Look before you leap, NJASAP!

[netjetwife]

Thanks for the popcorn , but I don't care for beer. If you don't have a wine cooler, I'll just stick with my iced tea...

Diesel, I trust you're following the latest NJASAP development as closely as I am. The cards and donations (some quite generous, as you know) have made the will of the pilotgroup patently obvious. I think that bodes well for a successful outcome this week in CMH, don't you? Hey, Grumpy, you can have my beer ... and we'll all watch the IBT MEETS NJASAP show together...:beer:

 

[Ultra Grump]

Mmmmmm...beer! :beer: Stella for me, thanks!

 

[netjetwife]

Stella Artois? I have a great SA beer sign/mirror I picked up at an antik markt in Belgium. That's how my beer taste runs. Hopefully the week will end with reason to imbibe in adult beverages of choice for the NJASAPers. Mosel wine for me bitte.

 

[cjs]

The Options pilots voted as a group to work together to improve their job situation--that's their legal right. There is a going rate for frac pilots and they are negotiating to get the contract they are due by virtue of the duties performed and their responsibility for lives and aircraft.

Nothing wrong with that, more power to them. Yes, there is a "going rate" for frac pilots, dictated by supply and demand. It has NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, to do with the responsibilities and duties accepted by those pilots. This is basic economics, sorry NJW.

Janitors "deserve" to make more because they mop up s**t. Engineers "deserve" more because they design products upon which people's lives depend. Mechanics "deserve" more because they maintain equipment which people rely upon. See where I'm going with this? "Deserve" has no place in this discussion ...

CJS, could you please tell us your job position, employer and family status so that we may understand the basis of your perspective? NJW

I could, but it wouldn't do a damn bit of good. I'll say this, I'm a relatively young guy, and worked in "lay" professions for most of my young adult life. The rhetoric I'm hearing here is amusingly similar to what you hear on construction sites. Same old Marxist stuff, and only a few people with guts ever stood up to it. Everybody thinks they're underpaid, didn't you know that?

Pass the Guinness, please :beer:

 

[netjetwife]

Supply and demand is another factor, yes. It was part of the reason that the NJA management team raised FO pay considerably last Dec. It appears that a pilot shortage may be looming on the horizon soon and they wanted to keep the pilots they spent a lot of training dollars on. Likewise, CS raised wages to keep their pilots. Salaries are obviously tied to duties and responsibilities; otherwise, FOs would be paid the same as Captains-- nurses as doctors, legal assistants as lawyers, etc.

Considering that the words earn, rate, and merit are all synonyms for the term "deserve" it definitely has an important role in salary discussions. The work groups you mention all deserve to make the going rate for their position. They earn their salary by performing the job to a set standard. By that merit they deserve the pay. Managers often give deserving workers a bonus. They decide who deserves it by assessing job performance. Those who take on additional responsibilities would by all rights deserve extra pay. Generally speaking, after an interview the more deserving applicant is hired.

The majority of frac pilots just received a new contract (3 yrs early no less) which was ratified by a 3 to 1 margin. They also got a signing bonus with it. Those NJA pilots are quite satisfied with their pay. But it seems you're not part of the frac community so you wouldn't know that.

What exactly is your connection to the frac industry, and your reason for posting in this forum, CJ? When one makes friends here that information is commonly shared. As for the Guinness, sorry, I don't drink with strangers...:erm:

 

[B19 Flyer]

Supply and demand is another factor, yes. It was part of the reason that the NJA management team raised FO pay considerably last Dec. It appears that a pilot shortage may be looming on the horizon soon and they wanted to keep the pilots they spent a lot of training dollars on. Likewise, CS raised wages to keep their pilots. Salaries are obviously tied to duties and responsibilities; otherwise, FOs would be paid the same as Captains-- nurses as doctors, legal assistants as lawyers, etc.

Considering that the words earn, rate, and merit are all synonyms for the term "deserve" it definitely has an important role in salary discussions. The work groups you mention all deserve to make the going rate for their position. They earn their salary by performing the job to a set standard. By that merit they deserve the pay. Managers often give deserving workers a bonus. They decide who deserves it by assessing job performance. Those who take on additional responsibilities would by all rights deserve extra pay. Generally speaking, after an interview the more deserving applicant is hired.

The majority of frac pilots just received a new contract (3 yrs early no less) which was ratified by a 3 to 1 margin. They also got a signing bonus with it. Those NJA pilots are quite satisfied with their pay. But it seems you're not part of the frac community so you wouldn't know that.

What exactly is your connection to the frac industry, and your reason for posting in this forum, CJ? When one makes friends here that information is commonly shared. As for the Guinness, sorry, I don't drink with strangers...:erm:

Unions have nothing to do with supply and demand. They look at the balance sheets and see how much they can get out of a company and aim there.

That is proven over and over by the way unions treat companies when times go bad.

As a pilot's wife that is disrespectful to any profession unless they are a pilot, first you disrespect by making the statement that he's not part of the fractional community, then you ask why he posts on this board.

YOU are not part of the fractional community, you disrespect those that work in it and are only a pilot's wife. That doesn't qualify you as being part of the community, thus you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.

 

[cjs]

Likewise, CS raised wages to keep their pilots. Salaries are obviously tied to duties and responsibilities; otherwise, FOs would be paid the same as Captains-- nurses as doctors, legal assistants as lawyers, etc.

Glad to hear the FOs are making more. But salaries are indirectly tied to duties and responsibilities. The root cause is supply and demand. Think about it .. if you paid FOs and Capts the same amount, who would want to take more responsibility for the same amount of pay?

Reminds me of a story from the railroad. Basically, to operate a freight train, you need an engineer and conductor. It used to be that on Norfolk Southern, conductors would refuse to upgrade to engineers. Engineers have to stay awake .. conductors, not so much, among other things. They made about the same amount of money, too. So why would anybody want to upgrade? NS mgt finally got fed up and forced new conductors to sit for engineer training, and if they failed, they lost their job.

The moral: Unions set the going rate for a job with large supply (lots of conductors) equal to a job with small supply (not enough engineers). The market forces were stifled, and NS whipped out a big stick. Upgrade or you're fired .. Man, if you want to see mgt - union hostility, railroads make airline quibbles look like nerf wars.

Considering that the words earn, rate, and merit are all synonyms for the term "deserve" it definitely has an important role in salary discussions. The work groups you mention all deserve to make the going rate for their position. They earn their salary by performing the job to a set standard. By that merit they deserve the pay. Managers often give deserving workers a bonus. They decide who deserves it by assessing job performance. Those who take on additional responsibilities would by all rights deserve extra pay. Generally speaking, after an interview the more deserving applicant is hired.

Lol. Okay, you can make "deserving" a synonym for "qualified" if you really insist. Unfortunately, the "going rate" for pilots logically must factor in the rather large pool of guys more than willing to fly for $50k+, or even lower.

 

[B19 Flyer]

Nothing wrong with that, more power to them. Yes, there is a "going rate" for frac pilots, dictated by supply and demand. It has NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, to do with the responsibilities and duties accepted by those pilots. This is basic economics, sorry NJW.

Janitors "deserve" to make more because they mop up s**t. Engineers "deserve" more because they design products upon which people's lives depend. Mechanics "deserve" more because they maintain equipment which people rely upon. See where I'm going with this? "Deserve" has no place in this discussion ...



I could, but it wouldn't do a damn bit of good. I'll say this, I'm a relatively young guy, and worked in "lay" professions for most of my young adult life. The rhetoric I'm hearing here is amusingly similar to what you hear on construction sites. Same old Marxist stuff, and only a few people with guts ever stood up to it. Everybody thinks they're underpaid, didn't you know that?

Pass the Guinness, please :beer:

You know, she really doesn't get it. The only thing that she understands that a union speaks for her, but when she says something disrespectful and you catch it, she will write pages trying to explain what she meant.

Her quote disrespecting rank and file employees is a classic example on where her thinking is. To her, if you are not a pilot, then you aren't anything.

All she says is that pilot's deserve this and pilot's deserve that. I don't have a problem with pilot's earning a living, hell for a while I was one myself.

But I've also learned that if pilot's make the majority of the money though a CBA, then the rest of the employees don't, and the company ceases to exist in a meaningful fashion due to the turmoil within.

 

[realityman]

CJS,

You NEVER earn what you 'deserve'. You NEVER earn what you're 'worth'. You NEVER earn what supply and demand dictates.

Very simply, you earn what you negotiate.

From the couple people on here who continually display anti-union rhetoric, they like to gloss over the fact that the ones in management who make the really big bucks NEGOTIATED their contract when they took employment at wherever they work.

So why so against a union negotiating for a contract for its members? Yeah, it can get contentious. So what? Are you suggesting that in life we should always take the path that is easiest? The union says we should make X number of dollars at year five. The company says no way, we'll give you Y number of dollars at year five (Y being a number MUCH smaller than X). In your opinion, should the union members shrug their shoulders, heave a big sigh, and just take Y because it'd be a lot of work convincing the company they should make something closer to X?

Maybe you're against union tactics to get the contract? I can't say that I blame you. I really didn't enjoy them myself. It does make for an 'interesting' environment at work. But here's the question: What do you suggest a union should do when it's obvious that talking it out is getting nowhere? Haven't you ever had a conversation with someone where you were trying to explain something to someone and they just didn't get it no matter how much you talked? (Sorta like these threads on FI!) Or better yet, why do you think science classrooms around the country do science demonstrations instead of just talking about the concepts? Do you have kids? Have they ever been stubborn about taking out the trash no matter how many times you told them to do it? Didn't you have to resort to a demonstration of sorts, or at least the threat of a demonstration (Take the trash out or else I'll...(insert punishment here)) to get them to do it?

My point: Talking things out doesn't always yield results. In fact, most of the time, the company would love to just keep on talking. Talking in circles, making promises but never delivering, then asking for a little more time and they SWEAR they'll come through. Then scheduling more negotiating meetings, but canceling at the last minute for one reason or another. But hey, let's get together next month to talk some more! Why do they want to keep talking forever? Because as long as they're talking, they aren't paying any more in wages and benefits. The name of their game is obvious: drag things out as long as possible. Forever if they could.

So when talking fails, I ask you again, what is the union supposed to do? They do what we at NJA did. Like I said, it wasn't fun for us in any way. But when we got serious about forcing the issue, lo and behold!! the company was back at the table with serious offers for a change. And just for the record, we didn't get what we were aiming for. We fell short. But we knew when it was a good idea to take what was offered, because it was a pretty good deal. Contrary to what some folks would have you believe, we weren't greedy to the point of destruction of the company.

So management negotiates their contracts (do you really believe ANYONE is worth millions in salary plus tens of millions in bonuses, or that there aren't many MANY folks out there who are trying to become management, which means it isn't supply and demand or what you 'deserve', it's what you negotiate), and unions negotiate their contracts. What's the problem with that?

Here's a fun little thought experiment for you. Where do you think the standard of living in this country today would be without unions? If things were left strictly to supply and demand, no union involvement, where would we be?

I won't argue with you if you say some unions are too greedy. And some are corrupt. It's true. But some do very good work, and some know how to be reasonable. It's the same with management, no? I'd even go so far as to say that the best safety policies in aviation today have been created and put forth by unions. They aren't so bad and STILL serve a good purpose today.

 

[B19 Flyer]

CJS,

You NEVER earn what you 'deserve'. You NEVER earn what you're 'worth'. You NEVER earn what supply and demand dictates.

Very simply, you earn what you negotiate.

From the couple people on here who continually display anti-union rhetoric, they like to gloss over the fact that the ones in management who make the really big bucks NEGOTIATED their contract when they took employment at wherever they work.

So why so against a union negotiating for a contract for its members? Yeah, it can get contentious. So what? Are you suggesting that in life we should always take the path that is easiest? The union says we should make X number of dollars at year five. The company says no way, we'll give you Y number of dollars at year five (Y being a number MUCH smaller than X). In your opinion, should the union members shrug their shoulders, heave a big sigh, and just take Y because it'd be a lot of work convincing the company they should make something closer to X?

Maybe you're against union tactics to get the contract? I can't say that I blame you. I really didn't enjoy them myself. It does make for an 'interesting' environment at work. But here's the question: What do you suggest a union should do when it's obvious that talking it out is getting nowhere? Haven't you ever had a conversation with someone where you were trying to explain something to someone and they just didn't get it no matter how much you talked? (Sorta like these threads on FI!) Or better yet, why do you think science classrooms around the country do science demonstrations instead of just talking about the concepts? Do you have kids? Have they ever been stubborn about taking out the trash no matter how many times you told them to do it? Didn't you have to resort to a demonstration of sorts, or at least the threat of a demonstration (Take the trash out or else I'll...(insert punishment here)) to get them to do it?

My point: Talking things out doesn't always yield results. In fact, most of the time, the company would love to just keep on talking. Talking in circles, making promises but never delivering, then asking for a little more time and they SWEAR they'll come through. Then scheduling more negotiating meetings, but canceling at the last minute for one reason or another. But hey, let's get together next month to talk some more! Why do they want to keep talking forever? Because as long as they're talking, they aren't paying any more in wages and benefits. The name of their game is obvious: drag things out as long as possible. Forever if they could.

So when talking fails, I ask you again, what is the union supposed to do? They do what we at NJA did. Like I said, it wasn't fun for us in any way. But when we got serious about forcing the issue, lo and behold!! the company was back at the table with serious offers for a change. And just for the record, we didn't get what we were aiming for. We fell short. But we knew when it was a good idea to take what was offered, because it was a pretty good deal. Contrary to what some folks would have you believe, we weren't greedy to the point of destruction of the company.

So management negotiates their contracts (do you really believe ANYONE is worth millions in salary plus tens of millions in bonuses, or that there aren't many MANY folks out there who are trying to become management, which means it isn't supply and demand or what you 'deserve', it's what you negotiate), and unions negotiate their contracts. What's the problem with that?

Here's a fun little thought experiment for you. Where do you think the standard of living in this country today would be without unions? If things were left strictly to supply and demand, no union involvement, where would we be?

I won't argue with you if you say some unions are too greedy. And some are corrupt. It's true. But some do very good work, and some know how to be reasonable. It's the same with management, no? I'd even go so far as to say that the best safety policies in aviation today have been created and put forth by unions. They aren't so bad and STILL serve a good purpose today.

The same union rhetoric as always, making excuses for destroying the careers of innocent bystanders that don't want a union anywhere near them.

 

[flyjetspeed]

Very nicely posted Realityman!

 

[B19 Flyer]

Supply and demand is another factor, yes. It was part of the reason that the NJA management team raised FO pay considerably last Dec. It appears that a pilot shortage may be looming on the horizon soon and they wanted to keep the pilots they spent a lot of training dollars on. Likewise, CS raised wages to keep their pilots. Salaries are obviously tied to duties and responsibilities; otherwise, FOs would be paid the same as Captains-- nurses as doctors, legal assistants as lawyers, etc.

Considering that the words earn, rate, and merit are all synonyms for the term "deserve" it definitely has an important role in salary discussions. The work groups you mention all deserve to make the going rate for their position. They earn their salary by performing the job to a set standard. By that merit they deserve the pay. Managers often give deserving workers a bonus. They decide who deserves it by assessing job performance. Those who take on additional responsibilities would by all rights deserve extra pay. Generally speaking, after an interview the more deserving applicant is hired.

The majority of frac pilots just received a new contract (3 yrs early no less) which was ratified by a 3 to 1 margin. They also got a signing bonus with it. Those NJA pilots are quite satisfied with their pay. But it seems you're not part of the frac community so you wouldn't know that.

What exactly is your connection to the frac industry, and your reason for posting in this forum, CJ? When one makes friends here that information is commonly shared. As for the Guinness, sorry, I don't drink with strangers...:erm:

The fact of the matter is, that 1108 was brought in to close the deal like they did at NetJets.

It didn't happen and it's tearing the company to shreds. The Flight Options union mongers complain because they don’t get paid the same as NJ pilots.

It would seem to me that the easy solution would be to go and fly for Netjets instead of wading through three years of turmoil and get what will most likely be less than what they would have received by going to NJ in the first place.

What is stopping those Flight Options pilots from going there and giving themselves the utopia they desire?

Perhaps it’s because they can’t get a job at NJ for various reasons. Perhaps they have the wrong mix of hours, lack of skills. Who knows?

When I was coming up through the industry, I knew where I wanted to work, and through effort, education and skills I got there, only to be derailed by a union action. Because I had to pay bills, I chose a non-union carrier where I do the same job as I did at the legacy carrier for more money and what turned out to be better benefits.

If you failed to make the correct career choice, it’s your fault, not the company’s fault. Don't blame somebody else, take responsibility for your own career and stop blaming others.

You may have a legal right to unionize, but morally and ethically, you are impacting all of those around you that don’t want a union and don’t have a say in the matter because they are not a pilot.

 

[Mooneymite]

CJS,

You NEVER earn what you 'deserve'. You NEVER earn what you're 'worth'. You NEVER earn what supply and demand dictates.

Very simply, you earn what you negotiate.

From the couple people on here who continually display anti-union rhetoric, they like to gloss over the fact that the ones in management who make the really big bucks NEGOTIATED their contract when they took employment at wherever they work.

So why so against a union negotiating for a contract for its members? Yeah, it can get contentious. So what? Are you suggesting that in life we should always take the path that is easiest? The union says we should make X number of dollars at year five. The company says no way, we'll give you Y number of dollars at year five (Y being a number MUCH smaller than X). In your opinion, should the union members shrug their shoulders, heave a big sigh, and just take Y because it'd be a lot of work convincing the company they should make something closer to X?

Maybe you're against union tactics to get the contract? I can't say that I blame you. I really didn't enjoy them myself. It does make for an 'interesting' environment at work. But here's the question: What do you suggest a union should do when it's obvious that talking it out is getting nowhere? Haven't you ever had a conversation with someone where you were trying to explain something to someone and they just didn't get it no matter how much you talked? (Sorta like these threads on FI!) Or better yet, why do you think science classrooms around the country do science demonstrations instead of just talking about the concepts? Do you have kids? Have they ever been stubborn about taking out the trash no matter how many times you told them to do it? Didn't you have to resort to a demonstration of sorts, or at least the threat of a demonstration (Take the trash out or else I'll...(insert punishment here)) to get them to do it?

My point: Talking things out doesn't always yield results. In fact, most of the time, the company would love to just keep on talking. Talking in circles, making promises but never delivering, then asking for a little more time and they SWEAR they'll come through. Then scheduling more negotiating meetings, but canceling at the last minute for one reason or another. But hey, let's get together next month to talk some more! Why do they want to keep talking forever? Because as long as they're talking, they aren't paying any more in wages and benefits. The name of their game is obvious: drag things out as long as possible. Forever if they could.

So when talking fails, I ask you again, what is the union supposed to do? They do what we at NJA did. Like I said, it wasn't fun for us in any way. But when we got serious about forcing the issue, lo and behold!! the company was back at the table with serious offers for a change. And just for the record, we didn't get what we were aiming for. We fell short. But we knew when it was a good idea to take what was offered, because it was a pretty good deal. Contrary to what some folks would have you believe, we weren't greedy to the point of destruction of the company.

So management negotiates their contracts (do you really believe ANYONE is worth millions in salary plus tens of millions in bonuses, or that there aren't many MANY folks out there who are trying to become management, which means it isn't supply and demand or what you 'deserve', it's what you negotiate), and unions negotiate their contracts. What's the problem with that?

Here's a fun little thought experiment for you. Where do you think the standard of living in this country today would be without unions? If things were left strictly to supply and demand, no union involvement, where would we be?

I won't argue with you if you say some unions are too greedy. And some are corrupt. It's true. But some do very good work, and some know how to be reasonable. It's the same with management, no? I'd even go so far as to say that the best safety policies in aviation today have been created and put forth by unions. They aren't so bad and STILL serve a good purpose today.

Good post REALITYMAN...once again, I agree with you. However, an important part of what is negotiated, particularly for labor, has to do with the environment in which it is negotiated.

How much negotiating power did APA end up with once it was made clear they "could not" strike? How much power did the Delta guys have once the court injunction came out against the pilots' concerted effort to turn down overtime? How effective were the United guys when it was clear the bankruptcy court really didn't give a rat's rear-end about labor?

The make-up of the NLRB, the interpretation of FAR flight time-duty times, the pro labor/anti labor stance of judges, have a huge effect on what can be negotiated.

We don't negotiate in a vacuum. Labor is all in this together when it comes to public policy.

I am concerned that as labor fractionalizes into company unions, and moves away from national unions this environment will turn ever more anti-labor. Business will pay for the most pro-business laws it can afford. There is a lot of money to be made by keeping the cost of labor down. Even a large, well financed local-single company union like SWAPA, or APA can't fight the forces of big-business by itself.

There is a reason that unions joined forces way back when. I suspect we are going to have to learn those reasons all over again.

 

[CA1900]

Mooneymite: Hypothetically, what if NJASAP becomes the bargaining unit for NJA pilots. If they were to affiliate with the AFL-CIO (which the Teamsters disaffiliated themselves with not long ago), would that change your view on its influence on the national (and international) level?

My concern is that the Teamsters are using their "voice in Washington" -- and our money -- to work against us on key issues like user fees. To me, that seems like it would be counterproductive to our interests as fractional pilots.

 

[netjetwife]

Exactly, CA1900! NJASAP will be independent--not isolated. They will be able to network with other groups that share common interests. NJASAP will do a much better job of promoting frac issues than the IBT did. The NJ pilots are making their choice very clear. The card count is approaching 75% and they're still coming in--donation$ too.

That determination and motivation to succeed bodes well for the future of the NJA/I pilotgroups. Public thanks to the NJI pilots who have expressed their support for NJASAP leadership of an in-house Union. Come to think of it, that's a good example of forming an alliance where none had previously existed. NJA pilots have been reaching out and establishing a relationship based on mutual respect and common goals. Clearly there are some doors that remain closed to the Teamsters because their reputation precedes them. That is not a problem for the NJA pilots who have an excellent track record.

 

[realityman]

MM,

You're absolutely correct. Negotiations aren't done in a vacuum. And the pro or anti-unionism in government can make a real difference.

However, much thinking inside the unions has become stagnant. In other words, you don't see much thinking outside the box. Once you get outside the box, much can be achieved without permission from the government or anyone else.

For example, while some have decried it as unethical, doing an extra thorough preflight and not flying until you and the plane are 100% legal is acceptable. It's not a work action like a sick-out. It's doing your job to the best of your ability. Who in government or even a company will step up and tell you to quit writing things up that are wrong with the planes? Now, I do agree COMPLETELY that no one should EVER be sabotaging an aircraft! It's illegal, potentially dangerous, and could cost you your career (kind of the opposite of what you're trying to achieve). But nothing stops you from learning more about the plane you fly and really understanding what needs to be right to be both safe AND legal.

Do nothing illegal, either for or against the company.

It's not a an illegal work action for a union to help educate its members further on the dangers of fatigue and how to recognize it. And if the number of fatigue calls goes up because of this education, that's just the way it is to be safe.

Do nothing illegal, either for or against the company.

Do you know what happens to cognitive ability when your blood sugar levels drop too low? For a graphic demonstration of it, just read B19's posts. That guy must be STARVING all the time! So you've been on duty for 6 hours, haven't had food, and you're supposed to fly a three hour leg without food? The SAFE thing to do is get some food first.

In other words, you don't need a pro-labor administration to effect change or put the pressure on. You don't need to strike or even contemplate an illegal work action. Heck, what do the FAR's say about O2 use? If people were to simply FOLLOW THE RULES THAT ALREADY EXIST, how often would planes need to have the O2 serviced?

There are LOTS of creative ways to, shall we say, 'encourage' negotiations along without stepping over the line. And without any government agency's permission.

 

[Mooneymite]

Mooneymite: Hypothetically, what if NJASAP becomes the bargaining unit for NJA pilots. If they were to affiliate with the AFL-CIO (which the Teamsters disaffiliated themselves with not long ago), would that change your view on its influence on the national (and international) level?

My concern is that the Teamsters are using their "voice in Washington" -- and our money -- to work against us on key issues like user fees. To me, that seems like it would be counterproductive to our interests as fractional pilots.

Good question.

I would feel good about the change at NetJets if this were a change in affiliation. I do not like NJASAP as it is presently...an in-house, stand alone union.

The ALPA is affiliated with the AFL-CIO; seems to work for it. I have no idea how/if there would be any sentiment for NJASAP to send any money out of house ($3000 a day!!!! is the battle cry.). Because NJASAP is heralding the idea of keeping our own money, I doubt NJASAP could immediately change directions and send the money out again. I think it would be money well spent, though we won't see that money spent "in our own house".

I started this discussion about my fears of labor fragmentation, but most of the posts have concerned themselves about how this is good for the NetJets pilots or why some particular labor organization sucks. We need to think beyond parochialism. That's why I carried this discussion to this forum and not the NJASAP board. Labor dissolution is affecting all labor, not just NJA pilots.

I am concerned about the long-term dissolution of labor. (B-19 notwithstanding:bomb: ) Labor does have a long history of in-fighting. APA walked out of the ALPA, AFL-CIO has had its in-house squabbles and now 1108 is pulling out of the IBT. History is full of labor fighting labor. Such is the nature of organizations.

Through all the internecine fighting we must all remember that oppressive management is the enemy....not our fellow laborers. Our fellow laborers may be competitors for the labor buck, but we need to keep the "enemy" in our sights. We need an effective coalition that can match big business in political clout.

We love to take pot shots at IBT, AFL-CIO, the ALPA, and other labor organizations which fall short in one area or another. We must be mindful of areas that need improvement; however, labor must stick together, or it will (continue to) be picked apart.

 

[Mooneymite]

...........

In other words, you don't need a pro-labor administration to effect change or put the pressure on. You don't need to strike or even contemplate an illegal work action. Heck, what do the FAR's say about O2 use? If people were to simply FOLLOW THE RULES THAT ALREADY EXIST, how often would planes need to have the O2 serviced?

..................

Realtyman, what I fear is that as labor becomes fragmented and loses the political power it enjoyed in the past, the rules that are so favorable to the tactics you mention will be changed.

The environment today is still favorable to labor, but it is the result of years of lobbying by organized labor. These rules can, and will, all be changed as big business takes advantage of our weakness.

 

[realityman]

MM,

You make good points, but by the very nature of different professions, it'd be almost impossible to have a large coalition represent all of labor to Washington.

Yes, a common thread amongst ALL labor is the desire for a good wage and good benefits, not to mention job protections such as protection from outsourcing.

Those are the basics.

But there's quite a bit more involved than basics. How does a cohesive national labor organization lobby in Washington if it is not only representing airlines, but charter, fractionals, and all the other types of operations that make money from flying? Airline workers see it in their best interests to force private avaition out, through user fees and maybe more restrictions on the use of ATC services. Obviously charters, fractionals, and the others would prefer to not see user fees and ATC restrictions become a reality.

So how does a major national labor coalition reconcile this? And whose interests are more important to represent? Should the coalition put more time and effort into lobbying for better working rules and conditions for truckers, or do pilot issues take precedence? What about dock workers? Where do they fall in the national scope?

Labor working together for the BASICS is great! But beyond that, each individual type of organized labor is really going to have to come up with their own plans to represent themselves on the national level. At first it may sound like a weaker position, but if you try to have one very large, 'powerful' coalition trying to represent everyone's interests at the national level, I sincereley believe you'll see a whole lot more infighting than you do now.

NJW said it best, we are trying to be an independant union, not an isolated one.

 

[Mooneymite]

MM,

You make good points, but by the very nature of different professions, it'd be almost impossible to have a large coalition represent all of labor to Washington.

Yes, a common thread amongst ALL labor is the desire for a good wage and good benefits, not to mention job protections such as protection from outsourcing.

Those are the basics.

But there's quite a bit more involved than basics. How does a cohesive national labor organization lobby in Washington if it is not only representing airlines, but charter, fractionals, and all the other types of operations that make money from flying? Airline workers see it in their best interests to force private avaition out, through user fees and maybe more restrictions on the use of ATC services. Obviously charters, fractionals, and the others would prefer to not see user fees and ATC restrictions become a reality.

So how does a major national labor coalition reconcile this? And whose interests are more important to represent? Should the coalition put more time and effort into lobbying for better working rules and conditions for truckers, or do pilot issues take precedence? What about dock workers? Where do they fall in the national scope?

Labor working together for the BASICS is great! But beyond that, each individual type of organized labor is really going to have to come up with their own plans to represent themselves on the national level. At first it may sound like a weaker position, but if you try to have one very large, 'powerful' coalition trying to represent everyone's interests at the national level, I sincereley believe you'll see a whole lot more infighting than you do now.

NJW said it best, we are trying to be an independant union, not an isolated one.

And the BASICS are exactly what I am worried about. As organized labor loses its punch, the very bedrock of our pro-labor laws will be gutted and laid waste. Organized labor got these laws passed when it was strong. Today, organized labor is fighting to keep them from being changed. Tomorrow it may not be strong enough to keep from going backwards.

It's great to be a nice, cozy in-house union and enjoy a contract protected by labor laws passed by our predecessors. But those laws are not written in stone. The forces opposed to labor are ready to abolish those laws and policies that we take for granted.

There are storm clouds on the horizon. This bad weather is not local in nature...it is global.