Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United/Continental FA's Not Getting Profit Sharing  
User currently offlineFly764 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 113 posts, RR: 3
Posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3734 times:

I haven't posted in ages, but curious what others think of this link.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-555642


It basically says that Smisek is refusing to give the Flight Attendants profit sharing because they haven't agreed to a new contract. Kind of blackmail if you ask me. Perhaps there is more to the story. I know as a former Continental flight attendant if I was still working there I would be furious.

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2016 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3611 times:

Leaving the FAs out of profit sharing is related to their previous stance at UA to be left out of the ESOP. As a bargaining group, the FAs prefer to have slightly higher regular pay than to be exposed to the potentially more lucrative but variable profit sharing. In addition, UA welshed on their pension obligations. Many big companies have welshed on health and retirement so groups with a history of preferring upfront pay will definitely insist on taking it.

User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3552 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Fly764 (Thread starter):
It basically says that Smisek is refusing to give the Flight Attendants profit sharing because they haven't agreed to a new contract. Kind of blackmail if you ask me.

Someone is voting now.

When I connected through IAH Sunday evening, there were signs all over Terminals C and E


User currently offlineairportugal310 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3451 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3448 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 1):
Leaving the FAs out of profit sharing is related to their previous stance at UA to be left out of the ESOP. As a bargaining group, the FAs prefer to have slightly higher regular pay than to be exposed to the potentially more lucrative but variable profit sharing.

So they dont want to partake in it come contract time, but complain about it when there is something to pass out?

Not to mention, that article was clearly written by a flight attendant. No bias there at all, oh no...

Color me shocked!  



hit it and quit it
User currently offlinecoewrcrew From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3391 times:

Sadly, our union doesn't seem to be interested in taking a stance or getting involved? FA's are furious that profit sharing is held as ransom to see if our second tentative agreement ends up being approved. In my 13 years I've never seen our work group with such low morale.

This is how the Contract reads..."flight attendants will receive their share of 30% of the first $250MM, 25% of the next $250MM, and 20% of all profit in excess of $500MM, such amounts to be pro-rated for any partial year(s) of participation. The flight attendant share of the distribution of profits will be based on one half of flight attendants' share of cost reduction and the other half on flight attendants' share of Continental payroll.

We agreed that in the event that a payment from the Profit Sharing Plan is due, the Company and the IAM will meet and agree regarding the details of how payments will be made under the plan."

In addition, flight attendants reporting for duty yesterday in EWR were given a cupcake with a $ on it. Wish I could take that to the bank...


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16946 posts, RR: 48
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3294 times:

Quoting coewrcrew (Reply 4):
FA's are furious that profit sharing is held as ransom to see if our second tentative agreement ends up being approved

Was it in the old contract? And is it in the new contract?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10735 posts, RR: 38
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3273 times:

Quoting Fly764 (Thread starter):
It basically says that Smisek is refusing to give the Flight Attendants profit sharing because they haven't agreed to a new contract.

I had a discussion about this with a United FA on board a long haul some few days back. Her take was that their profit sharing money is going toward repainting the planes.

 Wow!



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinecoewrcrew From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Yes, what I printed above is absolutely in our 2006 Contract. Management has told the f/a group that profit sharing will be awarded only if our 2nd Tentative Agreement is ratified.

User currently offlinejamake1 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 978 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3211 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 1):
Leaving the FAs out of profit sharing is related to their previous stance at UA to be left out of the ESOP. As a bargaining group, the FAs prefer to have slightly higher regular pay than to be exposed to the potentially more lucrative but variable profit sharing. In addition, UA welshed on their pension obligations. Many big companies have welshed on health and retirement so groups with a history of preferring upfront pay will definitely insist on taking it.

Not quite correct. Pre-merger UA F/A's did receive profit sharing and it was deposited into their 401K accounts. Profit sharing disbursements were voted on a few years back and the majority of the membership who voted opted to have profit sharing payments go into their retirement accounts.

The article is in reference to pre-merger CO F/A's whom are governed by a totally different collective bargaining agreement (and union),



"She's a a cruel lover."...E. Diaz referring to United's B747-400.
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3097 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 2):
When I connected through IAH Sunday evening, there were signs all over Terminals C and E



I arrived Terminal E and walked to the Terminal C parking garage, didn't notice any signs. Wow, must have had tunnel vision for the car!  
Quoting Fly764 (Thread starter):
It basically says that Smisek is refusing to give the Flight Attendants profit sharing because they haven't agreed to a new contract.



The hits just keep coming for this individual.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13255 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2801 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 1):
As a bargaining group, the FAs prefer to have slightly higher regular pay than to be exposed to the potentially more lucrative but variable profit sharing.

I'd venture to guess that's not the FAs stance, but simply the union's - when you ask individual employees about participating in a much higher-paying (but somewhat less-consistent) profit-sharing vs. smaller incremental hourly pay increases, they'll typically go for the profit-sharing. It's the union that doesn't want or like that.

Ask any IAM COPS group member at AS how the IAM hosed them out of two years' worth of record profit-sharing payouts they turned down in exchange for a contract that only got them the profit sharing this year.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinehiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2153 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2779 times:

First the UA flt att's got their money..deposited in their 401k as per their contract....as did all UA groups whether their contracts were open for negotiation or not.

Second...CO used the profit check as a weapon against both the Flt Att's and Ramp at CO...either sign a tentative agreement or do not get the check.

They all had worked and helped CO earn the profit...joining in the sharing of same should not have to depend on a future contract. This old CO is not the airline of Bethune and certainly not a harbinger of labor 'peace'.


User currently offlineInnocuousFox From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2722 times:

Quoting Fly764 (Thread starter):
It basically says that Smisek is refusing to give the Flight Attendants profit sharing because they haven't agreed to a new contract. Kind of blackmail if you ask me

Seems kind of odd that you would consider this "blackmail" when it is far more common for unions to use striking as an overt form of "blackmail". The errors in thinking here are:

1) the jobs are the employees' - not the airline's
2) the employees have a right to the profits

When the rallying cry of unions is often "full pay to the last day," you could make the case that they aren't terribly interested in the success or failure of the company. *shrug*



Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
User currently offlineRising From United States of America, joined May 2010, 258 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2607 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 1):
Many big companies have welshed on health and retirement so groups with a history of preferring upfront pay will definitely insist on taking i

All US employers with defined-benefit pensions pay insurance premiums to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, which is essentially an insurance company, that is owned by the US Government. Companies, like United, pay substantial amounts of money to insure that if they cannot fulfill their pension obligations, the PBGC will protect their employees retirement. When a company is under financial distress, and terminates the pension plan, as United did, the PBGC takes over the plan, and continues paying, according to a schedule set by Congress. Indeed it is often less than if the plan were not terminated, but it is often the last resort, as was in United's case.

It is important to note too that no taxpayer dollars fund the PBGC, which is a common misconception. United paid for years into an insurance plan to cover their workers in the event of a default. Sadly United, along with many other companies, had to call in a claim on this insurance.

Reference Links:
http://www.pbgc.gov/wr/large/united/index.html

http://www.pbgc.gov/about/how-pbgc-operates.html



If it doesn't make sense, it's because it's not true.
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...
United/Continental Existing Fleet Upgrade Status #2 posted Sun Dec 19 2010 11:12:17 by SA7700
United/Continental Livery Help Please posted Mon Nov 22 2010 21:22:25 by crownvic
United/Continental's Website Questions posted Sat Nov 13 2010 17:48:26 by B777UA
United/Continental Existing Fleet Upgrade Status #1 posted Thu Oct 21 2010 16:43:49 by United787
United Continental Antitrust Deal And SWA posted Fri Aug 27 2010 23:59:39 by SANSCOTT744
United/Continental Merger - When will be completed ? posted Sun Jul 25 2010 15:01:55 by bullwinkle
PIA Pilot Creates A Fuss For Not Getting J Class posted Fri Apr 10 2009 12:11:23 by 777way
United Ch9:FA Overheard Referring To Pax As Idiots posted Mon Feb 23 2009 21:15:52 by National757
UA Distributes $110 Million In Profit Sharing posted Wed Mar 5 2008 14:56:35 by United1
2/14: CO Profit-Sharing Day! posted Wed Feb 13 2008 20:10:04 by Falcon84