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.