Profit sharing 2011
11-02-2011 | 12:05 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,213
Likes: 14
From: guppy CA
Dig up a copy of the TPA and read section 8. CAL's pilots don't have a choice on building a 737 domicile in DEN and ORD, just as UAL's pilots don't have a choice on building an airbus domicile in IAH.
11-02-2011 | 01:05 PM
#74
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
From page one of this thread
From this week's CAL MEC Position Report (Friday, October 21, 2011):
The next topic I want to address is profit sharing. Recently, I have received comments from pilots who are upset that the CAL pilot group is the only employee group at both CAL and UAL not in the 2011 profit sharing pool. I completely agree with those who have expressed their anger over this. I do not know how management can morally exclude those most responsible for generating profit, especially a management that touts the concept of dignity and respect.
First, I am going to try and clear up some misunderstanding about how we got to this point, and why the Continental pilots are not currently part of the 2011 profit sharing pool – the fault rests solely with management. There has never been a time when the union has not tried to maintain our enrollment in the profit sharing plan. The unfortunate fact is that as part of Contract ’02, profit sharing had a sunset date that caused it to end in December 2009. I don’t know why it was negotiated that way, but it was, and we must deal with the reality. You cannot change the past – only attempt to shape the future. Moving forward to 2010, we recognized that there was a real possibility that, absent a new agreement on profit sharing, we would be left out when payments were made for 2010. As a part of the Transition and Process Agreement (TPA), we were able to negotiate one more year of inclusion. You received those checks last February. Our pilot group benefitted in the neighborhood of $40M by adding that single year of profit sharing. Would we have liked to get more? Yes. Did we try and achieve more? Yes. We tried to negotiate inclusion in perpetuity, but were not able to achieve that goal through the TPA. It is important to understand that the TPA’s main purpose was not to fix major contractual issues, but to provide a transition to a new JCBA. We remain convinced that Continental pilots should maintain our enrollment in the profit sharing plan. The TPA was the vehicle we used for achieving that goal for 2010 and we are still working on other ways to secure inclusion for this year and beyond. Should we be unsuccessful, the profit sharing amounts will be considered as one more part of the retro negotiations.
The next topic I want to address is profit sharing. Recently, I have received comments from pilots who are upset that the CAL pilot group is the only employee group at both CAL and UAL not in the 2011 profit sharing pool. I completely agree with those who have expressed their anger over this. I do not know how management can morally exclude those most responsible for generating profit, especially a management that touts the concept of dignity and respect.
First, I am going to try and clear up some misunderstanding about how we got to this point, and why the Continental pilots are not currently part of the 2011 profit sharing pool – the fault rests solely with management. There has never been a time when the union has not tried to maintain our enrollment in the profit sharing plan. The unfortunate fact is that as part of Contract ’02, profit sharing had a sunset date that caused it to end in December 2009. I don’t know why it was negotiated that way, but it was, and we must deal with the reality. You cannot change the past – only attempt to shape the future. Moving forward to 2010, we recognized that there was a real possibility that, absent a new agreement on profit sharing, we would be left out when payments were made for 2010. As a part of the Transition and Process Agreement (TPA), we were able to negotiate one more year of inclusion. You received those checks last February. Our pilot group benefitted in the neighborhood of $40M by adding that single year of profit sharing. Would we have liked to get more? Yes. Did we try and achieve more? Yes. We tried to negotiate inclusion in perpetuity, but were not able to achieve that goal through the TPA. It is important to understand that the TPA’s main purpose was not to fix major contractual issues, but to provide a transition to a new JCBA. We remain convinced that Continental pilots should maintain our enrollment in the profit sharing plan. The TPA was the vehicle we used for achieving that goal for 2010 and we are still working on other ways to secure inclusion for this year and beyond. Should we be unsuccessful, the profit sharing amounts will be considered as one more part of the retro negotiations.
11-02-2011 | 06:09 PM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
In reading the position report it sounds to me like Continental ALPA failed to negotiate the profit sharing thru a time when a new agreement would replace the existing one. United ALPA made the assupmtion that United would always be the "accquiring airline" so they didn't think it was necessary to waste negotiating leverage to insure that no pilots would be furloughed in the event of a merger.
11-03-2011 | 03:43 AM
#76
(retired)
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
From: Old, retired, healthy, debt-free, liquid
In reading the position report it sounds to me like Continental ALPA failed to negotiate the profit sharing thru a time when a new agreement would replace the existing one. United ALPA made the assupmtion that United would always be the "accquiring airline" so they didn't think it was necessary to waste negotiating leverage to insure that no pilots would be furloughed in the event of a merger.
Moving on people.....
11-03-2011 | 07:09 AM
#77
(retired)
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
From: Old, retired, healthy, debt-free, liquid
I don't mean to trivialize the above two points by the previous post. Hindsight or not, my apologies if it was construed that way.
In fact, I would imagine that a non-cash, stock swap, new stock issue merger of both companies with the new company's key operating divisions run by Continental people is still a "difficult" concept to grasp by many. Some are still in denial. Furlough issues notwithstanding.
It is also easy to assume that profit sharing would be available contractually or not since it is unilaterally offered to non-union employee groups.
Lesson...change happens, assume nothing.
In fact, I would imagine that a non-cash, stock swap, new stock issue merger of both companies with the new company's key operating divisions run by Continental people is still a "difficult" concept to grasp by many. Some are still in denial. Furlough issues notwithstanding.
It is also easy to assume that profit sharing would be available contractually or not since it is unilaterally offered to non-union employee groups.
Lesson...change happens, assume nothing.
11-03-2011 | 08:31 AM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 3
From: The GF of FUPM
Lesson Two:
Assume that if you work (as labor vs management) for an airline, hell almost any big corporation in the US these days that your sphincter will get stretched repeatedly and you will be left holding a bag of promises while the companies principles get theirs up front and in big bags and huge tranches of stock.
NO to future profit sharing. Give us the money now.
James be broke.
Assume that if you work (as labor vs management) for an airline, hell almost any big corporation in the US these days that your sphincter will get stretched repeatedly and you will be left holding a bag of promises while the companies principles get theirs up front and in big bags and huge tranches of stock.
NO to future profit sharing. Give us the money now.
James be broke.
11-03-2011 | 02:59 PM
#79
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 15
From: 737 CAPT
THAT was my only point. Our profit sharing should be a given, no questions asked. Again, an apples-to-oranges comparison of the two subjects. Our profit sharing should not be held hostage to the more complicated base issue.
11-03-2011 | 06:27 PM
#80
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 650
Likes: 5
From: 787 Capt.
"Our profit sharing should be a given, no questions asked."
First lesson in working for United Airlines, the term Given is nowhere to be found out of the mouths of management or on any contract. Let's face it. Jeff is Tilton's hand puppet. I agree that all employees should be entitled to the same profit sharing program regardless of work group. It would minimize animosity.
First lesson in working for United Airlines, the term Given is nowhere to be found out of the mouths of management or on any contract. Let's face it. Jeff is Tilton's hand puppet. I agree that all employees should be entitled to the same profit sharing program regardless of work group. It would minimize animosity.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
