G4dude wants to scab thread.

[realityman]

2) that you see nothing wrong with mistreating a sincere pilot, who doesn't agree with a strike, for the rest of his career.
Why in the world do these opinions inspire such anger and vitriol? The completion of my Union education is that seemingly decent people see nothing wrong with hooliganism is a revelation to me. I thought such detestable actions were only practiced by the extremists. I was wrong, apparently.

Honetly, who is the hooligan? The person who watches his fellow pilots trying to improve things for everyone, including himself, by making the ultimate sacrifice (believe me, a strike is a HUGE sacrifice by the pilots, unless you think most of us really don't need a paycheck), but actively works against them by crossing the picket line, or those pilots who shun the scabs for working against them? Personally, I'd call the scab the hooligan.

Look, imagine I'm digging a hole. It needs to be 40x40x20 (a swimming pool maybe?) A pretty big task for one guy with a shovel. Luckily, most of my other friends with shovels agree to pitch in and help, greatly reducing the time needed to complete the task, allowing all of us to more quickly reap the benefits of the new pool, for ourselves and our families. Now imagine there are a few guys out there who don't see a need for the pool. A couple just shake their heads and walk away. But a few pick up shovels and begin throwing dirt back in the hole the rest of us are trying to dig out. Hey, maybe it's just 3 guys doing this, and ultimately they can't stop the inevitability of the efforts of, say, 40 guys digging out the hole. Still, those 40 guys are working, sacrificing, trying to create something good for everyone. Do you think those 40 guys in the hole are going to be particularly pleasant to the three guys who were actively working against them while they were breaking their backs? Would you? Especially considering those 3 guys will still get to enjoy the benefits of the pool when it's finished?

So maybe we go on strike (but I hope it doesn't happen). Perhaps you don't agree with it. No trouble there. You now have a choice. You can simply walk away and let everyone else do the hard work (like the guys who walked away from the pool project) but NOT cross the picket line. Yes, that means you're on strike, but not actively supporting it. Or, you cross the picket line (the guys who are actually throwing dirt back into the whole everyone else is digging out). Even if it's just by a few days, you are increasing the duration of the strike, keeping thousands out of a paycheck for the extra time, and basically sh*****g on the hard work and sacrifice of all those people, and in the end reaping the benefits of that hard work.

And you really don't understand why scabs are shunned and generally made miserable?

Look, I get it. You didnt ask to be in the union. You didn't sign up. You never wanted to. Understood.

The thing is, you ARE in the union. Sometimes life doesn't go down the path you wanted or expected. Sorry about that. So here you are. Part of the union. A union that only wants to protect and enhance what you have. You have far more to lose by crossing a picket line than not. Think about. If it comes to a strike, well, it happens no matter what you do. You could decide to not cross the picket line (even if you refuse to walk it with everyone else) and reap the rewards along with everyone else and maintain your standing amongst your peers, or you can cross the picket line, thereby becoming a scab, reaping those same rewards but becoming shunned scum in the eyes of your peers.

I know you're against a strike. Truthfully, it's not the best thing to happen. It'd be better if it could be worked out another way. But sometimes the reality is it just HAS to happen that way, no matter how we'd prefer it go. And if it's going to happen anyway, why would you choose the path of being a scab? I just don't get that. Not being a scab yields so much better results.

 

[jonjuan]

Can't believe you morons are still acknowledging this DB.

 

[Diesel]

Can't believe you morons are still acknowledging this DB.

Because he's an actual line pilot that thinks that demand for more pilots will fix the contract.

 

[Diesel]

Any friends of mine who mistreats me if I cross are friends I never needed, and shame on them. I will find out who my true friends are, I guess, and am fine with that. I would never mistreat anyone who strikes, even though I would strongly oppose them doing so, for jeapardizing my employer's survival and imperilling my job.. Funny how you hooligans don't even see the irony.

More great quotes from g4dude.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Does he enjoy the protection and provisions of the CBA?
Will he be advantaged by any gains made as a result of a new CBA?
Can he fly the entire schedule single handedly?

The pragmatist will arrive at the conclusion that the scab is then using others sacrifice to unjustly enrich himself - whilst not appreciably impacting the outcome of the strike (at least based on what little I know about NJA). Or worse yet, if scabs break a strike, what will be left? I guarantee the pay structure and work rules won't remain in tact. Do you really want to say, "Yeah, I really helped Uncle Warren screw the pilots and lower the bar?" Is it really worth a couple weeks quid?

So, unless he's thick, he should just do the right thing and toe the line.

Whether, our "free marketeer" as he has branded himself would shun a scab or not is irrelevant - he would quickly become persona non grata. Once the strike is amicably resolved, as they often quickly are, he then becomes a stain on the carpet. Even management becomes annoyed by scabs, they're an additional complication to operations - with the inevitable whining about "they're not nice to me" and other crew conflicts.

 

[gunfyter]

Its like we all live in a small community with a volunteer fire department. Everyone has to be a volunteer.

Now a fire breaks out on the far side of town, If we do nothing the whole town burns to the ground. But everone who shows up t put out the fire loses a day of productive work and pay from their jobs because ... well they didnt work that day they put out the fire.

But because you live on the far side you know the rest of the volunteers will put out the fire bfore it gets to your house. You go to work and don't lose that days pay.

Thats how you hurt the rest of us when you scab (Still Collecting All Benefits)and why we are mad.

Capisce?

 

[realityman]

Maybe he's worried because his theories aren't panning out?

G4 seems to be a big believer in supply and demand theory. As we get busier, and more pilots leave for the airlines, market forces will force, or help push, NJA towards improving our compensation.

Trouble with that is, that theory really doesn't work in aviation very well. For the past couple recurrents I've been to CMH there have been a dozen or more E145's belonging to a regional that were parked nearby. When asked about them, I was told that regional was parking them due to lack of pilots to fly them. Based on G4's theory, you'd think the pay and benefits at the regionals would be coming up, at least marginally. I think we all know how that's working out. Aviation companies would rather park planes, or hire grossly inexperienced pilots to fill spots, than raise compensation. Heck, it never worked at NJA! During the first few years I worked at NJA (EJA in those days) we literally couldn't hire pilots fast enough to keep up with attrition. Not good for a company that was growing explosively. And yet RTS fought us tooth and nail against increasing our compensation in any way, even though in those days we weren't even looking for what we got in the next CBA.

Then there's his theory about how negotiations work. The company comes in with a low-ball offer while the union comes in with something very high and they both go back and forth, each coming up and down a little respectively, until an agreement is reached. Well, we certainly started out with the really low and high offers. But after being at the table for almost two years, the company hasn't budged one tiny inch on anything that might cost them a bit more. I thought they should come up, at least a little, according to G4's theory? How do we meet in the middle if the company isn't moving on anything? So much for how negotiations are supposed to work.

G4 has firmly entrenched his thinking in theories on how things are SUPPOSED to happen. I think it scares him to see the actual facts don't support those theories at all. It means the union, and all its "hooligans" have it right, that we need public-facing pressure, up to and (unfortunately) including a strike to get things moving. Some of us here have tried to explain what's going on, even giving him a history of how it happened last time around (almost identically, except maybe a bit less intense), and what's needed to achieve results, and ive even gone so far as to ask him to point to ANY unionized aviation job that made even modest gains without an ugly fight. Every observable fact available right now supports what the "hooligans" and "thugs" have been trying to tell him, and he still keeps falling back on "market forces and just keep talking it out until an amicable conclusion is reached.". That's either intentional ignorance or blindness brought on by overwhelming fear.

He's worried a strike will imperil his, and his co-workers jobs. In truth, it's a genuine concern. But if a strike happens, it'll happen with the approval of the majority. He may not like it, but if it's going to happen why choose the path of a scab which only leads to a bad ending for himself? If we win, he becomes scum to his coworkers, someone to be cast out by the rest of the group. And if we lose, he is someone that will have helped bring the industry down for all of us and HIMSELF.

 

[G4dude]

Maybe he's worried because his theories aren't panning out?

G4 seems to be a big believer in supply and demand theory. As we get busier, and more pilots leave for the airlines, market forces will force, or help push, NJA towards improving our compensation.

Trouble with that is, that theory really doesn't work in aviation very well. For the past couple recurrents I've been to CMH there have been a dozen or more E145's belonging to a regional that were parked nearby. When asked about them, I was told that regional was parking them due to lack of pilots to fly them. Based on G4's theory, you'd think the pay and benefits at the regionals would be coming up, at least marginally. I think we all know how that's working out. Aviation companies would rather park planes, or hire grossly inexperienced pilots to fill spots, than raise compensation. Heck, it never worked at NJA! During the first few years I worked at NJA (EJA in those days) we literally couldn't hire pilots fast enough to keep up with attrition. Not good for a company that was growing explosively. And yet RTS fought us tooth and nail against increasing our compensation in any way, even though in those days we weren't even looking for what we got in the next CBA.

Then there's his theory about how negotiations work. The company comes in with a low-ball offer while the union comes in with something very high and they both go back and forth, each coming up and down a little respectively, until an agreement is reached. Well, we certainly started out with the really low and high offers. But after being at the table for almost two years, the company hasn't budged one tiny inch on anything that might cost them a bit more. I thought they should come up, at least a little, according to G4's theory? How do we meet in the middle if the company isn't moving on anything? So much for how negotiations are supposed to work.

G4 has firmly entrenched his thinking in theories on how things are SUPPOSED to happen. I think it scares him to see the actual facts don't support those theories at all. It means the union, and all its "hooligans" have it right, that we need public-facing pressure, up to and (unfortunately) including a strike to get things moving. Some of us here have tried to explain what's going on, even giving him a history of how it happened last time around (almost identically, except maybe a bit less intense), and what's needed to achieve results, and ive even gone so far as to ask him to point to ANY unionized aviation job that made even modest gains without an ugly fight. Every observable fact available right now supports what the "hooligans" and "thugs" have been trying to tell him, and he still keeps falling back on "market forces and just keep talking it out until an amicable conclusion is reached.". That's either intentional ignorance or blindness brought on by overwhelming fear.

He's worried a strike will imperil his, and his co-workers jobs. In truth, it's a genuine concern. But if a strike happens, it'll happen with the approval of the majority. He may not like it, but if it's going to happen why choose the path of a scab which only leads to a bad ending for himself? If we win, he becomes scum to his coworkers, someone to be cast out by the rest of the group. And if we lose, he is someone that will have helped bring the industry down for all of us and HIMSELF.

I actually agree with much of this post. I believe in hard bargaining. I tend to think NJASAP does a pretty good job, even with my lifelong bias against unionism because of how I was raised and what I have been told through the years. The pilot shortage causing the parking of planes next door will, in my opinion, dedound to our benefit before the negotiations arecompleted. Why would you all be angry with me for pointing that out? Negotiations take a LONG time. I wish the anger was at a lower level while the union sits at the table, and what a tough job that must be. Even Diesel, with whom I obviously have an issue, is sincere, smart, and dedicated to the welfare of his fellow pilots. So am I. I worry more about our employer's overhead becoming unsustainably high if we push too hard. Maybe I am wrong, but is that something for y'all to be angry about? Can you not bear to hear a different opinion of how we should solve a contract dispute? I am and have never been angry at you guys, except for one thing. It is wrong to feel fine about mistreating someone for the rest of his career for crossing the line because he thinks it is wrong to try to shut down the company that provides us our livelihood.

 

[PCL_128]

Athat you see nothing wrong with mistreating a sincere pilot, who doesn't agree with a strike, for the rest of his career.

Disagreeing is one thing. Actually crossing the line is another. Lots of strikers in every strike disagree with going out. But they do it because that's what democracy has dictated, and they know that stabbing their fellow pilots in the back is wrong. If you decide to do that, then you deserve every awful thing that happens to you.

 

[G4dude]

Its like we all live in a small community with a volunteer fire department. Everyone has to be a volunteer.

Now a fire breaks out on the far side of town, If we do nothing the whole town burns to the ground. But everone who shows up t put out the fire loses a day of productive work and pay from their jobs because ... well they didnt work that day they put out the fire.

But because you live on the far side you know the rest of the volunteers will put out the fire bfore it gets to your house. You go to work and don't lose that days pay.

Thats how you hurt the rest of us when you scab (Still Collecting All Benefits)and why we are mad.

Capisce?

I understand your feelings. Let me tell you mine. I think you, by striking, jeapardize my ability to feed my family by damaging my employer. Yet I would NEVER shun or mistreat you in ANY WAY for doing what I passionately believe is damaging to me and my co workers and my family. NEVER. See the difference? I know you to be a good and decent man, it is obvious from your many good posts, can't you understand what I am saying? Differences of opinion about how to solve a problem are one thing, mistreating and coercing are something else, and I am shocked how many people haven't realized that group coercion is wrong.