NetJets Unrest Puts Warren Buffett in a Rare Pinch

[realityman]

No, and good question. I think negotiations should be intense but private, not including embarassing a long suffering owner like Warren. And always keep an eye on our continued profitability, or we will go away, probably sold to a Ricci type over at FLOPS. The record breaking profits you cite are only barely normal for other companies in other industries. They are only "record breaking" for us because our financial perfornance has been so anemic for so many years. If I were a shareholder in Berkshire, I would not want NJA as part of the mix. Especially with labor unrest from several unions.
Maybe Santulli will buy us. I bet he would not be as generous as Warren in the long term. And probably more unfriendly to the unions.

If we don't take the fight public, what leverage does the union have?

Please don't say we can strike. Sure, we can, eventually. But without the public pressure and just keeping everything private, the company has no incentive at all to move things along to the point where we get to mediation and an eventual release to self help. Besides, I get the impression you're not one to endorse a strike anyway.

So I ask again, what leverage does the union have by keeping everything private? The company will just surface bargain for many years, the whole time with all of us losing money as inflation continues to eat into our earnings.

Yes, the stakes are high this time around. You seem to think its a foregone conclusion that it's the end of Netjets if we play hardball. Why? There are so many possible outcomes here I can't imagine why you pick the worst one to believe will be the end result. We could be sold (not likely while in contentious negotiations) but that also doesn't necessarily mean something bad for us. BH could wind us down, but also unlikely (besides, I heard those same things about being sold or closed last time around and it didnt happen). We could also win this battle, which means making GREAT money and benefits and helping the company move on to even greater profits (lots and lots of scenarios that could wind up in a successor CBA that could benefit BOTH the company and union, if only they'd care to listen to us).

You haven't answered anything I asked of you in my previous posts. I'm guessing it's because you know the truth but just don't want to admit it. What's funny is you think Warren has been generous with us! Really?! Okay, how? All I've seen since BH bought us is one fight after another to get what we have, and now a brazen attempt to take much of it away (JH may be the one directly attacking, but he's taking his orders from higher up). Where, exactly, is this generosity of which you speak?

You asked me this question once, but I think it's quite apropos to ask it of you: Do you even work for Netjets?

Because honestly, you seem to not be aware of any of the crap that's been going on (from the company's side), and not just since negotiations started, but since RTS was given the boot. Heck, I'm still waiting for an answer to a question I asked of you a while ago: Can you name ONE policy the company has instituted since RTS was booted that has IMPROVED our working conditions or compensation or benefits? Come on, just one.

 

[G4dude]

If we don't take the fight public, what leverage does the union have?

Please don't say we can strike. Sure, we can, eventually. But without the public pressure and just keeping everything private, the company has no incentive at all to move things along to the point where we get to mediation and an eventual release to self help. Besides, I get the impression you're not one to endorse a strike anyway.

So I ask again, what leverage does the union have by keeping everything private? The company will just surface bargain for many years, the whole time with all of us losing money as inflation continues to eat into our earnings.

Yes, the stakes are high this time around. You seem to think its a foregone conclusion that it's the end of Netjets if we play hardball. Why? There are so many possible outcomes here I can't imagine why you pick the worst one to believe will be the end result. We could be sold (not likely while in contentious negotiations) but that also doesn't necessarily mean something bad for us. BH could wind us down, but also unlikely (besides, I heard those same things about being sold or closed last time around and it didnt happen). We could also win this battle, which means making GREAT money and benefits and helping the company move on to even greater profits (lots and lots of scenarios that could wind up in a successor CBA that could benefit BOTH the company and union, if only they'd care to listen to us).

You haven't answered anything I asked of you in my previous posts. I'm guessing it's because you know the truth but just don't want to admit it. What's funny is you think Warren has been generous with us! Really?! Okay, how? All I've seen since BH bought us is one fight after another to get what we have, and now a brazen attempt to take much of it away (JH may be the one directly attacking, but he's taking his orders from higher up). Where, exactly, is this generosity of which you speak?

You asked me this question once, but I think it's quite apropos to ask it of you: Do you even work for Netjets?

Because honestly, you seem to not be aware of any of the crap that's been going on (from the company's side), and not just since negotiations started, but since RTS was given the boot. Heck, I'm still waiting for an answer to a question I asked of you a while ago: Can you name ONE policy the company has instituted since RTS was booted that has IMPROVED our working conditions or compensation or benefits? Come on, just one.

You were doing so well in this post until you HAD to snarl a little. Remember 2008/2009? We lost hundreds of millions and Warren hung with us. Our jobs were secure. As for things being not as good, you are correct. I am worried that Warren dumping us would not be good for the pilots, no matter how much we feel we should be paid more. Being unemployed sucks worse than having a less than perfect job. Hopefully Warren will keep us and we embarass him enough to get a big raise out of him. I'm not so sure that is a good strategy, however.

 

[G4dude]

What kind of ball do you think the union should play?

Spirited defense of what we want, keeping an eye on what the competition is doing. making sure we can stay profitable so we can keep our jobs while letting us enjoy a good career with pay that does not drive us out of business. We don't want to be unemployed, so our demands should be somewhere in the REAL world. And I think embarassing Warren is a Very Bad Idea.

 

[T-1GUY]

Last I looked, every major airline is hiring, regionals are parking airplanes, plenty of corporate jobs, a shortage of well qualified pilots. G4 take off your "I love Eastern airlines" pin and stop being a management crony spewing your constant anti-union message of fear. The Union is the only voice of the pilots at the bargaining table. If your so willing to negotiate individually, maybe YOU would be better off if Netjets did go under. I'm sure you would get a good deal on your own. Do you happen to know b19?

 

[realityman]

You were doing so well in this post until you HAD to snarl a little. Remember 2008/2009? We lost hundreds of millions and Warren hung with us. Our jobs were secure. As for things being not as good, you are correct. I am worried that Warren dumping us would not be good for the pilots, no matter how much we feel we should be paid more. Being unemployed sucks worse than having a less than perfect job. Hopefully Warren will keep us and we embarass him enough to get a big raise out of him. I'm not so sure that is a good strategy, however.

He hung with us back in '04-'05 when we cost him 16 full aircraft worth of clients. And we weren't nearly as profitable then as we are now.

As for the losses in '08-'09, generosity? Do you think we were the only company in the BH portfolio losing money back then? I'd say it was more shrewd business tactics than generosity. Almost EVERYONE was doing poorly back then. I'd guess that he recognized it was a much greater outside economic force causing the losses, and that he knew the companies doing well before the crash would likely do well again when it was all over. Do you know anything about WB's relationship with labor? Anything at all? He doesn't give a rat's a** about the worker bee. He doesn't keep companies going because he cares so deeply about us. It's all about the money. Period. The end.

That's why he won't sell us or close us from public embarrassment. He may not like it, but as long as the money is rolling in I'm not overly concerned about losing my job in this fight.

As for a spirited defense, whatever. Here's the long and short of it. This fight will not be over until it becomes too painful for him to not give us what we want. It has worked that way not just with us, but with practically every union fight for a better contract there's ever been. As much as you might peg me as a union "thug", the truth is I HATE the fact it has to be this way. But I prefer to face reality, and the reality of it all is that history has repeatedely demonstrated that to get ANY improvement in a contract things have to get ugly. Show me a good union job ANYWHERE where the workers got a good contract without a nasty fight.

I really wish we could do it your way. Honestly. But that, unfortunately, isn't how it works. And I think you and I will just have to disagree about WB's "generosity".

 

[FamilyGuy]

Heck, I'm still waiting for an answer to a question I asked of you a while ago:

Can you name ONE policy the company has instituted since RTS was booted that has IMPROVED our working conditions or compensation or benefits? Come on, just one.

How about profit sharing? oh wait, that's just for the non union groups....never mind.

 

[G4dude]

He hung with us back in '04-'05 when we cost him 16 full aircraft worth of clients. And we weren't nearly as profitable then as we are now.

As for the losses in '08-'09, generosity? Do you think we were the only company in the BH portfolio losing money back then? I'd say it was more shrewd business tactics than generosity. Almost EVERYONE was doing poorly back then. I'd guess that he recognized it was a much greater outside economic force causing the losses, and that he knew the companies doing well before the crash would likely do well again when it was all over. Do you know anything about WB's relationship with labor? Anything at all? He doesn't give a rat's a** about the worker bee. He doesn't keep companies going because he cares so deeply about us. It's all about the money. Period. The end.

That's why he won't sell us or close us from public embarrassment. He may not like it, but as long as the money is rolling in I'm not overly concerned about losing my job in this fight.

As for a spirited defense, whatever. Here's the long and short of it. This fight will not be over until it becomes too painful for him to not give us what we want. It has worked that way not just with us, but with practically every union fight for a better contract there's ever been. As much as you might peg me as a union "thug", the truth is I HATE the fact it has to be this way. But I prefer to face reality, and the reality of it all is that history has repeatedely demonstrated that to get ANY improvement in a contract things have to get ugly. Show me a good union job ANYWHERE where the workers got a good contract without a nasty fight.

I really wish we could do it your way. Honestly. But that, unfortunately, isn't how it works. And I think you and I will just have to disagree about WB's "generosity".

Disagreement is fine, and you do it in a civilized manner However, I fear you guys are thinking NJA is very profitable when it is actually marginally so. And return on investment for Berkshire is quite unsatisfactory over the long haul so far. I am amazed Warren has stuck with us, and am deeply uneasy about the "embarassment" strategy currently under way. By the way, I will be just fine if NJA goes away. I am mainly worried about my colleagues who are not so secure financially.

 

[Checks]

I am a helicopter pilot. In the Gulf of Mexico the helicopter pilots made 24K a year to start back in 1998. The pilots unionized and all the stories about how the rich oil companies wouldnt pay for higher wages or how the helicopter companies would all go broke were thrown about (just like some of you guys are throwing out that RICH, RICH people cant afford higher paid pilots or that NJA will go out of business).

Guess what? Pay doubled for helicopter pilots in the Gulf and the oil companies didnt blink an eye.

 

[T-1GUY]

I guess when you are only marginally profitable you only make about a billion dollars in one year, you start a whole new subsidiary called Netjets China, you order $18,000,000,000 in new shiny jets. How much did Warren pay for Netjets ? Somewhere slightly north of half a billion. It's funny, Warren also loaned Goldman Sachs a huge sum of money after the downturn. He had deep pockets and took advantage of the situation to Berkshires benefit. Make no mistake, he made a business decision based on hard data. Netjets has been a good investment for him and will continue to make him lots of money despite having to pay his employees a more reasonable wage for their skill set.

 

[NJAowner]

So many posts are base upon the logic "he has soooooo much money he should pay us more". That is a very poor premise and outnumbers all others probably 10 to 1.

Funny, any time I wanted a raise I went to my superiors and my basis was always "I should be paid more because ..... I am valuable because ... I do a better job because .... I can make you more money because .... I make the company better because...." My team members who want raises come to me with similar logic. I have never said "you should pay me more because you have so much money and wouldn't notice it" or something similar. But that is the overwhelming position not only on this board, but in the public campaign. It is all based upon NJA's $$.

The pilots know I support them. But the argument, position and strategy being employed is not one of strength and productivity but one of entitlement. Please don't shower me with messages about how productive you are, etc. - while that is true and I agree - that is NOT the emphasis of YOUR campaign and NOT the issue which the union is communicating to the owners. Maybe the union show have a survey company poll a demographic similar to the owners (like marketing companies regularly do) and see if the campaign is effective and communicating the proper message? If there is a "gaol sheet" of the objectives of the campaign, I seriously doubt they are being accomplished as far as the owners are concerned.