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.