Who's to blame?(mgt vs labor)

[ilinipilot]

The biggest problem is the sour relations that exist and the fact that there is no mutual trust among any of the parties.

You would think that in this day and age of bankruptcies and furloughs both sides would see the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel and make it a point to start up honest negotiotiats. It says something that the past was so bad both sides cant even do that. I dont know if any of these companies can get themselves out of the woods until they start trusting each other.

Just my 2 cents
Dana

 

[Birdstrike]

Originally posted by PCL_128:

"...what else are we supposed to do to make contract advances? Strikes and work slow-downs are the only things we have to make a point to mgmt..."


Who says you have to make "contract advances?"

UAL pilots were well-paid even before they gained last year's 20+ percent increases weren't they? Ever heard of a concept called "contentment?"

D*mn, think how much of this mess could have been alleviated if everyone who already makes a decent wage would just stop looking over their shoulder at what the other guy is getting.

Yeah, that's why I joined the Army all right, for those great "contract advances."

 

[PCL_128]

Originally posted by PCL_128:

"...what else are we supposed to do to make contract advances? Strikes and work slow-downs are the only things we have to make a point to mgmt..."


Who says you have to make "contract advances?"

UAL pilots were well-paid even before they gained last year's 20+ percent increases weren't they? Ever heard of a concept called "contentment?"

D*mn, think how much of this mess could have been alleviated if everyone who already makes a decent wage would just stop looking over their shoulder at what the other guy is getting.

Yeah, that's why I joined the Army all right, for those great "contract advances."

At the time the contract was being negotiated at UAL, they were making record setting profits. Are the pilots supposed to sit back and not get anything from that? If the company is making more money, then the employees should get a piece of it. I would personally prefer profit sharing. That way the employees could get the extra cash during the good times and not have to worry so much about the bad times. Sort of like an automatic concession. Unfortunately, companies are never willing to negotiate decent profit sharing arrangements, so we're forced to push for pay increases and accept concessions and furloughs during the bad times. Not a great system, but it's all we have to work with. If the company is making record setting profits I'm not just going to sit back and not get anything for it.

 

[Birdstrike]

Posted by PCL_128:

"...If the company is making record setting profits I'm not just going to sit back and not get anything for it...."


But you are getting something for it, PCL. You're getting compensated per the terms of your contract. Who says that management has to share any of their "record setting profits" with you? You're being compensated at the level you agreed to aren't you?

At the risk of oversimplifying, I'm just looking at this from the viewpoint of Joe Sixpack trying to understand the issues. I just don't see your beef.

If you were making dirt for a wage, fine, but that's not the case is it? Taxpayers don't begrudge anyone a decent living but you mainline guys appear to be killing the golden goose. You busted your but* and got to a major, hey, you rang the bell, you're there! Instead of singing "Let The Rejoicing Begin" and being content with your work, its excellent pay, and the chance to be doing something that many would do for much less, you're angling for more.

Where does it ever end? When is enough ever enough? Now we know, don't we. Finally, it ends in bankruptcy. Now you risk losing what little you gained by continually pressing for those greater and greater "contract advances" that just could not continue.

Contentment is a wonderful thing.

 

[skydiverdriver]

I think perhaps he works for a "regional" airline, and he doesn't feel that his pay is adequate. So, what should he do to further his cause?

 

[bobbysamd]

Good faith and bad faith

The biggest problem is the sour relations that exist and the fact that there is no mutual trust among any of the parties.

You would think that in this day and age of bankruptcies and furloughs both sides would see the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel and make it a point to start up honest negotiotiats. It says something that the past was so bad both sides cant even do that. I dont know if any of these companies can get themselves out of the woods until they start trusting each other.

(emphasis added)

Agreed. But, it is a chicken-and-egg problem, and here's why.

It seems as if the moment the ink is dry on a new labor agreement that management tries to find ways around it. I'm sure a management type will argue the opposite. It could be taken either way; the long and short of it is while the sides might have negotiated in good faith that good faith goes out the door the moment an agreement is effective. So much for trusting each other.

Read airline history. It seems that management always tries to cut labor costs and wring out more from pilots. On the other hand, wring out too much and safety is affected. Two examples: stand-up overnights and the AA LIT accident. How many hours were those pilots on duty? Then, I heard a story where a flight landed short of its destination because, according to the cabin announcement, "union work rules" wherein the crew would have busted a duty day. Probably the pax didn't understand. So, management tries to find a way around that.

And, again, so much for trying to deal in good faith.

 

[208pilot]

To PCL whatever:

You seem to be in a minority. Most of these posts seem to indicate that people believe United brought their troubles on themselves. How that airline can't do what it takes, be it paycuts , more reliance on RJ's, whatever to make money again is a disgrace. I'm sorry for what happened to the this country and the people on those planes on Sep 11 but I'm not sorry for United right now.
And I do enjoy my job, I will never fly anything bigger than what I am now, but I would never work at some Majors even if I was god's gift to aviation like you. United, US Airways top the list!

And PS I work in the Guard on some weekends driving trucks for peanuts too but I'm just as proud of that.

 

[AOPAPILOT]

Management And Labor

If the Labor side owns 55% of the stock, how did United get into so much trouble without Labor smelling a rat? Who were the Labor representatives siting on the board? Did Management hide all that was going on at the time? This did not happen to Unitedover night. History has a funny way of repeating the past mistakes. I would tend to blame both sides. Both sides need to agree on bad decisions and retake control.

 

[Publishers]

point made

The point that because there are record profits, the pilots should get more is right on target. Many of these airlines had been poor performers compared to other businesses for many years. Now they finally have a good year and the pilots should get more.

Wrong-- the pilots should get whatever is a decent wage for the job they do. Should a receptionist get more because the company had a good year or should she get a good wage for performing the job of receiving.

This thinking is why we are always in trouble. The % of return is the question. The one and only reason for this company to exist at all is to provide the shareholders a % of return equal or better than they can get elsewhere.

How did UAL stand on that issue?

 

[sf3boy]

Even when times were good before Sept '01, United's management had troubles. How many millions of dollars were sunk into the failed hotel and rental car venture? The corporate-fractional flight program? Running minute long tv ads during the world series in '01 constantly? Full page ads in national papers?

Money that could of been spent elsewhere to ensure that you stay in bussiness. Those ads do nothing. Everyone that has electricity knows that United flies passengers.

Yeah, I guess all the employees should want to work for free since they had so much do to with this mess.

 

[Birdstrike]

They don't work for free. They get paid according to their contract. What management does with the rest is management's business...and the shareholders.

 

[PCL_128]

They don't work for free. They get paid according to their contract. What management does with the rest is management's business...and the shareholders.

Exactly. And when profits are good pilots will and should negotiate for a better contract. If the company's making more money, the people that keep it running (labor) should get more money.

Publisher, people like you are the reason why labor has such a dislike of mgmt. You think we deserve nothing for our hard work when the company is doing good. That's BS. We keep the company going, we should be compensated when the company is making better profits. Just to show I don't have a double standard about this, I also think that mgmt deserves to be better compensated when times are good. If they help to bring in more profit, they should get more money for their good mgmt. Unfortunately, there's lots of hard working labor out there, but not very many good managers.

 

[sf3boy]

After much thought, maybe the answer is for the unions to say ok, you guys win. Captains get paid 40k and FO and FE's get paid 25K per year. Call it good. See if airlines can operate when noone applies for a job that requires you to be away from home 20 nights a month, millions of dollars worth of equipment and people under your watch.

Management has to manage and pilots have to fly. If management did not want or could not afford to pay the wages of the employees, they would not have signed the contract. They did not negotiate their contract with the idea that if things are going really good, this is what we can afford to pay. They signed an agreement saying this is what we can afford, period. If UAL management did the former, then they have not attended or passed one single business class.

 

[Publishers]

Profit sharing

I believe that SWA has a profit sharing program that deals with when things are good. I also believe that UAL was owned by the employees who would have benefited from the success of the airline.

Now would you be making $400k a year if I was running an airline without a union, no. Would you be making $40k a year, not any more likely.

The distance between what the few remaing so called majors pay at the top and the rest of the flying world is considerable. It has become, up to now, like the lottery. You get in and it is like some kind of entitlement program.

There are a ton of people who spend massive amounts of time away from home. You are going to have to make a real stretch to get me empathetic with my 767 driver buddies. They laugh about it as we play golf only they play a good deal more than I do.

 

[Birdstrike]

Posted by PCL_128:

"...when profits are good pilots will and should negotiate for a better contract. If the company's making more money, the people that keep it running (labor) should get more money..."

I guess that's why this issue will just keep going round and round. Not everybody sees it that way. Some think differently. Not wrong, just different.

If I own a company and pay an employee a wage to work for me then the profits or losses are my business. In good times, I may or may decide to give raises, but it's my decision. I can certainly understand the need to keep good employees by paying them well but I may choose to not increase salaries because I have other uses for the money; expansion, dividends, rainy day fund, etc. I don't have to keep raising pay 20+%. I can say, enough.

So conversely, I guess your argument would have to be that in bad times "the people that keep it running" should get less money then, right?

A better model might be a good median wage that survives the peaks and valleys instead of the mismatch between the regionals and the mainline that we have today.

Pass the Johnnie Walker!