Time for Change in Unions

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Not evil all, just not affordable at $103B over 15 years

So what is the solution... they entered into a contract. They earned it.... is your MIL pension open for renegotiation?

 

[CopilotDoug]

Were the contracts sustainable with the market share GM had back in '79 ?

 

[pilotyip]

Example of excessive union power

So what is the solution... they entered into a contract. They earned it.... is your MIL pension open for renegotiation?

GM was afraid of the union power to strike and gave them what they wanted even though they knew they could not afford it. Union leaders were afraid of the union membership and were afraid to take less in the contract. Strikes are devastating to a company and GM looked at going out of business in 14 years as better than going out in 14 months. BTW Under BO’s trickle up poverty some gov’t official will decide than drawing both my Mil retirement and social security is not in keeping with the gov’t mission of helping the poor people and they tell me I can choose one or the other because I can get by without one of them.

 

[CopilotDoug]

Be specific. How.

Rez, Singlecoil summed up the thought process used very well. More specific examples of the Union looking out for its own interests can be found in the thread where you debated FormerFr8Dawg (I think that was his name) about ALOHA and how ALPA mishandled that.

I'll answer this one for you Rez. Belchfire's solution sounds very simple, and I'm sure it would go something like this: an airline violates the CBA in the opinion of the MEC of that airline. They then call for a suspension of service until the matter is resolved. The airline then sues the union and claims that they are in violation of the RLA. The judge sides with the company since they are clearly in violation of the RLA and issues an injunction against the union which effectively bankrupts said union. The pilots are then faced with the dilemma of being hit with a large assessment or declaring the union bankrupt and decertifying it. Now the airline has pilots that either have no union, or owe so much on the assessment that they have absolutely no ability to effectively threaten a strike during any negotiations in the the near future...
It would be foolish for a union to expect any result other than being slapped with an injunction should they attempt to push the envelope of the RLA in any degree.

The decision process is effectively "Is This Good For ALPA?"

 

[OHGOON]

GM was afraid of the union power to strike and gave them what they wanted even though they knew they could not afford it. Union leaders were afraid of the union membership and were afraid to take less in the contract. Strikes are devastating to a company and GM looked at going out of business in 14 years as better than going out in 14 months.

So the leadership of both sides were "afraid" and no one took responsibility for the ultimate outcome. How come you blame the Union and give management a free pass?

Let's see, to sum it up it goes something like this.....The collective choices made by the US auto industry, since the late sixties, to stop innovating and just repackage the same tired old crap is plainly the fault of the guy screwing on that substandard plastic bumper. He just costs too much. His pension and healthcare is the problem.

Could it be you secretly identify with management's "I've got mine and yours" mentality more readily? Want some proof???

BTW Under BO’s trickle up poverty some gov’t official will decide than drawing both my Mil retirement and social security is not in keeping with the gov’t mission of helping the poor people and they tell me I can choose one or the other because I can get by without one of them.

Yup, here it is! It's horrible to spend money on other people, "poor people" no less. Oh my god, they are going to take away my pension and or my social security. The government, the government......of course the alternative is to just raise all our taxes and pay for what it costs to support you in the manner you've become accustomed to.....but I'm pretty sure you'd have a problem with that too. What to do, what to do, we're so afraid...

BTW, could you help me understand why a union negotiated pension is bad but a government pension is sacrosanct?

 

[pilotyip]

BTW, could you help me understand why a union negotiated pension is bad but a government pension is sacrosanct?

gov't prints money when they need more, corps can not do that once their credit is shot, BK then allows them to renegotiate a contract. Very simple

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

gov't prints money when they need more, corps can not do that once their credit is shot, BK then allows them to renegotiate a contract. Very simple

No, he wants to know why socialist employees are entitled than are free market employees....

 

[pilotyip]

don't follow, must be some shortcut language

No, he wants to know why socialist employees are entitled than are free market employees....

don't follow, must be some shortcut language, what are you saying he is saying?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

don't follow, must be some shortcut language, what are you saying he is saying?

That govt is more moral than free enterprise....

 

[OHGOON]

don't follow, must be some shortcut language, what are you saying he is saying?

Let me break it down for you.

Your position seems to be that the cost of union pensions are too high and should be cut back or maybe even eliminated because the American Auto Industry is struggling to stay afloat economically. In the same breath you are outraged that the Federal Government may consider reducing your retirement benefits sometime in the future because, just like GM, they also are running huge deficits. My question remains what makes you so special that you should be exempt from your own logic when it comes to retirement costs?

In other words, if you are willing to support cuts for that UAW worker then shouldn't you also have no problems with accepting the same in kind when it comes to your own retirement package? Seems to me what's good for the goose should be good for the gander, No??

 

[pilotyip]

don't follow

Let me break it down for you.

Your position seems to be that the cost of union pensions are too high and should be cut back or maybe even eliminated because the American Auto Industry is struggling to stay afloat economically. In the same breath you are outraged that the Federal Government may consider reducing your retirement benefits sometime in the future because, just like GM, they also are running huge deficits. My question remains what makes you so special that you should be exempt from your own logic when it comes to retirement costs?

In other words, if you are willing to support cuts for that UAW worker then shouldn't you also have no problems with accepting the same in kind when it comes to your own retirement package? Seems to me what's good for the goose should be good for the gander, No??

New poster I see, welcome to FI. Throwing stuff from behind a screen name, feels kinda good doesn't it, later on throw in a little name calling, character assassination and you will be in classic FI form at home. Anyway, where have I ever said that I felt my military pension was untouchable? I have only said when a burden becomes unbearable, for whatever reasons an entity, private Corp, or gov't unit can declare BK and do what is necessary to protect itself. GM did this, the city of Pontiac did this. The Fed gov't unlike state and local has the ability to print more money which is part of the problem. BTW There is story going around that he gov't is spending like drunken sailors, I know that is not true having spent time with drunken sailors. Drunken sailors stop spending when they are out of money.