Who says airline mgmt. is anti-worker?

Minnesota_Flyer

Minnesota_Flyer

New Member
From BNA:

JUDGE ORDERS PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS TO STOP SHIFTING FLIGHTS TO SUBSIDIARY

A federal judge orders Pan American Airways Corp. to stop moving its flights to its nonunion subsidiary, Boston-Maine Airways Corp., finding that the practice is "a direct attempt to destroy a union" (Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l v. Guilford Transp. Indus. Inc., D. N.H.,No. 04-331-JD, 10/13/04). The ruling by Judge DiClerico in favor of the Air Line Pilots Association adopts a recommendation issued last month by a federal magistrate judge that Pan American had set up Boston-Maine Airways Corp. in its bid to permanently replace its unionized operations with nonunion workers.

Pan Am has "no legitimate business purpose" for shifting the routes from one carrier to the other, DiClerico finds. He cites as persuasive the testimony of one witness that company President David Fink said there would be "smooth sailing as soon as they got rid of all those union jackasses." An attorney for the airlines says they have filed a notice of appeal with the First Circuit. The court orders Pan Am to restore the pay, rules, and working conditions in effect at the carrier before July 2004; to refrain from letting Boston-Maine use large Boeing 727 aircraft normally flown by Pan Am; and to efrain from transferring aircraft to Boston-Maine. . . .
 
That's one of the laziest ways to forward an argument. Take one event and apply if as a blanket statement. There are some companies in the industry that still have repectful relations, CAL and pilots just did this:

http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20040901/01sep2004120422.html

Then when you have some companies on the verge of extinction and every effort to cut labor costs is viewed as simply an anti-labor strategy, well that's a little too simple.

Having said that the conflict between labor and management has hit the kind of peak you'd expect when both sides see their very survival on the line. They'd all be smarter to work together, but maybe too much bad blood.....?
 
[ QUOTE ]
That's one of the laziest ways to forward an argument.

[/ QUOTE ]If that's aimed at me, then, with due respect, screw you. I attached an article that I thought others might find of interest and used a subject line which was (I think quite clearly) intended to be sardonic, not literal. I was in no way trying to "forward an argument," whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.

On the other hand, if the comment's not direct at me, then, to borrow from Roseanne Roseannadana, "nevermind."

MF
 
This is of course absolute BS.

But there are companies with management that gets along well with their workers. Continental and Southwest come to mind. And gee, guess what's happening there?

Good things.

Treat your workers well, and it pays off. Management would be wise to remember that.
 
If employees are allowed to unionize a company, then why shouldn't businesses be allowed to un-unionize them as long as it doesn't directly effect safety or customers? Just a thought.

Regards,

JR
 
[ QUOTE ]
If employees are allowed to unionize a company, then why shouldn't businesses be allowed to un-unionize them as long as it doesn't directly effect safety or customers? Just a thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be all for that if it met two conditions: 1) it's not at the employees expense and 2) it will strengthen the company. There ARE unions out there in it for themselves, and they really don't give a damn if the companies their members work for survive or not. The airline industry is so incestuous with its union membership that this philosophy won't fly (pun, actually NOT intended). What one union (or part of the same union) does SEVERELY impacts the others.

My experience at SWA leaned me towards the fact that rampers/operations didn't really NEED to be union. In my station, it actually protected agents that SHOULD have been fired long ago. They cost the company money by not doing their jobs and added to my frustration since I had to pick up their slack. There's no guarantee that management-employee relations are that good in EVERY station, however. The FAs at SWA (and probably a majority of pilots) would argue with me on that. That being said, I DO think the FAs and pilots should have a union. They're the first targets when things get rough. Sort of a flag to the rest of the front line employees that management is doing something. What I've seen so far of Express Jet (and to what extent I've seen, Continental), it's almost the same. In fact, I got a friendlier vibe from management at EXPRESS JET than SWA. Then again, they are a smaller company, and they can afford the one-on-one attention easier.
 
Hello Kell,

Thanks for the quick response. In my limited knowledge of how airlines are run, I believe that the pilots are a prime target not only because of their pay, but because they are full-time with bene's types, whereas many of the rampers are low paid part-timers with little if any bene's. I do wonder about one of your conditions "(1) it's not at the employees expense...". If you ask most of the airlines they will claim that the pilots unionized at the expense of the company. I just wish there was someway all of the airline unions could get together and standardize everything as much as possible (seniority and equipment rates, non-pension bene's, medical, leave, etc.) Hey, I can still dream, can't I?
smile.gif


Happy Landings,

JR
 
[ QUOTE ]
If you ask most of the airlines they will claim that the pilots unionized at the expense of the company.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the time, there's a reason work groups unionize. If they were all treated rosy, there'd be no reason to do it. If the employees feel they are being taken advantage of enough to unionize, I think one of my rules was already violated.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the pilots are a prime target not only because of their pay, but because they are full-time with bene's types, whereas many of the rampers are low paid part-timers with little if any bene's.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really depends on the airline. SWA has VERY VERY little PTers at all in any positions. One of the things that shocked me was that FT and PT at XJT has NO difference in pay or benes. The only difference is how many hours you work a week.
 
[ QUOTE ]
One of the things that shocked me was that FT and PT at XJT has NO difference in pay or benes. The only difference is how many hours you work a week.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, that's some good news!

Regards,

JR
 
[ QUOTE ]
If that's aimed at me, then, with due respect, screw you. I attached an article that I thought others might find of interest and used a subject line which was (I think quite clearly) intended to be sardonic, not literal. I was in no way trying to "forward an argument," whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.

On the other hand, if the comment's not direct at me, then, to borrow from Roseanne Roseannadana, "nevermind."

MF

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I misread your subject line, and agree now about the sardonic tilt. My bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top