airlinelover
Posts: 5287
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:03 am

Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:35 am

Well, I've read so many news reports and so many forums where people talk about NW or UA or whoever striking, and now NW is hiring "replacemant F/A's" in case of a strike. Also called SCABS..

Scabs are usually referred to in hateful ways, often attacked, harasses, threatened, and more just because they are doing a job.

I wanted to share a thought with everyone, as people seem to not realize the GOOD Scabs do..

If the F/A's at NW strike, there are a few things that might happen (this is not an all-inclusive list). 1- NW loses MORE money then before. 2- NW goes under due to not being able to fly at all. 3- NW hires replacement people to keep the airline flying, and keeping public inconvienance to a minimum.

First, let's take a look at a scab on a human body. You get cut, scratched or whatever, bleed, and as the blood clots and dries, you stop bleeding and a SCAB is formed. What does the scab do? It protects the cut from foreign material, helps in the healing process.. Keeps blood from leaking out of the body through the cut.

Second, let's take a look at a Scab Employee. If the NW F/A's strike, NW would rather use option 3 then be totally screwed. A scab employee helps keeps the airline flying. A scab employee helps prevent further losses in $ that a strike can cause. A scab helps ensure there will be an airline to COME BACK TO when the strike is over.

Remember the Detroit Newspapers strike that lasted years? If not for scabs, the paper would have had to stop printing. I, for one, do not want to see NW stop flying. And if Scabs are to help with that, good on them.

So let's not look at scabs as evil. They are just people doing a job like anyone else. Remember that next time you hear someone referr to a "Scab" as being evil.

Chris
*Prepares for a flamefest*

[Edited 2005-06-08 22:36:00]
Lets do some sexy math. We add you, subtract your clothes, divide your legs and multiply
 
AirWest
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 10:13 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:41 am

This will come down to which part of the airline you work for. Management generally loves scabs, union members will tend to hate them.

Zach
"And now I wish I was somewhere other than here"- JB
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:44 am

I wouldn't be surprised if they took out rows of seats on a/c so they won't need as many F/As if they have to bring in non-striking ones. I also wouldn't be surprised if non-inflight employees are trained as "pillow fluffers", doing a lot of the service aspect of the inflight crew save the safety part.
 
777STL
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:22 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:54 am

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 2):
I wouldn't be surprised if they took out rows of seats on a/c so they won't need as many F/As if they have to bring in non-striking ones. I also wouldn't be surprised if non-inflight employees are trained as "pillow fluffers", doing a lot of the service aspect of the inflight crew save the safety part.

The ad I read suggested the scabs will be going through normal F/A training. I'm sure there are FAA regulations for F/As preventing them from just being "pillow fluffers".

I'm against scabs, they undermine organized labor thereby allowing the company to do whatever they want to its employees. Maybe it doesn't matter for an aviation geek watching from afar but if you're the one being exploited by that big company, it sucks.
PHX based
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:08 am

NW has no choice but to do this... good strategy and planning IMO. The airline CANNOT afford a shut-down like what happened when the pilots walked out, and it also cannot affort not to get the concessions it needs from all its labor groups, as its costs are now the highest in the industry.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
Elagabal
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:40 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:12 am

I think the scabs issue is a bit like the issue of free speech. This means that, regardless of what you think about any given side,

1). Every worker should have the right to unionize, or not to unionize, as he or she sees fit;

2). Every worker should have the right to strike; and

3). Every worker should also have the right to work.

As for where you stand on the picket line (or behind it, or over it), say what you will, but you must respect everyone's right to both free association, and free movement.

2p
 
airlinelover
Posts: 5287
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:03 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:12 am

Quoting 777STL (Reply 3):
Quoting Srbmod (Reply 2):
I wouldn't be surprised if they took out rows of seats on a/c so they won't need as many F/As if they have to bring in non-striking ones. I also wouldn't be surprised if non-inflight employees are trained as "pillow fluffers", doing a lot of the service aspect of the inflight crew save the safety part.

The ad I read suggested the scabs will be going through normal F/A training. I'm sure there are FAA regulations for F/As preventing them from just being "pillow fluffers".

777- SRBmod said "NON IN FLIGHT EMPLOYEES" meaning groudn crew might start helping out..

Chris
Lets do some sexy math. We add you, subtract your clothes, divide your legs and multiply
 
hammer
Posts: 638
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 9:02 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:42 am

NWA is going to file for chapter 11 by April next year, this was told to me by an AMFA leader, they are due to pay out huge numbers for pensions starting in April and if they can't get help from the government and consessions it will be by April 2006. Even if the F/A's and mechanics/cleaners give into huge pay cuts, it will only buy NWA time and they will still be in bankruptcy by next summer. As far as scab workers, I have to agree with everyone who hates them, big business loves them because they help out in time of need, but it is a huge thorn in the side of unionized workers....
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4472
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 7:19 am

To all the scab haters, just one question? What do hate most?
1. Northwest declaring bankruptcy and wipe out all labor contracts.
2. Northwest hiring "scabs" to insure the operation in the event of strike.

Please answer from the head rather than the heart.
 
nwafflyer
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:29 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 7:21 am

Now, with a bit of reason here, and some intelligence, NWA should be able to keep going and also prosper - and also continue the employment of numerous flight attendants/pilots/mechanics/and ramp crew. Many of us, in many different industries are facing defined pension benefit cuts - I for one cannot retire as planned.

However, to penalize an entire industry is idiotic -- let's be a bit sane/rationale and intelligent here. If NWA has to hire so called "SCABS" in order to keep flying, so be it. Or, if NWA can make an arrangement with the
FAA to allow fewer flight attendants, and more passenger responsibility, so be it.

I will never understand why we downrate pilots and flight attendants (other than my most favorite Pinnacle FA). They have a responsible job, and at least in my opinion, NWA does a good job -- I feel safe, and guess what, the reasons why I fly are #1, time, and #2 safety.
 
Jamake1
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 2:30 pm

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:35 am

Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 8):
To all the scab haters, just one question? What do hate most?
1. Northwest declaring bankruptcy and wipe out all labor contracts.
2. Northwest hiring "scabs" to insure the operation in the event of strike.

I would like speak to both parts of your question. I have worked for both union and non-union airlines. I have, in fact, worked for four U.S. airlines. In my experience, one needs union representation in this business. Airline workers fall under the FAA and not OSHA for workplace protections. The FAA labor guidelines are very minimal, such as duty time regulations for pilots and flight attendants. One needs workrules in place that supersede the FAA MINIMUM guidelines.

Furthermore, if NWA were to go into bankruptcy, under the Chapter 1113 process, the company has to NEGOTIATE a concessionary agreement before requesting an abrogation of the collective bargaining agreement. As an employee, I think it is really important to have some negotiating leverage, especially in bankruptcy. Only if a consentual agreement cannot be reached, then the company can request an abrogation of the collective bargaining agreement and be free to impose their own contract terms.

A good example of this is the F/A's at United. Although they have endured two rounds of concessions, by having a collective bargaining agreement in place, they were able to MINIMIZE their givebacks. Most of their workrules have been retained as a result. They have also been able to retain 5 paid holidays, a perk that F/A's at most airlines do not enjoy.

If Delta goes into Chapter 11 and seeks more concessions, their non-union work groups have no leverage for negotiating or minimizing their give-backs. There is no legally binding collective bargaining agreement in place and that is not a good position to be in if you are labor.

In summary, I regard union representation as a necessary evil. Actually, in the case of AFA, their activism has brought about numerous positive changes to workplace safety, such as non-smoking on all flights, emergency exit path lighting, and lavatory smoke detectors, just to name a few.

As for the scab issue. SCABS hurt the American worker in the long run. They undermine the collective bargaining process and ultimately a SCAB worker undermines him or herself in the form of a diminished quality of work life and less pay and benefits. The workplace protections and working conditions that organized labor has fought hard for, become totally undermined by SCAB workers. Fighting for a better quality of work life benefits the future airline or other industry worker.

Taking advantage of a labor dispute so that one can see the world more quickly is short-sighted. I personally feel that SCABS lack integrity. No union wants to strike. Sometimes it takes a strike or the threat of a strike to get management back to the negotiating table or to bargain in good faith. As a work group, there needs to be strong solidarity and front line support for the negotiating committee at the bargaining table. A SCAB undermines that solidarity.

As I mentioned in another thread, the F/A's who crossed the picket line when F/A's struck at American in 1993 were treated so horribly by the returning AA F/A's, that many of them ended their careers with AA. They were not invited to crew dinners on layovers, they were left to work by themselves on the airplane; they were outcasts.

Part of the joy of being a crewmember is the comraderie that is forged with colleagues and the friendships that are made. I personally would find it very unenjoyable to be a part of a crew that shunned me.

Having said all that, I would strongly discourage anyone who is flirting with the idea of applying for a job that involves crossing a picket line in a labor dispute, from doing so.

In closing, while I was working for a non-union airline, we organized because working conditions had become so bad. I won't go into the details, but duty days often times exceeded 24 hours ON DUTY. And it was legal according to FAA guidelines at the time. I am very proud of the work we did to negotiate and ratify a first contract agreement. It paved the way for further workplace improvements for the flight attendants that are there today. Furthermore, having union representation on the property brought infrastructure to the crew scheduling department and established systems that actually made crew scheduling more efficient.

So, having experienced both sides of the union coin, I would say having representation is necessary. It's like have a sound insurance policy. And I personally feel that SCAB workers disrespect and undermine the profession.

[Edited 2005-06-09 01:52:29]
United's B747-400. "She's a a cruel lover."
 
737doctor
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 4:52 pm

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:45 am

Yeah, who cares as long as YOU, the flying public, are not inconvenienced. Let the management who, through inepitude and mismanagement, got the company into such a mess now walk all over the workers. It's all good as long as you get your $99 ticket.

Scabs need to remember one thing: The stigma of crossing a picket line will follow them for the rest of their professional lives. You may not like it and it may not seem fair, but they will be remembered for their actions and likely passed over when seeking employment elsewhere.

I for one would never cross a picket line. My fellow mechanics are my brothers; we fight in the trenches every day. The last thing I would want to do is stab them in the back.
Patrick Bateman is my hero.
 
mtnmanmakalu
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:47 pm

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:53 am

This is hilarious!!! At NWA, we haven't even seen barely any proposals from the Company to even have an opinion on a new contract yet, and we are updated several times a week by the PFAA.... How can we even threaten to strike, have a slow-down or stoppage, or anything else when the negotiation process in its infancy? In my opinion, NWA is going to be short F/A's even after all recalls, due to retirements, attrition, etc. I bet they won't even get back 1/2 of the 600+ still on furlough... Most people have moved on by now.

And BTW, do you think Bush would ever let a strike happen if it ever got that far??? And a strike at ANY Airline in this day and age is just stupid, IMHO...

mtnman
I do, I don't, whatever.......
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:03 am

Quoting Mtnmanmakalu (Reply 12):
And BTW, do you think Bush would ever let a strike happen if it ever got that far??? And a strike at ANY Airline in this day and age is just stupid, IMHO...

What about the pilot strike of the late 90's! No one thought that would be allowed and it was, also the Comair pilots another example.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
mtnmanmakalu
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:47 pm

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:13 am

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 13):
also the Comair pilots another example.

No offense, but an NWA strike would have a much, much bigger impact on WORLD travel than the Comair strike did...
I do, I don't, whatever.......
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:24 am

Tell that to all the people changing planes in CVG!
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
AvionicMech
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:28 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:53 am

I could not agree more with Jamake1 and 737doctor. As they said its easy for people to say that they shouldn't strike because it will stop people being able to get their flights but also what about the F/A's at NW, they shouldn't have to put up with a severe drop in pay and conditions. I know that times are hard in the US in this industry but 9/11 was only one of many factors that have sent it downhill, the majority of it unfortunately has been down to poor management and over capacity and why should the workers have to suffer because of it.
 
ejmmsu
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:05 am

I'm a firm believer in right to work. Companies should offer what they offer, and people should take it or leave it. If its not enough, find another job. Eventually they will have to make it more attractive to find workers.

The fact that there are "scabs", people that are willing to take the jobs for lower pay, proves that the wages given are inflated over the demand of the market.
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18263
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:10 am

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 17):
proves that the wages given are inflated over the demand of the market.

Or perhaps it proves that there are a lot of people out of work?

Or perhaps it proves that there are people who would rather work at an airline - no matter what the wages - than, say, a hospital?

Or perhaps it proves that there are a lot of people who see this as a way to gain experience in the industry?

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:12 am

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 17):
I'm a firm believer in right to work. Companies should offer what they offer, and people should take it or leave it. If its not enough, find another job. Eventually they will have to make it more attractive to find workers.

"find another job"? It isn't that easy, especially in an economy like this.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 17):
The fact that there are "scabs", people that are willing to take the jobs for lower pay, proves that the wages given are inflated over the demand of the market.

Overinflated compared to what? The minimum wage is 30% lower today than it was in 1979. Sure, salaries are overinflated compared to the countless 3rd world countries whom the US worker is competing against.

Unfortunately this backwards thinking is what is believed by the people running the country as well.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:30 am

While I understand the desire to unionize, and why labor unions used to be relevant and important, unionized companies just can't compete with non-union companies when union employees insist on work rules that drive up costs and are paid higher salaries. It just can't always be management’s fault – especially when the competition has drastically lower personnel costs.

Take the auto industry. Health care expenses add $1,500 to the cost of each GM vehicle. General Motors continues to lose market share to its foreign rivals - most who have assembly plants in North America - who have more efficient factories, lower health care and pension costs and fewer unionized employees. GM's 30 North American plants operated at an average of 85 percent of their capacity in 2004, compared to an average of 107 percent for Toyota's six North American plants. Shutting down excess capacity isn't all that beneficial, either. Employees at the recently closed GM plant in Baltimore will get paychecks for several years - for doing nothing. All those wages get tacked on to the price of a GM car.

When B6 and WN have fewer employees and receive lower wages and benefits than their legacy competition, is it any wonder so many are in trouble?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
chgoflyer
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 11:16 pm

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:33 am

Quoting Elagabal (Reply 5):
1). Every worker should have the right to unionize, or not to unionize, as he or she sees fit;

2). Every worker should have the right to strike; and

3). Every worker should also have the right to work

Well said but you left out on important part. Every company should have the right to fire employees who either dont proform or it cant afford.
Will someone please wake me up in 4 years
 
AvionicMech
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:28 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:09 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):
Take the auto industry. Health care expenses add $1,500 to the cost of each GM vehicle. General Motors continues to lose market share to its foreign rivals - most who have assembly plants in North America - who have more efficient factories, lower health care and pension costs and fewer unionized employees. GM's 30 North American plants operated at an average of 85 percent of their capacity in 2004, compared to an average of 107 percent for Toyota's six North American plants.

Well you said it all there, the rivals have more efficient factories and are working to full capacity and that is why they are making money and not loosing it. This is exactly the same as the airline industry, the legacy carriers in the US just flew too many flights and therefore employed too many people than the demand and now there is even less need. Whereas the LCC's like SouthWest only flew the flights they could make money on which is one of the reasons why they are still doing well. But because of these poor decisions made by the management years ago it does not make it fair on the workers to impose poor working conditions and pay because of it.

Quoting Chgoflyer (Reply 21):
Well said but you left out on important part. Every company should have the right to fire employees who either dont perform or it cant afford.

Yes I agree that every company should be able to fire someone if they don't perform at their job but to fire someone because they can't afford them is not fair on the worker again. There should always be a good attempt to keep workers on rather than just make them redundant at a whim.
 
northwestair
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 11:25 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:41 pm

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 13):

What about the pilot strike of the late 90's! No one thought that would be allowed and it was, also the Comair pilots another example.

I thought that the 98 NW Pilot strike was during the Clinton administration. I was laid off for about 2 weeks. I go to work everyday except Sun/Mon I do my job and then I go home. In return I expect to have a paycheck every other Friday. That's it. You can look at this Scab thing 2 different ways. Our HDQ is telling the flying public don't worry if one of our Unionized Work groups strike we have you covered. We'll still be flying our Airplanes so don't worry go ahead and book on our Aircrafts. The 2nd is our Top Management is tellling the Union that you see we to can play hard ball. If you strike we will have other people to do the job. Another thing is we (employees) have the Union telling us one thing and then we have Management telling us another. I'm getting sick and tired of it. My 2 or maybe 3 cents but not 4
I don't care who you fly just as long as you fly
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:56 pm

Quoting AvionicMech (Reply 22):
Well you said it all there, the rivals have more efficient factories and are working to full capacity and that is why they are making money and not loosing it. This is exactly the same as the airline industry, the legacy carriers in the US just flew too many flights and therefore employed too many people than the demand and now there is even less need. Whereas the LCC's like SouthWest only flew the flights they could make money on which is one of the reasons why they are still doing well. But because of these poor decisions made by the management years ago it does not make it fair on the workers to impose poor working conditions and pay because of it.

What other choice does management have? Granted, the legacy carriers are in the state they're in because of poor decisions made in the executive suite. But unless you re-regulate the airline industry and apportion routes, the LCC's will continue to have an advantage over the legacy carriers because of their lower personnel costs. Since that isn't going to happen in today's economy, there are only two other options - they can quit, or accept a pay cut.

I known this is harsh, but it's reality. As a consumer, I'm not going to fly from IAD to OAK on UA if they aren't cost competitive with B6.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Boeing757/767
Posts: 2179
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 11:05 pm

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:11 pm

Reply 5 said:

"As for where you stand on the picket line (or behind it, or over it), say what you will, but you must respect everyone's right to both free association, and free movement."

That includes the right of alternate personnel to work jobs held by striking workers -- without persecution or harrassment. In other words, one party has the right to strike, the other the right to work -- without being denegrated or called "scabs."
Free-thinking, left-leaning secularist
 
WeAreUnited
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:02 pm

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Fri Jun 10, 2005 1:32 am

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 17):
I'm a firm believer in right to work. Companies should offer what they offer, and people should take it or leave it. If its not enough, find another job. Eventually they will have to make it more attractive to find workers.

The above quote is the result of someone understanding just a little bit about economic theory (but only in theory...) and not recognizing the fact that we do not live our lives in a vacuum. Unfortunately, there is not an equilibrium in power between management and the workforce; businesses currently have the upper hand when it comes to the level of wages and benefits. While the country is at an historically low level of unemployment, much of this is due to the fact that Americans do have a very good work ethic (taking less vacation time than any other 1st world country), do not have the same social safety nets we once did to help us in times of unemployment, and live under the threat of having their jobs exported to another country. None of us want to support those who decide not to work for a living, none of us do. Current laws compel workers to find work, regardless of the pay. Addressing the issue of outsourcing, it is true that, macroeconomically speaking, everyone's boat rises when market forces are allowed to play themselves out, even in the labor market. However, microeconomically, this results in many displaced workers, lower wages in the short term for laborers in more developed nations, and will eventually lead to higher levels of crime and violence should those who lack skills or are unable to learn new skills (not everyone's as smart as YOU are, but does that mean that they should live w/o a job, safety, and healthcare?) turn to less moral ways of supporting themselves and their families, though perhaps only in the short term (maybe the next couple of decades or so?).

In short, companies can offer pretty much whatever they'd like as salary in industries, such as aviation, which require fairly limited skills or have an abundance of skilled workers. Personally, I consider the ability to provide true customer service and the ability to handle crises well to be a skill which few innately possess and which is difficult to teach; however, you shouldn't be surprised as the airlines discover/decide that their customer service agents and flight attendants really can be of a much lower caliber and that the customer won't care, as long as the ticket price is low. If you think customer service stinks now...

As for the level of salary offered in today's aviation world...

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):
When B6 and WN have fewer employees and receive lower wages and benefits than their legacy competition, is it any wonder so many are in trouble?

You're joking right? WN has the BEST wages and benefits in the industry. Their flight attendants and pilots are better paid than any other airline. There is a good chance that Southwest will regret having signed the contracts that it did in the near future, so they shouldn't be misrepresented - they are VERY good. As for B6, the levels of salary offered are much better for first-year employees than any other airline. The main reason that their costs remain low is that none of their employees have any seniority (along with the fact that it hasn't had to pay too much of the maintenance costs of its aircraft and also has its employees responsible for a greater workload than at the majors). I'm not deriding JetBlue for this (I actually think they have made many good decisions in terms of duty allocation and customer service), but being such a young airline, it should be duly noted that it doesn't really have to play by the same rules as the majors.

At the end of the day, unions need to be more flexible in what they will accept for their workers and management needs to show less of a propensity for exploiting the lower ranks. The main reason the public at large is siding against unions these days is that businesses have been much better at getting their side across, while the unions have left it up to big business to frame the battles and provide the details, believing it is an internal affair. What a mistake that was.
 
DCAflyboy
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:50 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Fri Jun 10, 2005 1:34 am

I for one am tired of the constant battles between management and unions. I have worked for two airlines in twelve years; one union and one non-union. My experience shows me that non-union work groups are often better paid, have better benefits, better retirement (401K matching) and treated with more respect from management. Therefore grievances are more opt to get addressed and solved in a non-confrontational manner.

Despite different work rules such as longer duty periods or work responsibilities, the non-union groups seemed to enjoy better attitudes and morale that seem to stem from better job security and a more financially fit organization. The non-union employees had their grievances heard in a very respectful and family-oriented manner. There was a sense of "were all in this together". Things got done in a timely manner rather than played out over stressful "cooling off" periods.

I'm sorry, but unions have one goal: to recruit due-paying workers for the sake of the unions existence. Unions will never see eye-eye with management. The battles will be constant since without those battles with management unions would have no reason to exist or attract new members. That makes me question any and all of their motives and question whose best interest they really have in mind.

Just my observation and experience, for what it's worth.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:03 am

Quoting WeAreUnited (Reply 26):
You're joking right? WN has the BEST wages and benefits in the industry. Their flight attendants and pilots are better paid than any other airline.

Perhaps I was wrong to rely on what I've read in the papers, and on what my brother, a DL pilot, has told me, but until they agreed to take a pay cut, I understood DL pilots to be the best compensated pilots among US airlines. Perhaps WN pilots have closed the gap in the past few years - I'll have to ask my brother.

And to be fair, you have selectively quoted from my post. If you go back and look at my original post, I think it is very clear that I was not suggesting that wages and benefits are the only reasons the legacies are in trouble - inflexible work rules are part of the problem.

Quoting WeAreUnited (Reply 26):
I'm not deriding JetBlue for this (I actually think they have made many good decisions in terms of duty allocation and customer service), but being such a young airline, it should be duly noted that it doesn't really have to play by the same rules as the majors.

What "rules" don't apply to B6? Are these "rules" set by the FAA, or are you really talking about the contracts between the legacies and their unions?

Quoting WeAreUnited (Reply 26):
The main reason the public at large is siding against unions these days is that businesses have been much better at getting their side across, while the unions have left it up to big business to frame the battles and provide the details, believing it is an internal affair.

Now you must be the one who is kidding. I think the public knows the issues on both sides quite well. LCC's have demonstrated the ability to provide a product that is just as safe and reliable as the legacy carriers for less money. It's not all that complicated.

Here's real uncomplicated question. Can you explain why GM is paying salaries to workers who no longer contribute anything to the production of GM products?

Lest you think I'm a union basher, I've never flown B6, as I'm a loyal UA customer with premier exec status, and I avoid WN if at all possible, because I avoid BWI like the plague.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:33 am

Quoting 777STL (Reply 3):
The ad I read suggested the scabs will be going through normal F/A training. I'm sure there are FAA regulations for F/As preventing them from just being "pillow fluffers".

Yes, but some flight attendants will cross the picket line and some will be trained as full fledged flight attendants. Some will be there just to provide extra service. Example: Maybe seven flight attendants and three pillow fluffers on a 744.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):
When B6 and WN have fewer employees and receive lower wages and benefits than their legacy competition, is it any wonder so many are in trouble?

US Airways Top 737 Captain Pay - $108,000.00
United Top 737 Captain Pay - $100,620.00
ATA Top 737 Captain Pay - $104,400.00
Southwest Top 737 Captain Pay - $170,352.00

AAndrew
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:45 am

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 29):
US Airways Top 737 Captain Pay - $108,000.00
United Top 737 Captain Pay - $100,620.00
ATA Top 737 Captain Pay - $104,400.00
Southwest Top 737 Captain Pay - $170,352.00

Yes, I recognize that WN flies only the 737. But what do senior US, UA, AA, and DL captains who fly 747, 330 and 777 make?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
WeAreUnited
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:02 pm

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:53 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 28):
Perhaps I was wrong to rely on what I've read in the papers, and on what my brother, a DL pilot, has told me, but until they agreed to take a pay cut, I understood DL pilots to be the best compensated pilots among US airlines. Perhaps WN pilots have closed the gap in the past few years - I'll have to ask my brother.

You're absolutely right - DL pilots were the highest paid, followed by AS. This is no longer the case. I was (and should have made it more clear) speaking not only of the pilots, but the flight attendants as well.

[quote=Halls120,reply=28]And to be fair, you have selectively quoted from my post. If you go back and look at my original post, I think it is very clear that I was not suggesting that wages and benefits are the only reasons the legacies are in trouble - inflexible work rules are part of the problem.

I agree with you to some degree here. Workers at the majors have clung to some out-dated clauses in their contracts far longer than they should have. While these clauses helped them to maintain the salary they expected, the uncompromising position they took ended up poisoned their relationship with management, as well as with the public.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 28):
What "rules" don't apply to B6? Are these "rules" set by the FAA, or are you really talking about the contracts between the legacies and their unions?

I think 'rules' was a bad lexical choice; however, I don't appreciate your condescension by implying that I might think that the FAA made rules about business contracts beyond safety. I'm speaking more of the economics involved in running an airline. For a long time, the start-up costs involved in running an airline and forging a niche in the field were too high for new carriers to succeed, thus why the industry was regulated. These days, the majors, as well as carriers that have been around for some time (even WN) are at a disadvantage compared to the up-starts. I'm suggesting that, taking the long view, that there is a distinct possibility of a cycle being instituted of the continual birth, aging, and death of airlines due to the aging of aircraft as well as of the workforce. Eventually, the employees at B6 will earn some seniority and will likely want to earn enough money to support a family. In addition, the employees in the customer service areas (such as agents and flight attendants) will become less accommodating towards the passengers as the years wear on. I know this doesn't sound like a foregone conclusion and it shouldn't be; on the other hand, I have quite a few friends at B6 as well as other carriers that will attest to this reality. Also, whether B6 is squirreling away money to pay for future maintenance costs or not, it has not yet had to deal with the reality of heavy maintenance work. In the end, I believe B6 will become, just as WN is becoming, much more like the majors. At this point, another newer carrier will enter the marketplace and begin to overtake marketshare, perpetuating the cycle.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 28):
Now you must be the one who is kidding. I think the public knows the issues on both sides quite well. LCC's have demonstrated the ability to provide a product that is just as safe and reliable as the legacy carriers for less money. It's not all that complicated.

Taking the first part of your statement, I must disagree by saying that the public does not understand the issues involved. Not in the least. Management, rather intelligently, has been much quicker to make its position known, while the workers have frankly lagged. The only reason that LCCs (no apostrophe required) are making money is due to their particular financial situation. In fact, only WN and B6 are making money! WN makes money because it has wisely hedged its fuel costs. B6 is making money because it is a younger carrier with much lower costs. Well, that's going a little far. WN and B6 (as well as Song) have successfully branded themselves in a way that the other airlines have failed to do. Also, WN and B6 have winning formulas in the customer service departments and single-aircraft-type choices. It should be noted though, that if B6 had been around for a decade more and WN had not hedged its fuel costs, they would likely be losing money at this point as well.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 28):
Here's real uncomplicated question. Can you explain why GM is paying salaries to workers who no longer contribute anything to the production of GM products?

Well, after WWII, corporations were required to offer much greater benefits and wages to attract workers. This is why America has a history of businesses providing health benefits and pensions. These workers were PROMISED the 'salaries' (actually pensions) that they now earn. Do I think this is the best situation? Absolutely not. I think that 401Ks offer a much better solution to the problem of retirement and that pensions should no longer be offered (the question of how to deal with workers already expecting and having worked for a pension is a sticky one). Also, it's about time that the government step up to the plate and offer universal health care based on the university system, so that businesses no longer have this millstone around its collective neck. Offering the population at large a basic level of coverage would go a long way towards actually cutting costs. Preventative health care for the poorer among us would help to unclog our emergency rooms, while encouraging private health care as well would ensure that America continues to lead the pack in R.&D. Unfortunately, this is REALLY off topic for an aviation forum, so I must apologize.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:45 am

Quoting WeAreUnited (Reply 31):
I think 'rules' was a bad lexical choice; however, I don't appreciate your condescension by implying that I might think that the FAA made rules about business contracts beyond safety.

You are perceiving condescension where none was implied. "Rules" as you first used the term is rather broad. I was merely seeking clarification. Sorry if you took it otherwise.

Quoting WeAreUnited (Reply 31):
Eventually, the employees at B6 will earn some seniority and will likely want to earn enough money to support a family. In addition, the employees in the customer service areas (such as agents and flight attendants) will become less accommodating towards the passengers as the years wear on.

You may be right; however, I've flown UA extensively before and after they filed bankruptcy, and if anything, I've noticed an increased emphasis in customer service. And that is one of the reasons I still fly UA instead of a LCC.

Quoting WeAreUnited (Reply 31):
Also, WN and B6 have winning formulas in the customer service departments and single-aircraft-type choices. It should be noted though, that if B6 had been around for a decade more and WN had not hedged its fuel costs, they would likely be losing money at this point as well.

But the issue I'm interested in understanding is to what extent the "winning formulas" are in place because the carriers with those formulas aren't hamstrung by outdated work rules.

Quoting WeAreUnited (Reply 31):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 28):
Here's real uncomplicated question. Can you explain why GM is paying salaries to workers who no longer contribute anything to the production of GM products?

Well, after WWII, corporations were required to offer much greater benefits and wages to attract workers. This is why America has a history of businesses providing health benefits and pensions. These workers were PROMISED the 'salaries' (actually pensions) that they now earn.

The salaries I'm referring to are not pensions - which I agree the GM employees are entitled to. They are full salaries that GM is required to pay (until 2007, if I recall the Washington Post article correctly), thanks to a ridiculous contract, to employees that work at GM plants that the automaker had to close on account of excess capacity.

Quoting WeAreUnited (Reply 31):
Also, it's about time that the government step up to the plate and offer universal health care based on the university system, so that businesses no longer have this millstone around its collective neck. Offering the population at large a basic level of coverage would go a long way towards actually cutting costs

While I agree with your assessment that this would help business cut costs and level the playing field, I'm afraid we are a long way off from that day.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
luvfa
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 10:05 pm

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:26 am

According to Part 121 of the FAR's the airline must provide a minimum of 1 flight attendant for every 50 seats the airplane has. All F/A's must pass the required training set by the carrier that has been approved by the FAA. In other words each F/A must attend and pass every part of the training program. No short cuts here!
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:34 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 30):

Yes, I recognize that WN flies only the 737. But what do senior US, UA, AA, and DL captains who fly 747, 330 and 777 make?

What's your point? Southwest should pay their pilots the same to fly a 737 between Birmingham and Baltimore that American pays a pilot to fly a 777 between Los Angeles and London?

Quoting Luvfa (Reply 33):
According to Part 121 of the FAR's the airline must provide a minimum of 1 flight attendant for every 50 seats the airplane has. All F/A's must pass the required training set by the carrier that has been approved by the FAA. In other words each F/A must attend and pass every part of the training program. No short cuts here!

But just because someone is working in the cabin doesn't mean they are flight attendants.

AAndrew
 
Elagabal
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:40 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:26 am

Quoting Chgoflyer (Reply 21):
Every company should have the right to fire employees who either dont proform or it cant afford.

Absolutely. Pretend I said it the first time!
 
PRAirbus
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:59 pm

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:15 am

"Eastern Airlines requesting permission to land"...anyone remembers? Union extremism is not good either...where's Eastern now? Did the IAM save the employees' mortgages, loans, cars, livelihood, careers? Unions are businesses too they need the employees to survive it all comes down to profits...if you do not have a degree and all you've done for the past decade is serving Coke or Sprite at 30,000 feet...I've got news for you...during the present economic environment where would you get paid $50/$60K a year for working 85hrs per month? Surely not at Wal-Mart, BK or jetblue! Get a degree or open your own business before going down in flames! Learn from past mistakes.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Scabs At NW- Harmful Or Helpful

Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:34 pm

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 34):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 30):

Yes, I recognize that WN flies only the 737. But what do senior US, UA, AA, and DL captains who fly 747, 330 and 777 make?

What's your point? Southwest should pay their pilots the same to fly a 737 between Birmingham and Baltimore that American pays a pilot to fly a 777 between Los Angeles and London?

I don't believe Southwest should pay their 737 captains the same as a UA or AA pilot flying 777s to LHR.

I made the initial claim that part of the reason legacy airlines can't compete with LCCs is that the LCCs have lower personnel costs. Another poster then responded with the partial list of what 737 captains make. I don't think that is a relevant comparison to the point I was trying to make, and thus my question about what 777 and 747 captains make.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andy33, ba319-131, Baidu [Spider], bennett123, Bing [Bot], dennypayne, dk44, flydia, flyguy89, garpd, Google [Bot], iadadd, JBH, LAX772LR, MAH4546, mstx44, santos, UA444 and 221 guests