Originally Posted by
TenYearsGone
I think the main issue with any union is that they become too BUDDY BUDDY with management. The process of negotiating and fact finding leads to a lot of co-mingling and basically that thick line that divides management and the Union dissolves. Unacceptable.
Management will always use this "BUDDY BUDDY" moment with the Union to manipulate and interject unfound and off truth scenarios...
Can you give me some examples? The most "buddy-buddy" relationship in our industry is SWA. They've got passenger industry leading rates of pay, so it doesn't seem to hurt them. FedEx now has a pretty good relationship with their management. Their compensation is top of the heap and they're currently hiring.
Carl will point to UPS as an example of a successful adversarial relationship. They have pilots on furlough, a reported tough work environment and top tier pay.
APA is in transition from a completely adversarial "demand" relationship to a proactively engaged relationship. They've gotten more done on their contract in the last 8 months than they did in the previous 4 years.
So help me understand your point of view, please!
Originally Posted by
TenYearsGone
The solution is to have absolutely no personal or off record INTERACTIONS with management. THE truth shown, spoken and proved is elusive. We will never be able to prove the truth with any accounting or books the company has, so its best to just DEMAND what we are worth and attack with our own company research data and findings. Think about it: 1) If American is able to buy so much metal with so much debt and a weak balance sheet and this Republic entity is able to operate a "failing" entity for this long, I really dont think Pilot labor is any issue to running a multi billion dollar entity like DAL.
I can't disagree with you more here. There are at least 2 concrete examples here at Delta. 1. Having management's business plans and access to proprietary corporate financial data (whether from management, creditors committees, Board of Directors, etc.) was critical in preserving Delta pilot jobs and fighting off the US Airways hostile takeover. We were able to use financial data to prove the Delta standalone plan was better for everyone than the risky path Parker wanted to go down. That preserved over 1500 Delta pilot jobs that Parker wanted to cut. 2. We were able to improve pilot pay by being included during the NWA/DAL merger while all our other legacy competitors have been frozen out. Real money got put into pilot pockets. Assuming 85 hours of pay the average A330 capatain saw a $141,102 increase in take home pay from October 31, 2008 through December 31, 2012. That doesn't include the average 4000 shares of stock we received, or enhancements to the profit sharing plan that paid twice what the NWA plan paid their contract employees. Alaska, Hawaiian, AirTran and Spirit were all able to pattern up off our success. So far UAL/CAL, AMR, and LCC have been unable to deliver contract improvements. I hope they are successful - and soon - so they improve the pattern for us.
Originally Posted by
TenYearsGone
Now if there was any chance that we are guaranteed a truthful exchange and negotiating tool, then all of what I said is "out-the-door". I just dont think the companies of today are truthful. And I think our Unions of today rub managements' back just a little too much. Keep the LINE that differentiates Management and UNION thick, please.
I believe the results show engagement to be an effective strategy. There is a place for confrontation and conflict(like NWA '98, Spirit), but it is a tool, not a strategy. When used as a standalone strategy, it doesn't appear to me to be very successful.
jmo, ymmv