Egerton wrote:

Gingersnap wrote:

Herein lies the problem, and this has been the same at my own aerospace employer.

Over the last few years, the company has taken up the stance that wage increases are not viable because of high costs, lower than average revenue stream etc. Yet in the years where said company sees record profits and massively increased revenue streams, they still refuse to rage wages or offer a pittance. Often in the UK (where I reside), most companies tend to meet in the middle so it's not often you hear of much in the way of strike action (outside of the bi-annual rail strikes).
Indeed my employer offered a pittance 1% payrise last year, which was resoundingly rejected by the union affiliated members of the workforce. So next up was a larger 5% increase with a tacked on clause that the union was no longer permitted to negotiate pay. You can imagine that was also rejected wholeheartedly. In the end we met in the middle after the word "strike" was murmured as we ended up with a 3% deal.

This may seem like a pointless back and forth, but due to employer's reluctance to keep wages in line with the "cost of living", often a couple of percent results in an effective pay cut for many. And it does become difficult to justify the salary of the chief executives in the 7 figures and rising, if you refuse to pay the average worker even half of what they by all rights should be getting to keep up with the rising cost of living.

So yes it causes a headache to management and customers are inconvenienced, but without the unions there would be no protection against rogue management who wish to squeeze every last penny out of their workforce at the smallest cost possible.

Thanks. Employers are seeking to incur only the costs necessary to recruit, retain and motivate staff. In short, this is the 'market rate' for each individual. This is not a fixed percent applied to all.

In business, I made sure that each employee had his or her personal contract of employment (c 15-20 pages) mailed to the home address. Any changes were made in writing.

I sought to ensure that we worked out a list of employees ranked in order of the costs of the employment package i.e. including heath cover, holidays, pensions etc as well as the pay rate, overtime, bonus and average gross wage over the year. We then worked out the those who had potential, those who had reached their level, those who were on the downward slope and other such matters of subjective judgement. The optimum ranking of each individual on our list soon became apparent and the appropriate adjustments made to recruit, retain and motivate individuals.

We did not operate only an annual review. We tended to adjust things in a timely manner if the local internal or external labour market changed, which in did violently for instance in 2008, and to a lesser extent in other boom and bust cycles. It was my judgment that we knew what we were doing, although it was not a walk in the park, and used quite a lot of management time.

We were not unionised, our people never felt the need. I made sure that legislation which gave the right to belong or not belong to a union was respected. I never asked if individuals were or were not union members, I neither knew nor cared.

I venture to suggest that managements who operate on any union model of employment and pay cannot know what they are doing. Invariably they are not optimising the use of their most important resource, namely the people. They are therefore doomed.

jfk777 wrote:

How can Air France have 10 unions to deal, why not one union for each job occupation ? Just for the sake of simplicity merging all these groups would be a good start.

DWC wrote:

Silly, you may end sending them to an airline with an inferior product, plus airport & ground staff can strike anywhere else they go.
France & Europe are very strict & generous on consumer rights,

Aesma wrote:

Usually long haul flights were the least affected during strikes, however a court challenge has been lost so now AF can't do the same shuffling around of crews they were doing before.

Dutchy wrote:

Next April 3rd and 6th.

https://www.nu.nl/economie/5194535/pilo ... taken.html

Are they again trying to kill off Air France? Last round they didn't succeed so now they need to finish the job?

kitplane01 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Usually long haul flights were the least affected during strikes, however a court challenge has been lost so now AF can't do the same shuffling around of crews they were doing before.

Can you explain this? The court has ordered certain pilots to crew particular aircraft, overriding the crew assignments the airline would prefer?

kjeld0d wrote:

are there any customers left? it seems like a stupid question, are there any people that are somehow 'locked in' to AF? gov't travel, small rural airports? I don't see how any normal person would book AF ever again.

Rookie87 wrote:

kjeld0d wrote:

are there any customers left? it seems like a stupid question, are there any people that are somehow 'locked in' to AF? gov't travel, small rural airports? I don't see how any normal person would book AF ever again.

I would hope that what you wrote forces both groups to come to a mutually beneficial agreement.

If you’re booked on AF and the strike happens, you’d get rebooked on DL or another airline right??

As for DY, if they cancel, do they have agreements in place to rebook on other carriers or would it be to how Spirit operates, you’re S.O.L.?

skiaplg wrote:

Rookie87 wrote:

kjeld0d wrote:

are there any customers left? it seems like a stupid question, are there any people that are somehow 'locked in' to AF? gov't travel, small rural airports? I don't see how any normal person would book AF ever again.

I would hope that what you wrote forces both groups to come to a mutually beneficial agreement.

If you’re booked on AF and the strike happens, you’d get rebooked on DL or another airline right??

As for DY, if they cancel, do they have agreements in place to rebook on other carriers or would it be to how Spirit operates, you’re S.O.L.?

Air France in my experience rebooks you easily. It’s absurd to me that people think that it’s an airline that people shouldn’t book for that reason. Firstly, other airlines in Europe have been known to strike. Secondly, Air France is frequently able to either run the service as scheduled, rebook you onto one of their other airlines - Hop or now Joon, or rebook you onto one of their many partners.

I book Air France because even with slightly more frequent strikes than other carriers, the airline is used to and manages them well. Furthermore, I personally find that CDG is easy to connect to vs the long walks at Amsterdam, filthy lounge with awful food and rude staff (in my experience). I, and many other people, clearly don’t think it is much of a risk.

In most countries, unions are the reason that many of us have pleasant working environment (pushing for time off work and better wages). Whilst unions sometimes act unreasonably, they and collective bargaining have an important part in our society.

Edit: additionally, as people have mentioned, the proliferation of unions actually weaken the collective bargaining position. Additionally, Air France has lots of competition in France (lots of other European hubs, plus Easyjet, Volotea, Ryanair etc, plus competition in long-haul by carriers such as Air Caraïbes). The government isn’t on some vendetta to give AF a monopoly (and hasn’t been for many years)

pdt2f wrote:

skiaplg wrote:

Rookie87 wrote:

I would hope that what you wrote forces both groups to come to a mutually beneficial agreement.

If you’re booked on AF and the strike happens, you’d get rebooked on DL or another airline right??

As for DY, if they cancel, do they have agreements in place to rebook on other carriers or would it be to how Spirit operates, you’re S.O.L.?

Air France in my experience rebooks you easily. It’s absurd to me that people think that it’s an airline that people shouldn’t book for that reason. Firstly, other airlines in Europe have been known to strike. Secondly, Air France is frequently able to either run the service as scheduled, rebook you onto one of their other airlines - Hop or now Joon, or rebook you onto one of their many partners.

I book Air France because even with slightly more frequent strikes than other carriers, the airline is used to and manages them well. Furthermore, I personally find that CDG is easy to connect to vs the long walks at Amsterdam, filthy lounge with awful food and rude staff (in my experience). I, and many other people, clearly don’t think it is much of a risk.

In most countries, unions are the reason that many of us have pleasant working environment (pushing for time off work and better wages). Whilst unions sometimes act unreasonably, they and collective bargaining have an important part in our society.

Edit: additionally, as people have mentioned, the proliferation of unions actually weaken the collective bargaining position. Additionally, Air France has lots of competition in France (lots of other European hubs, plus Easyjet, Volotea, Ryanair etc, plus competition in long-haul by carriers such as Air Caraïbes). The government isn’t on some vendetta to give AF a monopoly (and hasn’t been for many years)

I’m all for workers having the right to collectively bargain for better working conditions and pay, but the idea that all unions should be supported because of rights they won for workers 100 years ago is absurd. Yes they were instrumental in giving fair wages, good working conditions, better hours, etc, but why should those battles make people pro-union in 2018? American automotive manufacturing workers in the South have been rejecting unions for years and they have great benefits, great pay, and a steady increase in jobs and opportunity. Companies are willing to pay good wages and good benefits simply to not have to deal with a politicized union. Maybe unions just aren’t as necessary as they once were, at least for now?

pdt2f wrote:

skiaplg wrote:

Rookie87 wrote:

I would hope that what you wrote forces both groups to come to a mutually beneficial agreement.

If you’re booked on AF and the strike happens, you’d get rebooked on DL or another airline right??

As for DY, if they cancel, do they have agreements in place to rebook on other carriers or would it be to how Spirit operates, you’re S.O.L.?

Air France in my experience rebooks you easily. It’s absurd to me that people think that it’s an airline that people shouldn’t book for that reason. Firstly, other airlines in Europe have been known to strike. Secondly, Air France is frequently able to either run the service as scheduled, rebook you onto one of their other airlines - Hop or now Joon, or rebook you onto one of their many partners.

I book Air France because even with slightly more frequent strikes than other carriers, the airline is used to and manages them well. Furthermore, I personally find that CDG is easy to connect to vs the long walks at Amsterdam, filthy lounge with awful food and rude staff (in my experience). I, and many other people, clearly don’t think it is much of a risk.

In most countries, unions are the reason that many of us have pleasant working environment (pushing for time off work and better wages). Whilst unions sometimes act unreasonably, they and collective bargaining have an important part in our society.

Edit: additionally, as people have mentioned, the proliferation of unions actually weaken the collective bargaining position. Additionally, Air France has lots of competition in France (lots of other European hubs, plus Easyjet, Volotea, Ryanair etc, plus competition in long-haul by carriers such as Air Caraïbes). The government isn’t on some vendetta to give AF a monopoly (and hasn’t been for many years)

I’m all for workers having the right to collectively bargain for better working conditions and pay, but the idea that all unions should be supported because of rights they won for workers 100 years ago is absurd. Yes they were instrumental in giving fair wages, good working conditions, better hours, etc, but why should those battles make people pro-union in 2018? American automotive manufacturing workers in the South have been rejecting unions for years and they have great benefits, great pay, and a steady increase in jobs and opportunity. Companies are willing to pay good wages and good benefits simply to not have to deal with a politicized union. Maybe unions just aren’t as necessary as they once were, at least for now?

Rookie87 wrote:

Lack of unions means management doesn’t have to follow rules the way they would have to if there was a union involved. You don’t like someone? Fire them. You want employees to work over time including weekends? Sure. They refuse because they have families? Fire them.
One role of the Unions is that they provide protections that workers in the South rejecting them would not get otherwise. Once one of them gets fired, then they realize how a union would have been beneficial. Many companies have campaigns to avoid having their workers unionize and that is one of many reasons.
With a union, no favoritism, no unfair practices, no termination without just cause, you get the idea.

ro1960 wrote:

Unions are also the reason why in France (and many other European countries) you have 5-week paid holidays, 16-week paid maternity leave, 35-hour work week, free health insurance, pension plans for all, professional training just to name a few...

pdt2f wrote:

I’m all for workers having the right to collectively bargain for better working conditions and pay, but the idea that all unions should be supported because of rights they won for workers 100 years ago is absurd. Yes they were instrumental in giving fair wages, good working conditions, better hours, etc, but why should those battles make people pro-union in 2018? American automotive manufacturing workers in the South have been rejecting unions for years and they have great benefits, great pay, and a steady increase in jobs and opportunity. Companies are willing to pay good wages and good benefits simply to not have to deal with a politicized union. Maybe unions just aren’t as necessary as they once were, at least for now?

Amsterdam wrote:

They have rejected 7% pay increase in the next 3,5 years.
They want more.

At KLM the unions agree on 3/4%.

Aesma wrote:

In France profit sharing is mandatory, the formula is not necessarily very generous though.