Cap/Com No. 100: Kickass! Workers buy their airline.

[Az]

Not many, I'd say, especially given that Israel isn't exactly big and this isn't their main airline. You could probably do some rough figuring from their financials. They seem to do about $170 million in revenues. WestJet did just over a billion (Canadian) with around 50 planes. So figure Knafaim is about one-fifth the size.

Edit: And that might be overstating it, considering Knafaim seems to have ownership interests in other ventures.

Nah, Knafaim is the previous owner. They were a subsidiary!

Do they own something if they lose that ownership without compensation if they die, quit or become unable to work?

If I truly own something, I ( or my estate) continues ownership until I sell it or volunatrily surrender it

[/q]

That's why a union has great pension plans, and other things, that use the profits. The money is tied to the worker. What else can the union do with it?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by JohnT
Also, this was done about a decade ago, with the employee led buyout of United Airlines.

We know how well that turned out.

[DanS]

I am neutral regarding workers buying their employer. However, I note that the employees buying United Airlines has been one big **** up.

[DanS]

Ooo. Good cross-post.

[Mr. Harley]

UAL ESOP left much of the board in place, and never did quite get control of the corporation. That was one of the major problems, it was a bastard plan and was a very effective vehicle to profit off the employees while still maintaining control/exorbitant salaries for the corporate officers/board. By the time 9/11 happened, the situation was so f**ked up that the airline had the worst of both worlds, i.e. ESOP and normal incestuous coporate/board officers.

From Business Week.

Then in October, United's ALPA chapter elected a militant, Frederick C. Dubinsky, to replace pro-ESOP Michael Glawe as its chairman. Dubinsky led several of ALPA's early buyout efforts at United but opposed the 1994 ESOP because it didn't give labor more control for its 55% stake. He came to power again by promising to win big pay hikes. After that, the pilots will address ''the ESOP perpetuation contingent on the right condition, and that is how much we're paying for the stock'' in wage or benefit cuts, says Dubinsky....

The wild ride of UAL stock has also helped erode employees' enthusiasm for the ESOP. The company's shares more than quadrupled since the buyout through 1997, handily beating the market. But the stock has plunged by some 45% since April, 1999, as airlines stocks were savaged by high oil prices. And since an ESOP is a retirement plan, employees can't sell until they retire or leave the company. ''A lot of guys don't want to take the chance that the stock is going to be valuable when they retire,'' says George Ramirez, a United pilot since 1988. Agrees one lower-paid baggage handler: ''I'd like to invest myself, take my own chances.''

United employees also know they won't be giving up much immediately by letting the current ESOP lapse. Even if the unions stop buying stock this year, they are guaranteed three seats on the 12-member UAL board, a 75% vote on shareholder questions, and veto power over such matters as naming a chairman and approving big acquisitions or spin-offs until their collective holdings drop to 20%. Based on anticipated attrition and retirement rates, the unions don't expect to cross that threshold until about 2016. ''The question is, what's the present value of something that's not going to happen for 15 or 16 years?'' asks one union consultant.

Note - 55% of the stock, three seats (out of 12!!!) on the board. Only able to sell the stock on retirement. Note that in the normal corporate world with 55% of the stock - you de facto control the corporation, unless there are special categories of stock. Bad example, and the employees feel for that one hook, line, and sinker.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JohnT
Also, this was done about a decade ago, with the employee led buyout of United Airlines.

Except that in the case of United, the unions were scammed, and all real power remained in the hands of the parent corp.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Whats that famous Gen. Robert E Lee quote about a good general can not love his army too much?

[Whaleboy]

Cap
Com

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Cap
Com

[Az]

Whats that famous Gen. Robert E Lee quote about a good general can not love his army too much?

Who's the "command economy" now?

Seriously, I think that in these cases, the workers will be much more flexible, since their management is their own making.

[chequita guevara]

Generally speaking, often times workers are able to better cut costs and make the workplace more efficient. The test is in seeing whether they can plan for the future. In Peru, after the leftist coup of 1968, the workers took over a sugar factory and ran it into the ground, because all the workers stole from the plant.

[Az]

Serves them right, shame for their families, though.

[chequita guevara]

I think owning/running your workplace requires a certain level of consciousness, that peasants turned worker don't really have.

[Az]

It depends on the society, really.

Politics are culture-specific.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Azazel

Whats that famous Gen. Robert E Lee quote about a good general can not love his army too much?

Who's the "command economy" now?

Seriously, I think that in these cases, the workers will be much more flexible, since their management is their own making.

The context was Gen. Lee was commenting on the requirement to make hard decisions to put men in harms way in order to achieve the larger goal. The question is can a worker owned company make those same hard decisions (i.e. layoffs and downsizing) if required?

Flexibility and deciding to work more productively may afford some short term gains but eventually the day of reckoning does come.

And Che did you mean consciouness or lack of conscience?