Please help a fellow union brother not SCAB.

[eskimopilot]

Perhaps you could show him/her the scablist. It's easy to find on line. It's in PDF format.
Show them where their name would fall and point out that this list is kept up to date. If they think their actions won't have repercussions long term then perhaps the names of the 1932 Century Airlines Scabs might give them pause.

 

[Diesel]

G4dude we welcome for you to post here.

 

[G4dude]

Here I am. Take your best shot.

I am the miscreant Diesel started this thread for. I was raised and nurtured in a non union household, worked my entire career in non union shops, and became a member when our company merged. After conversations on this site with union supporters, I have moved a little in their (your) direction. Third party unions like IBT are corrupt, but I now believe an in house union can be an efficient way to deal with a recalcitrant management team. I want good pay and conditions JUST AS MUCH as the union supporters do. Where we diverge is the maltreatment of someone who continues to go to work after you guys have decided to NOT go to work. Even if I honor the picket line, I would NEVER mistreat a scab, not for a second. I would never mistreat anyone for their decision to strike if I don't agree with you, but you would hound me for the rest of my career if I cross. THAT is what I detest about unions, that otherwise decent people think this execrable behavior is perfectly within the bounds of normalcy. By the way, I do NOT plan to scab. I will probably quit if the union goes on strike, which still provides the union with leverage by depriving the company of my services. And making the union happy by decreasing the number of less than enthusiastic members. I am not an ogre, nor am I selfish. There are many pilots here who agree with me, but they don't have the stomach, understandably, to endure the slings and arrows of vitriolic conversations on this site with the likes of Diesel, bless his hoary little rabble rousing heart. He is not a bad guy, but he is certainly single minded and passionate, without a great deal of ability to convince in a civilized manner.

 

[G4dude]

Perhaps you could show him/her the scablist. It's easy to find on line. It's in PDF format.
Show them where their name would fall and point out that this list is kept up to date. If they think their actions won't have repercussions long term then perhaps the names of the 1932 Century Airlines Scabs might give them pause.

I know perfectly well what the ramifications of scabbing are. The ramifications are shameful and coercive and uncivilized. Why can't we have unions WITHOUT the vituperative and vicious treatment of other members who, BTW, pay dues too? I submit any course of action which requires pressuring others to act in concert with you is not really a good course of action.

I really enjoyed using "vituperative." Its been a long time since I got to use it.

 

[G4dude]

In spite of the fact I grew up in a hardcore union family (non-aviation) I didn't totally grasp the depth of what it meant to be a scab until I heard this on NPR. It's about European coal strikes, but it resonates true regardless of what unionized group you work with.

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/19/371879356/no-son-of-mine

What a powerful piece!! Thanks so much for posting it.

 

[Flopgut]

I am the miscreant Diesel started this thread for. I was raised and nurtured in a non union household, worked my entire career in non union shops, and became a member when our company merged. After conversations on this site with union supporters, I have moved a little in their (your) direction. Third party unions like IBT are corrupt, but I now believe an in house union can be an efficient way to deal with a recalcitrant management team. I want good pay and conditions JUST AS MUCH as the union supporters do. Where we diverge is the maltreatment of someone who continues to go to work after you guys have decided to NOT go to work. Even if I honor the picket line, I would NEVER mistreat a scab, not for a second. I would never mistreat anyone for their decision to strike if I don't agree with you, but you would hound me for the rest of my career if I cross. THAT is what I detest about unions, that otherwise decent people think this execrable behavior is perfectly within the bounds of normalcy. By the way, I do NOT plan to scab. I will probably quit if the union goes on strike, which still provides the union with leverage by depriving the company of my services. And making the union happy by decreasing the number of less than enthusiastic members. I am not an ogre, nor am I selfish. There are many pilots here who agree with me, but they don't have the stomach, understandably, to endure the slings and arrows of vitriolic conversations on this site with the likes of Diesel, bless his hoary little rabble rousing heart. He is not a bad guy, but he is certainly single minded and passionate, without a great deal of ability to convince in a civilized manner.

Sounds like you're not too far off base. Although I'm not a big fan of what you're saying, I think you ought to just bite your tongue. You're obviously a cerebral sort, which works against you in a union. If you were super cerebral you'd understand pointing out the obvious flaws with a union. (Esp during negotiations) is absolutely foolish. You're empowering mgts case against you and your coworkers. Almost everything is in your favor, mgt knows they can't hire replacement workers that can operate the company safely in your legal absence [possible strike]. Biff and Muffy sitting in the back of the royal barge aren't going to put up with heavy handed mgt BS when they're paying what they are. This isn't the time for you to pontificate on all the obvious pitfalls that come with a union. Your behavior equates to the equal opposite of union negatives. And just as detrimental to the goal.

 

[G4dude]

Sounds like you're not too far off base. Although I'm not a big fan of what you're saying, I think you ought to just bite your tongue. You're obviously a cerebral sort, which works against you in a union. If you were super cerebral you'd understand pointing out the obvious flaws with a union. (Esp during negotiations) is absolutely foolish. You're empowering mgts case against you and your coworkers. Almost everything is in your favor, mgt knows they can't hire replacement workers that can operate the company safely in your legal absence [possible strike]. Biff and Muffy sitting in the back of the royal barge aren't going to put up with heavy handed mgt BS when they're paying what they are. This isn't the time for you to pontificate on all the obvious pitfalls that come with a union. Your behavior equates to the equal opposite of union negatives. And just as detrimental to the goal.

Thanks for your reasonable post. I agree with much of what you say, except my behavior doesn't include intimidation and lifelong mistreatment of others, therefore our behaviors are not equivalent..

 

[Flopgut]

I said you're the "equal opposite", and just as detrimental to the goal. You want a good contract, right?

One more observation: Kuddos to you for considering instead of striking, just getting another job. Lots of good pilots did just that. And it's a very mature way to approach the situation. You want to really shake mgt up? That's how you do it IMO. Not a harsh critique of obvious problems with a union that make everyone uncomfortable.

 

[G4dude]

I said you're the "equal opposite", and just as detrimental to the goal. You want a good contract, right?

One more observation: Kuddos to you for considering instead of striking, just getting another job. Lots of good pilots did just that. And it's a very mature way to approach the situation. You want to really shake mgt up? That's how you do it IMO. Not a harsh critique of obvious problems with a union that make everyone uncomfortable.

I gotcha. And remember, my problem with unions is the coercion of fellow members. The goals I agree with. The energeticnegotiations I agree with. The group power when communicating with management can be a good thing sometimes. But coercion of dues paying members? Not so good. If the union is so good, why does it have to coerce its membership? My answer is, it shouldn't have to.

 

[Flopgut]

I gotcha. And remember, my problem with unions is the coercion of fellow members. The goals I agree with. The energeticnegotiations I agree with. The group power when communicating with management can be a good thing sometimes. But coercion of dues paying members? Not so good. If the union is so good, why does it have to coerce its membership? My answer is, it shouldn't have to.

I agree with that. I'm not the believer in "social enforcement" that I used to be.