The whole world (except CEOs and other members of the elite) complains that CEOs get paid too much and front line workers too little. Yet, the minimum wage isn't adjusted to inflation (if it were it would be upward of $20/hr) and front line workers get silently laid off in droves.
And don't even start with "should have joined a union" because apparently they can't do anything about it either.
3pnr you are wrong. Layoff contract language applies to all members. You are focused on the fact that pre-2003 members just can't be laid off at all. The multi step process of laying off post 2003 members makes it near impossible to trigger a layoff of post 2003 people since super ipps would need to be offered to the area of layoff. I doubt there is anywhere in the unionized footprint that would not get enough volunteers to make a layoff needed. Those that moan about the lesser protection should stop moaning about it. We didn't have the protection until the late nineties after fighting for it. I do agree it was a sign of weakness to give it up for future employees in 2003 , however every member at the tome was covered and the consenus was why foght for someone not currently if ever to be employed. If the post 2003 members want this same protection in the future it will be their fight to get it. I fully support them in that fight although I doubt I will be around by the time they choose to take up the battle.
Ehh maybe but I was hired after 2003 so layoff protection wouldn't apply to me. And eliminating entire titles nationwide is an easy way around that anyway.
What do you mean the union cant do anything about it? The union may not be able to do too much about the issue of executive pay but at least they can help you to not become a statistic who just gets canned because the CEO needs to make the numbers look good for the next quarter.