C'mon July

[pilotyip]

What you say above YIP directly conflicts with the quote below. So which is it? A union makes it so difficult for a company to make changes to remain competitive that it might be easier to shut down, or that having a union makes no difference whatsoever to the way the company conducts its business?

Fits right in, a union says you have to lay off in seniority, that means if they lay off their junior pilots from airplane A the company has to retrain 35 pilots back into airplane A. The company can not afford that so it elects to go out of business. Where it might not have done that if a company did not have to spend $1.1M retraining 35 pilots at $30K each. Then again there is always BK which allows the company to do anything it wants to. Remember we are talking about union and job security, which means "How long will I get a steady paycheck?". Laid off with a recall number does not put food on the table. Been there, done that

 

[imacdog]

No, we are talking about unions and a company's ability to make changes to stay competitive. Something you argue the unions hamper, and something I have proven you wrong with. Since NetJets laid off in seniority order, why did it continue business rather than choose to shut down, as you claim companies with pilot unions do?

 

[rigger]

No, we are talking about unions and a company's ability to make changes to stay competitive. Something you argue the unions hamper, and something I have proven you wrong with. Since NetJets laid off in seniority order, why did it continue business rather than choose to shut down, as you claim companies with pilot unions do?

Deep pockets.....and the new forced upon them business model of 500 pilots less!

 

[rigger]

Course yip and all on here already knew this dog......I just thought I'd point out the obvious..... Unions create nothing....they are a cost center plain and simple!

 

[imacdog]

Deep pockets.....and the new forced upon them business model of 500 pilots less!

If furloughing pilots is key then why didn't it work for CA?

 

[pilotyip]

Deep pockets.....and the new forced upon them business model of 500 pilots less!

Thank you, deep pockets in the name of Mr Warren B.

If furloughing pilots is key then why didn't it work for CA?

A lot of company don't have those deep pockets CA being one of them. They were a sales division for Textron Cessna Division. Textron had to save money because they did not a bunch and were losing it my the $m's. Companies with deep pockets survive with or without unions, Companies without deep pockets, well we all know the rest.

 

[pilotyip]

Sorry YIPster but car parts don't care how well they are treated by the employees of the company transporting them.

Cargo forum is this way

But the owners of the car parts care very much how they are treated, that is why they keep calling us and we are hiring

 

[imacdog]

So what you're saying YIP, is companies really are able to make changes needed to remain competitive even if there is a pilot union. Glad you finally changed your mind.

 

[pilotyip]

So what you're saying YIP, is companies really are able to make changes needed to remain competitive even if there is a pilot union. Glad you finally changed your mind.

Only at viable companies, company leveraged to the hilt are hindered by union resistance to change and the fear the strike they will interrupt cash flow and bring an eventual end to the company The 1994 UAW/GM confrontation is a classic example of a unions ability to destroy a company.

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. They had exhausted the equity markets, and borrowing was no longer an option they fully leveraged. Much like living off your credit cards. So they bet on maybe things would work, 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. But the UAW wanted more, so in 2004 they got pay for employees who were no longer employed by GM because their factory had been shutdown. BK became the only hope.

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 1994 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.

Now non-union Toyota employee make more than UAW new hire GM employees

 

[imacdog]

GM, blah blah, they do have have the RLA working against the unionized employees. Next.