well that was quick.....

[TheSulaco]

What a bunch pompous and elitist drivel! Why should factory workers not be represented and not be able to engage in collective bargaining while pilots have such representation?

You have zero clue about the history of unions and labor movements. If it wasn't for lowly factory workers, railway workers etc., we pilots would not have our unions and elitist associations and you wouldn't be knocking the very foundation on which you stand. REAL unions work in solidarity with other trades and skills.

I do not have a problem with unions, though I have been subject to some union funny business when I worked for Roadway express. This being said my wife word for International in their truck manufacturing division as a Human Resources Generalist. The highest paid factory worker was the janitor who averaged 70K a year. This to me is a little high for a individual who had no high school education or any specialized training.

 

[brokeflyer]

I do not have a problem with unions, though I have been subject to some union funny business when I worked for Roadway express. This being said my wife word for International in their truck manufacturing division as a Human Resources Generalist. The highest paid factory worker was the janitor who averaged 70K a year. This to me is a little high for a individual who had no high school education or any specialized training.

true, but that company then agreed to pay that guy that money?

 

[waka]

I do not have a problem with unions, though I have been subject to some union funny business when I worked for Roadway express. This being said my wife word for International in their truck manufacturing division as a Human Resources Generalist. The highest paid factory worker was the janitor who averaged 70K a year. This to me is a little high for a individual who had no high school education or any specialized training.

If said janitor had been there for say, 25 or 30 years, then I don't see a problem at all with 70k.

 

[G4dude]

true, but that company then agreed to pay that guy that money?

After being coerced by the union, which could shut the company down, exposing them to the cost of the equipment and the building and other overhead expenses. I have a friend who worked as a janitor (floor sweeper) in his younger days, in a union, and the union forced the company to hire SIX when one would have been enough. They stayed all day in the break room, with one guy going out on the floor to sweep at a time. How long can a company compete in the marketplace with stuff like this? Another friend worked in a union, for a railroad company, and every now and then, the union guys would move a rail car to the side and loot it.

 

[fischman]

After being coerced by the union, which could shut the company down, exposing them to the cost of the equipment and the building and other overhead expenses. I have a friend who worked as a janitor (floor sweeper) in his younger days, in a union, and the union forced the company to hire SIX when one would have been enough. They stayed all day in the break room, with one guy going out on the floor to sweep at a time. How long can a company compete in the marketplace with stuff like this? Another friend worked in a union, for a railroad company, and every now and then, the union guys would move a rail car to the side and loot it.

No one ever forces the company to sign the contract. If it isn't a good deal for the company, only a bad manager would agree to it.

 

[pilotyip]

No one ever forces the company to sign the contract. If it isn't a good deal for the company, only a bad manager would agree to it.

Not true, the threat of a work stoppage will often make a company sign a contract they know that is not in their best interest. They hope things will work out.

In 1994 the UAW pushed GM into a deal it knew it could most likely not fulfill. It gave unlimited medical and COLA to retirees. GM knew a lengthy strike might drive them into BK. They had exhausted the equity markets, and borrowing was the only solution. Much like living off your credit cards. So they bet on maybe things would work, but they knew in the end they were in trouble. The power of a potential union strike drove them to make a bad management decision. They were rescued for a number of years by selling high mark-up SUV’s. But they that market collapsed and the end was in sight for GM.

As they lost market share to foreign rivals, Detroit's auto makers and the UAW lost the power to set standards on labor costs. Yet during the prosperous 1990s, they seemed reluctant to accept the fact that their business model -- with its expensive defined-benefit health and pension programs -- was driving the domestic industry toward ruin. The UAW and its biggest employer have effectively conceded that their golden age of dominance is over.

GM executives consistently acknowledged that it couldn't be competitive in North America without a fundamental change in its labor-cost structure.

The UAW got a harsh lesson in the consequences of bankruptcy proceedings when former GM parts unit Delphi Corp. sought Chapter 11 protection in 2005, and pushed through substantial job and wage cuts under a deal subsidized by GM.

GM's obligation to provide health care for 412,356 union members, retirees and surviving spouses lies at the heart of the 1994 agreement. Even after a partial overhaul of retiree health-care benefits in 2005, GM still faced a $51 billion obligation to UAW members. Health-care obligations added more than $1,900 to the cost of every GM vehicle sold in the U.S. in 2006, a heavy burden given that many GM vehicles sold for less than competing Toyota vehicles.

 

[Pervis]

Not true, the threat of a work stoppage will often make a company sign a contract they know that is not in their best interest. They hope things will work out.

Not much of a threat for those of us working under the RLA, regardless of who is in the White House.

 

[pilotyip]

Not much of a threat for those of us working under the RLA, regardless of who is in the White House.

Yea, but you can still go on strike under the RLA, and we are talking about NJ which I don't think is covered by RLA. BTW FDR dealt with one strike threat in Dec 1943, the railroad union was going to shut down the rail system on New Year’s Eve, right during the build up for D-Day. FDR said let'em strike, they will all be drafted into the Army on 1-1-44 and be paid Pvt.’s wages and be forced to operate trains, if they don’t operate the trains, they go to the Pacific or Europe. Guess what, No strike.

 

[brokeflyer]

thats stupid for a company to think they are "forced" to sign a contract. its a negotiation, no wonder management is stupid.

they get a union only if they deserve it.

 

[pilotyip]

thats stupid for a company to think they are "forced" to sign a contract. its a negotiation, no wonder management is stupid.

I am sure you believe that is true. There are other's who believe that is not true. There is long history of companies with great union contracts that are no longer in business or used BK to break the contract to ensure the companies survival. BTW With all your insights into management practices, you should move into management and make the company a better place to work; you owe it to your fellow pilots,

 

[Pervis]

Yea, but you can still go on strike under the RLA, and we are talking about NJ which I don't think is covered by RLA.

Yes, Netjets is covered by the RLA. Makes no sense, as we have little impact on a national scale, but we are. The NLRB has to release us, just like any airline, to seek self help, or in other words, strike. Do you think we would have wasted 4+ years negotiating for that POSTA in 2004 if we could have forced the issue more aggresively?

 

[fischman]

Yea, but you can still go on strike under the RLA, and we are talking about NJ which I don't think is covered by RLA. BTW FDR dealt with one strike threat in Dec 1943, the railroad union was going to shut down the rail system on New Year’s Eve, right during the build up for D-Day. FDR said let'em strike, they will all be drafted into the Army on 1-1-44 and be paid Pvt.’s wages and be forced to operate trains, if they don’t operate the trains, they go to the Pacific or Europe. Guess what, No strike.

NetJets falls under the RLA.

 

[fischman]

Not true, the threat of a work stoppage will often make a company sign a contract they know that is not in their best interest. They hope things will work out.

In 1994 the UAW pushed GM into a deal it knew it could most likely not fulfill. It gave unlimited medical and COLA to retirees. GM knew a lengthy strike might drive them into BK. They had exhausted the equity markets, and borrowing was the only solution. Much like living off your credit cards. So they bet on maybe things would work, but they knew in the end they were in trouble. The power of a potential union strike drove them to make a bad management decision. They were rescued for a number of years by selling high mark-up SUV’s. But they that market collapsed and the end was in sight for GM.

As they lost market share to foreign rivals, Detroit's auto makers and the UAW lost the power to set standards on labor costs. Yet during the prosperous 1990s, they seemed reluctant to accept the fact that their business model -- with its expensive defined-benefit health and pension programs -- was driving the domestic industry toward ruin. The UAW and its biggest employer have effectively conceded that their golden age of dominance is over.

GM executives consistently acknowledged that it couldn't be competitive in North America without a fundamental change in its labor-cost structure.

The UAW got a harsh lesson in the consequences of bankruptcy proceedings when former GM parts unit Delphi Corp. sought Chapter 11 protection in 2005, and pushed through substantial job and wage cuts under a deal subsidized by GM.

GM's obligation to provide health care for 412,356 union members, retirees and surviving spouses lies at the heart of the 1994 agreement. Even after a partial overhaul of retiree health-care benefits in 2005, GM still faced a $51 billion obligation to UAW members. Health-care obligations added more than $1,900 to the cost of every GM vehicle sold in the U.S. in 2006, a heavy burden given that many GM vehicles sold for less than competing Toyota vehicles.

Like I said, GM management was part of the negotiations. Only a BAD MANAGER would have agreed to such a ridiculous deal.

 

[pilotyip]

Yes, Netjets is covered by the RLA. Makes no sense, as we have little impact on a national scale, but we are. The NLRB has to release us, just like any airline, to seek self help, or in other words, strike. Do you think we would have wasted 4+ years negotiating for that POSTA in 2004 if we could have forced the issue more aggresively?

really, that surprises me, you do not hold out for public convenience, any way who ever said NRLB made sense. And guessing on what would have happened if had been allowed to be more agressive, it just that; a guess.

 

[rajflyboy]

You peeps need to realize that there is a giant difference between Private Unions and Public unions

The stuff that is going on within Public Unions is utterly disgusting. Making the taxpayers pay for their giant retirements whilst the rest of us have 401k's with no defined pensions > and then we have to pay for these public union defined (LIFELONG) retirements through taxation.

Good like people of Ohio because you will have much higher taxes in the future. Too bad because you sheep that live there deserve the higher taxes because you voted yes for this BS prop 2 last Tuesday.

 

[waka]

You peeps need to realize that there is a giant difference between Private Unions and Public unions

The stuff that is going on within Public Unions is utterly disgusting. Making the taxpayers pay for their giant retirements whilst the rest of us have 401k's with no defined pensions > and then we have to pay for these public union defined (LIFELONG) retirements through taxation.

Good like people of Ohio because you will have much higher taxes in the future. Too bad because you sheep that live there deserve the higher taxes because you voted yes for this BS prop 2 last Tuesday.

There is no such thing as a private union or a public union. If you mean that there are unions that represent public sector employees vs unions that represent private sector employees, then yes....but your point on public vs private is moot. However, as far as unions go, there is no difference. This is echoed by the AFLCIO as well as many labor movement organizations.

As for Prop 2, Kudos to the citizens of Ohio! Justice and reason has prevailed.

 

[pilotyip]

As for Prop 2, Kudos to the citizens of Ohio! Justice and reason has prevailed.

I suppose that is one way to look at it. However the fact the unions spent $35M to ensure the issue would be defeated, is an other way to look at it. The left leaning FDR and F. Lagardia both said public employees should not be unionized for there is no incentive on the political side to control costs.

 

[rajflyboy]

There is no such thing as a private union or a public union. If you mean that there are unions that represent public sector employees vs unions that represent private sector employees, then yes....but your point on public vs private is moot. However, as far as unions go, there is no difference. This is echoed by the AFLCIO as well as many labor movement organizations.

As for Prop 2, Kudos to the citizens of Ohio! Justice and reason has prevailed.

Well

You just proved what an uninformed SHEEP you are. There is a huge difference between a public sector union and a private sector union.

again you need to get the facts. Taxpayers are picking up these giant pensions because GOVCO cannot afford them. In the private sector these companies go bankrupt. Get a clue

 

[rajflyboy]

There is no such thing as a private union or a public union. If you mean that there are unions that represent public sector employees vs unions that represent private sector employees, then yes....but your point on public vs private is moot. However, as far as unions go, there is no difference. This is echoed by the AFLCIO as well as many labor movement organizations.

As for Prop 2, Kudos to the citizens of Ohio! Justice and reason has prevailed.

So you agree that someone making 50G a year and has to work well into his or her 60's in a private sector job with only a 401k to live on should have to pay taxes so that a public sector employee can retire at 55 and collect a pension thats well over 50G a year for the rest of his life.

Ohio is already broke >> and is going to be much deeper in debt in the very near future

 

[brokeflyer]

I am sure you believe that is true. There are other's who believe that is not true. There is long history of companies with great union contracts that are no longer in business or used BK to break the contract to ensure the companies survival. BTW With all your insights into management practices, you should move into management and make the company a better place to work; you owe it to your fellow pilots,

im retired now.

 

[waka]

I suppose that is one way to look at it. However the fact the unions spent $35M to ensure the issue would be defeated, is an other way to look at it. The left leaning FDR and F. Lagardia both said public employees should not be unionized for there is no incentive on the political side to control costs.

Are you kidding? 35M is paltry compared to money spent by corporate lobbyists. Besides, their statement about controlling costs were in a time that executives weren't paid the exorbitant money that they're paid now. Do you actually think that they're concerned with cost control in regard to their salary bonuses? Think again.

 

[waka]

Well

You just proved what an uninformed SHEEP you are. There is a huge difference between a public sector union and a private sector union.

"Well", no, there isn't.

Instead of just MINDLESSLY regurgitating what you're told and talking out of your ass, show your work and enumerate in labor law such a distinction. I can save you some time. There is exactly zero difference in labor unions representing private and public sector employees regarding labor law. The right wing spin machine has tried to sell the idea that collective bargaining for the public sector is what ails society economically so as to obfuscate the real issues and you are one of the buyers (loose with your money are ya?).

again you need to get the facts. Taxpayers are picking up these giant pensions because GOVCO cannot afford them. In the private sector these companies go bankrupt. Get a clue

Facts check sonny. When it comes to labor law (except when knee-jerk reactionary Republicans, say, in Wisconsin, that are trying to change it), it doesn't matter whether unions are representing the public or private sector. Worker's rights are worker's rights, period. i.e. So, when your house is on fire, the fire fighters shouldn't be able to bargain for their QOL??

You are galactically ignorant......apparently, by choice. I advise you to look beyond your nose.

 

[waka]

[/B]


So you agree that someone making 50G a year and has to work well into his or her 60's in a private sector job with only a 401k to live on should have to pay taxes so that a public sector employee can retire at 55 and collect a pension thats well over 50G a year for the rest of his life.

A. Quit making up straw man numbers and arguments. That said, I would prefer that taxes are raised on those making well over 50K. In that sense, those that benefit most should pay their share and if that means that paying taxes so a public sector employee can retire at whatever age for which their union can bargain, so be it.

Ohio is already broke >> and is going to be much deeper in debt in the very near future

Blame it on giving public sector workers their right to collectively bargain. Yeah right, they're the source of Ohio's budget woes, but don't consider the tax breaks for the wealthy.

I can see you having your opinion if you're wealthy. The funny thing is (unless you're signing bonus checks to executives and sports superstars) you're just another mindless sucker.

 

[G4dude]

I am sure you believe that is true. There are other's who believe that is not true. There is long history of companies with great union contracts that are no longer in business or used BK to break the contract to ensure the companies survival. BTW With all your insights into management practices, you should move into management and make the company a better place to work; you owe it to your fellow pilots,

Here is my favorite story: A couple of years ago, a Democratic congressman was campaigning, and talking about how he enjoyed his union job when he was younger, how good a deal the union got him and his coworkers. I checked, and discovered that company is now out of business, and has been for quite some time. Pretty funny.

 

[G4dude]

Well

You just proved what an uninformed SHEEP you are. There is a huge difference between a public sector union and a private sector union.

again you need to get the facts. Taxpayers are picking up these giant pensions because GOVCO cannot afford them. In the private sector these companies go bankrupt. Get a clue

Raj, I agree with you, but you might want to dial down the vitriol. Easy does it!

 

[G4dude]

"Well", no, there isn't.

Instead of just MINDLESSLY regurgitating what you're told and talking out of your ass, show your work and enumerate in labor law such a distinction. I can save you some time. There is exactly zero difference in labor unions representing private and public sector employees regarding labor law. The right wing spin machine has tried to sell the idea that collective bargaining for the public sector is what ails society economically so as to obfuscate the real issues and you are one of the buyers (loose with your money are ya?).



Facts check sonny. When it comes to labor law (except when knee-jerk reactionary Republicans, say, in Wisconsin, that are trying to change it), it doesn't matter whether unions are representing the public or private sector. Worker's rights are worker's rights, period. i.e. So, when your house is on fire, the fire fighters shouldn't be able to bargain for their QOL??

You are galactically ignorant......apparently, by choice. I advise you to look beyond your nose.

I have always been curious about this issue. I understand the argument of those who say we need unions to protect workers from the supposed predations of the marketplace, but what protections do GOVERNMENT workers need? They have always had job security, low productivity requirements, and never had to worry about layoffs and economic cycles. BTW, JFK started the government union rule; the political benefit was the ability to expand the federal workforce with people whose union would make massive donations to his Party.

 

[G4dude]

A. Quit making up straw man numbers and arguments. That said, I would prefer that taxes are raised on those making well over 50K. In that sense, those that benefit most should pay their share and if that means that paying taxes so a public sector employee can retire at whatever age for which their union can bargain, so be it.



Blame it on giving public sector workers their right to collectively bargain. Yeah right, they're the source of Ohio's budget woes, but don't consider the tax breaks for the wealthy.

I can see you having your opinion if you're wealthy. The funny thing is (unless you're signing bonus checks to executives and sports superstars) you're just another mindless sucker.

If you took ALL the money from the wealthy, Ohio (and the US) would still be broke because of the union pensions and medical benefits at retirement.

 

[pilotyip]

"You are galactically ignorant......apparently, by choice. I advise you to look beyond your nose.

Ah! the classic liberal, name calling it fits so well on FI. Little story of public employee unions, City of Detroit, Retiree compensation and benefits are now 25% of the total budget for Detroit. Contract written in the 60's and 70's when the city had 1.7M people is now a city of under 500K taxpayers. The city may have to go BK to break the contracts. In the mean time currently employed cops and Firefighters are laid off to save. The murder rate goes up and houses burn down because of no response. Funny thing about these dedicated public employees, the retirees have all moved out of the city because the taxes are too high, so the City of Detroit money it doesn't have flows out of the city.

 

[OPECJet]

I have always been curious about this issue. I understand the argument of those who say we need unions to protect workers from the supposed predations of the marketplace, but what protections do GOVERNMENT workers need? They have always had job security, low productivity requirements, and never had to worry about layoffs and economic cycles. BTW, JFK started the government union rule; the political benefit was the ability to expand the federal workforce with people whose union would make massive donations to his Party.

Job security is a thing of the past in gov't work. Agreed about the low productivity requirements.

 

[waka]

Ah! the classic liberal, name calling it fits so well on FI.

Ah! The classic conservative hypocrite, selectively ignores the name-calling from the right (from rajflyboy in this case) to which I was responding. Yet, you're quick to preach about name-calling to those whom disagree with you.

Little story of public employee unions, City of Detroit, Retiree compensation and benefits are now 25% of the total budget for Detroit. Contract written in the 60's and 70's when the city had 1.7M people is now a city of under 500K taxpayers. The city may have to go BK to break the contracts. In the mean time currently employed cops and Firefighters are laid off to save. The murder rate goes up and houses burn down because of no response. Funny thing about these dedicated public employees, the retirees have all moved out of the city because the taxes are too high, so the City of Detroit money it doesn't have flows out of the city.

That's just sucks. However, is it the fault of the retirees? No. Most conservatives like you like to blame problems with intricate and complex causes to simple ones that fit into the type of catchy one-liners that are abused by right wing radio spinmeisters. This makes it such that the target audience can feel good about their refusal or inability to think.