G4dude wants to scab thread.

[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.

 

[G4dude]

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.

Shame on you.

 

[realityman]

G4,

I'm not mad at anyone, except maybe our EMT.

At this point, I'm not even trying to convince you to walk a picket line with anyone.

All I'm trying to do is explain to you why becoming a scab is a bad thing, and why scabs are treated the way they are.

I haven't said you have to like any of it.

But at this point, if you really and truly can't understand why scabs are treated so poorly, then there's just no presenting anything that will help you understand. You've already convinced yourself that crossing a picket line isn't so bad, and shouldn't have any negative consequences.

Here's the short version: Like it or not (yes, I know you don't like it), you are part of the union. Union actions are based on what the majority wants. Sometimes, that will go against what you want, or think is appropriate. Nevertheless, as part of the union it is incumbent upon each member to support that union, even if you don't agree with it. In a strike, you certainly don't have to walk the picket line, but just don't cross it. Why is it that you don't understand that scanning isn't just 'not supporting the union', it's actively working against it. Imagine a football team where one or two players don't like the plays the coach is calling for. But instead of simply refusing to take the field, they go out and run a touchdown for the opposing team. Woud you think the players of that team would be pleasant to these two guys after the game? In fact, it may be a very long time before they ever forgive those players. Now think of a large group of pilots trying to improve their livelihoods for themselves, their families, their coworkers, and even others throughout the industry. How should they feel when a small group actively works against their goals?

Alright, I'm out of analogies. If we strike and you disagree, speak up to your union officials. Refuse to walk the picket lines. Whatever. Just don't cross the line, because at that point you've gone from disagreement to taking the field for the other team. It's going to generate a whole ton of anger towards you, and justifiably so.

 

[G4dude]

G4,

I'm not mad at anyone, except maybe our EMT.

At this point, I'm not even trying to convince you to walk a picket line with anyone.

All I'm trying to do is explain to you why becoming a scab is a bad thing, and why scabs are treated the way they are.

I haven't said you have to like any of it.

But at this point, if you really and truly can't understand why scabs are treated so poorly, then there's just no presenting anything that will help you understand. You've already convinced yourself that crossing a picket line isn't so bad, and shouldn't have any negative consequences.

Here's the short version: Like it or not (yes, I know you don't like it), you are part of the union. Union actions are based on what the majority wants. Sometimes, that will go against what you want, or think is appropriate. Nevertheless, as part of the union it is incumbent upon each member to support that union, even if you don't agree with it. In a strike, you certainly don't have to walk the picket line, but just don't cross it. Why is it that you don't understand that scanning isn't just 'not supporting the union', it's actively working against it. Imagine a football team where one or two players don't like the plays the coach is calling for. But instead of simply refusing to take the field, they go out and run a touchdown for the opposing team. Woud you think the players of that team would be pleasant to these two guys after the game? In fact, it may be a very long time before they ever forgive those players. Now think of a large group of pilots trying to improve their livelihoods for themselves, their families, their coworkers, and even others throughout the industry. How should they feel when a small group actively works against their goals?

Alright, I'm out of analogies. If we strike and you disagree, speak up to your union officials. Refuse to walk the picket lines. Whatever. Just don't cross the line, because at that point you've gone from disagreement to taking the field for the other team. It's going to generate a whole ton of anger towards you, and justifiably so.

Thank you for a terrific post. I understand everything you say. I really do. Including the anger if I scab, which I probably won't. The anger does NOT JUSTIFY ostracizing someone for the rest of his career. That is beyond the Pale.

 

[jonjuan]

Thank you for a terrific post. I understand everything you say. I really do. Including the anger if I scab, which I probably won't. The anger does NOT JUSTIFY ostracizing someone for the rest of his career. That is beyond the Pale.

Read about what happened to the guys who crossed the line at Spirit. I wouldn't want to be that guy or their families. Their lives must be miserable even now.

 

[G4dude]

Read about what happened to the guys who crossed the line at Spirit. I wouldn't want to be that guy or their families. Their lives must be miserable even now.

I bet you are right. What a shame people are treated so badly. It a rough world out there.

 

[Diesel]

Thank you for a terrific post. I understand everything you say. I really do. Including the anger if I scab, which I probably won't. The anger does NOT JUSTIFY ostracizing someone for the rest of his career. That is beyond the Pale.

The fact that you say I probably won't scab shows you still don't understand why being a scab is the worst of the worst.

If you decide to be a scab then you get to be treated like the lowest of the low. You placed yourself ahead of your fellow brothers and is actively helping out the other side to ensure that they win against your once former brothers and sisters.

You make a decision you live with it. You just don't like the results. Life isn't fair. Man up and live with your decisions don't cry about it.

 

[Diesel]

I worry more about our employer's overhead becoming unsustainably high if we push too hard.

It's good to see the companies fud is working well. Oh no our company can't afford to give us a raise or keep our benefits.

You are the perfect company employee. You believe the lies and fuzzy math that makes you feel better about your job and willing to sell out fellow pilots.

In the end you have no experience in this matter.

You have no experience in union negotiations.
You aren't involved in the union you consider them thugs
You believe what the company is putting out and discount what the union is putting out
You're willing to sell your other pilots down the road to further your own gains.
You aren't willing to support any union initiatives for fear it might rock the boat.
You attack pilots personally yet don't understand why you should be attacked if you scab.

That about sums up your position.

 

[PCL_128]

I bet you are right. What a shame people are treated so badly. It a rough world out there.

However they're being treated is better than they deserve.

 

[brokeflyer]

some people just aren't too bright.....even gulfstream pilots.

 

[Praetorian]

So who is this guy. I think it's time we knew his name.