destruction of unions

[Kalifornia]

Unions kill companies with excessive demands, and make them non-competitive. 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.

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 yesterday's 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.




as they are doing in Wisc, Tuesday will prove how effective this is.

BTW: From the history books, it is 1941, Russia and Germany sign a non-aggression pact. The US is mobilizing, the arms are going to the UK under lead lease. Russia dosn't like arms going to someone who is a war with their buddy Germany. So the communist party calls for strikes throughout the US armaments industry using organized labor. Now June 1941 Germany invades Russia, Russia needs lean lease materiel. Hopkins tells Stalin that the strikes are limiting US arms production, suddenly the strikes diminish. History of labor unions, it is in the history books.

Yea, that's one extreme. The other extreme are the countless deaths and accidents caused by poor working conditions. Ludlow Massacre. Slavery is basically capitalism without boundaries.

It's taken hundreds of airplane accidents over the past 100 years to get to all the regulations in place in this industry.

Let's not forget that the management teams have their own unions in the form of trade associations, wealth management groups, lobbyist, lawyers,.

 

[flythere]

I agree. Both have political perspectives. Fox is utterly dishonest about what they are. Also much more deceptive with their methods. I will give them credit for being crafty and effective.

Then where will a person get their news and information from, if we can't trust any of these aforementioned news outlets? So you say FOX is so corrupt and untrustworthy, yet the other networks are just as bad! Who do we trust then? Do we trust anonymous posters on flightinfo.com? Do we trust bloggers who have an agenda? Just who then do we trust to give us honest answers to tough questions????

Do we trust our unions who have an agenda, some good, some bad! Do we trust our employers who provide us a job and paycheck? Do we trust elected officials who have an agenda?

I think it's up to the individual to get as much info as they can, then it's up to them to make an informed decision. But I think we ALL need to respect each others opinions!

 

[J3guy]

It blows my mind how easily the right has brainwashed you fools into thinking that unions are bad. Strong unions = a strong middle class. No unions = a strong upper classs.

BTW, pilots are labour, not management.

Ummm, who pay's the high taxes that support union's inflated benefit packages?? That's right, middle class. I don't know what teachers are paid across this country. I am familiar with what they are paid in WI. It is very high with benefits you just don't see in the private sector.

My wife attended a highschool in wi were a teacher had a large number of complaints of sexual abuse from kids with disabilities. The union fought for him and he still has his job and pension. I don't even have a pension!

I would challenge all the "underpaid" teachers to quit there jobs and get into social services. Help those that are underprivileged. Help those that have mental retardation or autism. Those that desperately need help and few are willing to help. You won't make more than 30k, crappy medical, no pension, at best a lousy 401k match, long hours, difficult situations to handle, occasionally hit in the head by a milk crate by a 15 yr old retarded child, you get the idea.

We all need to evaluate what is important in life. For me its not making the most and having the most toys. I don't believe that is our purpose in life.
If you only make 70k as a teacher where is the problem? Can you not live comfortably on 70k?

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Ummm, who pay's the high taxes that support union's inflated benefit packages?? That's right, middle class. I don't know what teachers are paid across this country. I am familiar with what they are paid in WI. It is very high with benefits you just don't see in the private sector.

My wife attended a highschool in wi were a teacher had a large number of complaints of sexual abuse from kids with disabilities. The union fought for him and he still has his job and pension. I don't even have a pension!

I would challenge all the "underpaid" teachers to quit there jobs and get into social services. Help those that are underprivileged. Help those that have mental retardation or autism. Those that desperately need help and few are willing to help. You won't make more than 30k, crappy medical, no pension, at best a lousy 401k match, long hours, difficult situations to handle, occasionally hit in the head by a milk crate by a 15 yr old retarded child, you get the idea.

We all need to evaluate what is important in life. For me its not making the most and having the most toys. I don't believe that is our purpose in life.
If you only make 70k as a teacher where is the problem? Can you not live comfortably on 70k?

Posterboy for the demise of the middle class, he engineered the destruction of the private sector with this drivel and wants to drag the public sector into the sewer along side himself. Instead of championing election reform to rid the public sector of career politicians, and the inept he thinks that being chronically underemployed will give the masses plenty of time to fix the wrongs in this country. Newsflash, the private sector gutted the unions first, the public sector is just following along. Destroying the middle class will only do one thing, shift more wealth to the top, just like it has happened.

 

[densoo]

Unions EQUAL a middle class. EOM.

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...of the middle class&sa=N&biw=480&bih=268#i=57

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...88.2-4j1j3j2.10.0...0.0.86_EPPfbh28&mvs=0#i=7

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...88.2-4j1j3j2.10.0...0.0.86_EPPfbh28&mvs=0#i=0

http://www.willisms.com/archives/unionmembershipdown.gif

 

[eskimopilot]

Adam Smith noted the imbalance in the rights of workers in regards to owners (or "masters"). In The Wealth of Nations, Book I, chapter 8, Smith wrote:
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combination of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate[.] When workers combine, masters ... never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, labourers, and journeymen.

 

[jayme]

Exactly what I was going to say! (Ha ha!)

Weak unionization leaves more money for management, so management fights them. They hire law firms like Ford & Harrison and lobby congress to pass anti-union laws and install anti-union appointees in key government offices. It's incredible how much some pilots sympathize with these managers who do everything they can to squeeze us to death.

 

[JT12345]

Then where will a person get their news and information from, if we can't trust any of these aforementioned news outlets? So you say FOX is so corrupt and untrustworthy, yet the other networks are just as bad! Who do we trust then? Do we trust anonymous posters on flightinfo.com? Do we trust bloggers who have an agenda? Just who then do we trust to give us honest answers to tough questions????

Do we trust our unions who have an agenda, some good, some bad! Do we trust our employers who provide us a job and paycheck? Do we trust elected officials who have an agenda?

I think it's up to the individual to get as much info as they can, then it's up to them to make an informed decision. But I think we ALL need to respect each others opinions!

CNN rips both sides apart and calls them out when they are lieing. They have either fired their talking heads or put them on so late that they have no audience.

I love when you respond that you are looking forward to my response, but failed to answer a direct question about what Fox News is.

Maybe you over looked it, so let me post it couple of times:


Do you admit Fox News is on the right like MSNBC is on the left? or not?

Do you admit Fox News is on the right like MSNBC is on the left? or not?

Do you admit Fox News is on the right like MSNBC is on the left? or not?

Do you admit Fox News is on the right like MSNBC is on the left? or not?

Do you admit Fox News is on the right like MSNBC is on the left? or not?


You fail to understand that moderates are just as critical of the left as they are of the right. Maybe you should dig deeper into my posts before you label me. Yes there are more conservative rightwing nut jobs on here. Calling you out for what you are. I love the way you parade around like your mainstream. I question your metal state if you don't admit what you are.

 

[jayme]

Wait? Fox isn't "fair and balanced?"

 

[MECH]

There is one major fact missing in this entire discussion. First some history.

When Ronald Reagan took office no one wanted to work in the public sector! Why, the private sector paid a lot more and had better benefits. Fast forward to today. Public sector is now perceived as over paid with excessive benefit packages. So what has happened in the last thirty years.

The answer is pretty simple the public sector for the most part kept their retirement plans and the pay has almost kept up with inflation. While the private sector income has not kept up with inflation. Also at the beginning of the 1980's 57% of private workers had pensions, now it is under 7%.

The only thing that has kept most of the American households at middle class life style is dual incomes. Over the last the 30 years the amount dual household incomes has increased dramatically. Now we are at a point in time if incomes do not increase we will have have multiple wives to bring in enough income to keep our standard of living.

That is why there is so much pressure for governments to slash public sector pay rolls. Americans are tapped out. The average household can not afford to pay a dime more in taxes.

But is this the public sector unions fault. NO. Most never negotiated any thing beyond a cost of living increase. I do not think there is a single person out there that does not want their salary to keep up with inflation.

The true reason for this is the destruction of the private sector unions. With no ability for the average worker to improve their situation. There has been stagnation in wages for the last thirty years (pilots are paid, on average, 40% less now then at the beginning of 1985).

The question is do you want to destroy public sector employees lively hoods like ours were? Our do you want to flight to improve everyone's standard of livings?

 

[GogglesPisano]

So many chickens rooting for the foxes on this thread. Mostly because they don't realize they're chickens. Meanwhile the farmers are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[igneousy2]

Unions kill companies with excessive demands, and make them non-competitive. 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.

This is my point exactly...GM could not sell enough cars so they went bankrupt. The GM bailout is a whole nother ball of wax for another thread. But no matter how much they agree to pay their unions, I will never in my life have to BUY a GM car. If they go bankrupt they go bankrupt.

If a union makes those same demands on my city, I am FORCED to BUY the cities services short of moving.

Another point a lot of the non-liberterians miss (because neither Democracts nor Republicans are for small government) is that the consumers of government services are not the same as the people that are paying the taxes. So "just vote them out, see it's just like the free market" does not work. Part of a free market is also having the right to not participate at all if you desire. That is not the case with taxes.

In this country, the bottom 50% of tax payers by income pay only 3% of the taxes collected, but yet still have 50% of the vote. Is it any wonder that the winners in political battles are the ones promoting government services.

 

[pilotyip]

Talk about union spending, walker has spent TEN TIMES AS MUCH money as his opponent. TEN TIMES as much. Something fox news won't tell you.

because people believe in his stance and they are sending him lots and lots of money, I know I am a supporter who has sent a few $100. The other side can not raise the money and has basically stopped

 

[davessn763]

All these complainers about unions should go work for emirates and live in the the UAE. Unions are outlawed there, they outsource labor to indentured servants from third world countries for slave wages. Then they depend on the US taxpayer to defend them from Iran and extremists, because they are too cheap and lazy to defend their own country.

I guess those union negotiated contracts we work under are so crappy pilots are beating down emirates door to get hired there and live there. I guess they don't have to aggressively recruit anymore cause it's so awesome living over there.

 

[Downwind]

because people believe in his stance and they are sending him lots and lots of money, I know I am a supporter who has sent a few $100. The other side can not raise the money and has basically stopped

I sent Governor Walker a personal apology for what my union (OPEIU) is trying to do to him. I explained that my union does not represent me and that it sickens me to see them use a portion of my dues money to promote their political ideology. The best I'm able to do is double what they use against him for him and to undermine them from within.

 

[flythere]

CNN rips both sides apart and calls them out when they are lieing. They have either fired their talking heads or put them on so late that they have no audience.

I love when you respond that you are looking forward to my response, but failed to answer a direct question about what Fox News is.

Maybe you over looked it, so let me post it couple of times:


Do you admit Fox News is on the right like MSNBC is on the left? or not?

Do you admit Fox News is on the right like MSNBC is on the left? or not?

Do you admit Fox News is on the right like MSNBC is on the left? or not?

Do you admit Fox News is on the right like MSNBC is on the left? or not?

Do you admit Fox News is on the right like MSNBC is on the left? or not?


You fail to understand that moderates are just as critical of the left as they are of the right. Maybe you should dig deeper into my posts before you label me. Yes there are more conservative rightwing nut jobs on here. Calling you out for what you are. I love the way you parade around like your mainstream. I question your metal state if you don't admit what you are.

Wow, rough day? Tell you what, let's let the numbers (ratings) decide whom people, like you and me, trust more. These are the Nielsen ratings;

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/05/31/cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-may-30-2012/136357/

The numbers speak much more than I could ever! Just look back and see who the american people trust more for their news! Just saying! Based on these numbers, I would say more of us trust those dasterdly heathens over at FOX than any of the others!

I think more of us listen to the whole story, listen to the opposition, weigh the facts, then come to a logical conclusion. Unlike the other networks, with low ratings, who put pundents in prime time news shows and attempt to carry the water for a particular agenda!

It's refreshing to watch a segment where you have two opposing viewpoints and they get to bang it out! Unlike Madcow, Ed or Sharpton, where you here demagoguery and flat out lies!

Like I've said, I won't pass judgement on your opinion or call you names, because we disagree! That is the beauty of this country!!

Oh ya, FOX is slanted to the right, but they are way more center than MSNBC or CNN could ever be!!!!! I think those numbers above prove that!!!

Cheers!!!

If in doubt, read below--------

 

[shroomwell]

There is one major fact missing in this entire discussion. First some history.

When Ronald Reagan took office no one wanted to work in the public sector! Why, the private sector paid a lot more and had better benefits. Fast forward to today. Public sector is now perceived as over paid with excessive benefit packages. So what has happened in the last thirty years.

The answer is pretty simple the public sector for the most part kept their retirement plans and the pay has almost kept up with inflation. While the private sector income has not kept up with inflation. Also at the beginning of the 1980's 57% of private workers had pensions, now it is under 7%.

The only thing that has kept most of the American households at middle class life style is dual incomes. Over the last the 30 years the amount dual household incomes has increased dramatically. Now we are at a point in time if incomes do not increase we will have have multiple wives to bring in enough income to keep our standard of living.

That is why there is so much pressure for governments to slash public sector pay rolls. Americans are tapped out. The average household can not afford to pay a dime more in taxes.

But is this the public sector unions fault. NO. Most never negotiated any thing beyond a cost of living increase. I do not think there is a single person out there that does not want their salary to keep up with inflation.

The true reason for this is the destruction of the private sector unions. With no ability for the average worker to improve their situation. There has been stagnation in wages for the last thirty years (pilots are paid, on average, 40% less now then at the beginning of 1985).

The question is do you want to destroy public sector employees lively hoods like ours were? Our do you want to flight to improve everyone's standard of livings?

Look, I don't disagree with your reasoning or conclusion, but it is based on a skewed version of reality. The bottom line is that there is a reason that private sector salaries have not kept of with inflation. It is reality, and a reality that the public sector should not, and cannot be spared from.

The forces of globalism, right or wrong, were forced upon all us. The private sector which explicitly supports the public sector should not be forced to shoulder the entire burden of it.

 

[pilotyip]

Look, I don't disagree with your reasoning or conclusion, but it is based on a skewed version of reality. The bottom line is that there is a reason that private sector salaries have not kept of with inflation. It is reality, and a reality that the public sector should not, and cannot be spared from.

The forces of globalism, right or wrong, were forced upon all us. The private sector which explicitly supports the public sector should not be forced to shoulder the entire burden of it.

Nice touch of reality, 1980 FAA POI $40K, Airline Captain $200K, Me Corp as a Fortune 500 Corp pilots $35K. Today FAA POI $150K, Airline Captain $150K, Fortune 500 pilots $90K. Civil servant wages are out of line, the same goes for military wages on the higher ranks, O-6 at 26 years in 1980 about $60K, now nearly $180K

 

[realityman]

One of the biggest problems is a lack of outside-the-box thinking.

There are a myriad of ways that politicians could counter, or compromise, with the public unions. Trouble is, they ALWAYS choose the head-to-head battles, and then ultimately cry about how the same results are achieved over and over and over. Oh those terrible unions! they say. Where is the creative thinking?

Instead, we get laws that neuter the public unions. Well great, we say. We're in fiscally difficult times. Costs SHOULD be brought under control. Truly, I can't argue with that. Nor would I. But there are so many ways to do it. The method that has been chosen WILL ultimately come down and haunt the private sector.

There are always glaring examples of places where unions have gone "power mad" and imposed pay and benefits on companies to the point of destruction of their company.

But why is no one mentioning all the unions that HAVEN'T done that, and simply provided a decent living for its members, or at least provided some protection against management teams who would take advantage of the workers?

I haven't met a flight attendant yet who was bankrupting his/her company with exhorbitant union-imposed pay and benefits. Teachers unions? Maybe some sections have gone overboard, but I personally know quite a few teachers who, in spite of the big bad union, barely make an 'okay' wage. Everyone points to GM as the poster child for what's wrong with unions, but what about the others? Aren't they unionized at the US Toyota and Honda plants? Are they killing those companies, or just keeping wages and benefits decent? How are those companies doing? Anyone here aware of the fact that there is a union for grocery workers? Who here believes their local grocery store is being killed by the big bad union? Maybe that union is just keeping it reasonable for the workers. After all, if I had thought I could get rich bagging groceries I would have stayed with my very first job from high school! Anyone here truly believe factory workers would be better off without unions? And I ask again, does anyone have a clue where we'd be in this industry without our respective pilot's unions? Sure, a couple have been unreasonable in modern times, but nevertheless, those who dislike them should read Flying the Line and see what life was like without the unions.

So keep applauding the victories over the public unions. And when the political guns are trained on the private sector unions, I'm sure we'll all be thrilled with the mass drop in standard of living that we'll experience and that we're all so craving for (apparently).

 

[Downwind]

Here's an example of how unions have cost American factory workers jobs.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-22/tech/30652107_1_foxconn-iphones-apple-executives