http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2012/07/american-twu-reach-tentative-agreements-for-mechanics-and-store-clerks.html (http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2012/07/american-twu-reach-tentative-agreements-for-mechanics-and-store-clerks.html)
The Transport Workers Union said it has reached new tentative agreements with American Airlines for its mechanics and store clerks.
The new deals include 3 percent pay raises upon signing for the mechanics, and 3.5 percent pay raises for store clerks. The union said health insurance coverage was also improved over the Fort Worth-based carrier's previous offer.
...The agreements also include equity claims in the new American Airlines, once its parent company, AMR Corp. emerges from bankruptcy, that will be "negotiated between TWU and AMR based on the offer proposed to the APA pilots, subject to court approval."
..."Through this reduction, and a reallocation of profit sharing, we were able to provide additional pay raises, an adjustment to industry pay rates after three years, and changes in active medical benefits," Hicks said." The TWU tentative agreements, along with our tentative agreement with the APA, demonstrate that we can work creatively to reach a resolution that puts our company in a position to move forward quickly and successfully."
Quote from: Ed W on July 10, 2012, 06:07:48 PM
http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2012/07/american-twu-reach-tentative-agreements-for-mechanics-and-store-clerks.html (http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2012/07/american-twu-reach-tentative-agreements-for-mechanics-and-store-clerks.html)
The Transport Workers Union said it has reached new tentative agreements with American Airlines for its mechanics and store clerks.
The new deals include 3 percent pay raises upon signing for the mechanics, and 3.5 percent pay raises for store clerks. The union said health insurance coverage was also improved over the Fort Worth-based carrier's previous offer.
...The agreements also include equity claims in the new American Airlines, once its parent company, AMR Corp. emerges from bankruptcy, that will be "negotiated between TWU and AMR based on the offer proposed to the APA pilots, subject to court approval."
..."Through this reduction, and a reallocation of profit sharing, we were able to provide additional pay raises, an adjustment to industry pay rates after three years, and changes in active medical benefits," Hicks said." The TWU tentative agreements, along with our tentative agreement with the APA, demonstrate that we can work creatively to reach a resolution that puts our company in a position to move forward quickly and successfully."
Do you guys know what the RIF hit at the Maintenance base here is? I know you work there, I have a best friend who does also and I haven't heard from him in a while.
The company's term sheet called for a 20% across the board cut, and since that would happen AFTER the contract was abrogated, there's no easy way to determine the impact here in Tulsa. Normally, a RIF cuts the employees with the least seniority and then those positions are filled through transfers. But without a contract, there's nothing to prevent the company from simply picking and choosing who stays and who goes.
That's one reason a tentative agreement is good news. The contract continues. But as always, the devil is in the details. I expect we'll know more tomorrow.
Good luck, Ed.
Thanks for the good wishes. I talked with our shop steward today. He said that the original RIF here was to be about 300. Alliance and probably KC will be closed.
TW says we're to get a 15% pay raise....and while that's technically correct, it's 3% each year. Between inflation and the inevitable increase in our payments for medical insurance coverage, that 3% may be vapor.
As always, the devil's in the details and we haven't seen the details yet. Besides, USAir may still attempt a merger, and that would change the situation again.
It's that Chinese proverb that can be a curse or a blessing: May you live in interesting times.
Quote from: Ed W on July 11, 2012, 04:59:12 PM
Thanks for the good wishes. I talked with our shop steward today. He said that the original RIF here was to be about 300. Alliance and probably KC will be closed.
TW says we're to get a 15% pay raise....and while that's technically correct, it's 3% each year. Between inflation and the inevitable increase in our payments for medical insurance coverage, that 3% may be vapor.
As always, the devil's in the details and we haven't seen the details yet. Besides, USAir may still attempt a merger, and that would change the situation again.
It's that Chinese proverb that can be a curse or a blessing: May you live in interesting times.
Glad to hear Ed. Still haven't heard from my friend yet (he works in painting I believe) but he's worked there about 10 years now I believe (maybe a little longer) and hopefully his tenure will help. While 300 is a lot, it's better than the 1400 I'd heard several months ago.
Quote from: Ed W on July 11, 2012, 04:59:12 PM
Between inflation and the inevitable increase in our payments for medical insurance coverage, that 3% may be vapor.
Welcome to the real world.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 11, 2012, 11:11:06 PM
Welcome to the real world.
Let's not forget that these are the same workers that gave up nearly a quarter of their salary to save the company last time, while the higher-ups did squat. Should that have to be the real world?
Quote from: Hoss on July 11, 2012, 11:13:06 PM
Let's not forget that these are the same workers that gave up nearly a quarter of their salary to save the company last time, while the higher-ups did squat. Should that have to be the real world?
I certainly sympathize with the concessions a few years ago. My complaint in that regard is that the big wheels started getting bonuses etc and the "little guys" didn't. I agree that's not right/fair....
In the mid 90s I took a 25% cut so I know what it's like. Ultimately the company went under but that was after I got RIFed.
At two small companies I worked for, I got profit sharing bonuses even as a rank and file engineer. The base salary was OK but not fantastic. When the company did well, so did I. When the company had a slack period, there weren't instant layoffs. That obviously depends on honesty in the profit sharing part, something that doesn't always happen.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 11, 2012, 11:11:06 PM
Welcome to the real world.
Not for the 1%ers.... no where close to their real world!!
Like the former CEO's who ran AA into the ground due to their incompetent management.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 11, 2012, 11:22:19 PM
I certainly sympathize with the concessions a few years ago. My complaint in that regard is that the big wheels started getting bonuses etc and the "little guys" didn't. I agree that's not right/fair....
In the mid 90s I took a 25% cut so I know what it's like. Ultimately the company went under but that was after I got RIFed.
Then how could you possibly be defending them??
Careful slinging around that "f" word - fair! Someone might confuse you for a moderate! Or worse yet, rational!!
And they didn't start getting bonuses when they took the concessions - they KEPT ON getting bonuses! That were subsidized by you and me and Ed and even guido.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 11, 2012, 11:29:06 PM
Not for the 1%ers.... no where close to their real world!!
It is the real world for 99% of us.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 11, 2012, 11:33:21 PM
Then how could you possibly be defending them??
Defending who? I'm not defending the big wigs. I at least liked the public presentation of Lee Iacoca (sp) when he was with Chrysler.
QuoteCareful slinging around that "f" word - fair! Someone might confuse you for a moderate! Or worse yet, rational!!
I know this is a foreign concept to you but not everyone that disagrees with you is a radical or irrational.
QuoteAnd they didn't start getting bonuses when they took the concessions - they KEPT ON getting bonuses!
Whatever. They shouldn't have taken bonuses without sharing with the regular guys.
QuoteThat were subsidized by you and me and Ed and even guido.
Me probably less than some. I haven't flown anywhere on an Airline since about 2006 and I don't remember which airline but it may have been American to San Diego.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 12, 2012, 12:13:57 AM
(1)
Whatever. They shouldn't have taken bonuses without sharing with the regular guys.
(2)
Me probably less than some. I haven't flown anywhere on an Airline since about 2006 and I don't remember which airline but it may have been American to San Diego.
(1) Exactly what I have been saying.
(2) You ARE subsidizing them even if you never ride AA again - through the big wig tax breaks from the incentive stock option program.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 11, 2012, 11:11:06 PM
Welcome to the real world.
There are a couple of worrisome aspects about AA's medical coverage. First, they want to end it completely for retirees. We've had numerous employees retire over the last couple of years, and they've counted on that medical coverage to see them up to 65 and Medicare. It may be legal to do so, but it it ethical to hire someone with the promise of eventual retirement benefits only to see those benefits yanked away after retirement?
Also, AA is self-insured. They're currently paying United Healthcare to administer the program, but it's not the same as an insurance plan since AA is paying for medical expenses directly. It's difficult for an employee to verify the claimed increases in overall costs, yet every year the amount we pay for coverage is increased. As yet, we still don't know what the tentative agreement will bring.
I'm facing a dilemma. I'm old enough to retire, but without retirement medical I can't afford to retire. Purchasing medical coverage from AA would cost us about $1000/month. That amounts to half my retirement benefit. It's just not possible. If I have to keep working out there just to see that Mary and I are covered, I don't have any problems with that.
Quote from: Ed W on July 12, 2012, 04:50:38 PM
There are a couple of worrisome aspects about AA's medical coverage. First, they want to end it completely for retirees. We've had numerous employees retire over the last couple of years, and they've counted on that medical coverage to see them up to 65 and Medicare. It may be legal to do so, but it it ethical to hire someone with the promise of eventual retirement benefits only to see those benefits yanked away after retirement?
I view taking away retirement benefits as the same as
requiring someone to pay back their salary/wages for the period worked, totally unacceptable.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 12, 2012, 08:05:58 PM
I view taking away retirement benefits as the same as requiring someone to pay back their salary/wages for the period worked, totally unacceptable.
And yet, that is exactly what you advocate with support of 'you know who'. They are the ones who have perfected that technique.
I sincerely hope you never get hit by that kind of event, but don't be surprised if you do. The small, test version of that was put in place 25 - 30 years ago with the installation of the 401k as a replacement to a defined benefit plan. Should have been "in addition to", but like the state lotteries, it was an opportunity for cash to flow - into the hands of people who did NOT work for it from the hands of the people who did work for it for the period worked (ref. - see your comment above).
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 13, 2012, 09:06:18 AM
And yet, that is exactly what you advocate with support of 'you know who'.
Once again, we disagree
Quote
I sincerely hope you never get hit by that kind of event, but don't be surprised if you do. The small, test version of that was put in place 25 - 30 years ago with the installation of the 401k as a replacement to a defined benefit plan. Should have been "in addition to", but like the state lotteries, it was an opportunity for cash to flow - into the hands of people who did NOT work for it from the hands of the people who did work for it for the period worked (ref. - see your comment above).
When I started work after TU, my employer had two defined benefit plans. One was contributing (by the employee) the other was non-contributing. The non-contributing plan would give you pocket change at retirement. As I remember, you had to work there for 10 years to be vested in anything you personally did not contribute. My father contributed a significant amount of his earnings during his working years in order to be able to retire. I don't remember the amount but it was more than 2 or 3%. My father spent 35 years with the same company. One of the reasons we live in OK is because my dad had too much invested in one company to tell them goodbye rather than take a transfer. He got retired early (57) by the actions of the company, without any venture capitalist involvement. He didn't get what was promised in 1947 when he started with them but he got enough to not sue them.
For the most part, the work force is too mobile to make defined benefit/work the same place for 35 years, type of plans. The fact that employers can contribute your 401K even if you have it maxed out is a good compromise.
I have worked for 4 companies since 1979. I only worked for more than 10 years at one of them, came close on one, and have been with my present employer for 9 years. I think the 401K has worked out better for me than a defined benefit plan that would not have vested me. Many small companies had defined benefit plans of ZERO. At least with an IRA or 401K, you get something.
That is why instead of gutting the defined benefit, it could have been made portable. And why not do both? 401k was a potentially good idea that has been an abject failure at its stated purpose.