NJ Recalls

[G4dude]

G4, you are worth what you negotiate. The company goes into negotiations with an overall number in their head. They will not pay more for the contract than that particular number. If compensation goes up, that cost will be recovered in another area. Think of it as a checkbook with each section of the contract being a debit. When negotiations are complete that checkbook must be neutral or positive.

Every union negotiator knows this. They know what shape the company is in and whether managements number is low balled or realistic. If its low balled, you try to raise it. If its realistic, you try to spend the money on the sections that make the most sense.

Under the RLA a company will almost never find itself overpaying for pilot labor against its will. Negotiations are just too easy to string out.

I agree with you in that you are worth what you negotiate. However, our difference is in who is doing the negotiating. If I and my employer negotiate, the result will satisfy both sides, no problem. When the union (and to be fair NJA's union is a pretty reasonable group) negotiates, it has the power collectively to inflict severe damage on the employer, sometimes resulting in compensation that is too high to be able to compete long term. In this case, the result of the negotiations is not satisfactory for both sides, as the company is just trying to stave off major damage threatened by the union. I hope NJASAP never bargains that hard.
I want to make a lot of money, but not if it beggars the company and the stockholders. if it does, we will lose our jobs, which is a bad thing.

 

[G4dude]

Who decides? Management decides. It's up to them to decide what they are willing to pay and how that affects the Profit/Loss statement.

The point is not what we are worth G4 but what we are able to ask for. If you start devaluing your worth from the start then you will always be paid accordingly.

Bottom line, you are labor, you are not management. It's up to you to ask for a raise and it's up to them to decide if they are willing or able to give it to you. If you however never ask, you will never get one.

BTW, what concrete evidence do you have that NJA can't afford a pay increase?

Thanks for the question. My sources for the question of affording a pay increase, of competitiveness, is the various pilot pay sites, which clearly show we are paid significantly more than our colleagues at Flex and FLOPS, etc. The planes all cost the same, the fuel and maintenance cost the same, so pilot pay is a significant factor in competitiveness, it seems to me. When I see the term "industry leading contract" I get worried. I have had several owners tell me they love the company, especially the crews, but that we are really expensive. Their words, not mine.

 

[OHGOON]

I agree with you in that you are worth what you negotiate. However, our difference is in who is doing the negotiating. If I and my employer negotiate, the result will satisfy both sides, no problem. When the union (and to be fair NJA's union is a pretty reasonable group) negotiates, it has the power collectively to inflict severe damage on the employer, sometimes resulting in compensation that is too high to be able to compete long term. In this case, the result of the negotiations is not satisfactory for both sides, as the company is just trying to stave off major damage threatened by the union. I hope NJASAP never bargains that hard.
I want to make a lot of money, but not if it beggars the company and the stockholders. if it does, we will lose our jobs, which is a bad thing.

Unions do not have unilateral power to "beggar" a company. Management has to decide what they want to afford in the end. Haven't you ever bought a new car? The Dealer is the Union and you are management in this case. You decide what you can afford in the end...if you're smart you will know what that "out the door" price is before you ever sit down to bargain.

It's just an unrealistic fear that Unions have enough collective bargaining power to ever force management to pay to the point of economic collapse.

 

[pilotyip]

Unions do not have unilateral power to "beggar" a company. Management has to decide what they want to afford in the end. Haven't you ever bought a new car? The Dealer is the Union and you are management in this case. You decide what you can afford in the end...if you're smart you will know what that "out the door" price is before you ever sit down to bargain.

It's just an unrealistic fear that Unions have enough collective bargaining power to ever force management to pay to the point of economic collapse.

Some think that unions are powerful enough to force managment into bad decisions. Many BK companies out there that used to be union.

From wsj 2009 (Cliff notes version) 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 the only solution. 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.

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.

 

[jetlag7]

Thanks for the question. My sources for the question of affording a pay increase, of competitiveness, is the various pilot pay sites, which clearly show we are paid significantly more than our colleagues at Flex and FLOPS, etc.....

Might make an "interesting" advertisement campaign for the competition.....

"Fly with XYZ Fractional Shares! We have cheaper pilots!!"

 

[OPECJet]

Some think that unions are powerful enough to force managment into bad decisions. Many BK companies out there that used to be union.

From wsj 2009 (Cliff notes version) 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 the only solution. 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.

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.

Yip, you know as I do that the airlines are not going to be put into a GM like scenario through employee bargaining. There are too many differences the workforce and laws regulating such.

 

[OPECJet]

BTW. Was there a second email from the NJASAP president we furloughed folks might not have been privy to regarding recalls and rhetoric thereof?

Disregard....

 

[Pervis]

So often we see attempts to compare us to a totally unrelated industry. We are governed by the RLA which prevents us from any illegal work action and prevents any form of strike until released to do so. The UAW is a completely different kind of union.

Additionally, even considering the so called pro labor president, does anyone really believe he would allow us to strike when one of his biggest contributors owns the company? We get what we negotiate, and based upon the limits we live by, there is no way we could pull a GM type scenario.

 

[gutshotdraw]

BTW. Was there a second email from the NJASAP president we furloughed folks might not have been privy to regarding recalls and rhetoric thereof?

Not as far as I know. But these days, I don't think any of us are quite sure what's going on.

There's been SOME communication from SOME of the new board members but it seems like this President is much like the last: "Sit down, shut up, pay your dues and I'll TELL you what's good for you and this union." Only he says it in a nicer way....

 

[OPECJet]

Not as far as I know. But these days, I don't think any of us are quite sure what's going on.

There's been SOME communication from SOME of the new board members but it seems like this President is much like the last: "Sit down, shut up, pay your dues and I'll TELL you what's good for you and this union." Only he says it in a nicer way....

I got some bad intel from a friend still there. He sent me the email and the only thing I can figure is he read it while getting a lap dance from a fur wearing mammal and through beer goggles at the same time.

Understood on the lack of comms coming from NJASAP. Quite a few of us got p/o'ed and wrote the prez, no response. Two weeks later, out pops that email.

 

[pilotyip]

Yip, you know as I do that the airlines are not going to be put into a GM like scenario through employee bargaining. There are too many differences the workforce and laws regulating such.

What about UAL, DAL, USA, NWA where the companies went into BK because they had contracts they could not afford and no flexibility to fix the situation outside of BK?

 

[jetlag7]

What about UAL, DAL, USA, NWA where the companies went into BK because they had contracts they could not afford and no flexibility to fix the situation outside of BK?

That was more a function of fuel prices shooting through the roof than employee contracts.

 

[Blueridgeflyer]

What about UAL, DAL, USA, NWA where the companies went into BK because they had contracts they could not afford and no flexibility to fix the situation outside of BK?

Yield management, 9/11 and fuel prices had more to do with recent legacy BK than labor contracts. In the case of AMR, the APA agreed to significant concessions to help the ailing carrier and we all know how well that strategy worked out.

 

[gunfyter]

Yield management, 9/11 and fuel prices had more to do with recent legacy BK than labor contracts. In the case of AMR, the APA agreed to significant concessions to help the ailing carrier and we all know how well that strategy worked out.

Weren't the losses for some of theses carriers greater than the entire payroll? So if everyone flew for free they still lost money?

How would a non union air force help that?

 

[pilotyip]

Yield management, 9/11 and fuel prices had more to do with recent legacy BK than labor contracts. In the case of AMR, the APA agreed to significant concessions to help the ailing carrier and we all know how well that strategy worked out.

Not so much oil $25/brl 2000, $30/brl 2002. Airlines like GM were forced into contracts they knew they could not sustain. The first class passenger that was the back bone of their profit had been replaced by the internet price shopper. They are at the mercy of the purchasing public, who with Internet access has made the airline ticket a perfectly elastic commodity.