charlie1017
Well-Known Member
Geez, I'll bring some popcorn and coke! LOL
Unions Furious With Exclusion of Employees in UAL Payout
- Thread starter derg
- Start date
Aeroman
New Member
If strikes are too crippling in the transport sector, why not write into the RLA "partial strikes" or "service disruptions"? That way companies would not be completely crippled, while employees would be able to put plenty of pressure on management. Let's say a scenario where maybe 25-50% of whatever portion of a seniority list could strike. The employees still working would not be scabs - they would provide just enough service to avoid killing the company off completely.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
That I actually agree with! Shareholders most certainly do deserve a return on their investment.
Their investment is in the training & time it took to become qualified FOR their job.
At United's expense? As though the job skills the employees posses haven't brought any income to United?
If UAL goes Chapter 13, the pilots and F/As will have to start over at the bottom of another senority list (if they choose to continue to be a pilot or a F/A). They will NOT be compensated commensurate with their years of experience the way a senior manager can go to another company in a management position relative to what they were holding at UAL.
When the company you work for goes T.U., you have to find a new job. That can mean possible relocation, which can mean uprooting your whole family and having to sell your house.
That sounds like a lot of "risk", or potential negative consequences, of UAL going under.
It's beyond mine too (accepting stock in return for concessions), however less money in my pocket means that the company is paying me less, therefore there's more money in the company's pocket. So, in one way of looking at it, the money that I should have made is now in the pockets of the company, so I've made a financial investment in the company via less wages, not in stock purchase. Just another way of looking at it.
They certainly did contribute greatly by providing very necessary capital. And the employees contributed with wage cuts and by continuing to come to work. There's no law forcing an employee to come to work, and if they'd all quit, UAL would have had a boatload of new expenditure via training/recruiting for new employees.
Nobody wants job actions. Nobody.
But remember just as without shareholders & investors a company can't survive, without employees willing to do the job (and do it well enough to make people want to fly there again) the airline won't be around either. It's kind of a symbiotic parasitic relationship. We all need each other, and we need to work together to make the company great. When that happens, everyone wins.
mastermags
Well-Known Member *giggity*
Shareholders do provide capital, but shareholders and employees both are stakeholders in United.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Who let Frank Lorenzo in here?
That's the problem.
The next Frank Lorenzo is a Pilot with an Economics or Finance degree.
Tired of seeing all these pilots running around with said degrees, wondering why the hell they are supporting everything management has done to erode the profession.
Their using their management 101 thinking in the cockpit and using it to justify the decisions their managers are making. Wish they'd get some better labor education while their studying the free market theories of yester-year and wake up to the fact that they better put down their BS in Economics and start using their brain to protect their livelihood.
Makes me sick.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Unfortunately, you may be right.
nicely said!
aloft
New Member
Wrong. Shareholders are NEVER entitled to such payouts. They're entitled to sell their shares for a gain if they like, but they're not entitled to parlay their bets simply for investing in a winner. You want that, go to Vegas. That $250 million should have been--as all profits should--reinvested into the company, period.
The reason, unknown only to you apparently, is that the employees had it forced down their throats by the bankruptcy court. They didn't have a choice in the matter. Really, you've revealed here that you are not a pilot or flightcrew member, because if you were, you'd understand how dependent flightcrews are on their company's survival for their own financial success. Unlike management employees, flightcrew cannot employ a scorched-earth policy and simply move onto the next company without a massive hit to their lifelihoods and lifetime earnings, which often can never be made whole.
You forget that United's employees WERE those investors and shareholders prior to management using 9/11 as an excuse to drive the company into bankruptcy and STEAL all the equity labor had acquired in the previous company reorganization.
Worse than a pilot with an econ or finance degree is one who hasn't bothered to study the history of the industry.
GoGators85
Well-Known Member
This is my first post on these forums, so please let me know if I am way off base here. Recently I was reading a post similar to this one about unions and their lack of bargaining leverage. Someone during the discussion made the suggestion that all pilots entering 121 jobs should have to pass an entrance exam (similar to the bar exam for lawyers). No one at the time seemed to pay any attention to this suggestion, but after giving it some thought and looking at the effects it would have on bargaining between management and pilots I believe the idea is worth reiterating. I believe if such an exam, perhaps including a written test and an interview with a group of designated line pilots from your prospective employer, were instated it would diminish the supply of qualified pilots and thus give pilots greater bargaining leverage with management. Also a by product of this system would be the obligation of management to only hire qualified and professional pilots (no more reducing hiring minimums to avoid raising pay rates). If this were to effectively reduce the supply of pilots, we would end up on the positive side of the supply and demand curve, thus giving us greater leverage in dealing with management. I would suggest that in order for a pilot to qualify for the exam that he or she hold at least a bachelors degree in some technical major and meet some minimum amount of flying experience. After qualifying for the exam, if the pilot were hired by an airline the airline would then have to submit the applicant to be interviewed by a board of line pilots designated by the MEC. If said pilot jumps through all of the hoops he or she then would become certified by ALPA to work for 121 carrier (kind of in the same way the bar certifies lawyers). It is my opinion that a pilot should only have to go through this process once. While the RLA may not change anytime soon, I believe if ALPA national were to really push for this in all ALPA negotiated contracts, we would be able to shift negotiating power back to our side. Sorry in advance for the long post, let me know what you think.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Gators, the problem is implementing that idea. It's a great idea for a system, but the implementation is virtually impossible. If one airline implemented that process, then the other airlines wouldn't, and they would continue to drag everything down. Even if you got all of the ALPA carriers on board, we still have plenty of non-ALPA, and even completely non-union carriers, out there in the industry.
GoGators85
Well-Known Member
Very true, while the implementation would take many years and may never include all carriers, I think it would still be a step in the right direction. I feel it would be better to do something, whatever it may be, than to remain at the status quo we have now. Thanks for the input!
skydog
New Member
That 15 year captain came to United with his training and experience. He left with more training, more experience, and at least one type rating that United paid for. What did the Captain lose?
He lost 15 years senority!
Do you understand that if a pilot leaves an airline s/he starts over at the bottom of another airline's senority list?
Therefore that 15 year United pilot becomes a 1st year pilot somewhere else. Just like everyone else in his/her new-hire class. His/Her 15 years at UAL gave them flight hours, and that's about it. That pilot is NOT compensated for their years of experience! They're on 1st year pay again, just like everyone else. There's no lateral moving from company to company for a pilot like management does, it's back to the bottom. The "training, experience and a type rating" that he earned at UAL may be helpful in getting an interview at a new carrier, but that's where it ends. It's still up to the pilot to pass the interview, pass class, and that training, experience and the type rating will get him nothing in terms of more pay, better schedule, or place on the new airline's senority list.
skydog
New Member
I was an airline employee for over 10 years; I understand this perfectly well. However, this is true of many professions. Airline employees are hardly unique in this regard. But, unlike most other types of employees, airline employees are in a position to affect the company's bottom line, for better or worse. A single action of an individual airline employee can save (or cost) the airline hundreds or thousands of dollars. Knowing this, why would any airline employee deliberately sabotage their employer, especially when they know that they have to start all over again if their employer fails?
tonyw
Well-Known Member
Only if you get caught!
In my first job out of college, we would go to happy hour on Fridays. Then we'd come back to the office and raid the liquor cabinet. We'd walk out of there with a case of Amstel and we'd use that to drink on Saturday. Sometimes, we'd come back and get more.
They weren't paying us jacksquat so we figured that was just an unwritten benefit.
Because a legal job action, like a strike, is a complete last-ditch effort. I do not condone illegal job actions, like rouge sick-outs and such. But a legal job action comes after years of fruitless negotiations. By the time it comes down to the decision to call and activate a strike, the employees feel that it's their last chance to come to an agreement. Believe me, the members do not want to strike, but at that point they feel it's their last chance. They'd rather face the prospect of the company going under and having to find a new job, than living/working under the proposals set forth up until that time. As I've explained before, having the company go under is NOT a desirable occurance, so a strike is very much a last-resort effort.
skydog
New Member
If they're to the point where they'd rather find a new job, then do it! Just walk away. Why destroy something for someone else that might be perfectly happy?
If it's come down to a strike, then lots of people aren't happy! A strike has to be voted on. If the strike votes don't come back in favor, the strike is not authorized.
It's called fighting for what you believe in and want. You know darn well that other employee groups and management are going to fight for what they want and think is right. So I will too.
Walking away from 15 years on a job is not something you just walk away from. It's worth fighting for, and trying to come to an agreement instead of just walking away. Like I said a strike is a last-ditch effort to come to an agreement. Striking is not about trying to destroy the company, striking is about trying to come to an agreement.
Minnesota_Flyer
New Member
My personal response is YES, definitely. Employees should be permitted to strike at will as soon as their contract has expired. I think that is a fundamental right.
Practically speaking, however, I don't think there is majority support in this country or Congress to put transportation workers' strike rights ahead of the uninterrupted flow of interstate transportation.