I am an Army of One (merged)
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
I am the TRUE Army of One.
I am the one who has the power of veto over decisions made by my captains, lieutenants, sergeants and corporals;
I have the power to employ or terminate employment of ANY and MANY at my disposal;
I have the authority to approve - or reject - contractual revisions and renewals, as I see fit;
The success (or otherwise) of the company is seen as a direct reflection of MY strategies.
"Enron disclosed that senior executives awarded themselves USD745 million in payments and stock awards, in the year prior to the company's bankruptcy-law filing. Enron disclosed that it had paid USD310 million to 144 senior executives in salaries, bonuses, long-term incentives, and other cash payments. In addition these executives exercised stock options and received restricted stock valued at USD435 million.
"It's more evidence that people at the top knew that they should get while the getting was good, while the employees lost as much as USD1 BILLION", said one of the lawyers representing Enron employees." *source, Asian Wall Street Journal
Sound familiar?
Another interesting subject was raised on CNN during the past week - that of senior executives' salaries. Salaries that were considered "acceptable" (by themselves, no doubt) were $3.5 million...........................10 years ago!
Today, the "acceptable" level is considered to be $6 million to $7 million.
It would seem apparent that methods of increasing revenue - increasing passenger numbers by decreasing pitch, reducing passenger inflight amenities and refreshements (to nothing in many airlines), reducing frequency so that those services that DO operate do so at maximum capacity, substituting smaller aircraft for the same reason, etc. - are all in current practice.
To therefore show a "return to profitabilty", or an increase thereof - hence justifying senior managements' multi-million dollar salaries - the revenue-producing worker is being told that the company can no longer afford HIM!
In a nutshell, organised labour is seen as a threat to the EXCESSIVE SALARIES of a few - people who would willingly make hundreds, and often thousands, redundant, to allow them their greedy grab.
THIS is the true "Army of One" that companies are facing in their fight for survival.
I have the power to employ or terminate employment of ANY and MANY at my disposal;
I have the authority to approve - or reject - contractual revisions and renewals, as I see fit;
The success (or otherwise) of the company is seen as a direct reflection of MY strategies.
"Enron disclosed that senior executives awarded themselves USD745 million in payments and stock awards, in the year prior to the company's bankruptcy-law filing. Enron disclosed that it had paid USD310 million to 144 senior executives in salaries, bonuses, long-term incentives, and other cash payments. In addition these executives exercised stock options and received restricted stock valued at USD435 million.
"It's more evidence that people at the top knew that they should get while the getting was good, while the employees lost as much as USD1 BILLION", said one of the lawyers representing Enron employees." *source, Asian Wall Street Journal
Sound familiar?
Another interesting subject was raised on CNN during the past week - that of senior executives' salaries. Salaries that were considered "acceptable" (by themselves, no doubt) were $3.5 million...........................10 years ago!
Today, the "acceptable" level is considered to be $6 million to $7 million.
It would seem apparent that methods of increasing revenue - increasing passenger numbers by decreasing pitch, reducing passenger inflight amenities and refreshements (to nothing in many airlines), reducing frequency so that those services that DO operate do so at maximum capacity, substituting smaller aircraft for the same reason, etc. - are all in current practice.
To therefore show a "return to profitabilty", or an increase thereof - hence justifying senior managements' multi-million dollar salaries - the revenue-producing worker is being told that the company can no longer afford HIM!
In a nutshell, organised labour is seen as a threat to the EXCESSIVE SALARIES of a few - people who would willingly make hundreds, and often thousands, redundant, to allow them their greedy grab.
THIS is the true "Army of One" that companies are facing in their fight for survival.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
It is only as "political" as the original "I am an Army of One" thread, lomapaseo.
The fact is many employees in the airlines worldwide have been/are/will be affected by decisions that are now being shown to be Dollar-driven in the interest of a small, elite minority.
That (some) pilots might consider themselves capable of making some difference to the bottom line figure by taking actions as suggested in the "I am an Army of One initial post, pales in significance to the often devastating "strikes" made by one or two "upper management", IMHO.
Yet it is now being shown - as evidenced, for example, by ENRON - that these management types often do NOT have the interest of the company at heart, but ONLY their OWN PERSONAL wealth.
And this, I feel sure, is news to many who see organised labour (unions) as the aggressive, greedy ones.
The truth in many instances - particularly wrt pilots' unions - is that it is these very unions that are trying to hold the ENRON-type mis-managers in check!
The fact is many employees in the airlines worldwide have been/are/will be affected by decisions that are now being shown to be Dollar-driven in the interest of a small, elite minority.
That (some) pilots might consider themselves capable of making some difference to the bottom line figure by taking actions as suggested in the "I am an Army of One initial post, pales in significance to the often devastating "strikes" made by one or two "upper management", IMHO.
Yet it is now being shown - as evidenced, for example, by ENRON - that these management types often do NOT have the interest of the company at heart, but ONLY their OWN PERSONAL wealth.
And this, I feel sure, is news to many who see organised labour (unions) as the aggressive, greedy ones.
The truth in many instances - particularly wrt pilots' unions - is that it is these very unions that are trying to hold the ENRON-type mis-managers in check!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Capt M what's your solution? Marxism? of course there is greed in the world, in every society and sytem. Ever heard of the teamsters. Organised labour is as corrupt as any other and just as greedy. How much of your grossly inflarted salary are you donating to the third world? like all organised labour supporters your motivated by envy and malice not by altruism.
Most jobs would pay less without negotiation.
No true negotiation is possible for a large group of employees without representation.
No matter what was has been said about the Teamsters' actions, past or present, such reports can not be realistically used to tar all unions, to repeat, except to fool the Iceman "Oetzi', who was frozen in the Alps for about five thousand years.
As for certain, thinly-disguised, intentionally goofy statements in some previous remarks, let's hear what organization can better represent pilots than a union. I've never received any answer to this question on previous threads. Am still waiting.
It is interesting how many flight attendants or other non-pilots on Pprune Reporting Points (probably lots of "ex's" ) really don't like their jobs and just try anything they can to use Pprune as their I'll-get-even-with-them tool, at least in the eyes of the ignorant laymen.
Shakespeare created so many good expressions. One of his interesting ones is "misery loves company".
No true negotiation is possible for a large group of employees without representation.
No matter what was has been said about the Teamsters' actions, past or present, such reports can not be realistically used to tar all unions, to repeat, except to fool the Iceman "Oetzi', who was frozen in the Alps for about five thousand years.
As for certain, thinly-disguised, intentionally goofy statements in some previous remarks, let's hear what organization can better represent pilots than a union. I've never received any answer to this question on previous threads. Am still waiting.
It is interesting how many flight attendants or other non-pilots on Pprune Reporting Points (probably lots of "ex's" ) really don't like their jobs and just try anything they can to use Pprune as their I'll-get-even-with-them tool, at least in the eyes of the ignorant laymen.
Shakespeare created so many good expressions. One of his interesting ones is "misery loves company".
Last edited by Ignition Override; 25th Jun 2002 at 04:44.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try this Ign Overide:-
Why being in a union can be bad for your salary
TRADE unions have lost the power to win bigger pay increases for their members but they still kill off jobs, an influential research group said yesterday.
Firms without them often give bigger rises than those where they have kept their grip, it found. But while unions can no longer promise their members better pay, they do offer a better chance of the sack, the study from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said.
During the 1990s, it found, firms with high union membership lost jobs while those without unions saw employment grow.
The findings cast a harsh light on the Government's plans to bring in more Europeaninspired laws to help unions gain members and rights. Employers are concerned about EU directives that will require British firms to set up works councils with a say in business decisions.
'Unionised plants more likely to shut'
The report said: The tendency of 20 years ago for union representation to inhibit job growth remains. 'The evidence on annual pay settlements and underlying pay levels suggests the ability of unions to enhance wages and salaries is in longterm decline.'
The report was based on the Workplace Employee Relations Survey, which included more than 2,000 managers and 28,000 workers; and on a second survey which checked on personnel managers and more than 800 workers in 1990 and 1998. It concluded that joining a union made nobody better off but was more likely to lose them their job.
'In the economy as a whole, nonunion workplaces grew on average by 1.4 per cent per annum between 1990 and 1998, whereas unionised workplaces shrank on average by 1.8 per cent, it said.
The researchers, Neil Millward, John Forth and Alex Bryson, added, 'Union recognition restricted the growth of workplaces in the private sector over the 1990s. This negative effect of unions on employment growth was slightly larger in service industries than in manufacturing.'
But in manufacturing, 'unionised plants were on average 15 per cent more likely to close than nonunion plants'.
On pay, they found that in 1998, in contrast to 20 years ago, 'trade unions did not, on average, negotiate higher pay for the employees they represented, when other factors affecting wage levels were allowed for.
'Pay increases were lower where union negotiations covered most employees, suggesting a long term decline in the ability of unions to enhance pay'.
'If anything, union settlements were smaller than increases given to employees acting on their own.'
However, the researchers said job losses in unionised firms were lower in the service sector where unions were negotiating over both wages
and employment levels.
'Although many of the findings show trade unions in an unfavourable light especially in relation to loss of jobs these situations are avoidable,' they said.
They claim that involving unions in hiring and firing and decisions on factory closures could prevent job losses and shutdowns.
But Ruth Lea of the Institute of Directors said: 'If the law and union power make it hard to close a factory a company will keep it open. But that won't stop it losing money. And if a factory is not viable, what is the point in keeping it open ?'
Why being in a union can be bad for your salary
TRADE unions have lost the power to win bigger pay increases for their members but they still kill off jobs, an influential research group said yesterday.
Firms without them often give bigger rises than those where they have kept their grip, it found. But while unions can no longer promise their members better pay, they do offer a better chance of the sack, the study from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said.
During the 1990s, it found, firms with high union membership lost jobs while those without unions saw employment grow.
The findings cast a harsh light on the Government's plans to bring in more Europeaninspired laws to help unions gain members and rights. Employers are concerned about EU directives that will require British firms to set up works councils with a say in business decisions.
'Unionised plants more likely to shut'
The report said: The tendency of 20 years ago for union representation to inhibit job growth remains. 'The evidence on annual pay settlements and underlying pay levels suggests the ability of unions to enhance wages and salaries is in longterm decline.'
The report was based on the Workplace Employee Relations Survey, which included more than 2,000 managers and 28,000 workers; and on a second survey which checked on personnel managers and more than 800 workers in 1990 and 1998. It concluded that joining a union made nobody better off but was more likely to lose them their job.
'In the economy as a whole, nonunion workplaces grew on average by 1.4 per cent per annum between 1990 and 1998, whereas unionised workplaces shrank on average by 1.8 per cent, it said.
The researchers, Neil Millward, John Forth and Alex Bryson, added, 'Union recognition restricted the growth of workplaces in the private sector over the 1990s. This negative effect of unions on employment growth was slightly larger in service industries than in manufacturing.'
But in manufacturing, 'unionised plants were on average 15 per cent more likely to close than nonunion plants'.
On pay, they found that in 1998, in contrast to 20 years ago, 'trade unions did not, on average, negotiate higher pay for the employees they represented, when other factors affecting wage levels were allowed for.
'Pay increases were lower where union negotiations covered most employees, suggesting a long term decline in the ability of unions to enhance pay'.
'If anything, union settlements were smaller than increases given to employees acting on their own.'
However, the researchers said job losses in unionised firms were lower in the service sector where unions were negotiating over both wages
and employment levels.
'Although many of the findings show trade unions in an unfavourable light especially in relation to loss of jobs these situations are avoidable,' they said.
They claim that involving unions in hiring and firing and decisions on factory closures could prevent job losses and shutdowns.
But Ruth Lea of the Institute of Directors said: 'If the law and union power make it hard to close a factory a company will keep it open. But that won't stop it losing money. And if a factory is not viable, what is the point in keeping it open ?'
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Seriph has been very 'selective" in his publishing his "facts" - as a matter of FACT the findings are quite FAVOURABLE wrt to unions and their representation of members in private sector businesses such as aviation.
Follow this link for the full story:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/find...policy/681.asp
Follow this link for the full story:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/find...policy/681.asp
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriph, I'm not sure where you found that article, but the journalist seems to have put a nice anti-union slant on it. The original press release by JRF reads slightly differently.
So the increased closure rate is very far indeed from applicable in all cases, in all industries. It is interesting that it is the presence of the union that is blamed in the article Seriph quotes. Can I suggest a different slant? In many manufacturing plants where there is enlightened, imaginative, go-ahead management with good staff relations, there is less likelihood that people will feel the need for a union. In another plant, with poor management and bad employee relations, the staff want to join a union. Poor management, however, causes the plant to close. Is this a possible scenario? This would appear to be borne out by the quote that I have emboldened from Neil Millward. Not always easy to identify cause and effect!
Researchers at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) and the Policy Studies Institute assessed the unions’ role in pay and employment using data from a 1998 nationally-representative survey of managers and staff in nearly 2,200 workplaces with more than ten employees. They found that:
- Unions appeared to affect the process of pay determination more than the outcome. Pay increases in the private sector during 1997/8 were no greater where trade unions were involved, once other relevant factors were taken into account.
- The underlying pay levels in companies with multi-union representation, or where pay-setting arrangements covered more than 70 per cent of the workforce, were typically 9 per cent higher than for similar employees in non-union workplaces. However, these were also the workplaces where recently negotiated pay increases had tended to be lower.
- As in the 1980s, unions did not generally increase the likelihood of workplace closure in the 1990s. But unionised plants in manufacturing were, on average, 15 per cent more likely to close between 1990 and 1998 than non-union workplaces. This tendency was particularly apparent where unions represented manual workers only, and where unions were excluded from negotiations about recruitment and staffing levels.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what are you saying? that if you have a good business you don't need unions but a bad business does! Presumably to send it down the drain quicker. Look at the sclerotic state of European business, especially German, effective management is becoming impossible. Beware the Asian economies, they don't take thier eye of the ball to squable over how little they can do.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: colorado
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U.S unions, rock!!
All unions are different and even more different depending on the respective country, since labor laws differ in each country. American unions have historically been at the forefront of change to not only raise the standard of living and improve working conditions for union labor, but labor as a whole, that is simply the truth. Also it simply depends on your labor skills, in short, the more highly skilled your group is, the more power you have to collectively bargain.
Seriph: that report was informative, and Peepsmover echoed my basic impressions.
I certainly agree that unions must try to limit militancy and must comprehend their present economic climate and company financial/political situations (Who is on your Board of Directors? Does another very abrasive 'tail wag their dog'?) when they first consider any drastic actions. How about the fact that, for example, American Airlines is based in a very anti-labor state? We can't overload the golden goose so much that it drowns in red ink, and the situation at each airline is different. But even though we are not 'white-collar' employees by some definitions, the pilot profession has very little similarity to driving a truck, repairing electrical cables, building a car or ship.
Over here in the US, the steel companies were supposedly up against imported steel which could be 'dumped' at a loss, sort of like Airbus producing civilian airframes with govt subsidies (versus Boeing's civilian sector, since the early 60's or so, receiving no government money) and its alleged strategy to gain market share in some places. Industries in Britain are quite different than those here, and it is hard to imagine that mgmt-union relations are also not different, not to mention the tax laws, socialized medicine and other factors in many countries, along with different cultural attitudes about work and leisure. How much of one's pension comes from the govt? Canadians' retirements are supposedly very different than in the US.
Heck, until the early 90's, US airline pensions could be partly stolen by the "corporate cannibals" maybe evaporate completely after secured creditors etc got the first huge bites from airline assets, until laws were tightened against this predatory behavior. The US has no 'unemployment insurance' that I'm aware of, as some European countries have, i.e. 'Arbeitslosigkeit Versicherung' in West Germany years ago.
Do most of these differences not exist anymore?
I certainly agree that unions must try to limit militancy and must comprehend their present economic climate and company financial/political situations (Who is on your Board of Directors? Does another very abrasive 'tail wag their dog'?) when they first consider any drastic actions. How about the fact that, for example, American Airlines is based in a very anti-labor state? We can't overload the golden goose so much that it drowns in red ink, and the situation at each airline is different. But even though we are not 'white-collar' employees by some definitions, the pilot profession has very little similarity to driving a truck, repairing electrical cables, building a car or ship.
Over here in the US, the steel companies were supposedly up against imported steel which could be 'dumped' at a loss, sort of like Airbus producing civilian airframes with govt subsidies (versus Boeing's civilian sector, since the early 60's or so, receiving no government money) and its alleged strategy to gain market share in some places. Industries in Britain are quite different than those here, and it is hard to imagine that mgmt-union relations are also not different, not to mention the tax laws, socialized medicine and other factors in many countries, along with different cultural attitudes about work and leisure. How much of one's pension comes from the govt? Canadians' retirements are supposedly very different than in the US.
Heck, until the early 90's, US airline pensions could be partly stolen by the "corporate cannibals" maybe evaporate completely after secured creditors etc got the first huge bites from airline assets, until laws were tightened against this predatory behavior. The US has no 'unemployment insurance' that I'm aware of, as some European countries have, i.e. 'Arbeitslosigkeit Versicherung' in West Germany years ago.
Do most of these differences not exist anymore?
Last edited by Ignition Override; 26th Jun 2002 at 05:28.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Europe the big / powerful unions are represented typically by people who hate :- entrepenuers, 'fat cats', profits, beancounters etc. They are instinctively anti capitalist believing in government control and nationalisation. Their belief in these things means that inevitably in a capitalist system thay will frequently clash with the system.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriph, if you read any of the information from many of the pilot unions around the world you will see that they are committed to the long term success and profitability of the airlines. Many airlines have profit sharing/bonus schemes designed to give incentive to the employees.
Maybe the EU unions are lost in a time warp but at UA for example the pilots are actually part owners (read capitalists) of the company. Hardly the type you speak of.
Many of the problems beign created by airline managements these days is due to the new guy trying to make his mark. They do this by cutting this, slashing that and generally creating unrest. Then they move on, leaving the entire staff, pilots included to live with their screw ups. The company in the long run is usually no better off and it can take years to undo what turns out to be a waste of time and money.
Maybe the EU unions are lost in a time warp but at UA for example the pilots are actually part owners (read capitalists) of the company. Hardly the type you speak of.
Many of the problems beign created by airline managements these days is due to the new guy trying to make his mark. They do this by cutting this, slashing that and generally creating unrest. Then they move on, leaving the entire staff, pilots included to live with their screw ups. The company in the long run is usually no better off and it can take years to undo what turns out to be a waste of time and money.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that it is Seriph who is stuck in a timewarp. He has had to twist a pro-union press release to try to make a point which was not valid in the first place and is now throwing around the must astounding generalisations that may have been true of some unionists 30 years ago but could not in a million years apply to BALPA.
The trouble is that he is so prejudiced, in order to validate his own position he cannot afford to take into account any of the facts. So don't try to confuse him with facts - his mind is made up.
The trouble is that he is so prejudiced, in order to validate his own position he cannot afford to take into account any of the facts. So don't try to confuse him with facts - his mind is made up.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA enlightened! do me a favour. Those of us with some experience of this industry would'nt trust BALPA for anything. Ask the ex Dan guys amongst many others. It's they who are stuck in the time warp, all of the old prejudices are still there.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: KEGE
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6feetunder, I just can’t let that one go. UAL ALPA does not have a clear conscience; their treatment of the original Air Wisconsin pilots was deplorable and remains a disgrace on their offices. I am unaware of any apology emanating from them to those whose careers they destroyed, not impressed at all with UAL ALPAs past performance.
Sweet Sixteen.
Sweet Sixteen.
Last edited by '%MAC'; 27th Jun 2002 at 19:07.
