is to know and bowing to your superior wisdom as an airline employee, who has weighed all sides of the issue. Megaditto's. Here's hoping that AA isn't the third airline for you where distrust of managment has forced you to start over at airline #4.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #23
In the bad times, such as the present, mangagement comes to labor and asks the unions to open up contracts, take concessions and pay cuts. But in the good times, they don't come to the unions and ask to open up contracts to restore those concessions and paycuts. Not consistent to say the least. But that's good managing when what CEO in his right mind would ask to open up a six year contract while the company was having profitable year after profitable year? You can't fault them for that, but you can fault labor for not agreeing to open up contracts in the down times.

And I speak only for myself about my plans if AA shuts the doors. not the remaining 99,999 people.(by the way, the ranks are rapidly dwindling with more reductions on the way.) And I never faulted upper mangagment for making higher salaries than the worker on the floor. It was the outrageous compensation I have referred to.

I honestly doubt management would agree to the same percentage increase the big boys get. Here's what I see.
Suppose, for ****s and giggles, and I'm just throwing numbers out, that here is the scenario:

AA has 100,000 employees.(all compensation except top ten execs.) The average salary of these people is $50,000.00 per year.
That's 5,000,000,000 in annual payroll. And feel free to double check my math.

Now let's say the top ten executives' average salary is $350,000. (just a guess)for an annual payout of $3,500,000.00.

Now, there is a good year and the top ten execs get a 5% increase in pay.
That's a $17,500.00 increase per top ten exec for a total of $175,000.00 for the year.

Now we use your "worker increase tied to managements'increase."
The average $50,000.00 per year employee gets a $2500.00 increase.
Fair enough, same percentage.
But for the 100,000 employees, the total increase is $250,000,000.00
I would tend to say that that $250,000,00.00 increase would just seem a bit too steep in managements' eyes.
 
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/20/2003 10:46:57 AM Hopeful wrote:
[P]The arilines are singing the money losing blues, but still have enough money to higher the best lobbyists to get Congress to decimate unions.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]Are you and Bob Owens related?
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #25
The arilines are singing the money losing blues, but still have enough money to higher the best lobbyists to get Congress to decimate unions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top