AA_EXP09

I'm not in a unionized job and I find it just fine.
If I were to be laid off, I know enough of my clients that I can do my job on my own, but I use my employer so that I can get guaranteed work throughout the year and so that he can process CC's for me, and, in return, I have to pay him a percentage of my earnings, which ranges from 5-15%.
I can see how a union would help all employees, but, for each individual member, it might be a different story.
OTOH I like the AC unions so I have a chance of being rebooked on a different carrier that is much better. (i.e. Canada domestic via the US, TPACs on better carriers such as JL, CX, SQ)

abk

And in addition disrupting AA as much as they can in the process.

oopsz

Agreed.

If two companies had negotiated services, with a provision for unplanned outages, company B would have no recourse against company A if the service was taken down, even if the purpose was wholly elective and not necessary.

If Company B is unable to do business because of it, it's their own fault for not properly planning for the unplanned outages they previously negotiated. For example, we multihome our internet connection between Fiber and HFC, because both services have an uptime guarantee of less than 100%. It's important to our business to have essentially 100% uptime, so we undertake the cost to plan for it, even though it essentially doubles our infrastructure costs.

There's a balancing point between overcapacity and undercapacity. You save money will less infrastructure but you gamble as to availability. If you gamble and lose its your own fault.

bubba198

I'm just old fashioned. The answer is yes. For years and years and years. My employer paid me and I felt a responsibility to be at work and do what is necessary to get the jobs done, not just with sick leave but with consistent 25% to 50% unpaid overtime.

The behavior you site is not capitalist behavior. It is the "legalistic" behavior motivated by trying to get every last bit of advantage out of a complex contractual obligation rather than behavior motivated by doing what it takes to make your organization successful.

booji

+1, I've had several BOS based crew (cabin and cockpit) that I know ask for my professional opinion on various surgeries (menisectomies, chondroplasties, joints, etc.) over the past few weeks to months mainly because a change in the health insurance coverage could increase their out-of-pocket expenses for various elective procedures.

xliioper

At my place of work we get 15 sick days a year (with no accumulation) and are only expected to use them when we are actually sick. To my knowledge, the vast majority of employees (myself included) follow the guideline and have sick days left over at the end of year. Now I'm aware this is not true everywhere, but I also don't believe it is all that unusual. This has nothing to do with capitalism.

formeraa

AA DOES plan for sick leave at HISTORICAL rates. It seems that the pilots have become HYSTERICAL about taking their sick leave.

UVU Wolverine

While I know AA has cut several management positions through bankruptcy, they still seem to be living well. I'm not disputing upper management pay, just pointing out some recent numbers along with AA managements illustrious past of taking concessions from unions whilst receiving major bonuses.

http://wewantourmoneyback.net/newsle...b_01-24-11.htm

http://letterstotheeditorblog.dallas...ive-bonus.html

If I worked at a company where management asked for concessions from employees then turned around and received major bonuses I wouldn't be too happy either. Granted, this scenario was from around 2003. I think the sentiment however is still there especially now that AA is going through bankruptcy and employees are likely going to be losing a lot.

elitetraveler

Maybe management should have planned for sick leave based on the current situation?

Pucnit

Oh no not this again...

Stock IS NOT a bonus. Stock is a performance incentive to motivate the management to guide the company in a direction that positively affects the stock price. No all stock is equal for options you should evaluate them based on their actual value minus strike price or their Black-Scholes value. For full value awards you should value them based on their actual value or their Black-Scholes value.

Next just because someone receives stock doesn’t mean they can do anything with it. Companies often have formal and informal rules on the ability of senior management (VP to CEO) to exercise or sell shares. For instance, most CEO, EVPs & SVPs of publically traded companies are required to hold 1 to 5 times (SVP to CEO) their salary or average annual cash compensation in stock within several years of taking their positions.
So, yes Arpey got “$1.15M” dollars in stock. Based on his employment agreement he might not legally be allowed to sell those shares for 3-5 years after getting them. Arpey works at a company as an executive that might go bankrupt. Which means that while he pays taxes on the stock awards (not bonuses) the company grants him they might all go away and he’ll have nothing to show for it in his bank account.

Trending this back to the Pilots at AA, I disagree with some of the posters above. I do not fault the Pilots, FAs or anyone at AA for maximizing the benefits they have in their contract. There are quite a few very well paid people at AA that are charged with creating contingency and operations plans for these situations. If you are not watching out for yourself and your family (within reason) then what is your accountability if your company goes bankrupt and you didn’t fight to maximize your benefits.

Don’t think for a second that at least 30% of Arpey driving to stay out of bankruptcy wasn’t him thinking about the fact that all of his stock awards would go away and he’d have nothing. The other 30% was most likely him wanting the pride to be the 2010 Crandall. The other 40% was him in his position as CEO.

sbrower

So in that case the union rep would say "I don't know what they are talking about. Our pilots are showing up for work as scheduled." But he didn't. He said "maybe they are taking elective procedures." In other words, the union is *confirming* the AA story.