I hadn;t heard about this until I saw the article about 1 hour ago. I haven't seen anything posted about this on a.net.

I do think these workers deserve better than $10.10 per hour. Poverty level wages



http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/18/news/airport-workers-strike/index.html

Quoting mwh787 (Thread starter): I hadn;t heard about this until I saw the article about 1 hour ago. I haven't seen anything posted about this on a.net. I do think these workers deserve better than $10.10 per hour. Poverty level wages

I do think this is a great movement, and one that I agree with. Airlines have been going to the cheapest vendor, and the cheapest vendor pays and treats workers like garbage. Raising the wages to $15 an hour will raise the airlines cost to have cheap contractors. Perhaps this will bring those jobs that were outsourced back in house.

I do not recall ever complaining about my $10 an hour job at Frontier or US Airways. My benefits, especially travel, kept me bappy. I did have to work 2 jobs, but I didn't complain. When working for $10 an hour, getting no flight benefits or any benefits, I had plenty to complain about.

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 1): I do not recall ever complaining about my $10 an hour job at Frontier or US Airways. My benefits, especially travel, kept me bappy. I did have to work 2 jobs, but I didn't complain. When working for $10 an hour, getting no flight benefits or any benefits, I had plenty to complain about.

I can't speak for all of the cities involved but I agree, 10.10 in New York/Newark is hardly a livable wage (especially when you add in the transit time to/from work at the airport) even 2 jobs at that rate would be hard to survive (even with flight benefits).

I did something similar when I was in college, but honestly had the benefit of not being responsible for all of my expenses - it honestly escapes me why the carriers don't value folks higher - when you find the special combination (I'm sure we all have plenty of examples) why don't you pay them accordingly rather than set their wages by a defined scale?

They should push for $15+ / hour.

The problem is the skill set required to work as an airport or cabin cleaner is not any higher than a janitor outside the airport and as result the pay is rightfully not much more than minimum wage.

If people want more money, they truly need to make themselves more marketable and gain the required skills to pursue higher paying jobs.
These airport employees make the same silly argument that entry level jobs such as the fast food industry somehow should earn $15 as well.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):

Quoting DC10LOVER (Reply 3): They should push for $15+ / hour.

And I suppose you would be willing to pay the corresponding increase in airfare? You're talking close to a 50% increase in labor costs. Airlines and airports (and most companies) don't just eat the increased costs, you know.

These jobs were all outsourced from airlines

They used to be stable entry level jobs at major airlines now they are almost per diem workers.

Sad state of affairs

Quoting HPAEAA (Reply 2): I did something similar when I was in college, but honestly had the benefit of not being responsible for all of my expenses - it honestly escapes me why the carriers don't value folks higher - when you find the special combination (I'm sure we all have plenty of examples) why don't you pay them accordingly rather than set their wages by a defined scale?

FX used to give raises based on merit. They no longer do. The laziest employee now gets the same raise as the hardest worker. It's because of litigation - it's way too easy for someone to file a lawsuit claiming some sort of discrimination, or that there are no set standards because one manager may value a given employee more than the next manager does.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4): These airport employees make the same silly argument that entry level jobs such as the fast food industry somehow should earn $15 as well.

If jobs are to be classified as "entry level" and "not entry level" then I guess we should pass some laws so people with families or over the age of 21 can't work service jobs. We should also make sure that most towns limit low-paying service jobs because only entry level employees should be working at those anyway.
 
The idea that fast food jobs and the minimum wage are designed for schoolkids with no bills to pay is a complete farce.

For many years I have watched the airlines cut costs on the back of their labor force. They have cut things to the bone, so much cutting that even becoming a pilot is a substandard wage job.

The airline industry should be a good place to work as the traveling public needs to be assured of airline safety in so many ways. It is not safe to have a bunch of minimum wages employees working 2-3 jobs just to live. What happens when they get offered $10,000 to get a suitcase into the luggage

The airlines are making record profits (even when factoring out cheap oil) Their executive compensation is at all time highs. Why shouldn't their labor force at least get to an above poverty level wage

In the state I live we pay unskilled orchard workers $11-13 per hour Skilled workers (pickers etc) make $16-20 per hour.

Airline tickets might rise but only as far as supply and demand will allow, labor is only one of many factors that determine tickets prices and airline profitability

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 7): If jobs are to be classified as "entry level" and "not entry level"...

It's not about "startup" jobs. It's about skill level.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4): If people want more money, they truly need to make themselves more marketable and gain the required skills to pursue higher paying jobs.

              

Quoting mwh787 (Reply 8): For many years I have watched the airlines cut costs on the back of their labor force. They have cut things to the bone, so much cutting that even becoming a pilot is a substandard wage job.

Quoting mwh787 (Reply 8): The airlines are making record profits (even when factoring out cheap oil) Their executive compensation is at all time highs. Why shouldn't their labor force at least get to an above poverty level wage

Because it's ALL ABOUT THE SHAREHOLDERS...


I wholeheartedly agree with you, btw...I'm just mocking the folks who think of nothing but the bottom line instead of actually applying common sense in treating customers with a sense of decency instead of an unlimited cash cow.

Society needs ditch-diggers as well as executives. I don't buy the argument that if folks want to make enough money to live, they need to make themselves more marketable or improve themselves somehow - that buys into a twisted, unrealistic view of society as a race to the top. The question really is do we want to live in a fair society or in a society where only the strong thive. The litmus test is this - if a huge guy walks up to you in the street and punches you in the face, do you object to it or do you agree that it's only fair that he do so, given how much bigger and stronger he is?

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 10): Because it's ALL ABOUT THE SHAREHOLDERS... I wholeheartedly agree with you, btw...I'm just mocking the folks who think of nothing but the bottom line instead of actually applying common sense in treating customers with a sense of decency instead of an unlimited cash cow.

A well paid and trained workforce is much better than the constant turnover of underpaid employees who are looking for a new job the day the arrive.

There are many more ways for the execs to get better returns for the shareholders than putting it all on the backs of the lower end employees

Besides even if everyone gets an MBA, they can not ALL be executives.

Quoting RIX (Reply 9): It's about skill level.

  

Want to improve your job and income prospects? Improve your skills.

Quoting rampbro (Reply 11): Society needs ditch-diggers as well as executives. I don't buy the argument that if folks want to make enough money to live, they need to make themselves more marketable or improve themselves somehow - that buys into a twisted, unrealistic view of society as a race to the top. The question really is do we want to live in a fair society or in a society where only the strong thive.

Society is like a pyramid. Lots on the bottom and few at the top.

As society we place great value on ability, skills and talent.

Since there are millions that can sweep the trash, those are jobs that obviously don't pay much. There are only few that can be record breaking athletes, or top wizes in their fields so they are rewarded accordingly.

The race to the top is hardly twisted, its a basic law of nature from even the animal kingdom. The world would be a terrible place if the incentives to be highly skilled or provide special ability were removed and everyone earned just about the same. Talk about lackluster place.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 13): Besides even if everyone gets an MBA, they can not ALL be executives.

People land where their skills and abilities are. As a worker we all have our places in the societal ladder based on the value we can offer and skillset we come equipped with.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14): Society is like a pyramid. Lots on the bottom and few at the top.

Sure, but isn't it a dangerous situation for all if those at the very lowest rank (who also happen to be the most numerous) aren't paid enough to survive in decent manner? Keep in mind that this is a relatively new phenonmenon in North America - prior to the 1970s the lowest paid workers had experienced a growth in yearly income in every year since WW2. The reversal of that trend and the decline of America seem inexorably linked, no?

Would be helpful to have the country in the title. Not the whole world is USA.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 7): If jobs are to be classified as "entry level" and "not entry level" then I guess we should pass some laws so people with families or over the age of 21 can't work service jobs.

How about don't create a family until you can support it?

Quoting RIX (Reply 9):

Oh yes, why not just make yourself more marketable? And I suppose the impoverished in third world countries might also better their situation if they were to just decide to get an education, or work another job? Oh wait, except those opportunities aren't available/are actively restricted from those which often need them.

Perhaps that's a little snarky, and I do understand where you're coming from; however, how on earth is somebody who is working one or two jobs which are already insufficient to support themselves supposed to "make themselves more marketable"? The argument, of course, will be, get an education, learn a new skill, get some technical training. Fine. But if you're working two jobs and are living on a paycheck to paycheck basis, where is the money for that education going to come from? From your $10.10/hr wage? I don't think so. And what about the time? Even if you do have the money saved or can fund additional education to gain these "marketable" skills, when are you supposed to "gain" these skills? When you're working your two underpaying jobs? When you're taking care of your kids, taking care of bills?

[Edited 2015-11-19 12:33:31]

Quoting jns13 (Reply 18): the impoverished in third world countries...

Totally irrelevant to this particular topic.

Quoting jns13 (Reply 18): But if you're working two jobs and are living on a paycheck to paycheck basis, where is the money for that education going to come from? From your $10.10/hr wage? I don't think so. And what about the time?..When you're working your two underpaying jobs? When you're taking care of your kids, taking care of bills?

Other replies already pointed that you probably should think about getting more economically capable (so to speak) before thinking about "kids and bills". And, as a result, demanding others to pay for it. Of course, it's not always that simple. But even then nobody owes you. Like nobody owed me, an immigrant with a family, when I started with 5.50/hr.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14): Want to improve your job and income prospects? Improve your skills.

There's some truth to this, I won't get into that argument. But....you do have to look at the relative cost of living in different locations. After all, if we used your argument, then a gallon of gas or a hotel room or food should all cost the same in every city. Of course they don't, often for cost of operations reasons, so......that applies here, too, like it or not.

I took a ramp job to get my foot in the door, I wanted to work for a specific airline, I got to know the right people before I even applied. In fact it was the evening shift supervisor who gave me my application. I was hired, gave my old employer two weeks notice and when everyone went back into "hiding" until end of shift, I was being "trained" for my new job..."Catering & Commissary" I would watch the guys restock the plane and take off trash etc and take notes. So when I officially started I knew what to do already. I went from a union job to non union job and basically made the same per hour, but it lead to more responsibility in the long run.

I feel if you don't look for better opportunities in employment that's your fault. Don't wait for the employer to get you a raise, find a job within the company or another company at the airport. Those entry level jobs can be done by anyone you need to plan to advance your career.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14): Society is like a pyramid. Lots on the bottom and few at the top. As society we place great value on ability, skills and talent. Since there are millions that can sweep the trash, those are jobs that obviously don't pay much. There are only few that can be record breaking athletes, or top wizes in their fields so they are rewarded accordingly. The race to the top is hardly twisted, its a basic law of nature from even the animal kingdom. The world would be a terrible place if the incentives to be highly skilled or provide special ability were removed and everyone earned just about the same. Talk about lackluster place.

So in your "pyramid" if the people on the bottom don;t make a livable wage. You and the others nearer the top don;t mind paying for food stamps, housing and other necessities for those that aren't receiving a livable wage. Good for you.

Quoting mwh787 (Reply 23): So in your "pyramid" if the people on the bottom don;t make a livable wage. You and the others nearer the top don;t mind paying for food stamps, housing and other necessities for those that aren't receiving a livable wage. Good for you.

You can pay the people at the bottom USD $100/hour its all relative as those then further up the ladder would see increases commensurate.

Ultimately it would only be inflationary and these people would still be on the bottom of the social pyramid doing the lower and common jobs.

If people want to improve and move up the ladder they must make themselves more valuable in employment market, whether this is via special skills, education, etc and stand out from the millions of people around you.

Pretty simple concept. One needs to earn that higher spot and benefits that come with it.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 24): You can pay the people at the bottom USD $100/hour its all relative as those then further up the ladder would see increases commensurate. Ultimately it would only be inflationary and these people would still be on the bottom of the social pyramid doing the lower and common jobs.

Not necessarily over the last 40 years in the USA there has become a large disparage in middle class wages. hence the declining middle class. If our minimum wage in 1970 of $1.35 per hour had tracked inflation it would be today about $22.00.

Having been a business owner in many forms since 1972, I always found I had to pay "livable" wages or I would have employees getting 2nd jobs or getting welfare (which ultimately the employer pays for) to support themselves or family. Employees will always move on for better opportunities and they should and I wished them well. But having to retrain staff every few months cost much more than having some people for at least a few years

I don;t think the ramp jobs are that lowly of a stepping stone in a career. I think chance are the guy wing walking the plane will give a sh*t more if he makes $15 hr than he would at $10 hr

Quoting jns13 (Reply 18):
the impoverished in third world countries...

Totally irrelevant to this particular topic.

Completely relevant, at least by way of analogy. The point is not whether talking about airport worker strikes is directly applicable to jobs opportunities/living conditions in third world countries, but rather the American myth of the self-selecting poor. I don't mean to compare living conditions or relative advantages but, in both cases, each population is often (and of course not always) born into circumstances which render the suggestion of "pulling oneself up by their bootstraps" insulting. That's not to say that, as some have mentioned, it's impossible to "better one's situation" through hard work and shrewd planning, but in reality (I think) the ability to do as much is based on context as much as it is personal will.

Quoting jns13 (Reply 18):
But if you're working two jobs and are living on a paycheck to paycheck basis, where is the money for that education going to come from? From your $10.10/hr wage? I don't think so. And what about the time?..When you're working your two underpaying jobs? When you're taking care of your kids, taking care of bills?

Other replies already pointed that you probably should think about getting more economically capable (so to speak) before thinking about "kids and bills". And, as a result, demanding others to pay for it. Of course, it's not always that simple. But even then nobody owes you. Like nobody owed me, an immigrant with a family, when I started with 5.50/hr.

Of course nobody does. And of course I greatly respect what was undoubtedly a tremendous amount of hard work and determination on your part. I just don't agree with the perception that only a select few have actively identified and chosen some sort of latent potential while the rest just sit around complaining about their situation, actively choosing not to act on the same. I think a vast majority of people in these situations would, if it were possible given the various complications and intricacies of modern society, love to have the opportunity or are even seeking the opportunity to improve their skills or income, but often cannot due to any number of reasons (including balancing subsistence wages with social obligations and time constraints). It's not quite as simple as just recognizing that you would do better to have these skills, and while "nobody owes you anything", I don't see why this should be an argument for penalizing those who are often locked out of opportunities to develop new skills.

When a CEO makes $17,000,000.00 a year, and an employee makes $9.00 an hour........... I think the "make yourself marketable" is a bone headed excuse. The income gap is insane.

Minimum wage is a wage that someone is supposed to survive on. Minimum wage has not flowed inflation. Had minimum wage rose the way it was supposed to, minimum wage would be near $20 an hour today. The excuse of all businesses is, they can't pay the higher wages without charging the customer more..... BULLSHEET! A candy bar in 2000 was about $0.50. Today it is $1.50.

A KFC 10 piece meal was $11.99 in 1999.... That same meal is now $26.99.

Prices keep climbing, wages stay the same. But.... Hey.... We are just supposed to accept it, and earn more skills.... And be more "marketable."

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 28): Prices keep climbing, wages stay the same. But.... Hey.... We are just supposed to accept it, and earn more skills.... And be more "marketable."

I'm getting REALLY sick of it. Something needs to change. Prices go up and wages stay flat.

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 29): I'm getting REALLY sick of it. Something needs to change. Prices go up and wages stay flat.

Sadly, I don't see any signs of hope, especially when the privileged say that people need to make themselves more marketable. The only way to get that education people keep suggesting, is to go to school. The costs associated with going to school are insane, and a $9.25 an hour job makes school nearly impossible to afford. The other option is going into debt. Sadly, I know plenty of well educated people who are marketable, that can't find a job that pays more than minimum wage! The "You are overqualified" excuse reigns supreme.

And, don't get me started on the outsourcing! The good jobs are rapidly vanishing. Companies are rapidly reducing workforces by using technology. Executives keep getting incredible salaries, and turning around to reduce wages for those who are "marketable." Meanwhile, the executives raise the prices on products that people need. Classic example? That pharmaceutical company raising the price of a single pill from $5 to several thousand dollars. The Koch brothers are culprits of how to fleece the hard working people. The politicians follow the Koch brothers demands, because the Koch brothers keep slipping money into the politicians pockets.

The sad reality? These protests are ignored when the politicians are eating steak dinners supplied by the rich. The airline industry has found a way to make incredible profits by adding more seats, and charging for everything. Outsourcing employees to the cheapest vendor increases the profit margins. If airlines could pay pilots $9.25 an hour, they would. In return, the executives would sign over a pay increase for themselves. Forbes magazine would call me the king, and the shareholders would clap as if I was a celebrity. My greed would help the company increase profits, because my ethics would be at zero. I would outsource my mother if it increased my bonus.

The CEO's of today are really no different than North Korea's supreme leader if you really think about it.

I have been saying all along.... These CEO's today are evil! I could never sleep peaceful at night if I stripped benefits from my workers, or replaced them with cheap labor. However, if I had $17,000,000.00 a year going into my bank account..... I would probably find a way to sleep better. After some time of collecting money like that, I would become greedy. When I become greedy, I won't care one bit about anyone but those fat checks.

[Edited 2015-11-20 04:18:34]

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 7): If jobs are to be classified as "entry level" and "not entry level" then I guess we should pass some laws so people with families or over the age of 21 can't work service jobs. We should also make sure that most towns limit low-paying service jobs because only entry level employees should be working at those anyway.   The idea that fast food jobs and the minimum wage are designed for schoolkids with no bills to pay is a complete farce.

First let me start off by saying I'm all for making sure people are paid a fair wage. However; entry level is just that entry level it also means entry pay but it does not mean you stay in that position for ever and then complain and demand a raise because your pay is still at entry level pay or in a entry level pay range.
As far as an individuals personal bills are concern that is their personal problem. It is no secret that many American live above their means all because they are trying to impress people in their lives. Just look at the housing crisis that happened and how many people had houses were impressing a lot of their friends and family but they could never afford the house to begin with. While one can blame the predatory lending practices of the banks you can not excuse the personal decisions made by individuals to buy something they knew they couldn't afford. So if a person cant afford to pay their bills that is not societies problem perhaps they should try living within their means.

When I started working for UA I was making $7.85 an hour I've worked my way up I to where I am now. I have a bachelor degree, I'm now working on obtaining my FAA dispatcher license so I can move into dispatch. Once I get into dispatch I'm planning on going back to college for my MBA. Why am I doing or planning to do all of this to make myself more marketable and also because I want to make more money so that I can live a little more comfortable.

I understand that sometimes mistakes we make as teenagers or young adults can derail our lives. But you don't have to let that mistake define you as a person or confine you to an entry level position for the rest of your life. Companies cannot base their pay scale on the current lifestyles of their employees. Just because entry level pay does not support an individuals lifestyle does not mean that the pay scale itself is unfair.

But the bigger question...

Did anyone even notice that the strike happened?

Were there any delays?

Were there any hiccups in operations?

Other than a few picketers from SEIU (who don't even work for the airlines), did anything actually happen?

Another important point, the world is a global marketplace.

As America unfortunately found out with much of its heavy manufacturing base if you pay too much you become uncompetitive and will lose business which means people will lose their jobs. Many of those "good paying jobs" were simply not competitive at those wages.

So in the world where there is the options of both the job going somewhere else and the fact that automation can increasingly do ever more, its not exactly the time to be looking to raise labor cost in the US.

Wow, the guy went to work in September for $10.10 per hour, and he is already on strike for 50% more pay?