Allegiant votes in IBT

[pilotyip]

How is unionization affecting the bottom line at SWA, FedEx and UPS?

No they are highly profitable companies, though SWA is under pressure as it becomes a mature airline where employee cost have grown by nearly 35% since 9-11. At UPS and Fedex are not airlines they are logistics solution companies that happen to operate airplanes also. Unions at marginally profitable companies limit the ability to change with market conditions, like UAL, EAL, NWA, DAL, etc The UAW did not really effect the auto industry until their pay and benefits made the big three marginally profitable. Unions have tremendous leverage to force companies into bad decisions

 

[Jim]

unions at marginally profitable companies limit the ability to screw the pilots

fify.

 

[pilotyip]

fify.

until the ultimate screwing of going out of business

 

[nordo_2]

Unions all Powerful?

No they are highly profitable companies, though SWA is under pressure as it becomes a mature airline where employee cost have grown by nearly 35% since 9-11. At UPS and Fedex are not airlines they are logistics solution companies that happen to operate airplanes also. Unions at marginally profitable companies limit the ability to change with market conditions, like UAL, EAL, NWA, DAL, etc The UAW did not really effect the auto industry until their pay and benefits made the big three marginally profitable. Unions have tremendous leverage to force companies into bad decisions

Unions don’t force companies into bad decisions. Bad leadership, is just that. How do unions change a company’s principles of leadership? Who decides the direction of company? Your using unions as scapegoats for poor leadership, ineffective or outdated business plans.

If you blame unions for the demise of a company, Then we can blame them for their successes. So, by your model unions are directly responsible for the success of a company. The success of Fedex and southwest are directly related to the union? It’s because of the union’s ability to determine the principles of leadership and the direction of these company’s, that they are successful. Probably not.

Those CEOs are so powerless and intimidated. “This would be a such a great place if it weren’t for you”.

Scapegoating, a tried and true distraction. Except when there are examples of a good balance between labor and company.

 

[pilotyip]

Unions don’t force companies into bad decisions. Bad leadership, is just that. How do unions change a company’s principles of leadership? Who decides the direction of company? Your using unions as scapegoats for poor leadership, ineffective or outdated business plans.

If you blame unions for the demise of a company, Then we can blame them for their successes. So, by your model unions are directly responsible for the success of a company. The success of Fedex and southwest are directly related to the union? It’s because of the union’s ability to determine the principles of leadership and the direction of these company’s, that they are successful. Probably not.

Those CEOs are so powerless and intimidated. “This would be a such a great place if it weren’t for you”.

Scapegoating, a tried and true distraction. Except when there are examples of a good balance between labor and company.

No I do not agree with you. Unions have too much power with ability to destroy a company. The UAW/GM story is a classic example of union power run amok. In 1994 the UAW pushed GM into a deal it knew it could most likely not fulfill. It gave unlimited medical and COLA to retirees. GM knew a lengthy strike might drive them into BK. GM was living on cash flow. They had exhausted the equity markets, and borrowing was the only solution. Much like living off your credit cards. So they bet on maybe things would work out, but they knew in the end they were in trouble. The power of a potential union strike drove them to make a bad management decision.

As they lost market share to foreign rivals, Detroit's auto makers and the UAW lost the power to set standards on labor costs. Yet during the prosperous 1990s, they seemed reluctant to accept the fact that their business model -- with its expensive defined-benefit health and pension programs -- was driving the domestic industry toward ruin. The UAW and its biggest employer have effectively conceded that their golden age of dominance is over.

GM executives consistently acknowledged that it couldn't be competitive in North America without a fundamental change in its labor-cost structure.

The UAW got a harsh lesson in the consequences of bankruptcy proceedings when former GM parts unit Delphi Corp. sought Chapter 11 protection in 2005, and pushed through substantial job and wage cuts under a deal subsidized by GM.

GM's obligation to provide health care for 412,356 union members, retirees and surviving spouses lies at the heart of yesterday's agreement. Even after a partial overhaul of retiree health-care benefits in 2005, GM still faced a $51 billion obligation to UAW members. Health-care obligations added more than $1,900 to the cost of every GM vehicle sold in the U.S. in 2006, a heavy burden given that many GM vehicles sold for less than competing Toyota vehicles.

BK followed in 2009 as a result of the unions forcing, with the power of a strike, into a company killing deal.

BTW: I agree there may be examples of a good balance between labor and company, but I can't think of one right now. This board is very pro-union. It stands on a platform that unions can do no harm. I just happen to not agree with that stance and it is my duty to point out the other side. A lot of this comes from my personal experiences as a member of ALPA and IBT. The eternal promise of "more pay and more says off" until of course you have all your days off, without pay.

 

[nordo_2]

No I do not agree with you. Unions have too much power with ability to destroy a company. The UAW/GM story is a classic example of union power run amok. In 1994 the UAW pushed GM into a deal it knew it could most likely not fulfill. It gave unlimited medical and COLA to retirees. GM knew a lengthy strike might drive them into BK. GM was living on cash flow. They had exhausted the equity markets, and borrowing was the only solution. Much like living off your credit cards. So they bet on maybe things would work out, but they knew in the end they were in trouble. The power of a potential union strike drove them to make a bad management decision.

As they lost market share to foreign rivals, Detroit's auto makers and the UAW lost the power to set standards on labor costs. Yet during the prosperous 1990s, they seemed reluctant to accept the fact that their business model -- with its expensive defined-benefit health and pension programs -- was driving the domestic industry toward ruin. The UAW and its biggest employer have effectively conceded that their golden age of dominance is over.

GM executives consistently acknowledged that it couldn't be competitive in North America without a fundamental change in its labor-cost structure.

The UAW got a harsh lesson in the consequences of bankruptcy proceedings when former GM parts unit Delphi Corp. sought Chapter 11 protection in 2005, and pushed through substantial job and wage cuts under a deal subsidized by GM.

GM's obligation to provide health care for 412,356 union members, retirees and surviving spouses lies at the heart of yesterday's agreement. Even after a partial overhaul of retiree health-care benefits in 2005, GM still faced a $51 billion obligation to UAW members. Health-care obligations added more than $1,900 to the cost of every GM vehicle sold in the U.S. in 2006, a heavy burden given that many GM vehicles sold for less than competing Toyota vehicles.

BK followed in 2009 as a result of the unions forcing, with the power of a strike, into a company killing deal.

BTW: I agree there may be examples of a good balance between labor and company, but I can't think of one right now. This board is very pro-union. It stands on a platform that unions can do no harm. I just happen to not agree with that stance and it is my duty to point out the other side. A lot of this comes from my personal experiences as a member of ALPA and IBT. The eternal promise of "more pay and more says off" until of course you have all your days off, without pay.

I disagree with you. I too have been both a teamsters, ALPA and in house. I prefer in house. I was also a teamster as a ramper. The only promise I ever heard was, you get what you negotiate.

Again, by your model unions control the decision process of CEOs. I don’t buy that one. So, again we can directly attribute all the success of UPS to it being heavily unionized. The success of southwest is a good example of a heavily unionized company, doing well. Fedex is another example of a heavily unionized company.

You’re scapegoating unions for other, deeper problems.

 

[nordo_2]

No I do not agree with you. Unions have too much power with ability to destroy a company. The UAW/GM story is a classic example of union power run amok. In 1994 the UAW pushed GM into a deal it knew it could most likely not fulfill. It gave unlimited medical and COLA to retirees. GM knew a lengthy strike might drive them into BK. GM was living on cash flow. They had exhausted the equity markets, and borrowing was the only solution. Much like living off your credit cards. So they bet on maybe things would work out, but they knew in the end they were in trouble. The power of a potential union strike drove them to make a bad management decision.

As they lost market share to foreign rivals, Detroit's auto makers and the UAW lost the power to set standards on labor costs. Yet during the prosperous 1990s, they seemed reluctant to accept the fact that their business model -- with its expensive defined-benefit health and pension programs -- was driving the domestic industry toward ruin. The UAW and its biggest employer have effectively conceded that their golden age of dominance is over.

GM executives consistently acknowledged that it couldn't be competitive in North America without a fundamental change in its labor-cost structure.

The UAW got a harsh lesson in the consequences of bankruptcy proceedings when former GM parts unit Delphi Corp. sought Chapter 11 protection in 2005, and pushed through substantial job and wage cuts under a deal subsidized by GM.

GM's obligation to provide health care for 412,356 union members, retirees and surviving spouses lies at the heart of yesterday's agreement. Even after a partial overhaul of retiree health-care benefits in 2005, GM still faced a $51 billion obligation to UAW members. Health-care obligations added more than $1,900 to the cost of every GM vehicle sold in the U.S. in 2006, a heavy burden given that many GM vehicles sold for less than competing Toyota vehicles.

BK followed in 2009 as a result of the unions forcing, with the power of a strike, into a company killing deal.

BTW: I agree there may be examples of a good balance between labor and company, but I can't think of one right now. This board is very pro-union. It stands on a platform that unions can do no harm. I just happen to not agree with that stance and it is my duty to point out the other side. A lot of this comes from my personal experiences as a member of ALPA and IBT. The eternal promise of "more pay and more says off" until of course you have all your days off, without pay.

I don’t think unions have anything to do with the success of UPS, Fedex or southwest. They just happen to be unionized. They have had success because of their leadership at the top, solid business models combined with good timing.

 

[pilotyip]

I disagree with you. I too have been both a teamsters, ALPA and in house. I prefer in house. I was also a teamster as a ramper. The only promise I ever heard was, you get what you negotiate.

Again, by your model unions control the decision process of CEOs. I don’t buy that one. So, again we can directly attribute all the success of UPS to it being heavily unionized. The success of southwest is a good example of a heavily unionized company, doing well. Fedex is another example of a heavily unionized company.

You’re scapegoating unions for other, deeper problems.

Only because the logistic companies known as FedEx and UPS are highly profitable. SWA, used to be highly profitable, but is becoming a mature airline only time will tell what he outcome it going to be. Unions have the power to destroy companies.

But how about United States Steel, GM, Chrysler, Wyandotte Chemical, Inland Steel, etc. The three you named are very profitable companies that can share with their employees. However when a union pushes management into a corner with a strike threat, the company often has to do things they know may not be in their best interest. Reference GM in 1994 when they knew they could not afford the union contract in the long term, but knew that would be less devastating than a strike in the short term for a company that had borrowed to the limit and needed the cash flow to stay solvent.

 

[labbats]

Comparing airline pilot unions to the unions at steel mills and car manufacturers is pretty far off the mark.

Also this thread is about Allegiant unionizing. Allegiant has been one of the most profitable airlines in America for years now.

 

[nordo_2]

Comparing airline pilot unions to the unions at steel mills and car manufacturers is pretty far off the mark.

Also this thread is about Allegiant unionizing. Allegiant has been one of the most profitable airlines in America for years now.

Word up. I agree. Yip’s gotta ragging hard one for Detroit, and/or IBT. Likes to tear down unions in general. Just thought I would add some balance to the force. G4 rocks the balance sheet. Union, or no union will have no affect on your successful airline.