OK....so is it safe to assume that sometimes unions "overreach" in their demands? Is it safe to assume that it doesn't make good business sense to "give in" to union demands....See where I'm going with this....
Some how I think the ALPA/union cheerleaders would have a different spin on this if it was a corporation having the same dispute with it's employees...
You know this, but for those who don't:
Well, I guess it boils down to the fact that ALPA=Air Line Pilot Association. Alpa represents pilots.
Google says:
In representing those Pilots, ALPA has employed the services of a group of employees who have organized and formed the
Air Line Pilots Association Professional and Administrative Employees (
UALPAPAE) . This group represents nearly 170 staffers, including labor lawyers, economic analysts, retirement specialists, air safety engineers and communications practitioners at ALPA.
That Union supports the 53,000 pilots from 37 airlines that form the Air Line Pilot Association. That Union is negotiating with the Business Management of ALPA. This not the first negotiation, nor will it be the last. An agreement will be reached. However, if costs are not controlled, either dues will increase and/or services will be decreased.
Now to your questions. Can Unions sometimes "overreach" in their demands? What is the definition of "overreach?" Can Managments "overreach" in their demands? The answer to my question has to be yes--otherwise, we would not have Unions!
When referring to Unions and "overreaching", do you mean pre or post negotiations? In pre negotiations, both parties demand more than they KNOW that they can achieve. Positions change in negotiations, as you well know. If either side started out demanding what they wanted, they both would end up with something less. That's why it's called negotiations.
Post negotiations, can it be said that a Union "overreached?" Once again, post negotiations, can it be said that a Managment "overreached?" The answer to that question would be determined by the definition of "overreaching" and then more importantly, who or what party makes that determination. One would assume that under normal conditions, that neither party submitted to any more than they were willing to give, because a contract requires the signature of two (2) consenting parties. Otherwise, there can be no agreement or consent.
Can the pendulum swing too far in the interest of either party? An objective answer would be yes. That would be determined by many different factors and which party had more negotiating leverage. As you know, like Las Vegas, the House (Managment) usually always has the upper hand. In addition, unlike a one time real estate transaction, there is usually a long term relationship, mostly bad, between a Union and Mangagement. So in our industry governed by the RLA, if the pendulum swings too far, a correction will be made, either in the short term (bankruptcy) or the long term (the end of the next negotiations.)
"Overreaching" seems to be a relative term and also arbitrary. If there is such a thing, it only will last in the short term in our industry. Because if there is such a thing, there will be a correction at some point. In summary, I would say if there is such a thing, as is in physics, it would be considered an action. And according to some law I learned a long time ago, to every action there is a reaction! The law applies to Unions as well as Managements. However, based on my experience and observation in this industry, the concept is not proportional for both parties. Management, like the House, has the odds stacked in their favor!
See you at the concert!
