On Mondy, B19 will look even more foolish...

[Diesel]

Well you know there is a union proposal out because NJW is banging the drums.

 

[BeeDubya]

Same problem here. Someone needs to put the package back in the password area.

We've never had any intention of this being "secret." Quite the contrary. If it is not password protected, that is likely intentional. Check out AIN today.

 

[gunfyter]

We've never had any intention of this being "secret." Quite the contrary. If it is not password protected, that is likely intentional. Check out AIN today.

SHHHHH....

We had Voice believing it was a Conspiracy to screw him....

NetJets Union Agrees to Furlough Program

April 21, 2009

 

[Mike Jenvey]

To save the fumble around the internet - AIN Story

[BTW - very sensible & appropriate package]

 

[gutshotdraw]

I think a small amount will take the buyout, mainly:
-those who were waiting to retire until this came out
-those who were planning to retire in the next # years
-those who just want out of the flying business
-those at the bottom of the list who think being furloughed would be worse

my uneducated guess: 40 from NJI and 60 from NJA.

I agree with your thoughts on the possible motivations but if we hit 20 early outs at NJI, I'll be shocked. There may be another 10 leaves of absence from those with family issues to sort out or a side business they would like to concentrate on for a shorter period (attention: Diesel ). That would be approximately 10% overall. Theoretically, about the same percentage would depart NJA (300 give or take). Will that be enough to avoid "involuntary measures?" Ah, the $64,000 question. We'll know by the middle of June.

 

[Hogprint]

So where is the management hag to throw cold water on this? Bueller...Bueller....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

His premise is that unions cripple businesses. In it's extreme, he's right. .

Not really....


Unions and Business

with 41 comments
One of the themes of the GM debate goes like this. On the one hand, the UAW is the problem, because it’s the high cost of union labor (and in particular, union retiree health benefits) that is crippling U.S. automakers. On the other hand, the UAW negotiated for those benefits fair and square, giving up higher current wages as part of the bargain, so it’s the fault of management for making promises they couldn’t keep. On the third hand, the UAW should have realized that when you negotiate for retirement benefits from a private corporation, one of the risks you take is that that corporation might go bankrupt. (For one example of these arguments, see Room for Debate at the NYT.)


Instead of touching that question any more than I already have, I wanted to raise the larger issue of whether unions are bad for business - which is what you would assume, given the lengths many companies go to in order to prevent unions from gaining collective bargaining rights. In general, this is a hard question to answer empirically. While you can observe differences between companies with unions and companies without unions, there is a huge problem of selection bias: since companies with unions are unlike companies without unions in many ways, you can’t say whether any differences in outcomes are due to the effect of the unions themselves, or due to the effect of other factors that would be there regardless of the unions.
John DiNardo and David Lee have an elegant way of getting around this problem in a 2004 paper, “Economic Impacts of New Unionization on Private Sector Employers: 1984-2001.” (The real economists out there probably know this paper already.)


Instead of comparing all companies with unions to all companies without unions, they focus on companies where the union certification vote either barely won or barely lost, since these two companies are very similar to each other except for the treatment effect (having collective bargaining rights). This isolates the effect of unionization from other characteristics of the companies in question. They find that unions that barely win an election are successful in obtaining a collective bargaining agreement. Otherwise, however, the effect of successful unionization is insignificant on the company: differences in wages, employment, productivity, and output are all insignificant.
The UAW, historically, is a special case which people can debate for as long as they want. But the evidence is that in recent decades unions are not dangerous to firm survival.
Update: I forgot to add a link to a shorter summary of the work.

 

[netjetwife]

To save the fumble around the internet - AIN Story

[BTW - very sensible & appropriate package]

You saved me...thanks for sharing, Mike! The article was fine, but I think the title was mismatched.

 

[Scope out RJ's]

I guess VOR decided it was time for himself to look foolish.

Every time he posts he makes himself look foolish. I'm just glad its not just the majors/regionals that he seems good at looking like a complete jackass!
Congrats to Net Jets pilots for a very well done job.

 

[brokeflyer]

So where is the management hag to throw cold water on this? Bueller...Bueller....

i think its best if the union busters just keep quiet for a while.

they have failed and that is undisputable.

I accept your surrender.

 

[netjetwife]

Congrats to Net Jets pilots for a very well done job.

Thanks! I'll pass that on to my husband.

 

[JungleJett]

Rez...

Its not about all unions...the problem is with corrupt ones who are impotent and have lost sight of whats important to its membership. Its about the ones who ignore the voice of its dues paying members and feed its senior leadership while others suffer. Its about the abuses that create a riff between the worker and management. Its about value and the union you represent is the poster child for what unions should not be.

Take note......history has been made, by union and management.

 

[fischman]

I think I heard B19 crying the other day. He was something like "Damn you NJASAP!!! You have proved Unions work!!! DAMN YOU!!!!!":nuts:

 

[netjetwife]

I totally agree that this is vindication, but I think it will be even sweeter when the measures are exercised by the NJA/I pilots and furloughs are averted. If every pilot/family does a little it will make a huge difference to our newer NJ families.

 

[steelersrule74]

the reality is many are just too blinded by hatred of unions to see the truths involved. These packages WILL save jobs at NJA. They may save ALL the jobs. Just don't spend any effort worrying about the opinions of the few fine folks here who's opinions most of us don't care about.

If they packages are completely successful - they will not show up to admit they were wrong

If at least one pilot is furloughed however - they will set a speed record to post how they were right

They continually apply the failed templates from other organizations to netjets and no surprise - continue to be wrong. haven't we seen over the years...

- the fractional model is flawed. it won't last. sorry, 20+ years and still going strong

- the market won't support a wage increase. that was said in 2003/4. wrong again

- netjets can't afford IBB, it will bankrupt them. 2008 was on course to be a record year for profits until the economy tanked. IBB had nothing to do with that

The point is, NJA has a history of doing things their own way and trying not to repeat the mistakes of others. The union (made up of 3000 pilots from other less successful groups) have also decided not to repeat the mistakes made before.

so far, that relationship has been very effective for both sides. I even hear the company pays to have a steward in CMH 24/7 - not the union. that's just whacky.............

 

[B19 Flyer]

This is massively expensive for Netjets

I totally agree that this is vindication, but I think it will be even sweeter when the measures are exercised by the NJA/I pilots and furloughs are averted. If every pilot/family does a little it will make a huge difference to our newer NJ families.

NJW, a job loss is a job loss. I don't care what you want to call it. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck it's a duck. In this case, it looks to me like people are losing their jobs.

You've never cared about families before, I don't expect you to begin now. Your famous quote about how somebody invests in their career shows the lack of character that you have always portrayed:
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showpost.php?p=1527412&postcount=101

You crawled out of whatever slimy hole you have been hiding in to spin this as a job loss being a good thing. It's not, it's horrible for everybody. Admit it, say it and believe the reality.

This is massively expensive for Netjets and I view it as a smokescreen to make the best out of a very bad situation.

The industry leading contract supported by you caused this in conjuction with the economy. Lots of people are losing their jobs and liveihood, and you only seem to care about what a great working relationship it was and what you are going to get out of it. Nothing about how incredibly expensive this is for your husband's employer.

People are losing their jobs. That sucks. I don't care how big the buyout is, it's all Netjets that has given up the cash, I don't see a single concession the union gave up to accomplish this.

The contract was too expensive, the company couldn't afford it and this is nothing more than the union acting as a squirrel being a rat with a great PR agent.

I don't care how you pretty you make it look, what color you dress it up, the reality is that the industry leading contract failed and lots of people will be hurt and unemployed as a result. YOU said it couldn't happen... you can eat those words now because it did and it is. It's only the beginning.

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showpost.php?p=1801189&postcount=1

 

[gunfyter]

If a company overhires ... because their magic 8-ball couldn't predict the future ...

Its the unions fault?

OK thanks got it ....

Next....

 

[netjetwife]

Good post, SR74! Funny, Gunfyter! You have a knack for being able to sum up the situation with an economy of words. Though in this predictable case it wasn't even necessary to read the Union-hater's worn out copy..and paste...er..post. Thanks for the cliff notes...

 

[brokeflyer]

b19 ill accept your surrender. No furloughs, no cuts, everything is voluntary.

maybe it's best if you just read for a while and not post anything.

just accept that the union and the company get along nd work through the problems and come out with something that is new SAVES JOBS.

Show some respect for what we did, learn from it.

Dont bother to reply, it is futile. This IS real and it is happening RIGHT NOW. Netjets set a precedence yesterday.

I accept your surrender.

 

[steelersrule74]

If a company overhires ... because their magic 8-ball couldn't predict the future ...

Its the unions fault?

OK thanks got it ....

Next....

in some small minded brains it's entirely appropriate for a company to both hire too much and then be able to destroy lives with furloughs just as easily. damn those unions for not rewarding such lazy thinking. There is no doubt NJA is overstaffed for current demand. The CBA has nothing to do with current demand. Nevertheless, NJA has not forced one pilot on the street nor shown one non-union person the door either. Interesting though, why haven't they furloughed the non-union employees? That's probably NJASAP's fault as well. Ahhh, it's unfortunate. Some just simply can't understand the concept of teamwork and the idea that employees are an asset to be valued, not just $hit-canned cause times turn tough.