August 24, 201312 yr Okay, but what happens if you refuse to return to work until they remove those liabilities? :huh: Regards, Ró. Then that would be an illegal job action as well. Their union was already fined millions of dollars for illegal job actions a few years ago.
August 24, 201312 yr Then that would be an illegal job action as well. Their union was already fined millions of dollars for illegal job actions a few years ago. Okay, but then what if you refuse to return to work until the fine is revoked? :huh: I guess my point is you can't force someone to work. And the company needs people to work to make money. That's your bargaining tool, you can't force people to work, that's slavery... Regards, Ró. Rónán O Cadhain.
August 24, 201312 yr That's your bargaining tool, you can't force people to work, that's slavery... No, it is not slavery and using terms like that aren't really necessary. If the union (thus it's members) and the company have a contract, then that contract must be honored by both parties. For one party to suddenly decide to breach that contract can open them to penalties.
August 24, 201312 yr How will the mortgage be paid if I don't work? You do understand the concept of a strike right? By not working you're imposing more of a loss on your employeer than you lose in salary. Option 1.) You ask for a better deal, they say no, you say you'll strike, they agree to negociate , you negociate a better deal. The company is still in profit, the passengers haven't been disrupted, everyone wins. Option 2.) You ask for a better deal, they say no, you say you'll strike, they refuse to negociate, you go on strike, they start losing money and customer loyalty, 2-3 days later you return to work and they open negociations, you negociate a better deal. Unfortunately damage has been done due to the poor management decision to allow a strike to go ahead, but you now have better conditions, and will work through and hopefully next year will profit. Option 3.) You ask for a better deal, they say no, you say you'll strike, they refuse, you strike, they still refuse to negociate. You go nuclear, the company goes bust. Other companies moves in to fill the gap left by the old one, you seek employment with them, repeat cycle. Personally option 1 sounds best to me, but option 1 and 2 are the most common. I've yet to see option 3 happen, share holders will not allow a profitable company to be wiped off the face of the earth over a pay rise. No, it is not slavery and using terms like that aren't really necessary. If the union (thus it's members) and the company have a contract, then that contract must be honored by both parties. For one party to suddenly decide to breach that contract can open them to penalties. Yes, but again you're missing the point, you can impose all the penalties you like on the union, that is not going to bring back your customers and make for a profitable business. The best solution is to negociate for a proper pay rise, the incentive for the employees is a pay rise, the incentive for the management and shareholders is a business that will remain profitable and not shut down. Regards, Ró. Rónán O Cadhain.
August 24, 201312 yr Okay, but then what if you refuse to return to work until the fine is revoked? :huh: I guess my point is you can't force someone to work. And the company needs people to work to make money. That's your bargaining tool, you can't force people to work, that's slavery... Regards, Ró. Ok, you're asking the same question again. And the same answer is it would be an illegal job action if the union had everybody refuse to work until they revoked whatever fine. Individually, sure anybody can resign. Then what happens? You're not even a part of that company anymore so what difference does it make that the fine is revoked afterwards? How are you going to pay the mortgage and feed the kids after walking out on a $100,000 a year income? I think you are also assuming that management cares that the company continues to provide service. Here in the US, they have no need to care. Management and their families are taken care of either way, whether or not the company is successful. They will never starve. They have what we call golden parachutes and they have their network of fraternity brothers at the other Fortune 500 corporations that will make positions open for their friends. That is how life works here. The rank and file do not have golden parachutes and if you start at another airline, it is at bottom rank and pay. So the consideration for most workers when faced with these situations is how am I going to feed and house my family. Life is not as simple as just go on strike. I wish it was. You do understand the concept of a strike right? By not working you're imposing more of a loss on your employeer than you lose in salary. Option 1.) You ask for a better deal, they say no, you say you'll strike, they agree to negociate , you negociate a better deal. The company is still in profit, the passengers haven't been disrupted, everyone wins. Option 2.) You ask for a better deal, they say no, you say you'll strike, they refuse to negociate, you go on strike, they start losing money and customer loyalty, 2-3 days later you return to work and they open negociations, you negociate a better deal. Unfortunately damage has been done due to the poor management decision to allow a strike to go ahead, but you now have better conditions, and will work through and hopefully next year will profit. Option 3.) You ask for a better deal, they say no, you say you'll strike, they refuse, you strike, they still refuse to negociate. You go nuclear, the company goes bust. Other companies moves in to fill the gap left by the old one, you seek employment with them, repeat cycle. Personally option 1 sounds best to me, but option 1 and 2 are the most common. I've yet to see option 3 happen, share holders will not allow a profitable company to be wiped off the face of the earth over a pay rise. Yes, but again you're missing the point, you can impose all the penalties you like on the union, that is not going to bring back your customers and make for a profitable business. The best solution is to negociate for a proper pay rise, the incentive for the employees is a pay rise, the incentive for the management and shareholders is a business that will remain profitable and not shut down. Regards, Ró. No, Ro, you don't understand how RLA works in the US. It takes many years to go through any of those options. You also make an assumption that management actually cares about customers and not disrupting service, etc. Upper management level people will make out just fine even if the company goes bust while the employees lose their homes. Easy for someone to tell someone else to start at first year FO pay. I'd like to see you give up your Airbus A330 checkairman pay for 1st yeat FO pay at Ryan.
August 24, 201312 yr But how can management not care? How can shareholders not care? It's their money that'll be lost if the company goes down. This just seems like such a strange point of view to me. The US can't be that different to us here in Europe? Management answer to the shareholders, and the shareholders like to see profits. Profits are not made when the company is closed due to a strike, and if a company closes down, not only are profits not made, but shares are worth nothing.I can't see another company's share holders allowing a CEO or anyone who managed another company where they let their shareholders lose all the money they put into shares, work for their company, can you? Rónán O Cadhain.
August 24, 201312 yr But how can management not care? How can shareholders not care? It's their money that'll be lost if the company goes down. This just seems like such a strange point of view to me. The US can't be that different to us here in Europe? Management answer to the shareholders, and the shareholders like to see profits. Profits are not made when the company is closed due to a strike, and if a company closes down, not only are profits not made, but shares are worth nothing.I can't see another company's share holders allowing a CEO or anyone who managed another company where they let their shareholders lose all the money they put into shares, work for their company, can you? Those concepts are very old fashioned and innocent. In the US, corporations have moved well beyond those concepts. Management will get their salaries and bonuses even if the company goes bankrupt.Shareholders are just nameless people that were foolish enough to buy the shares that the CEO sold when the stock was at its 52 week high.
August 24, 201312 yr No, Ro, you don't understand how RLA works in the US. It takes many years to go through any of those options. You also make an assumption that management actually cares about customers and not disrupting service, etc. Upper management level people will make out just fine even if the company goes bust while the employees lose their homes. Easy for someone to tell someone else to start at first year FO pay. I'd like to see you give up your Airbus A330 checkairman pay for 1st yeat FO pay at Ryan. How can management make out fine though, they'll never be employed again. Also, it wouldn't get to the stage where I'd need to be a FO for Ryanair, management know if they let it get to the stage where the company goes bust, they'll never work a day in their lives again. We ask for a payrise, they look at what they can afford, they agree. In years when we were making losses, they looked for a pay cut, we looked at how much was needed, we took one. That's how it's got to work to be a successful company. Those concepts are very old fashioned and innocent. In the US, corporations have moved well beyond those concepts. Management will get their salaries and bonuses even if the company loses. Shareholders are just nameless people that were foolish enough to buy the shares that the CEO sold when the stock was at its 52 week high. You can't be telling me that shareholders don't have a vote at the AGM, or the ability to call for an EGM? You can't be telling me that it's not up to the shareholders to decide who's CEO, CFO, COO etc? That's the basic principals of a PLC. The owners decide how they want it run and put the people they want in charge. Regards, Ró. Rónán O Cadhain.
August 24, 201312 yr How can management make out fine though, they'll never be employed again. Also, it wouldn't get to the stage where I'd need to be a FO for Ryanair, management know if they let it get to the stage where the company goes bust, they'll never work a day in their lives again. We ask for a payrise, they look at what they can afford, they agree. In years when we were making losses, they looked for a pay cut, we looked at how much was needed, we took one. That's how it's got to work to be a successful company. Why would they never be employed again? I am not trying to argue with you, I am just telling you how things work here in the US. I would not be so presumptuous as to say this is how it works in Ireland. Our old CEO ran Expressjet into the ground, then turned the company over to a hatchet man to sell and then went to AMR as a VP. The only people that lost jobs or took pay cuts were the employees. And the only people at risk of never being employed at their previous levels of income are the pilots.
August 24, 201312 yr Why would they never be employed again? I am not trying to argue with you, I am just telling you how things work here in the US. I would not be so presumptuous as to say this is how it works in Ireland. Our old CEO ran Expressjet into the ground, then turned the company over to a hatchet man to sell and then went to AMR as a VP. The only people that lost jobs or took pay cuts were the employees. And the only people at risk of never being employed at their previous levels of income are the pilots. But why would the shareholders at AMR allow one of their VPs to be someone who ran a company into the ground? That doesn't make sense to me. I of course understand all pilots have to lose if their airline closes down, I'm more than aware of it, but I fail to see how shareholders at Expressjet could let a business be run into the ground. Unless it was unprofitable from the start? Regards, Ró. I also don't mean to sound like I'm arguing, it's just these points don't make much sense to me. Rónán O Cadhain.
August 24, 201312 yr You can't be telling me that shareholders don't have a vote at the AGM, or the ability to call for an EGM? You can't be telling me that it's not up to the shareholders to decide who's CEO, CFO, COO etc? That's the basic principals of a PLC. The owners decide how they want it run and put the people they want in charge. Regards, Ró. No they don't. The little old woman who holds a hundred shares can pick up the microphone and give them holy hell. But in the end, none of these individual shareholders matter. The hedge funds and investment companies that hold the larger number of shares will be thoroughly protected and may even position themselves to profit from the bankruptcy. But why would the shareholders at AMR allow one of their VPs to be someone who ran a company into the ground? That doesn't make sense to me. I of course understand all pilots have to lose if their airline closes down, I'm more than aware of it, but I fail to see how shareholders at Expressjet could let a business be run into the ground. Unless it was unprofitable from the start? Regards, Ró. I also don't mean to sound like I'm arguing, it's just these points don't make much sense to me. Jim Ream had plenty of friends there since he worked there previously. Shareholders don't control anything the company does. If they don't like what the company is doing, the most they can do is sell the stock.
August 24, 201312 yr Ro, Here's how well things turn out for executives in the US who run their companies into the ground. I work for US Airways. In 2002 we had a CEO by the name of David Seigel. He took us into bankruptcy a year later. He said bankruptcy was a tool. It was a tool all right. One designed to screw the employees and the creditors. It got so bad that all of the unions insisted on his termination before they would renegotiate contracts. So, away he went with a wheelbarrow full of money. He then proceeded to take his act to your part of the world running a food service company called Gate Gourmet. He put the screws to the employees there. When Gate Gourmet's employees fought back it almost shut down Heathrow because other union members said they would honor GG's picket lines. So, Seigel got canned there. You would think that would be enough to keep him out of the airline business. Oh no, not in the US. He is now(or at least was) CEO,COO of Frontier Airlines. He has pretty much gutted their work force and gone completely to contract employees. In this country, airline executives rarely have much at stake when it comes to the success or failure of the airline they're running. Ask Tom Horton.
August 24, 201312 yr And Ro, these are the steps, each step of negotiation, mediation, or arbitration can take months to years. And after that, the government can still step in and say that you cannot strike. This is what we do here. http://www.raillaborfacts.org/collective-bargaining-under-the-railway-labor-act-new/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act
August 24, 201312 yr And Ro, these are the steps, each step of negotiation, mediation, or arbitration can take months to years. And after that, the government can still step in and say that you cannot strike. This is what we do here. That why you do not see wildcat strikes in transportation the feds can order them back to work or be fired if they desire. http://www.raillaborfacts.org/collective-bargaining-under-the-railway-labor-act-new/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act
Create an account or sign in to comment