flyjetspeed
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2005
- Posts
- 109
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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:
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.
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.
...........
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?
..................
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.