Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Allegiant Workers Seek Union Vote  
User currently offlinemccarranmgr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3006 times:

Vote is expected by end of this year. It will be interesting to see what happens. With the recent less than stellar earnings report as well tougher times are definitely in the future of G4.

http://www.lvrj.com/business/allegia...-union-vote-106815133.html?ref=133
Las Vegas Review Journal Article from 11/6/10

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2924 times:

What leads you to the conclusion that they had a less than stellar earnings report? The 3rd quarter is G4's historically weakest quarter. In addition, this past quarter was their second most profitable 3rd quarter in absolute terms and on a percentage basis.

I thought their earnings report was good, especially considering their fuel cost per passenger increased 23% year over year.

However, I agree that G4 could be in for tougher times if the union vote is approved. Unions served a good purpose in the first half of the 1900's when working conditions were poor for the average worker.

Today is a different story and unions tend to cause a divisive and acrimonious environment. Union leadership tend to paint a biased picture of management's intent.

[Edited 2010-11-08 08:58:07]

User currently offlineah414211 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 221 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2712 times:

  

Looks like the first nail in the coffin for Allegiant  


User currently offlineyvphx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2592 times:

I wonder what management would do if a Union vote is approved? From what I have been told, Allegiant has a superior health insurance, 401(k), and other benefits. What would voting a Union in do? If I was management, I would reduce pay and benefits.

I agree with EricR. Unions are not needed anymore. When you have OSHA and employers scared at every turn of a lawsuit, its just not worth it anymore. Union representation will only add hostility between the two.

Name any other airline where you don't have multi-day layovers and get to come home every night without having to stay in a bedbug ridden hotel in the slums.


User currently offlineual777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1550 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2462 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 1):


However, I agree that G4 could be in for tougher times if the union vote is approved. Unions served a good purpose in the first half of the 1900's when working conditions were poor for the average worker.

Today is a different story and unions tend to cause a divisive and acrimonious environment. Union leadership tend to paint a biased picture of management's intent.
Quoting yvphx (Reply 3):

I agree with EricR. Unions are not needed anymore. When you have OSHA and employers scared at every turn of a lawsuit, its just not worth it anymore. Union representation will only add hostility between the two.

The pay for pilots at Allegiant compared to other airlines is criminally low.



It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2436 times:

Quoting ual777 (Reply 6):
The pay for pilots at Allegiant compared to other airlines is criminally low.

I don't disagree that the pilot pay at G4 is low, but there are several things to consider.

1.) ALGT is not a major airline. They are not going to pay major airline salaries.
2.) ALGT is an LCC. LCCs do not pay top wages.
3.) There are benefits to working at G4 as a pilot (no overnights). If you are a single parent or not the primary income earner in your family, but love to fly, this may outweigh the drawback of lower salaries
4.) They knew the salary they were getting when they accepted the position.


User currently offlinejeb94 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 601 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

Quoting yvphx (Reply 3):
I wonder what management would do if a Union vote is approved? From what I have been told, Allegiant has a superior health insurance, 401(k), and other benefits. What would voting a Union in do? If I was management, I would reduce pay and benefits.

Have you actually seen Allegiant's benefits package?


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4930 posts, RR: 43
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2347 times:

Quoting ual777 (Reply 6):
The pay for pilots at Allegiant compared to other airlines is criminally low.

Allegiant pays MD-80 Captains $153/hr.

Compare to Delta at $155/hr or American at $161/hr, it is not far off the mark, and hardly "criminally" low.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2755 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2297 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 1):
Today is a different story and unions tend to cause a divisive and acrimonious environment.

The key word in what you wrote is "tend". The relationship between ALGT management and any future unionized employee group does not have to be acrimonious. Unionization by itself is neither good or bad for a company's future in my opinion. It will depend on how management chooses to work with the union, and on what kind of union leadership the employees elect. Both sides have the power to make it work or fail.

Quoting EricR (Reply 1):
Union leadership tend to paint a biased picture of management's intent.

It goes both ways. Management paints a biased picture as well.

Quoting yvphx (Reply 3):
What would voting a Union in do? If I was management, I would reduce pay and benefits.

Why?

That would be completely the wrong approach. Have you ever heard the saying that a company usually gets the union it deserves?

If a company treats it's employees and by extension its unions with respect and deals with them fairly, relations with the union are generally pretty good (see Southwest). If management does things like flagrantly violating the contract and telling you to "fly it and grieve it", or as you suggest attempting to punish employees for organizing, it will only harden the resolve of the union leadership and rank and file employees to stand firm against management and stick it to the company whenever possible.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17447 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2251 times:

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 10):
Have you ever heard the saying that a company usually gets the union it deserves?

Management could treat labor like kings, and there'd always be an incentive for some outside group to say "hey, you deserve to get more and to work less".



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2755 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2207 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 11):
Management could treat labor like kings, and there'd always be an incentive for some outside group to say "hey, you deserve to get more and to work less".

They could also treat the employees like garbage, and there'd be an outside group pressuring management to drive labor costs down further.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2020 times:

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 8):
If a company treats it's employees and by extension its unions with respect and deals with them fairly, relations with the union are generally pretty good (see Southwest). If management does things like flagrantly violating the contract and telling you to "fly it and grieve it", or as you suggest attempting to punish employees for organizing, it will only harden the resolve of the union leadership and rank and file employees to stand firm against management and stick it to the company whenever possible.

The scenario you described though is a company culture issue, not a union/non-union issue. If a company treats its unions poorly, the non-unionized employees are not treated much better. One company that comes to mind is Mesa Air.

Southwest treats all of its employees well - unionized and non-unionized.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 8):
If management does things like flagrantly violating the contract and telling you to "fly it and grieve it", or as you suggest attempting to punish employees for organizing, it will only harden the resolve of the union leadership and rank and file employees to stand firm against management and stick it to the company whenever possible.

This is exactly the point I am making.

Often times management has to take drastic measures to save a company or change company strategy for the benefit of the long term survival of the company.

When situations like this occur, unions are either not flexible or put up a struggle even though it means the downfall of the company or puts the company at a severe competitive disadvantage (ie. AA and their high labor costs which have severely limited their ability to compete on routes).

I can think of a lot of companies that were severely wounded or went out of business due to unions. I cannot think of one business that prospered because of a union.

Your point that union representation does not necessarily mean a drastic change in employee -mgt relations is well taken. I agree that it does not necessarily mean that it will result in a divisive atmosphere.

However, unions are businesses. They would not be in business if they did add an element of fear, doubt, or concern in the minds of the employees they represent.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17447 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1997 times:

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 10):
They could also treat the employees like garbage, and there'd be an outside group pressuring management to drive labor costs down further.

The difference is those people actors either have a stake in the company as shareholders, or limited sway as commentators/analysts/whatever, but all have an interest in the longterm viability and profitability of the company. Unions have an interest in the viability and profitability of the union, never the company.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 5410 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1940 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 12):
The difference is those people actors either have a stake in the company as shareholders, or limited sway as commentators/analysts/whatever, but all have an interest in the longterm viability and profitability of the company.

Outsiders, particularly on Wall Street, very often have interests inverse to those of the company.

Farsighted unions understand that their interests align with those of the company -- just not necessarily with those of senior management.

Poorly managed unions may not have the company's interest in mind, but their existence doesn't discredit unions in general any more than the existence of poorly managed businesses (of which there are many) discredits businesses in general.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17447 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1928 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 13):
Farsighted unions

There is no such thing

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 13):
Outsiders, particularly on Wall Street, very often have interests inverse to those of the company.

I agree, but at the very least they're interested in the profitability of the company, some times at the expense of long term viability.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinelucky777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 552 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1911 times:

Quoting yvphx (Reply 3):
I agree with EricR. Unions are not needed anymore.

Clearly you don't have a grasp on the long and storied history of the airline industry. Even today the benefits enjoyed at airlines are due to the hard work of the unions both past and present. The union airlines have been the ones to set the bar and the non-union folks at other airlines were the beneficiaries of these oftentimes tumultuous labor negotiations. Simply look at Delta...their stated goal for frontline (non-union) employees is industry standard....and who might set this standard? Yep, the unionized carriers LUV, AA, AMR, UAL, CAL, LCC etc...although i guess you could say the same thing about most industries. Unions have paved the way for middle-class America with decades of hard work. And although they're not the force they might have once been, you'd be beyond naive to think that airline employees would be enjoying the generous work rules/benefits today had it not been for union negotiations from the yesteryears.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4930 posts, RR: 43
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1895 times:

While everyone on here has posted excellent reasons for and against unions, in my opinion, there is one very important reason for a union in an airline. FAA, (and host country's governing bodies) set maximum duty requirements and times for Pilots and Flight Attendants.

There is a reason for this! Right now, fatigue is cited as one of the most biggest factors affecting air safety right now. Airline employees need to know that if fatigue is affecting their work to the point of affecting safety, they have the support of their union if their airline decides to reprimand them, if they decide not to work.

This is not just for Pilots and Flight Attendants, which the the support of the FAA, (for example) but other airline employees in which their work can affect safety as well ... Mechanics, Ramp Agents, Gate Agents, etc. They need a union behind them, if in the name of safety they cite issues within the airline. It really is not that long ago, that such employees would have simply been fired.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1891 times:

Quoting lucky777 (Reply 15):
Quoting yvphx (Reply 3):
I agree with EricR. Unions are not needed anymore.

Clearly you don't have a grasp on the long and storied history of the airline industry. Even today the benefits enjoyed at airlines are due to the hard work of the unions both past and present. The union airlines have been the ones to set the bar and the non-union folks at other airlines were the beneficiaries of these oftentimes tumultuous labor negotiations. Simply look at Delta...their stated goal for frontline (non-union) employees is industry standard....and who might set this standard? Yep, the unionized carriers LUV, AA, AMR, UAL, CAL, LCC etc...although i guess you could say the same thing about most industries. Unions have paved the way for middle-class America with decades of hard work. And although they're not the force they might have once been, you'd be beyond naive to think that airline employees would be enjoying the generous work rules/benefits today had it not been for union negotiations from the yesteryears.

No one said that unions did surve a useful purpose in the past. The comment was directed towards unions today.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 5410 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1837 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
There is no such thing

I was a member of one for five years. We had generally good relations with management (the exceptions surrounded sometimes poor handling of safety concerns) and thought carefully about the long-term implications of our bargaining priorities.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
I agree, but at the very least they're interested in the profitability of the company, some times at the expense of long term viability.

Short-sellers and private-equity raiders are only interested in the company's failure, whether in the short or long term.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17447 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1797 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18):
I was a member of one for five years. We had generally good relations with management (the exceptions surrounded sometimes poor handling of safety concerns) and thought carefully about the long-term implications of our bargaining priorities.

In other words, another layer of middle management plus the cost of union dues. Was the union ever challenged by another?

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18):
Short-sellers and private-equity raiders are only interested in the company's failure, whether in the short or long term.

That's a whole different ballgame; short sellers actually provide a very useful purpose but are easily scapegoated.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 5410 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1782 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 19):
In other words, another layer of middle management plus the cost of union dues. Was the union ever challenged by another?

Hardly a "layer of middle management"; more of an advocate for workers, particularly where safety was concerned (this was a transit bus operation, and Longhauler's point about safety applies equally there). The most important functions of the union were 1) ensuring workers' rights were protected when they communicated safety concerns to management; and 2) turning diffuse worker concerns into a concrete set of priorities that could guide contract negotiations with management.

The union was never challenged by another union, but every leadership election was vigorously contested -- as it should be.

The improved pay and (especially) working conditions that the union secured for us, compared to similar nonunion shops, were easily worth my dues. I was happy to pay them.


User currently offlineBuddys747 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 527 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1746 times:

Quoting yvphx (Reply 3):
Unions are not needed anymore. When you have OSHA and employers scared at every turn of a lawsuit, its just not worth it anymore. Union representation will only add hostility between the two.

That is not true in all cases!

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 12):
Unions have an interest in the viability and profitability of the union, never the company.

So you have dealt with every union in the USA ? Wow. Saying "Never" is quite a statement.


User currently offlineF9Animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5029 posts, RR: 28
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1716 times:

Well folks, it was eventually going to happen. Seriously, does this come as a shock? Not very many airline pilots are without some form of a union. Will this be the first nail in the coffin? No way. Is this bad news for G4? No way. Is it good for the pilots? Depends on who you ask. Whatever the case, this is not going to hurt G4 in any way. Are the pilots at Jetblue union?


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1695 times:

Quoting lucky777 (Reply 15):
Clearly you don't have a grasp on the long and storied history of the airline industry. Even today the benefits enjoyed at airlines are due to the hard work of the unions both past and present. The union airlines have been the ones to set the bar and the non-union folks at other airlines were the beneficiaries of these oftentimes tumultuous labor negotiations. Simply look at Delta...their stated goal for frontline (non-union) employees is industry standard....and who might set this standard? Yep, the unionized carriers LUV, AA, AMR, UAL, CAL, LCC etc...although i guess you could say the same thing about most industries. Unions have paved the way for middle-class America with decades of hard work. And although they're not the force they might have once been, you'd be beyond naive to think that airline employees would be enjoying the generous work rules/benefits today had it not been for union negotiations from the yesteryears.

Thanks for the history lesson but this is 2010

Quoting longhauler (Reply 16):
There is a reason for this! Right now, fatigue is cited as one of the most biggest factors affecting air safety right now. Airline employees need to know that if fatigue is affecting their work to the point of affecting safety, they have the support of their union if their airline decides to reprimand them, if they decide not to work.

This is not just for Pilots and Flight Attendants, which the the support of the FAA, (for example) but other airline employees in which their work can affect safety as well ... Mechanics, Ramp Agents, Gate Agents, etc. They need a union behind them, if in the name of safety they cite issues within the airline. It really is not that long ago, that such employees would have simply been fired.

Who's not tired after a long day at work?   

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 22):
Are the pilots at Jetblue union?

No. They "negotiate their contracts directly with management" They are five years long, renew automatically, and are done per individual basis....



Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineMDShady From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

I thought that the pilot group had already come to an agreement w/ management earlier this year in which top cptn pay was the $153 figure above?

25 FATflyer : This is the FAs voting for or against a union, not the pilots. Some people may not realize which group is being talked about.
26 m11stephen : Most airline crews stay in fairly nice hotels such as Holiday Inns, Westins, Sheratons, etc. They definitely aren't slum motels. Not gonna lie, I wou
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Next Union Vote Near At Delta... posted Tue Jan 12 2010 16:03:26 by Airtechy
NWA Ground Workers Are Union - Delta's Are Not posted Sat Feb 9 2008 05:08:13 by KarlB737
NWA Union Vote Under Challenge posted Fri Jun 8 2007 14:55:06 by MSPGUY
B6 Union Vote Up Comming! posted Thu May 4 2006 16:07:31 by Dc10s4ever
NW Ground Workers (IAM) To Vote On Contract posted Sat Jan 14 2006 22:31:00 by LUVRSW
XJ Customer Service Union Vote posted Wed Apr 7 2004 04:55:06 by Airdude66
This Just IN- Delta AFA Union Vote Results posted Fri Feb 1 2002 20:21:26 by 2cn
Delta Union Vote posted Sun Jul 30 2000 03:17:49 by The spinmaster
BA Strike Vote, From Union Insider. posted Thu Feb 18 2010 10:20:40 by readytotaxi
AA Flight Attendants' Union Seek Quick Deal. posted Fri Jun 13 2008 07:21:19 by AA767400