Skywest No-Voters

[buscap]

..... actually it's more like a cult than a religion.....

Joe,

I happen to know your extreme disagreement with ALPA does not stop you from knowing we are better off with unions than we would be without. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely!!

Crap dude!! I have huge problems with how democracy is doled out in this country, but I would much rather work within that system and make it better, than try to operate outside of a democratic system.

If at it's worst the question is the lessor of evils, having ALPA on the property is a slam dunk.

And you know how those guys are going to answer the interview questions!!

But I know darn well the interview questions will never be asked. And you know I'm right about their pay and benefits being at our expense. An expense which you have paid for, more than most through your volunteerism and in the courts.

 

[Caspian27]

And you know I'm right about their pay and benefits being at our expense. An expense which you have paid for, more than most through your volunteerism and in the courts.

Buscap,

Pay and benefits are a reflection of the economics of supply and demand. Not unionism! Whether or not your company is unionized does not make recession go away or bring about a bull market. Having a union gives us a black and white contract and a bargaining representative to help us fight for better pay. But the better pay will only come if the current economic situation is able to sustain it. If many pilots are trying to get few jobs, pay will be lower. If there are many jobs and few pilots, pay will be higher.

 

[buscap]

Buscap,

Pay and benefits are a reflection of the economics of supply and demand. Not unionism! Whether or not your company is unionized does not make recession go away or bring about a bull market. Having a union gives us a black and white contract and a bargaining representative to help us fight for better pay. But the better pay will only come if the current economic situation is able to sustain it. If many pilots are trying to get few jobs, pay will be lower. If there are many jobs and few pilots, pay will be higher.

I don't agree. If market forces alone were allowed to dictate our pay and QOL, just where do you think both would be?

The last wave of backsliding would've been much worse without the unions fighting for what the guys at the majors managed to keep.

 

[Andy Neill]

For those of you who voted no, whether it be an actual vote or failing to pick up the phone,....

Sorry for the thread divergence, but this raises an interesting point. I never saw any numbers for NO votes that were cast even though union supporters said you had such an option if you called in. You would think with as many people against the union that there would have been at least ONE vote for NO if that option was really available.

Was that another credibility gap like the "pilot's wife letter" in the previous drive. You wouldn't really mislead would you?

OK, back to the previously scheduled name calling.

 

[No.W.]

You know it's funny...I'm a capitalist...I understand "market forces". But don't you think management would prefer to keep wages low...even in "short" times ? If they can keep hiring pilots AND keep wages low...that's ideal. So what keeps them from being able to attain that? Two things...a true pilot shortage AND a strong, unified voice across company lines. This is the "collective bargaining" concept in a nutshell. It doesn't always work, but it's a valid concept...and one more check or balance in the capitalist system. Capitalism works, but unrestrained capitalism is not better than unrestrained socialism. There must be balance, and the best existence will be found in the tension. As the market forces, employee desires, shareholder desires, management strategies, union strategies and other things all work with and against each other...the market grows at a solid, stable and sustainable pace. Balance is the friend of sustainable economics. A union just serves(in it's proper role) as another balancing force. Letting capitalism run free with regard to the employee is not a good idea. We saw this in the industrial revolution...and that's where unions were first formed. Even the guilds of old illustrated the need for competitors in a single field to come together to balance out other market forces. It's never as simple as some would believe, is it? Many components, working in harmony, results in a strong economy...for everyone. I believe unions, especially in industries like ours, are an important piece of that harmony.

 

[Dubya]

UAL Pilot: "So, what did you vote the other month? Was it for ALPA or not?"
SKW Pilot: "Well, I voted for the union that got you your concessions back. And your pension. And the one that made you a dick."

Oooh......

ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding

We have a winner! Bob, tell him what he's won!

 

[Morning Wood]

UAL Pilot: "So, what did you vote the other month? Was it for ALPA or not?"
SKW Pilot: "Well, I voted for the union that got you your concessions back. And your pension. And the one that made you a dick."

Oooh......

What concessions have the UAL pilots won back?

 

[WalterSobchak]

A union thread that is almost 20 hours old...and no regurgitated diatribe from Rez O. Lewshun?

I kid, I kid...

 

[Occam's Razor]

If it was brought up in an interview, I think that would be extremely unprofessional. To use the religion analogy again: Is it professional to ask someone's religious beliefs in an interview, and then base the decision on the answer? Same thing.

Not quite, bucko!

Agency Shop makes attitudes toward unions fair game in interviews.

I won't ask you about your yarmulke, turban, or pentagram tattoo...but if you follow-up your sincere "I can get along with everybody!" responses with an anti-union answer...you'll make the early flight back home.

 

[jea]

I wonder how unionized the population of Detroit was back in the day... looks like its done the local economy there really well- that filters down to familys well being...

 

[Caspian27]

I don't agree. If market forces alone were allowed to dictate our pay and QOL, just where do you think both would be?

The last wave of backsliding would've been much worse without the unions fighting for what the guys at the majors managed to keep.

I agree with you here. The last wave of backsliding could have been worse without unions. However, why did we have backsliding? An economic recession that had nothing to do with the unions. The current market was unable to support what we had then, so backsliding occurred.

I think you missed my point entirely. Even with a union as a bargaining agent, the market can only support what it can support. Your backsliding example showed this. All of the major airlines are are union represented, yet they all had to give concessions because of the current economic state. Pilot supply was high, but demand for flying was low. Something had to give, and many gave it. Would it have been worse without union bargaining and representation? Absolutely.

My point is that even with union representation, the union can only give us what the economy will allow.

 

[SKYWRJGUY]

Sorry, I thought somewhere on this post it said "a repost...and a good one"---I was mistaken. SOS...

 

[buscap]

For FI it's been rather high-brow and on point with little YERMOM type comments. So I stand behind my decision to repost.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

A union thread that is almost 20 hours old...and no regurgitated diatribe from Rez O. Lewshun?

I kid, I kid...

nothing to say..what isn't already known.....

 

[waveflyer]

That's only so true

Buscap,

Pay and benefits are a reflection of the economics of supply and demand. Not unionism! Whether or not your company is unionized does not make recession go away or bring about a bull market. Having a union gives us a black and white contract and a bargaining representative to help us fight for better pay. But the better pay will only come if the current economic situation is able to sustain it. If many pilots are trying to get few jobs, pay will be lower. If there are many jobs and few pilots, pay will be higher.

This would be true if a pilot's career weren't governed by CBA's and seniority. Both of those interfere with the free hand of competition. (ie: instead of allowing weak companies to fold- major airline after major airline pilot group signed off on $$BILLIONS$$ in concessions rather than be the next Eastern or PanAm- Management knows this and uses it to their extreme advantage).

What you say should be true- but a trueer truism imp: is "you dont get what you're worth, you get what you negotiate."

Since 9/11 there has been explosive growth and constant hiring and movement throughout the regional industry, ie: lack of pilots- and yet NO regional saw raises that kept up with inflation- Why not? Again it's b/c as pilots I cannot use competition for my services to my advantage: ie: "Hi SkyWest, I have 8000 hours, 3 type ratings, 2500 TPIC, what can you offer me?" "Sure: We'd love to have you. Bottom of the list, 1st year poverty pay, worst schedules, less responsibility. When can you start?" It's not competition, and that's not a choice most of us can make once established at another competing airline. There ARE more jobs now than 6 years ago-- they have just grown from the regional sector... Does your theory hold up? Why couldn't SkyWest negotiate a pay raise during 5 years of explosive growth? It would appear to have been the time.

A more complete question: "IF SKYWEST COULDN'T NEGOTIATE A RAISE DURING THE LAST 5 YEARS, UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES COULD THEY?" How could you w/o the Self Help remedies entitled to you under the RLA.

One could assume that we are better off with unions- however w/ pay and QOL diminishing, we are approaching an area of pay/QOL where we don't know if that's true.

My argument: National List or get rid of seniority- become a guild/PAC and let us negotiate individually like other professions. Either way, make it possible and reasonable to be able to change companies w/o such severe penalties so that pilots can adjust to the dynamic airline marketplace.