The union representing the mechanics and cleaners at Northwest Airlines went on strike late last week and the airline, already in serious financial trouble, vowed to keep flying.

The union is led by a militant figure described here:

Airline Mechanics Union

This story talks about AMFA's history, their "combative" negotiating style, and the fact that they've alienated other unions who are not supporting them during this strike.

On top of it, NWA has said that they will enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy if this strike action causes the airline not to be able to fly.

NWA Bankruptcy Preparations.

Chapter 11 would impact all NWA employees, likely gut their current contracts, and severely impact the pensions earned by workers to date.

The strike has resulted from the lack of agreement between the union and NWA. Northwest demanded $176M in pay cuts and the cut of 2,000 staff members. The union offered $100M in pay cuts and no job losses. Mechanics at NWA earn an average salary of $70K per year which is well beyond the industry average for those type of jobs.

United Airlines is already in bankruptcy and Northwest and Delta have been close for some time. Given the state of the airline industry, there appears to be enough mechanics who were laid off from other airlines available as replacement workers.

Replacement Workers

The questions for debate:

1. Has the AMFA union misplayed their hand badly given their position of leverage, lack of popularity with other unions, and overall state of the company?

2. Are unions obsolete? Is the historical union bargaining position, which is essentially the tactic of extortion, viable in today's economy?

3. Should the leadership of the AMFA union be held personally accountable if their membership loses their jobs permanently and also their pensions if the company files Chapter 11?

Well, from what I found, $70,000 is above the national average but it is certainly not "well beyond" the national average.

source


1. Has the AMFA union misplayed their hand badly given their position of leverage, lack of popularity with other unions, and overall state of the company?

Regardless of their popularity with other unions, the union's job is to protect the workers and do their best to ensure the workers get as much as they can for what they do (you know, Capitalism ).

There are issues here with the culture of this company. It is hard for workers to be willing to support a company that will give bonuses to the executives while at the same time crying poverty and laying off employees. That is what happened in 2002 and if anything creates a hostile relationship between the company and the union it's practices like this.

In this case, the union actually made the concession on 100 million in pay cuts. The company wanted 176 million, and 2000 jobs laid off. Perhaps the company needs to consider eliminating executive bonuses (why give a bonus if the company is performing so poorly?) and a pay cut to the executives as well. That would go quite far with the union as it would show that the management is tightening their belts as well.

2. Are unions obsolete? Is the historical union bargaining position, which is essentially the tactic of extortion, viable in today's economy?

Unions become weaker not because of "extortion" but because they frequently make concessions too easily these days. Unions have become businesses. They look to close contract negotiations as soon as possible because the dues required by the contract is where their income comes from. Furthermore, many blue collar workers are not Democrats, many are independents and it bothers them to see their union supporting candidates they personally do not support with dues they paid. This is a further problem for many in unions because to speak out about this is to put your livelihood at risk. Furthermore, more and more companies realize that if they unionize it will cost them more then if they just give their employees the same pay and benefits of union employess elsewhere. More and more companies are doing this. As a result unions become less attractive.

3. Should the leadership of the AMFA union be held personally accountable if their membership loses their jobs permanently and also their pensions if the company files Chapter 11?

Who is more at fault here? The employees who do not want to take a pay cut, or the Management, who while the company was struggling continued to give huge bonuses to the executives?

You want to tell workers, who are unwilling to take a pay cut, that they are responsible for the failure of a company that has been mis-managed for years?

Now one thing in Northwest's favor is that the new CEO as of 2004 took a 15% paycut himself. Though, he got a $250,000.00 sign on bonus. source

However, according to his employment agreement the CEO gets a severance payment equal to $680,000 if he is terminated by Northwest for any reason other then for "cause". Wonder what kind of severance package the employees have? I also wonder if he will get this payment if the company goes under (assuming the money is there to pay it).

The bottom line here is that the Management of Northwest has as many issues as the management of the union. If the management wants to get more concessions out of the union their best approach would be to make more concessions themselves.

Not according to this source:

Aviation Today

$58,400 is the industry average.

With respect to "extortion", which is the essential tactic of a union, I mean the mentality of "give us what we want or we'll shut you down".

That's true for the airline mechanics and it's true for the UAW, AFL/CIO, NEA, and the rest. Of course, that's another thread beyond this one.

I certainly agree that Northwest management should be out front with their own contributions and that a company that doesn't do that practices poor business and should expect union problems.

But, the essential question remains. If NW is paying almost $12K more per worker than the average, what exactly are they getting for that additional salary?

That's the question and it's the essential issue facing unions today.

Can a union that employs the old tactics of "give us what we want or we'll shut you down" succeed when a company is bleeding money and when Chapter 11 is a very viable option and when their own unpopularity as a union has guaranteed that the other unions, who could join in and actually shut down the airline, won't go along with the strike?

To me, the mechanics union was foolish. They are bluffing a player with 2 aces showing when they hold nothing in their hands.

Why do I get the impression, I'm entering a booby-trapped thread? "Militant” is an emotionally laden word I first heard applied to H. Rap Brown, Stokley Carmichael and others during the 1960s, though it might have been a convenient epithet long before the 60s.



The Detroit News did not label Delle-Femine a "militant." Those were his words in response to names people had been calling him and his union. You chose to use this label.

The questions for debate:

1. Has the AMFA union misplayed their hand badly given their position of leverage, lack of popularity with other unions, and overall state of the company?



Considering that the company wants to cut their numbers in half and trim wages by 25%, I can’t see that the union has much to lose.

2. Are unions obsolete? Is the historical union bargaining position, which is essentially the tactic of extortion, viable in today's economy?

Wow, another land mine to dodge before answering the question. “Extortion?” I would call it leveling the playing field. With corporations becoming ever bigger with acquisitions and mergers, I would suggest that unions are needed now more than ever as a buffer zone between employees and corporations.

3. Should the leadership of the AMFA union be held personally accountable if their membership loses their jobs permanently and also their pensions if the company files Chapter 11?

How do you hold a group “personally” accountable. If, for instance, someone filed a suit against AMFA, would all the members be liable, or just those who voted for the strike? If the vote were secret, how would anyone know how someone else voted? In my opinion such a proposal is nothing more than union busting—you know the kind of stuff the now beatified Ronald Reagan pulled with the air traffic controllers in the 80s.

All quotations taken from LH’s first link in this thread.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0508/19/C01-285993.htm

Your sources Data is from 2003, mine is from 2005. Mine comes from a company who's primary purpose is to maintain, update and distribute this data.



Do you not support the right in America to protest and use leverage to get the results you seek? What about grass-roots groups that promote boycotts of companies because they do not like their policies? What about pro-life groups that picket and block clinics? It seems to me, what the union does is nothing more then that. It seeks to use the resources at it's disposal to get the best arrangement for it's members (at least in theory ).

After all, there is no law that says the Airline cannot get replacement workers from elsewhere. The union would despise the replacements (naming them: scabs), but they could take not action against them without the risk of prosecution.



The question becomes flawed if the data is in question. Regardless, why should workers not be within their rights to refuse a pay cut? It could cost them their jobs, but they certainly have a right to refuse to work for an amount they feel is inadequate for the job. If your boss came to you and said LH, sorry but we are struggling, we can only pay you 75% of what you currently make, would you simply chalk that up for the good of the company? What if that same manager just got back from an all expenses paid trip to a "management conference" in Bermuda? Every American has the right to make this choice.



That is an important question. However, it depends on your definition of success. The Airline industry has a long history of poor performing, top heavy management, and excessive bonuses to management while the company is hemorrhaging red ink. Perhaps, the opinion of the union members is simply that it is time to take a stand. Better to loose the job then to keep working like this. I don't know, as I don't know anyone in this union (the only Airline Mechanic I know is currently serving in Iraq as a MP), but when you look at the long history of the airline industry it at least seems plausible.

There is of course a flip side. Airline competition became so intense after deregulation began in the late 70s that the Airlines made more and more concessions to organized labor because they did not want to risk an extended showdown. As a result, skilled airline employees are highly paid, above most similar professions.



Both sides have issues here. It is a tough situation. A similar one was faced by Eastern Airlines awhile back, and I think we all know how that turned out. However, the employees on strike knew they would likely never get their jobs back, and that Eastern would quite possibly go under as a result of their job action. But they had had enough. They needed to stand on principle. Don't tell us you need to cut jobs in maintenance but not administration or management. Don't tell us we need to take a pay and benefits cut while you continue to payout large bonuses to executives. Don't tell us to do our part if you are unwilling to do yours. Sometimes, you have to stand on principle, even if you feel doing so is not practical.

I didn't' say whether I supported it or not. I just called it what it is; extortion. If the employees of a company band together and say, "we'll shut you down if you don't do what we want", that is "extortion". No two ways about it. Without being judgmental, perhaps that's why so many unions are so heavily infiltrated by organized crime. They have expertise in this area, after all.

With respect to "using leverage", I say go for it. But, this union has little to no leverage to exploit given the current situation.



And that's precisely what NWA is doing. I again ask the question, isn't this union's calculation ability a bit suspect to say the least? You have a down economic environment, plenty of available replacement labor, and the union has no support beyond it's narrow boundaries. Like I said, they're holding a weak hand.



Of course they have the right to make that choice. It's the wisdom of their choice that I question. They aren't going to take just a "pay cut". They are going to lose their jobs. The $70K that they were pulling in (and the $60K the company offered) is going to be replaced by what again? Walmart? Home Depot? The quick oil change places? We're talking about people who primarily aren't college educated and have a very narrow skill set. There is an overabundance of people who can work on airplanes in the market right now.

They can thump their chests and say how unfair life is and how much money the "suits make", etc. And, they'll be filling out unemployment forms and taking jobs paying less than half what they had.



Yes, and the party is over. Frankly, some airlines have shown how it can be done and make a profit. But, the mechanics, pilots, and everyone else at Southwest Airlines make less than they do at NWA. They have found a business model that works. I agree that NWA is top heavy. It's bottom heavy too. Frankly, it's cost structure is too high overall. But, they are at a critical time where the entire enterprise needs to lose a lot of fat. The mechanics have to do their part. And what is their goal as I heard today from the Detroit (a major hub) union chief? To shut the airline down and prevent them from operating.

What's the old saying again? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it?

Do these characters understand what will happen when their union is broken AND the company files chapter 11? Not only will they lose their jobs, they'll lose their pensions too.

If you ask me, this union is even dumber than the one who represented the NHL players. At least those guys have millions in the bank to fall back on. The mechanics at NWA don't have that. Their unions have almost zero strike funds, the company is able to hire replacements, and the other unions (due to history) are telling this union to pound sand.



Well, they'll stand on principle and end up unemployed. I know that the idea of class envy is motivating for those people, but the numbers don't lie.

Northwest said they needed annual concessions of about $200M when you factor in the job cuts. That's each and every year from now. Take away the "management bonuses". In fact FIRE, the CEO and his entire direct staff. Where does that leave you? At $198M more to save each and every year in order to avoid bankruptcy?

Sometimes you need to know when to hold them and you need to know when to fold them.

Deciding to walk out under these circumstances is madness. It's delusional madness. And I think that those responsible for "leading" that union should be held accountable for their strike recommendation.

And, I say that knowing that I'm getting on a NWA jet on Tuesday morning. I hope these guys haven't resorted to sabotage.

First Cindy Sheehan was delusional, now it's the mechanic's union. It seems that lordhelmet, who isn't medically trained in diagnosing delusion, thinks people who don't agree with him fit that mode.



Suggesting mechanics might sabotage an airline full of people is a bit over the top. Do you equate the mechanics union with terrorists? Perhaps you should be more concerned about the skill of the replacement mechanics when you board that big bird Tuesday.

Out of curiosity, would you call it extortion when say a President says "add this to that bill or I will veto it" (obviously this is NOT a reference to the current President). The correct term would be negotiation I believe.



That assumes that the negotiations are over. Talking tough is what these kinds of negotiations are all about. The Management at NWA is desperately seeking ways to make the airline viable. The union is pushing for them to look everywhere and not just at labor. Remember, the union already conceded to a 100 million, which, by you numbers (I didn't do the math here) would seem to be about a $5000.00 a year paycut. Now, that leaves another 100 million. It's the managements turn. They need to make their own cuts, in managers, manager's bonuses, manager's pay, etc. Then when they can show what they have done they can come back to the table and work on getting more from the union. Sometimes you have to give to receive.



True, but if you are going to have to take a paycut (one even deeper then the 10,000 a year proposed by management if you want to save the jobs) then you have to look at what you are cutting it to. To save all the jobs they would have to go to what? 50,000.00, $45,000.00? At some point you look at it and go: "you know, I might as well fight and risk loosing because if I loose, Unemployment has training programs and I could easily be mechanic/technician for example and be paid in that same range (depending on how their aircraft experience is treated) without having to deal with all the airline industry issues.

They could also simply be seeing the writing on the walls, that the industry is falling apart. Maybe they are making a last stand, figuring if not now, it will be next contract when they push paycuts again.



And they offered to do so. accepting a 100 million dollar cut is a pretty big step. Perhaps the Airline needs to consider a different approach. Trading wages for stock options or profit sharing programs (of course the union members need to believe these will be worth something some day).



With or without this issue, the pensions are in question considering the very poor financial health of the company as well as the grim outlook for the future.



Class envy? Is it class envy to complain when executives (as a group) get millions in BONUSES for the job they have done at a company that is doing so poorly then need to seek 200 million in cuts from labor? Management needs to put their own money where their mouth is if they expect labor to take them seriously.



There is a principle here. How do you justify executives (as a group) getting millions in BONUSES for the job they have done at a company that is doing so poorly then need to seek 200 million in cuts from labor? Sure these pay cuts and bonus eliminations would not come close to resolving the issue. However, it would go a VERY long way with the union because it would show that they would be willing to tighten their belts as well. Why shouldn't they?



Held accountable for a recommendation? Man, I sure hope no one has a problem using anything I recommended here. A Strike, as well as accepting a contract or not, comes down to a union membership vote. If they strike, the responsibility will rest with the majority of the membership.



Wow. I bit bellow the belt there, don't you think?

True, but they are trying to hold that airline full of people hostage to get their demands met....not sure that makes any of the passengers feel any better.

In the unions defense, I think they have considered the possibility of Chapter 11, and decided that they wouldn't fare any worse going that route than the airline's offer. If that is the case, then it makes at least a little sense. However, the strike is only worthwhile if it has an effect...and the net result of that effect would be that the airline would have even less money to pay the mechanics. So, still doubtful that its a smart move.

On a broader scale, while I do support the right of workers to strike...I don't see why they are then surprised when their jobs go overseas. Why wouldn't they? Over here, you have unions creating artificially high salaries and not usually doing much to increase productivity. Relocate overseas, and you can get the same work for a lot less money, making your company more competetive. This is good for the company, and its shareholders. Workers see this as anti-worker, but its not...its pro-company. Unions would do their workers more good, IMHO, if they also took a procompany stance. If the company is doing well, it has both the money to pay their workers more and also an incentive to do so. Anything workers do to help that is good for both the company and the worker...anything workers do that hurt a companies competetiveness are bad for both the company and the worker. In this case, NW is trying to stay afloat as an airline. I don't really see how the Eastern scenario helps the maintenance workers any, and striking is making that at least a little more likely. I don't think there's exactly a worker's market in the airline industry right now...jobs lost are probably lost for good. What's the second choice for an airline mechanic....whatever it is, I'm willing to bet its quite a bit less right now then the pay cuts they airline is suggesting. Their current salary really isn't relevant right now...it's the market rate that is important. The market rate for those that are employed as airline mechanics is about what NW is offering, I think...and the market rate for those that aren't employed as airline mechanics might be best equated to 'Do you want fries with that?'.

I agree. I think the union likely did a calculation and determined that they were willing to face the repercussions of strike. This may be a move of desperation or it may be canny. It's hard to say at this point.


I think you're speaking in generalities here and for the general case I agree with your position. However in this particular case... Aircraft mechanics are a type of skilled labor. So, it's not clear that their salary demands are artificially high. Nor does there appear to be a glut of aircraft mechanics (perhaps I'm wrong?).


Globalization issues are complex, however I do agree that if labor is significantly cheaper abroad, then it is in a company's best economic interest to relocate or outsource. Money flows out to these countries causing their standards of living to rise. In a sense, the US economy is paying for other countries' rising standard of living. This is good for those countries, yet there is a downside domestically. The biggest downside is that the US has become a nation of imports and not of "made-in-America" or exports. This means that on the whole the US buys more stuff than it sells. Not only does this make the US more beholden to foreign markets but it also means that both skilled and unskilled labor no longer earn what they used to earn domestically. Thus, the standard of living in the US will go down even as the standards of living abroad go up.

Of course, eventually, this will all even out, but it will take a while. There will likely be much weeping and gnashing of teeth until that happens.


I think your position on "pro-company" unions is problematic. If labor is cheaper abroad, then there is very little labor can do other than acquiesce to becoming "cheap" labor as well in your model. If they don't acquiesce, then jobs will be moved abroad. Yet, the cost of living remains fixed (or, perhaps, moves at different -- slower -- rate than salaries). Thus, there is a point at which domestic labor cannot compete with foreign labor, particularly, when foreign labor doesn't need to meet US labor standards. Moreover, many of these companies like NWA & United & GM have huge pension liabilities. Thus, labor probably sees these companies hemorrhaging money no matter what happens and wish to get what they can before it bankrupts itself.

A minor point: you can't outsource these jobs overseas. The mechanics' work must be done here in the States. The aircraft have to undergo regular maintenance at specified intervals, and that maintenance work is done on a very tight schedule.

One other thing: airline mechanics demands much more skill than, say, auto mechanics. These guys have a mountain of paperwork to do to verify the safety of the aircraft. Every single part is tracked. And their training is much more extensive. After all, if they make a mistake, lots of people die. And they know that.

I disagree Hobbes, I think OS has given the best answer here on this point. Quoting him:


In these situations Management never wants to take responsibility and tighten their belts, they always look to labor first. The funny thing is if they had volunteered to take a $100M pay cut collectively and asked the Union to do the same I bet they wouldn't be facing this resistance - it's called leadership.

It is also in pretty poor taste to be getting bonuses when your company is talking about Chapter 11. What kind of message does that send to the workers? Performance can be in the toilet and the execs will still get bonuses? That doesn't make any sort of business sense.


Just as a note outsourcing isn't an option in this industry. Several companies have tried it by flying planes down to Puerto Rico or something and it doesn't work.


This is not true of all outsourcing, in a lot of cases what little you save in labor cost require increases in management/leadership costs so there isn't any net svaings. Furthermore there are potentially exploitation issues here as well. Not all companies are guilty of this but many are.

There are several elements that the union still left out of their equation that essentially made their "strike action" a mass resignation.

From the perspective of the company, those guys all quit. They are done.

1. There are many highly skilled unemployed aircraft mechanics who were laid off from American, United, and even several thousand from NWA. They will gladly work for the $26.50 plus all the bennies (health care, nearly free flights) which isn't as good as the $36.00 / hr. the union is trying to keep but a lot better than telling customers that the insulation can be found in aisle 32.

2. The ranks of "management" have already taken their pay cuts as have the pilots to the tune of $300M annually. Northwest management and pilot pay cuts.

3. The unions representing the flight attendants (that the mechanic's union split from) and the pilots are crossing the picket line. And why should'nt they? They have already taken their medicine designed to keep this airline alive. Only the mechanics are playing the militant card.... when they are holding nothing.

4. The airline will be glad to get rid of this group of problem workers. I know people with first hand knowledge of the mechanic workforce at both the MSP and DTW hubs; and everyone I spoke to swore that the company would be "better than ever" with replacements. Not only did I hear horror stories about blatant sabotage leading to the strike, but a history of abysmal work ethics and abuse of union status (one person said these guys are lucky if they work 3 hours per day). The replacements used to have these type of jobs and they've seen what the alternative is. They will gladly take the airline's offer of $26.50 / hour and be happy for it. The mechanics who walked off their jobs, never to return, are in for an exceptionally rude awakening. And, I think that their union's leadership should be held directly accountable for their lack of judgement and advice for their membership.

Just one point to make here. Less of these people will cross the line and become a "scab" then you might think. I think there will definitely be people that will, and you are more then like right, there will probably be enough that choose to do so to keep the airline going. However, a lot of people who were long time union members, simply will not do it. The loyalty (regardless of whether it is misplaced or not) is something that is hard to let go of. At least that has been my experience as a former union worker.



I wish I knew how much of that came from management and how much came from the pilots. I didn't have much luck searching for this one. I know from a link earlier in the thread that the CEO took a voluntary 15% cut (even though he is asking for 25% from the Mechanics (per the Forbes article you provided).



I realize that the federal requirements might be making things tough on NWA. However, if they had not been "robbing Peter to pay Paul" in regards to the pension perhaps it would not be so underfunded. Couldn't this be another reason why there is such bad blood between the union and the company?



Ok, so you have hear of blatant sabotage? I can only assume you immediately made a formal report this information to the authorities, especially when considering the severe risk of life involved. Assuming you did so, could you please let us know what agency(s) you reported this to, and what the report numbers are so we can look into the facts of this on our own?




So, even though:

(from the Forbes article)

The fault somehow rests with the leadership that recommended and advised that the members strike? No one forced them to vote the way they did. Whether the strike ends up working for or against them the only responsible parties are the ones that chose to vote for the strike. To me, it is a simple matter of personal responsiblity. If you weighed your options and chose to vote in favor of the strike the, good or bad, you made the bed, you sleep it it. All sorts of Americans, in all sorts of positions or responsibility (or lack there of) recommend all sorts of things to the rest of us. It is our choice as to whether we choose to follow those recommendations, do our own research before deciding, or choose to ignore those recommendations.

I'm wondering. What would you suggest be the punishment for their lack of judgement? And under what legal mechanism would you seek to impose it?

I agree, but think this industry will have a much higher than normal number who would. Given the downsizing throughout the industry, the very low liklihood of most of those jobs returning, and the non-existence of similar paying alternatives....all adds up to the ability of NW to replace a good number of these workers if they chose to do that. If union loyalty is what the union is banking on here...I think they will find they have miscalculated.




Don't forget the being forced to pay these high salaries is probably a fairly significant contributor to the inability to fund the pensions. That money has to come from somewhere...if revenues are falling, and costs are going up, then reality is going to dictate that some things get unfunded.



I would agree here...but don't discount the ability of union leadership to sway votes. Boeing workers some years ago were all brought into the Kingdome, given a big pep rally, and then voted resoundingly for a strike(all against union rules at the time)...all at a time when Boeing's order were being cancelled, they had a large surplus of planes, and essentially didn't need the workers. The workers eventually came back and accepted a little less than the offer on the table initially. Now, each worker had a chance to vote no....but you can't say that union leadership should go blameless in these circumstances either. Surely, as a former union member, you must realize the pressure they can apply.


CJ...the reason I am doubtful it is a smart move is that every dollar NW loses due to the strike is one less dollar they will have left to pay the mechanics. I don't think there's any way around that in today's airline environment. So, if the reasoning isn't that they think they'll get a better deal in bankruptcy, then, IMHO, they are voting on emotion and ignoring the realities of the situation.

I have railed for years against the pressures they can apply in many areas of life as a union member. However, any vote in a union hall is a secret ballot (at least it was in the one I belonged to, and every hall I have friends and / or family in). There is no way for them to know how you voted so the pressure is pretty meaningless. Regardless as to whether or not people are swayed by the "get those jerks" rhetoric, they are still responsible for their own actions when it comes to a vote by secret ballot IMHO.

To be clear, I don't really feel they are making a smart move here, never have. My issue is with the idea that the union is dead wrong but no mention as to the responsiblity of the companies management (who lead the company to the position it is in now BTW). The auto industry and the airline industry have the absolute worst reputations when it comes to financial shenanigans and labor negotiations. So I have a hard time pinning all the problems on labor alone.

As I have said before, they are making a choice that most surely know will likely lead to the loss of their jobs. Many probably doing this to get back at the company they feel screwed them for years because they believe they will loose their jobs in the near future regardless of what happens with this contract. Others likely take issue with management's handling of the company in general and have decided to stand on principle, regardless of the likely outcome. Of course there are the votes of those on the bottom of the seniority list who know they would be among those laid off if the company go their way (after all, what do they have to loose?). And then there are those close friends of those that would loose their job that are voting out of friendship (misplaced loyalty or not). Then there are the votes of those who could never vote against a job action of for a contract when layoffs are in the equation. Of course there are those who are easily swayed by rhetoric, those who would vote for a job action no matter what because of their fanatical anti-corporation leanings, etc. There are alot of possible motivations behind these votes. Thinking that the strike will lead to keeping their job with the same pay or at least less of a paycut then the company wants is likely not the majority view IMHO.

9/11 changed the airline industry. Some people understand that. Even some ex-union mechanics who were laid off and who would do most anything to recover some of what they had.

As I said, those without college educations and with a narrow skill set have a stark choice. Work as a replacement worker or get used to saying "would you like fries with that?". What choice do you think those who have to support a wife and kids will make?



A person who I talked to today about this and is "in the know" said that management has taken about a 20-25% pay cut depending on the job.

And, the couple who were the source of that information said that while they will most likely have to downsize their home, they support the current CEO 100% and stated that there is no infighting in the current management team.

The only ones in this saga who are acting delusional are the members of the mechanics union. They have made a series of tactical mistakes that haven't been seen since the PATCO debacle. Not only have they misplayed their hand with Northwest, they've managed to alienate the other unions that could have been their strongest, and only bargaining chip.

I hope they all enjoy their new jobs at Walmart, Home Depot, or Valvoline Oil Change. I've not seen such blatant professional suicide since PATCO misplayed their hands so similarly.

I assume I wasn't all that clear on the point in my earlier post as Hobbes seemed to have missed is as well, though I could be wrong. Just be be clear, I agree with you on this point, in all likelihood, enough will cross the line to keep the airline flying, I just wanted to point out why a good number of them would not, even if it was in their best interest.



This is the second time you have suggested that a lack of college education seems to equate to "would you like fries with that?". Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. However, for the record, there are a good number of us out here without college educations that are doing far better then that, simply because we applied ourselves and learned what we needed to get ahead.





I tend to have a hard time with "this guy told me" kind of sources. Do you have anything a bit more concrete, or at least verifiable? An earlier link in this topic said that the CEO took a 15% paycut. That is all I have seen from a verifiable source. But regardless, if the man is asking workers (and perhaps other managers) to take a 25% paycut shouldn't he do the same himself?

Also, I was wondering if you were going to answer my earlier question:



I know I would sure like more information on this because if it is verifiable then it is quite damning, and definitely actionable criminally.


Note: I the quote above, items appearing in brackets are there as corrections of typos that I made and this was done for the purpose of clarity.

Of course. The richest guy in our country (the world?) is a college drop out. But, I was referring to the mentality of those who obviously can't see reality as demonstrated by their strike vote.



I don't feel comfortable giving you the names and positions of the people I talked to today while I'm in another one of NWA's hubs. But, they directly verified what I said. You can dispute it, not believe it, or believe it. That's as much as I'm telling you.

The CEO took a 15% pay-cut. But his job is arguably one of the toughest in the company. I'm glad to see that he's willing to contribute as well. As I stated, I didn't hear any stories of dissention from management about him. They are behind him.



It might very well be criminal. It involves the deliberate damage of company resources and tools prior to the strike (i.e, resignation of the union members). And, from I was told, management at NWA is fully aware of the incidents that have occurred.

It's not my place (nor yours) to press charges.

But, when you hear about it in the papers, remember that you heard about it here.

That's all you get from me for now.

My suggestion is to take off your "union loyalty" glasses for a moment and look at this situation objectively.

The mechanics have acted like collective fools. They will lose. And the company will be better for it. It will also create a wave throughout the entire union world that was not intended.

Mark my words. The wave is coming and it's not in the union's (or their democrat allies) favor.

The automotive world is next. Inside of 12 months.

So, are you saying that that you DID report this to the authorities?




ROFL Oh wow, sorry, but I can only assume you don't read many of my posts. Heck, it this topic alon I have said es that I think the union membership is wrong here. For example, what I said in another post in this topic today:



or here, a bit earlier in the topic:



Or any number of posts I have made throughout my time on that have resulted in a few people calling me "anti-union", including the multiple references I have made to the letter I sent the IBEW telling them that would be sending the money I used to pay them in dues to The Nation Right To Work Foundation because the issues I had with them, both while a member as well as issues I had with the union that, combined with the companies poor handling of the situation involved, resulted in my taking a position with my current employer and no longer a union member.

Edited to add: Not all issues are black and white. It is possible to take issue with both the management and the union in situations like this. I simply have a problem with laying the financial troubles of a company at the doors of the union alone, when this company has been mis-managed for years and years.

1. Has the AMFA union misplayed their hand badly given their position of leverage, lack of popularity with other unions, and overall state of the company?

2. Are unions obsolete? Is the historical union bargaining position, which is essentially the tactic of extortion, viable in today's economy?
The problem with unions today is that too often, they pick the wrong battles. For example, some unions in California went on strike last year to get higher wages for grocery store workers.
As far as the extortion tactics go, the idea of unions is not going to go away until the corruption in Corporate America is completely cleaned out. The corporate culture in the Airline business is clean compared to some of the Wall Street investment firms. Reform in the corporate world has to come first.

3. Should the leadership of the AMFA union be held personally accountable if their membership loses their jobs permanently and also their pensions if the company files Chapter 11?
Since the union members are the ones making the choice, the members are the ones responsible for the effects of the decision.

The question is evolving now to "how long before AMFA members resort to physical violence?"

From today's Detroit Free Press

NWA strike story



Scab Hunter?

The airline is running as normal with 1,500 replacement workers doing the work of 4,500 who walked off the job (and committed a mass resignation).

The union CLEARLY misplayed their hand.

Now, we'll see if the UAW miscalculates with Mr. Miller at Delphi as bad as the AMFA leadership did in this case.

I concur with the sentiments of your second paragraph, Erasmussimo, regarding the skill and training of airline mechanics. However, I am afraid you are wrong. As much as 53 percent of maintenance is already outsourced to third-party vendors and other countries.

Northwest has requested AMFA to accept a contract eliminating 53% of its jobs. Trimming its workforce of mechanics and other maintenance workers from 10,000 in 2001 to 4,400 today, Northwest looks to decrease its 3,600 mechanics to 2,350. AMFA was told that Northwest is looking to cut $176 million in annual costs. For those accepting the 25% salary reductions, there will be no guarantee of workers keeping their jobs as increases in outsourcing both in the U.S. and abroad are on the agenda for Northwest. Northwest CEO, Doug Steenland, said, “The lion’s share of aviation maintenance in the industry is done by third-party providers who can do the work cheaper and faster.”


But Northwest is not any different than every other major and low-cost airline in the U.S., with the exception of American Airlines, in outsourcing an average of at least 50% of maintenance work. American Airlines has revisited their outsourcing policy and now only depends on outsourcing for 20% of its maintenance jobs, while America West and Alaska Airlines outsource 79% and 77% of their maintenance, respectively. According to David Campbell, American Airline’s Vice President of Base Operations, on keeping 80% of its maintenance in-house says, “Having that control gives us greater ability to mitigate safety risks.”

Northwest, however, would rather discuss how it would be better for the AMFA workers to accept its terms rather than bankruptcy which Northwest may very well face, having lost $3 billion since 2001. In addition, the airline industry as a whole and primarily the big carriers, have used the 9/11 attacks, a recession, the SARS scare, low-cost carrier growth and surging fuel prices as justification for permanently eliminating U.S. maintenance jobs. But unlike other industries which are long gone to offshoring in China, Asia and third world countries, U.S. oversight of aircraft is far different than that of textile manufacturing, for example. Airlines have a far different obligation to the public.

In a 2005 report issued by the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General, there were key concerns regarding outsourcing of airplane maintenance, even though there has not been a fatal accident involving a U.S. aircraft since November 2001, when American Airlines Flight 587 crashed into a Rockaway, NY neighborhood, killing 265 people. The DOT report stated, “The FAA must assure the public that industry changes, including financial distress and growth, do not compromise safety.” A major case in point is that Northwest has shifted maintenance to offshore sites such as Singapore (known to embody terrorist cells) as well as the People’s Republic of China. There, specialized work including periodic major overhauls, legally required for commercial aircraft, is performed. The airline industry necessitates greater oversight by the FAA as it is an issue of national security.

http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=2692

There was also a report on NPR about outsourcing air maintenance (Windows Media Player or Real Audio are required).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4816955

Whether the union is right or wrong, I get a creepy feeling when Northwest's CEO uses the words "cheaper and faster" regarding aircraft maintenance, but not better. A overwhelmed, undermanned and budget starved FAA has also outsourced the inspections of American airplanes!

lordhelmet takes delight in the possible breaking of the mechanics union, but if aircraft safety is nothing more than another budgetary item to be trimmed, it is not beyond of the realm of possibility that one of our planes could someday drop out of the sky because a terrorist infiltrates one of these outsourcing vendors and "accidently" leaves a monkey wrench in a jet turbine or doesn't quite seal a window properly.

I'd rather pay more and fly with a airline that doesn't place stockholders value over safety.

Just out of curiosity, are the executives at Northwest also facing drastic pay cuts and lay-offs? Is Mr. Steenland sharing in the pain? If not, why not?

1. Has the AMFA union misplayed their hand badly given their position of leverage, lack of popularity with other unions, and overall state of the company?

The AMFA has certainly left themselves in a hole here. They should have approached membership from a kinder, gentler position and thereby preserved some solidarity with other unions as their strength lies in numbers.

2. Are unions obsolete? Is the historical union bargaining position, which is essentially the tactic of extortion, viable in today's economy?

Definitely not. Unions play a vital role in America's workforce. We would not have a 40 hour workweek without the unions of the 1890's, wages would be much lower, worker protections non-existent and child labor would still be the rule.

I don't see the union's bargaining as extortion. I have been in on several bargaining sessions and none even resembled extortion.

The typical scenario runs like this:
Unions meet with corporate representatives and discuss what each side feels is a fair deal for their side. From there we compromise, trying to achieve the best terms for both sides in areas mainly of Healthcare, Wages, Retirement and Holidays on the union side. On the corporate side we agree on terms relating to work stoppages, strikes and walkouts as well as grievance procedures.

It is a compromise session where we each approach the table with defined goals and work to make both sides happy with their terms.

3. Should the leadership of the AMFA union be held personally accountable if their membership loses their jobs permanently and also their pensions if the company files Chapter 11?

No. The membership elected them as their representative for contractual negotiations and has the ultimatefinal voice on any proposed contract thru a membership vote. The AMFA negotiates the terms for them but they have to accept these terms. Should they decline the terms the union is obligated to return to the bargaining table to work on a more agreeable contract to then be voted upon.

Because of the nature of how the system works the workers are eventually ultimately responsible for what happens.