Maybe a reson to vote Dem.

[Soverytired]

Controllers should have just as much right to advance and defend their profession that every other labor group does. I find your above statements to be out of line.

I see.

And yet you failed to address the hypothetical of "What if the US military went on strike and demanded a $1 million per private pay raise?" Why not now, during wartime? Strike when the iron is hot and all that.

Clearly, some PUBLIC services are too critical to US security and well-being that limiting their ability to strike is necessary. I believe ATC is one such service; you disagree. Yet is there ANY PUBLIC entity that you think should be prohibited from work actions as a matter of law?

No matter. Ultimately, I find your reasoning inconsistent.

1. I'm arguing FOR a hypothetical limited nationwide airline strike, legal or not, because the only effective "chip" unions have is a credible strike threat.
2. You say that it can't be done, because the laws don't allow it.
3. You then imply that groups (like controllers) who strike in defiance of the law somehow were treated unfairly when they knowingly broke the law.

Power by unions is taken, not legislated. Again, I'm not at all comfortable with this approach, but this is the reality of an effective union. We're certainly not at a point in the US where this is remotely necessary . . . but the time may come again someday.

After all, if you truly believe your party of choice (whichever, doesn't matter) will simply legislate your right to strike at will, why stop there? Why not legislate a "fair wage" for your salary? Why have any free market, private industry, or competition at all?

 

[PCL_128]

And yet you failed to address the hypothetical of "What if the US military went on strike and demanded a $1 million per private pay raise?" Why not now, during wartime? Strike when the iron is hot and all that.

The military is not the same as other public service occupations. I don't find this analogy to be reasonable.

[*]I'm arguing FOR a hypothetical limited nationwide airline strike, legal or not, because the only effective "chip" unions have is a credible strike threat.

It isn't a credible threat, because too many will cross the lines. That's the problem.

[*]You say that it can't be done, because the laws don't allow it.

No, I say it can't be done because too many pilots will comply with the law rather than following the marching orders of their union leaders.

[*]You then imply that groups (like controllers) who strike in defiance of the law somehow were treated unfairly.[/LIST]

Incorrect. The controllers were not treated unfairly in regards to the law at the time. Reagan had every legal right to do what he did. My argument is that the law itself is unfair and should be changed.

Why not legislate a "fair wage" for your salary?

I am in favor of a minimum "living wage" of $10/hr indexed for inflation.

 

[Salukipilot4590]

So your happy with your pay and QOL B?

Given the choices I had yes, I am. However I know when anti-union, anti intelligence and anti-common sense is running for pres. I dont come on here preaching to the masses because hell...I hate it when people do that to me... All I know is that I know who I'm voting for and nobody is going to change that.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Some of you on the left side of the aisle are forgetting the fact that it requires a profitable company to bargain with if you want to bargain for more money and better schedules......

The most labor friendly govt. in the world doesn't do any good if your company is losing money....

I want govt. that is pro-business....If we can get the airlines making money and if ALPA can start acting like a union....the rest will fall into place....

If we get Obama and ALPA continues to act the same....many of you will not like the results.....

 

[JoeMerchant]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080608/ap_on_re_us/iraq_katrina

 

[DoinTime]

I want govt. that is pro-business....If we can get the airlines making money and if ALPA can start acting like a union....the rest will fall into place

Your pro-business government will strip Unions of their rights in order to boost corporate profits. How does that help anything "fall into place" for the workers?

...or is it that you want a pro-business government that is pro-business in every way except for being extremely liberal with labor laws?

...or perhaps you want a pro-business government to create a perfect environment for airlines to make money then you want ALPA to come into the board room with baseball bats and after kicking the crap out of all the executives then proceed to pick their pockets.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Your pro-business government will strip Unions of their rights in order to boost corporate profits. How does that help anything "fall into place" for the workers?

...or is it that you want a pro-business government that is pro-business in every way except for being extremely liberal with labor laws?

...or perhaps you want a pro-business government to create a perfect environment for airlines to make money then you want ALPA to come into the board room with baseball bats and after kicking the crap out of all the executives then proceed to pick their pockets.

I want govt. that is best for the economy, the country, and for my industry....If my company and my industry doesn't make money....what good is the ability to strike? How much are you going to gain if the industry keeps losing money?

By the way....What are you refering to when you say "boost corporate profits"? Surely you aren't talking about the airline industry.....unless you mean boost the losses......

 

[acaTerry]

I was / am a big Reagan fan, but had to side with the controllers somewhat. You couldn't pay me enough for their job. Well, maybe if I were a local controller in Valdosta GA.

 

[CA1900]

They tried to cripple this country to enrich themselves at the expense of the US taxpayer. F them.

You're wrong on many levels about the PATCO strike.


There was more to the ATC strike than simply wanting more money. Among other things, the controllers wanted to be paid for the overtime worked! (Wow, talk about unreasonble... )

The way the pay structure was set up, you took your annual base salary and divided it by 26, and that was your biweekly salary cap. Your paycheck could never be higher than that cap, but it could be lower.

If you worked 60 hours two weeks, you were paid for 60. But if you worked 90 hours, you were only paid for 80, because the extra hours would put you over the "cap."

"So don't work overtime," you're thinking. Not an option due to staffing. They were required to work overtime to keep their jobs, and the salary structure meant this mandatory overtime was unpaid.


"F them" for wanting to get paid for the hours they put in? I'm sure your employer would never change the conditions of your employment after you're already on property...

 

[Soverytired]

You're wrong on many levels about the PATCO strike.

"F them" for wanting to get paid for the hours they put in? I'm sure your employer would never change the conditions of your employment after you're already on property...

1. Every labor group strike is ALWAYS about money.
2. I don't disagree with them wanting more . . .it's human nature. I disagree with their methods.
3. Post strike controllers make more than generals in the armed forces, more than government doctors, scientists, pilots . . you name it. (at least those in the area centers working during the late 80's, 90's, and early 00's)
4. They make SO MUCH that money allocated to the FAA is going to controller wages and not much else. Improvements that could benefit all suffer, and the "B" payscale is an acknowledgment of this.

I don't begrudge them a penny of it though. Their union NEGOTIATED for it. It took time, it took unity, it took luck (J. Garvey, Clinton and a weak GW) and it took brains, but they got it fair and square. Unlike the PATCO guys, who threw a 3-year old screaming fit and said "Give it to me NOW" or we'll shut down the entire US of A.

F them.

 

[Soverytired]

The military is not the same as other public service occupations. I don't find this analogy to be reasonable.

Incorrect. The controllers were not treated unfairly in regards to the law at the time. Reagan had every legal right to do what he did. My argument is that the law itself is unfair and should be changed.

I am in favor of a minimum "living wage" of $10/hr indexed for inflation.

(Interesting. We're actually closer on all this whole mess than I originally thought)

I chose the military because it's an obvious example of one government occupation that simply cannot be allowed to strike. You concede then that some public institutions can't then, nes pa?

How about the TSA? Should THEY be allowed to strike? US Customs? Border patrol? IRS? US Corps of Engineers during hurricane recoveries? CIA?

Personally, I don't think any government union should be allowed to strike. The public treasury always appears bottomless, and pressure would simply be too great not to concede every time to any government union demand.

As to the minimum wage . . . I was not speaking of a federally mandated min wage (I'm not necessarily opposed to it). I was talking about a government decreed PILOT wage.

Your line of reasoning is that:

1. Pilots can't strike without government permission
2. One or the other parties will be union friendly enough to grant them that right without restrictions

I counter with:

1. With proper unity, pilots already have this ability. However, things are simply not that bad in the pilot community to inspire this kind of unity.
2. If you ceede this power to the federal government, why stop there? Why not just have Congress dictate what you can earn?
3. This would be a very bad idea, because I guarantee you, the flying public is going to be perfectly ok with you maxing out at $70k/year.

 

[PCL_128]

You concede then that some public institutions can't then, nes pa?

In very limited circumstance, yes.

How about the TSA? Should THEY be allowed to strike? US Customs? Border patrol? IRS? US Corps of Engineers during hurricane recoveries? CIA?

Yes to everything except the CIA (which isn't unionized anyway). In fact, I wrote to my congressmen to urge them to approve measures that would allow TSA employees to strike. They have just as much right to improve their working conditions that every other labor group does. The right to unionization is a basic human right. When you join the military, you give up some of your rights. Not so when you become a security screener.

As to the minimum wage . . . I was not speaking of a federally mandated min wage (I'm not necessarily opposed to it). I was talking about a government decreed PILOT wage.

Yes, I would support a government mandated minimum wage for pilots as part of an overall re-regulation package. I also support complete re-regulation of the airline industry and a reestablishment of the CAB.

 

[CA1900]

I don't disagree with them wanting more . . .it's human nature. I disagree with their methods.

Honest question: Your employer changes the rules after you got there, and requires you to work free overtime every week. If you don't work it, you're fired. They flatly refuse to negotiate the overtime issue. What would you do?

 

[Carl_Spackler]

Slaveowners in early America, and Hitler in Germany decided who counted as human. I guess we are doing it all over again today.

I agree. Right now the law says that an unborn baby is not a person, but when a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer is charged with killing two people. The irony. I think Roe v Wade will be overturned eventually.

 

[Soverytired]

Honest question: Your employer changes the rules after you got there, and requires you to work free overtime every week. If you don't work it, you're fired. They flatly refuse to negotiate the overtime issue. What would you do?

Me? I work for airlines. I waited for the union to fix things, and that didn't work at all (I was begging for a chance to walk a picket line) So I left and found a much, much better job. This is what most people with regular jobs do, and this is why union membership has been declining for decades.

But we're not talking about regular jobs. We're talking about a highly specialized technical skill that is totally monopolized by the US government (ATC). It's an absolutely critical component to the nations infrastructure, and as such, they simply cannot be allowed to strike any more than the US Military could during a time of war (or peace).

A shutdown of ATC is literally a mater of life and death. Organ transports, medivacs, and lifeguard flights would all terminate. A strike of any length would mean the immediate furlough of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of airline pilots . . . but I'm sure you'd be happy to take one for your union brothers, eh? It could trigger a recession in good times, and a full blown depression in weak times.

So what to do? Clearly, the second ATC union got it's stuff together and negotiated for just about everything they could ever want: insanely high pay, early retirements with bloated federal pensions, massive overtime pay, day care centers on area facilities with doctor's visiting the kiddies, exercise facilities on the property, abolition of any kind of dress code . . you name it.

So I guess the short answer is :

• I'd wait for a friendly administration then rape the taxpayer for every penny I could, even at the expense of an efficient and modernized ATC system.

• Then I'd make sure my dues were spent spreading the myth about how stressful my job was and how much of a superman I was and how I deserved every penny (even though all I needed was a high school diploma to do it).
• Oh, and I'd resist any updating to a 50 year old ATC system, because any reform might show just how unnecessary many of the controllers really are.