Anti union pilots.....I don't get it.

[capt. megadeth]

1. They could not attract talented pilots such as your self to maintain their operations.

2. If you have the answers to your problems you should go into management and make the company a better place to work.

1. Well, thanks!

2. Uh, that would involve selling my soul to the dark side.....never gonna happen. You couldn't pay me enough to be a manager at UPS. Once you go into management, you can never go back.....
Not only that, but I am DEFINITELY not management material. In addition, I never mentioned any problems, so I dunno what you are talking about.

 

[Paradoxus]

hmmmm

Upton Sinclair was a late 19th century/early 20th century author who wrote about the brutal conditions American laborers of his time were forced to endure. Capitalism unchecked.

I'm not saying by any stretch that our contemporary masters of industry, namely the ones in aviation, are the evil slavers of a century ago.

We're not far off, however.

Yes, there are a plethora of examples of failed unionization. The pay and working conditions of the regionals quickly jump into focus here. The alternative being complete submission to a ruling class that care nothing for any of you: like so many assorted societal problems, the only area of interest to the powers that be find themselves pursuing is the bottom line.

If unionization fails to bring better working conditions and pay, or perhaps, it collapses the company in question, then that is the way it has to be. At least a stand was made for the integrity of the profession.

PilotYip, I'm sure things are fine at USA Jet. I've heard nothing but positive feedback on the operation. You yourself seem like a pretty stand-up guy to work with.

Regretably, USA Jet is not representative of the industry climate.

Where you are mistaken is, as PCL_128 put it, you naively seem to broadly designate aviation management as a whole as being more or less benevolent, equating somehow that they consider employee satisfaction as being generally of paramount concern in generating profits. I'm sure most of us have found this is simply not the case.

Did it not occur to you that perhaps the culture of the industry, with few exceptions, may consider a pilot workforce as being entirely disposable due in no small part to our own actions? As we've seen in the past, there have always been people willing to fill the seats.

I would submit to you that from the standpoint of owners and management that turnover is of extraordinarily little concern.

Musicman: Your illustration of economics is rather pedestrian. This is not an issue of supply and demand, nor is it an issue of economic theory as a whole any more than the choice of stereo I select for my car has any bearing on fuel efficiency. I select the current climate of relations that now exists between AA managment and labor as an example: the airline refuses to restore pay under the false pretense of ensuring their survival, while management pockets unprecedented millions in corporate-level bonuses.

Hmmmmm...the equilibrium of the supply and demand curve has certainly been disrupted there....

Without question, this debate has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with the preservation of integrity in a disintigrating profession.

 

[pilotyip]

"Did it not occur to you that perhaps the culture of the industry, with few exceptions, may consider a pilot workforce as being entirely disposable due in no small part to our own actions? As we've seen in the past, there have always been people willing to fill the seats".
Any management that considers pilots as a disposable workforce is smoking dope. If you don't value your pilot and threat them like you are lucky to have them working for you, you are in trouble at the lower end carriers.

 

[PCL_128]

Any management that considers pilots as a disposable workforce is smoking dope.

Then there's an awful lot of dope smoking going on in airline board rooms.

Paradoxus, excellent post. I've actually never read any of Upton Sinclair's works, but I'll definitely put that on the to-do list.

 

[Paradoxus]

yes

My point exactly. Certainly, I've been at the receiving end of some of those dope-smokers' management practices. Unfortunately, my observations of the business as a whole place that type as being the ruling elite.

I dunno...I try and put myself in their place and posit whether I would be corrupted and attempt to steal so much from the very engines of my revenue. Just like the megadeth fan over at UPS, I don't think I have the requisite level of moral flexibility for the job. I would end up resigning the first moment my hand was forced.

Were I an owner, I can tell you with great assurance that I would encourage the unionization of my pilots, if for nothing more than a show of good faith: people deserve representation if they want it. Our society was indeed built on this very notion; representation in government and law are integral to the American way, yes? Should not representation within the workforce be not so encouraged as it is in other levels of society?

Unionization is emphatically NOT synonomous with hostile management-labor relations.

In former times skilled labor was organized in guilds to safeguard the integrity of the profession, it is a practice as old as the exchange of money for services in human civilization. It is NOT automatically economically counterproductive any more than private firearms in the hands of citizenry *automatically* foster crime.

Epigrammatically, the real issue here is not why there *should* be unions in aviation, it is in fact the question of why *shouldn't* there be.

 

[Paradoxus]

nice

Thanks PCL.

Sinclair's The Jungle is an excellent primer on early 20th century labor conditions.

 

[Gandalf]

Wow, where do I start…..

PILOTYIP -
“Any management that considers pilots as a disposable workforce is smoking dope. If you don't value your pilot and threat them like you are lucky to have them working for you, you are in trouble at the lower end carriers….”

Are you kidding me? EVERY MANAGEMENT AT EVERY COMPANY CONSIDERS ITS WORKFORCE DISPOSABLE….

Business, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In economics, a business is a legally-recognized organizational entity existing within an economically free country designed to sell goods and/or services to consumers, usually in an effort to generate profit.

In predominantly capitalist economies, where most businesses are privately owned, businesses are typically formed to earn profit and grow the personal wealth of their owners.

The owners and operators of a business have as one of their main objectives the receipt or generation of a financial return in exchange for their work and their acceptance of risk

Again from Wikipedia.....

Nature of managerial work

In for-profit work, management has as its primary function the satisfaction of a range of stakeholders. This typically involves making a profit (for the shareholders), creating valued products at a reasonable cost (for customers), and providing rewarding employment opportunities (for employees).

Public, private, and voluntary sectors place different demands on managers, but all must retain the faith of those who select them (if they wish to retain their jobs), retain the faith of those people that fund the organization, and retain the faith of those who work for the organization...

Again, from Wikipedia....

"A trade union or labor union is an organization of workers. The trade union, through its leadership, bargains with the employer on behalf of union members (rank and file members) and negotiates labour contracts with employers. This may include the negotiation of wages, work rules, complaint procedures, rules governing hiring, firing and promotion of workers, benefits, workplace safety and policies.


WHERE IN THAT DEFINITION DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE PROFITABILITY OF THE COMPANY......IT DOESN'T....BECAUSE IT NOT THE UNIONS JOB....IT IS THE COMPANIES!!!

OK….We continue on…..

“…UNIONS at PROFITABLE companies like UPS can ensure the balance shares FAIRLY with the employees….”
“…They pay what they pay because they are a very PROFITABLE company. The UNION ensures that is FAIRLY SHARED…”
“…From what I have seen unions protect the weak performers. At PROFITABLE companies, NJ and UPS, FedEx UNIONS CAN ENSURE THAT MANAGEMENT SHARES WITH ITS EMPLOYEES…”

So, Although I commend your defense of unions against the post of "antisocialist" you contradict yourself all throughout your posts. It is a very naiiv e outlook to think that managements of companies will do their employees right ALL OF THE TIME.

How can the unions not be a beneficial thing for the employees, if you yourself state 3 times that the REASON THAT THE EMPLOYESS AT NJ, FEDEX, AND UPS get the pay and benefits that they do is due to the unions?

Again, contradicting statements in the same statement…”They pay what they pay because they are a very PROFITABLE company. The union ensures that is FAIRLY SHARED…”

HUH???? Either they pay what they pay due to the fact that they are profitable and management shares that with the employee or…. The union ensures that is fairly shared… NOT BOTH…..

AND NO “THEY” – MANAGEMENTS – WILL NEVER PAY WHAT THEY PAY BECAUSE THEY ARE PROFITABLE….

THEY PAY WHAT THEY PAY, BECAUSE IT WILL BE WHAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH PAYING!!! THAT IS THE VERY REASON THAT JOBS ARE BEING OUTSOURCED TO CHINA AND INDIA! THAT’S WHY WE HAVE MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FROM MEXICO, CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA FLOODING THE US FOR EMPLOYMENT!!!!

BECAUSE SOMEONE WILL EMPLOY THEM – CHEAPER WAGES= MORE PROFIT=SHAREHOLDERS HAPPY=KEEP MY JOB!!!!!!!!!

Do you actually believe that if given a choice the managements at NJ, FEDEX, and UPS would give their pilots what they have if there were no unions?

WHY IS IT THAT THESE PILOTS HAVE CHOSEN UNIONS! IF ALL YOU NEED IS A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH MANAGEMENT THEN WHY BOTHER? OH,…..MAYBE THE PILOTS AT THESE COMPANIES HAVE FIGURED OUT THAT ALTHOUGH A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH MANAGEMENT IS A GOOD THING, IT IS NOT EVERYTHING.

THEY ARE ASTUTE ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE FOCUS OF MANAGEMENT IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND AT MOST TIMES OPPOSITE THE FOCUS OF AN EMPLOYEE. IT HAS TO BE…IN ORDER FOR THE BUSINESS TO OPERATE PROFITABLY!!!! WHICH WE ALL WANT!!!!

HOWEVER, THOSE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT WILLING TO SACRIFICE CERTAIN THINGS IN THE NAME OF PROFITS.

NJ, FEDEX, AND UPS ARE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT…OH YEAH AND THAT OTHER COMPANY OUT THERE…SWA….IS AS WELL….

From Wikipedia - Transamerica was UNABLE TO RUN THE AIRLINE PROFITABLY, however, and as it divested its non-core holdings in the 1980s, sought a buyer for the airline. Finding none, the airline was dissolved and ceased operations on September 30, 1986.

“TRANSAMERICA” IN THAT DEFINITION IS THE COMPANY=MANAGEMENT. YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! WHEN THINGS ARE GOOD(PROFITABLE) FOR THE COMPANIES (your examples…NJ, FEDEX, AND UPS) THE EMPLOYEES ARE BETTER OFF BECAUSE OF THE UNIONS, BUT WHEN THINGS AREN’T SO GOOD IT IS THE UNIONS FAULT THAT THE EMPLOYEES ARE SUFFERING...

IS IT THE UNIONS FAULT THAT THE CEO JUST TOOK A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR BONUS WHEN THE COMPANY IS JUST EMERGING FROM BANKRUPTCY????!!!!

OR IS IT THE UNIONS FAULT THAT THE MARKET CONDITIONS CHANGED AND THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY DIDN'T REACT TO IT?

 

[pilotyip]

without taking care of your employees you are at a disadvantage in the market place. But there is balance.

 

[PCL_128]

without taking care of your employees you are at a disadvantage in the market place. But there is balance.

And that balance is usually only achieved with union intervention.

 

[pilotyip]

Not always directly

And that balance is usually only achieved with union intervention.

Companies that exceed pay, benefits, working conditions of union companies, give their employees the advances brought into the work force by the unions, without having to pay dues. The non-union transplants auto companies, do not have unions, but are reported to be better places to work than the UAW represented plants. Enlightened management understands. BTW I still remember the Teamsters taking dues out of my last paycheck as Zantop went out of buisness. I saved the pay stubb.