Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

destruction of unions

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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


I don't see where they mentioned unions anywhere in that article.

I did see where it mentioned the Chinese government subsidized the company. So, are you trying to tell me that while our government should be cutting costs, it should also be shelling out more money to subsidize certain companies? Is it the unions who cost us the jobs, or our government who didn't subsidize a new glass factory for Apple?

I saw in the article where it mentioned the Chinese used a whole bunch of "cheap engineers" who were kept in dormitories so they could be available 24/7. So you feel this is a good thing? And it mentioned where the Chinese woke thousands of workers in the middle of the night to have them do the work. Well, at least they're paid well with a good benefits package. Oh, wait.......

Yes, you can certainly get so much more done when using virtual slave labor with no protections.

Here are a few things the article failed to answer. Would Apple have sold fewer iPhones if they had gone with a US company and it had taken months longer to develop the screens by going with a US company for the glass? Are the unions at fault because Steve Jobs set a schedule that could only be realistically accomplished in a country where the government would throw money at them and the workers are nothing more than indentured servants? Did the article discuss the working wages and conditions for most factory workers in China?

So is the Chinese society the model on which you think we should base our own? Is this where we should go? Then absolutely, down with the evil unions!
 
By the way, while some here are applauding the 'victory' against public unions, anyone bothered to ask what pay and benefits concessions those politicians who have led the charge against the unions have taken? Aren't they public employees too? Has anyone who sent money to support governor Walker asked him about the cuts he's made for himself and his staff?

Hmmmmm, I wonder why it is these politicians want everyone focused on other things such as the evil unions.........
 
A cautionary tale regarding unions particularly in Wisconsin. Many may not like the messenger (Rachel Maddow of MSNBC), but worth listening to as Wisconsin will be the model for the continuing destruction of our jobs nationally that began in earnest in the '80s.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

Regarding the economy it has been said, "as goes California so goes the country." However regarding labor, "as goes Wisconsin so goes the country." In just one year the teachers' union membership fell by 45%, and the second largest union fell by 55%.

Loss of good paying jobs and loss of political clout in a downward spiral.

You lost my interest when you said Rachel Maddow.
 
Private sector union workers = The working man.
Public union employees = They are not a union. They are a cartel.


First, anyone who thinks a public employee union is even remotely like a private-section union is simply wrong.

Second, it is public unions that are giving unions a bad name, for the most part. Private sector unions always have to balance their demands with a realistic assessment of what the company can give. Public unions don't need to worry - they just demand higher taxes.

Third, for the most part, private sector unions have been more or less responsible in the exercise of bargaining power.

Public unions have often behaved like spoiled children.



There is one other very, very very big difference:

Private sector union workers most often are the producers of our nation's wealth, they produce goods and services.

Public employees often are overpaid to perform ridiculous, unneeded jobs, and stand to have luxurious pay, benefits, and pensions, all out of the pocket of the REAL WORKING MAN.

The smart private-sector unions members will be sitting on the sidelines here, while secretly being glad that public employee unions have finally experienced a few roadblocks.

Private sector unions often are fighting battles with greedy company management. In contrast, public union employees are the real "owners" of local governments, even as they PRETEND to be "labor".


This is not our battle. Just because a cartel call themselves a "union", does that mean we are automatically supposed to be sympathetic to them?

They would gladly throw us under the bus. We should not spend one second worrying about the fate of public union employees. The outcome of this will have very little effect on private sector unions.
 
Last edited:
You lost my interest when you said Rachel Maddow.
Yes, that was a risk, but I wanted to name names up front so you wouldn't feel like you had been tricked into watching it. The facts contained in the segment are well worth getting past the messenger to hear the message though.

Additional warning: she interviews Ed Schulz, another MSNBC commentator.
 
Last edited:
densoo-

Private sector unions do not create cartels, where the public is FORCED to but their services from one union.

Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose an airline union tried to negotiate a contract that forced the people of a certain state or region to ONLY fly on the union's airline.

Now we have a cartel.

When I insist on a fair wage, I use my COMPETING AIRLINE'S contract as a point to negotiate with.

With public employees, there is no competition. the public has no choice. If the union can stack the local government with enough chumps, they will get everything they want, and the taxpayer has to choke it down.

Well, the taxpayers have had enough of this one-sided raping of their finances. They have elected politicians to be THEIR MEC and rein in the excessive compensation.

No one can give a reasonable explanation of why my public servants should be compensated at a rate FAR, FAR, FAR higher than the people who work to pay their salaries.

Why should public unions not share in the pains of recession? Private unions often do.

Once again, the public unions should not be allowed to be called a union, because they are far more powerful than that. They create a cartel of labor, and instead of trying to get a fair wage from a greedy management team or greedy owner, they try to extort outrageous wages and pensions from-

THE WORKING MAN, via property taxes.
 
By the way densoo-

Anything coming from that source is suspect in terms of "facts". That source is nothing but a blowhard emotionally-charged fountain of estrogen-fueled thinking.

And Maddow is pretty crazy too.
 
Well you guys do not mention that States compete against each other also. The more taxes the harder it can be to attract business. Many businesses setup shop on state borders to take advantage of both states. Other things play to a businesses needs than taxes like location and logistics.

So there is competition, and people move out of states for these obvious reasons.

Cali is a great example with their mass exodus to AZ. WI and MN with their border crossing. NY and CT even. NJ and NY.
 
Last edited:
While your statement is true, it does not represent a clear case of benefiting from marketplace competition. Many people are unable to move, and therefore cannot participate in this.

I will say that it is deeply satisfying to watch the destruction of Detroit and other blue-state idiocracies due to the stupidity of government and public unions.

Meanwhile, Texas thrives.
 
Well you guys do not mention that States compete against each other also. The more taxes the harder it can be to attract business. Many businesses setup shop on state borders to take advantage of both states. Other things play to a businesses needs than taxes like location and logistics.

So there is competition, and people move out of states for these obvious reasons.

Cali is a great example with their mass exodus to AZ. WI and MN with their border crossing. NY and CT even. NJ and NY.

And why are folks, businesses and regular folks leaving, particularly those with money? Because of the taxes! And why are the taxes so high? They have to pay for all the people that aren't working, or who are and are getting paid cash under the table and not paying their fair share! Not to mention all those over inflated wages and benifits of the public employees. Look at San Jose, that is just one city where city employees are raking in the big bucks, all at the expense of the tax payer! What about that city outside of LA, where all those city officials where making 6 figures!!

I don't think there is a war on unions, or anybody wants to dismantle the untions. I think what most of us want is fair compensation and benifits. But when the public employees are making more than private sector and they are unwilling in times of budget crises to negotiate, then that creates a lot of heartburn with us tax payers!

Look at the UAW when the automakers where in trouble, they where demanding that all those workers continue to come in and sit in a room for 8 hours and watch tv and play video games, all while still getting paid!!! Just one example and there are more! What about SEIU spending millions of dollars, (Dues money) to fund and protest banks and corporations, the very corporations that pay those dues! Busing in voters and protesters to the Nevada elections two years ago! What about busing hundreds of protesters to the home of executives on a Saturday morning to protest!

Those are all great examples of wasting hard earned money for an agenda! I think these are some examples of why everyday folks are getting fed up with the unions! And maybe, by giving workers the option of not paying union dues, we can force the unions back to what they were intended to do, work to protect workers rights not push political agenda's in hopes of getting a pay back at some point!
 
Last edited:
In reference to San Jose,

Don't get me wrong, I think cops and firefighters do one hell of a job, and they deserved to be compensated, but some of these numbers are a little high! You be the judge!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ent-at-50-threatens-solvency-muni-credit.html

http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/e...2011_poliice_fire_mayor_city_manager_council/


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57392812/calif-city-seeks-to-escape-soaring-pension-costs/

Can anybody here say that is reasonable given todays hard times? Nobody wants to take their retirements away, simply renegotiate to a lower rate, so the city/state can get it's finances back in order!!
 
Imagine if the United CEO, was also the lawyer for the ALPA MEC, and go that job due the support of ALPA. That is a huge conflict of interest in a bargaining situation. This exactly what happens in public sector unions. The unions use their power and money to buy off the politicians on the other side of the bargaining table. Then it is the taxpayer who get hosed. Now the unions get big raises and the politicians use those raises to justify more raises for themselves. Rinse and repeat and that is how you get the situation we are in today.

Go check any local election and see the primary backers for the candidates. On both sides the D's and R's are receiving money from the public unions. The most pernicious are the public safety unions. They will play both sides to guarantee a positive outcome for themselves. That is how you end up with millionaire police and firemen throughout the country.
 
Right on Pilotyip & FLYTHERE:beer:



By the way, while some here are applauding the 'victory' against public unions, anyone bothered to ask what pay and benefits concessions those politicians who have led the charge against the unions have taken?

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=news&id=418

There you go Realityman. Admittedly, there aren't many of them on either side--but differences are there. Vote for an entitlement, "not my fault", the man's got me down candidate or vote for guys who are favoring responsible, live within your means, look to yourself first candidates.

Whatever happened to Nancy Pelosi's private 757?
 
What I find ironic is that the majority of people on this site are either excited about Delta's TA or don't think its enough.

But who is going to pay those wages? The traveling public. I bet if you went on any travel blog 90% of the people on it, would think pilots are over paid. Also they would gladly let the pilots take a pay cut so they could have lower fares!

Do we want to force the same on policemen, firemen, ATC, Teachers...

These are the very people that can afford to fly on our airplanes (this especially true at Southwest/Jetblue). Why would we want to slash their pay. It would also hurt us.

So what is a reasonable solution?
 
What I find ironic is that the majority of people on this site are either excited about Delta's TA or don't think its enough.

But who is going to pay those wages? The traveling public. I bet if you went on any travel blog 90% of the people on it, would think pilots are over paid. Also they would gladly let the pilots take a pay cut so they could have lower fares!

Do we want to force the same on policemen, firemen, ATC, Teachers...

These are the very people that can afford to fly on our airplanes (this especially true at Southwest/Jetblue). Why would we want to slash their pay. It would also hurt us.

So what is a reasonable solution?

What a stupid argument. If the traveling public decides that Delta is paying their employees too much and are charging too much for their product, they can take their business somewhere else. Want to tell me how this is applicable to taxpayer-funded public employees?
 
Right on Pilotyip & FLYTHERE:beer:





http://paul.senate.gov/?p=news&id=418

There you go Realityman. Admittedly, there aren't many of them on either side--but differences are there. Vote for an entitlement, "not my fault", the man's got me down candidate or vote for guys who are favoring responsible, live within your means, look to yourself first candidates.

Whatever happened to Nancy Pelosi's private 757?

That's great. I agree with your thinking. Wish there were more like him to vote for.
I just get a kick out of the folks who say they're sending money to governor Walker to support his actions against the public unions, but don't bother to ask him what cuts he's making to his own salary and benefits, as well as those to his staff.

In a way, the politicians are far worse than the public unions. At least the public unions have to make a show of fighting for more money. The politicians just GIVE themselves whatever they want. And people actually send them additional money. Interesting stuff.

The teacher's unions are an interesting study in contradictions. As a parent, I want the best teachers available to be teaching my kids. Good pay and benefits will bring out the best. On the other hand, if there is a bad teacher not doing a good job, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to get rid of them thanks to the union. Also, I don't like my taxes going up.

The question is, what's the best answer? Many here seem to think having laws made that neuter the unions is the best solution. I just don't agree. Especially since I just don't see it ending with public unions. Precedent has been set. It'll end up being very bad for the private sector unions.

What's even more interesting to me, is that private sector companies have found very effective ways of fighting unions. There are other companies who have made an entire business out of busting unions. I'm not necessarily 'for' these union busters. Just pointing out that there are tactics that can be employed to mitigate many of a union's demands. So how hard do any of our government people really try? How hard have they really fought the unions in the past? Or is there possibly a bigger agenda involved with the way they're handling things now?

These new laws are BS, and is just a way of positioning things to 'help out' their corporate buddies when the politicos decide they need to 'do something' about those greedy private sector unions who are sucking the profits out of their companies. How un-American of us union members!
 
What I find ironic is that the majority of people on this site are either excited about Delta's TA or don't think its enough.

But who is going to pay those wages? The traveling public. I bet if you went on any travel blog 90% of the people on it, would think pilots are over paid. Also they would gladly let the pilots take a pay cut so they could have lower fares!

Do we want to force the same on policemen, firemen, ATC, Teachers...

These are the very people that can afford to fly on our airplanes (this especially true at Southwest/Jetblue). Why would we want to slash their pay. It would also hurt us.

So what is a reasonable solution?
How about private contractors for gov't work, have to compete to offer the best value. No more 20 year 90% retirements, where it is based upon your last year's wages and everyone get to be Fire Chief at $150K/yr for their last year, with unlimited cola and medical. That would be a start.

BTW Some of these guys retiring age age 40 from a city here near Detroit, collect full pension and thne get hired as new hire in another gov't depart and take home $150K+/yr. The city is about to file for BK and get a Emergency Manager with dictatorial powers to balance the budget.
 
I would be willing to let public employees unionize if they can be forced to compete with other labor groups.

This is a decisive win for the battered taxpayer and working man.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES HAVE A CARTEL, not a union.

They are not us, nor are they even like us.
 
Bottom line is the rules that public employee unions/cartles play under are very different from the rules that private unions like ALPA have to play under. You cannot compare the two, in fact one is the enemy of the other.
 
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.

Wow, a pilot who has actually read Wealth of Nations instead of quoting the talking points that fit an agenda- well done.

Unregulated capitalism devolves every time into feudalism-
We're headed down a very anti-capitalistic oligopoly designed to provide the illusion of competition in our largest industries, enabling a defacto ruling class that have the lobbying money to stay above taxation and often, the law.

The most important unsustainable bubble isn't debt- and it's not student loans- its the gap between the rich and everyone else
 
They can move to a cheaper state that has all these jobs suppositly or manage where they are. It is a big free country and easy to change states compared to elsewhere. You brag about it.

Hey some people move to a more expensive state to make more money. And they love to vacation in cheaper states and laugh at the prices.

I can not think of too many reasons the majority of the population can't move. There are some, but really they probably just need to cut the cord from their family and become independant.

Grow up. I have lived all over the country. Quit whining. Move where the jobs are and things will work out. Move to another country if you have to also you cry babies without a job. I almost had to. You might have to stop being an ignoramus though living in other countries.

Moving is like quiting a job. Just quit the state and move where it is to your benefit. They lose your tax revenue. Layoff public workers and they move too!
 
Last edited:
And why are folks, businesses and regular folks leaving, particularly those with money? Because of the taxes! And why are the taxes so high? They have to pay for all the people that aren't working, or who are and are getting paid cash under the table and not paying their fair share! Not to mention all those over inflated wages and benifits of the public employees. Look at San Jose, that is just one city where city employees are raking in the big bucks, all at the expense of the tax payer! What about that city outside of LA, where all those city officials where making 6 figures!!

I don't think there is a war on unions, or anybody wants to dismantle the untions. I think what most of us want is fair compensation and benifits. But when the public employees are making more than private sector and they are unwilling in times of budget crises to negotiate, then that creates a lot of heartburn with us tax payers!

Look at the UAW when the automakers where in trouble, they where demanding that all those workers continue to come in and sit in a room for 8 hours and watch tv and play video games, all while still getting paid!!! Just one example and there are more! What about SEIU spending millions of dollars, (Dues money) to fund and protest banks and corporations, the very corporations that pay those dues! Busing in voters and protesters to the Nevada elections two years ago! What about busing hundreds of protesters to the home of executives on a Saturday morning to protest!

Those are all great examples of wasting hard earned money for an agenda! I think these are some examples of why everyday folks are getting fed up with the unions! And maybe, by giving workers the option of not paying union dues, we can force the unions back to what they were intended to do, work to protect workers rights not push political agenda's in hopes of getting a pay back at some point!


That was my whole point. Now who is looking for a fight? Just be careful what you wish for because it can happen to you.

As for Texas... oil is over 80 a barrel still and that is pretty low lately. Taxes does not have much to do with it, but it is cheap to live there. Why more don't go there for jobs is beyond me. Move your arses where the jobs are.

Cut the cord from mommy and daddy little boys and girls.
 
Last edited:
Forcing people to move to escape the iron grip of public unions is hardly what I call freedom.

While yes, it is good that people can leave, it is probably smarter for state governments to rein in crushing financial obligations to retain citizens of their state.

States exist to serve the people, not to create gold-standard living conditions for an elite few.


And all that stuff about the worker and the masters?

The public employees ARE THE MASTERS. They own the politicians and they own the revenue stream of tax payments.

The problem is, that once you call them a "union" well-intentioned private sector union workers will rally around them, responding like pavlov's dog to the word "union".

Well, the taxpayers have now formed a union to represent their interests, so you are all obligated to throw your full support behind them.

Public. Union. Employees. Are. The. Oppressors.

They are not the oppressed.
 
Sadly this isn't about unions. This about individualism which is the cancer of our society. There is no more unity. Some tax payers think that their taxes shouldn't go to certain groups aka public employees. Since I don't have children, I feel defrauded paying taxes for schools. Since I don't own a car, I feel defrauded paying for roads and bridges, etc. This individualism has led to the monsters of Fox and MSNBC. We are forced to take a side even if that side goes beyond one's ideals. Its freaking pathetic. The 1st line is "We the people!" Not me the individual that thinks others shouldn't have what I have cause I think I worked harder. It amazes me, whether left or right, we think our side is correct and our politicians will follow thru. I would tend to always be on the side that has less.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

And if anyone thinks public unions have too much, you are delusional and should keep buying your lottery tickets to pretend that some day you can be like those people that live in their castles. Sooner or later, the commoners will revolt. We just need to stop watching Kim K, the stars dancing, american karaoke to realize we're all bunch slaves and we're not even part of the game
 
Sadly this isn't about unions. This about individualism which is the cancer of our society. There is no more unity. Some tax payers think that their taxes shouldn't go to certain groups aka public employees. Since I don't have children, I feel defrauded paying taxes for schools. Since I don't own a car, I feel defrauded paying for roads and bridges, etc. This individualism has led to the monsters of Fox and MSNBC. We are forced to take a side even if that side goes beyond one's ideals. Its freaking pathetic. The 1st line is "We the people!" Not me the individual that thinks others shouldn't have what I have cause I think I worked harder. It amazes me, whether left or right, we think our side is correct and our politicians will follow thru. I would tend to always be on the side that has less.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

And if anyone thinks public unions have too much, you are delusional and should keep buying your lottery tickets to pretend that some day you can be like those people that live in their castles. Sooner or later, the commoners will revolt. We just need to stop watching Kim K, the stars dancing, american karaoke to realize we're all bunch slaves and we're not even part of the game

Right on, comrade. Karl Marx, Chairman Mao, or Stalin couldn't have said it any better.
 
Two of the greatest supports of the union movement, FDR and LaGuardia, said public employee unions would bankrupt the country because of their ability to shut the country down and the inability of public officals to say no. We are reaping the results of promises made on a wish and whim 30 years ago, when the guy who voted for it did not have to pay of it.

BTW. Where is the growth?, Right to Work states


FDR never said any such thing. You, as is true of most of your ilk, are badly misrepresenting a letter that FDR wrote in 1937. His concern was that strikes from public sector employees would badly disrupt the ability of government to function. This is not in any way a denunciation of organized labor but rather another example of how important FDR thought was the role of strong centralized government. There is no question that President Roosevelt supported Unions across the board.

"My dear Mr. Steward:
As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful." FDR.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom