Republican Candidates position on NLRB!

[waveflyer]

Please provide examples how this administration or any other liberal administration has helped this profession. You like to think that the left is not controlled by big business. Who is Obama's biggest contributor. What improvements have you seen since 2008? Once again... no substance and all name calling. Everyone who disagrees with you is stupid? Besides, our careers are not the only thing that drives votes. Believe it or not we are not the center of the universe.

Please note where I name called?

I'll just leave Dems as benefitting us by not actively screwing us like the GOP. If you don't see that... You're inconvincable.

But another question- why would Dems even contemplate helping us specifically when a solid majority of us work actively against them and
demonize all liberals?- if they could, I think they would work against us, but it doesn't work politically to ever be anti-union as a democrat. And that's the benefit- democrats get many votes through supporting unions- they generally cannot take anti-union actions- they are not pro-active at helping us bc we DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM. but at least they mostly stay out of our way-

(ps- if you're only example of them working against us is Clinton intervening on AA- that's weak- and not remotely comparable to the money grab, pension stealers that the GOP facilitated in the post 9/11 world. )

In this case - hypocrit isn't a name call- it's accurate- cashing a union paycheck while militantly protecting your own seniority rights against free market competition, while simultaneously voting anti-union can be called nothing else. Tell me where I'm wrong....?

 

[pilotyip]

Remember it is the Dem's who brought us the tremendous airline growth in the last two decades of the 1900's, created a five fold growth in airline jobs, and opened the skies to many more travelers. De-reg was a fantastic event for the airlines industry.

 

[Jetjockey]

Remember it is the Dem's who brought us the tremendous airline growth in the last two decades of the 1900's, created a five fold growth in airline jobs, and opened the skies to many more travelers. De-reg was a fantastic event for the airlines industry.

The GOP starting with Reagan who declared open season on Union labor. Then A GOP congress, and Bush Sr. who stood by while Frank Lorenzo killed union labor at Continental, and Eastern Airlines.

Yeah.....that helped the labor cause.

 

[Jetjockey]

Let's look at some current issues.

Q. Who wanted to pass a law making it possible to use the cockpit voice recorder to arbitrarily against pilots?
A. Republican Jim Demint (SC)

Q. Who is delaying the rule to change rest rules, and trying to strip certain segments of aviation out of protections?
A) Republican James Inhofe (OK)

Q. Who wants to change the way Unions organize, to make it more difficult for workers to organize?
A. Republican John Mica (FL)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...union-legislation-in-FAA-reauthorization-bill

Q. Who wants to tie the FAA's hands in making new rules, to make sure they don't financially burden the airlines?
A. Republicans

It goes on and on.

While I don't think the Democrats are utopia, they don't hate labor like the Republicans.

 

[acpilot]

Perhaps if you had a marketable skill you wouldn't need a union? There is generally only one thing pilot can do well and that one thing is to fly an airplane...and managers know it. Where else are you going to go if you don't get what you want?

While we're posting wild ideas like that the GOP's intention is to screw pilots or that unions are good, let me throw one out there. Require advanced degrees to be a 121 pilot. It would sure thin the ranks of eligible applicants and companies would pay a premium for qualified individuals to keep their planes flying. This, of course, would require actual effort on the part of pilots wishing to keep their jobs, and we all know that we are commercial pilots because we hate actually working. Somebody thinks those degrees are valuable. They may not make you a better pilot, but they must be good for something...

From a union POV:

My point is that until you can get up and walk away from a bargaining table you really have no power. Sure, you can strike, but you run a good chance of pulling an Eastern and screwing not only yourselves, but EVERY EMPLOYEE, out of a job. How labor friendly is that?

When you can get up, walk away, and find gainful employment elsewhere, you'll have real, sustainable power over your "evil" management. It' not a republican or democrat thing, it's an inherent value thing.

 

[Jetjockey]

SO being a pilot isn't a marketable skill? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/marketable

Seems to be marketable to me. I've made a pretty good living off it for the last 25 years. I think the point you're trying to make is that Piloting is highly specialized and more of a skilled labor set. We are sadly tied to the success of our airlines with the seniority systems that has been in place for just about forever. The only protections we have with the current system are our individual contracts.

If pilots could free themselves from the Railway Labor Act, and recognizance we need a true National Union, with a National Seniority list, we might actually get somewhere in a free market. I know the idea was discussed while deregulation was pending. The concept of controlling entrants whether through minimum education, exams, would better control the number and quality of applicants. Purely a pipe dream I'd say. We can't even get congress to agree on minimum flight times that are realistic, let alone restrictions that would decrease the flow of "cheap" labor supply regional airlines depend on.

The real world dictates otherwise. Airline managers have always enjoyed a glut of pilots willing to step on, over, and do whatever it took to get on that seniority list ASAP.

 

[Rick James]

Why do some airline employees vote Republican?

Answer: Because they are stupid. They live with their heads buried in the sand, not concerned with anything around them as long as it doesn't affect them personally at that moment in time. They research nothing. They listen to right-wing AM talk show bigots like Rush Limbaugh and get the rest of their distorted information from corporate controlled right-wing news organizations like Fox News - the mouthpiece of the Republican Party.

And then when pro-management scab material like Pilotyip come calling, along with other Republican corporate lapdogs like Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, the Tea Baggers, and the rest of the GOP House majority...to take away their worker and union rights, they sit there deaf and dumb wondering how this could have happened to them. Then they'll go on to defend their insane right wing political ideology as their career ship goes down, missing the point entirely as they exclaim in their last breath how "it's a right to work state".

"Right-To-Work" is a misnomer created by the Republican fear machine to cause dissention amongst the uneducated and apathetic that by somehow living in a certain state, that state gives you the right to work whereas other states do not. This is what the Republican party does best - Lie.

"Right-To-Work" is just a cover for its true meaning - To suppress or eliminate workers Right-To-Unionize.

The Republican Party has always been and will always be anti-union, anti-worker, anti-middle class. Their masters are the Corporations and the Rich. To vote for any Republican is to put a nail in your own coffin. They will NEVER have the People's best interests in mind, although they'll spin it 7 ways to Sunday to try to make you believe they do. The facts of history speak for themselves.

Wow, you really seem to have a grasp of broad generalizations and name calling. I wouldn't dare debate you as I can tell where it would lead. However, I would enjoy flying with you as I'm sure you wouldn't have the same tone in person. Good luck with all that pent-up internet rage.

 

[acpilot]

SO being a pilot isn't a marketable skill? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/marketable

Seems to be marketable to me. I've made a pretty good living off it for the last 25 years. I think the point you're trying to make is that Piloting is highly specialized and more of a skilled labor set. We are sadly tied to the success of our airlines with the seniority systems that has been in place for just about forever. The only protections we have with the current system are our individual contracts.

Fair enough. I see that the literal definition of "marketable" may be sufficient for some. When a furloughed pilot is against the ropes, the practical definition of "marketable" varies significantly from what you find in the dictionary. I don't think my point was lost on everyone.

Not so much "skilled" as "pigeonholed"...in my experience, anyway.

Individual (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/individual) contracts or collective agreements? I'd rather have an individual contract...but that's me.

If pilots could free themselves from the Railway Labor Act, and recognizance we need a true National Union, with a National Seniority list, we might actually get somewhere in a free market. I know the idea was discussed while deregulation was pending. The concept of controlling entrants whether through minimum education, exams, would better control the number and quality of applicants. Purely a pipe dream I'd say. We can't even get congress to agree on minimum flight times that are realistic, let alone restrictions that would decrease the flow of "cheap" labor supply regional airlines depend on.

Of course what I posted is a pipe dream. The unions would never support it. It would make unions obsolete and that would put a dent in their income. All I'm saying is that it would work in improving compensation packages for pilots.

How would a national list be anything like a free market? You're still artifically inflating the value of pilot labor. It's the easy, unsustainable way to get more money without actually increasing your inherent value. It might work for awhile, but it's not a long term solution.

The real world dictates otherwise. Airline managers have always enjoyed a glut of pilots willing to step on, over, and do whatever it took to get on that seniority list ASAP.

I agree, seniority lists are a problem.

I'll go away now...

 

[27 driver]

Please note where I name called?

I'll just leave Dems as benefitting us by not actively screwing us like the GOP. If you don't see that... You're inconvincable.

But another question- why would Dems even contemplate helping us specifically when a solid majority of us work actively against them and
demonize all liberals?- if they could, I think they would work against us, but it doesn't work politically to ever be anti-union as a democrat. And that's the benefit- democrats get many votes through supporting unions- they generally cannot take anti-union actions- they are not pro-active at helping us bc we DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM. but at least they mostly stay out of our way-

(ps- if you're only example of them working against us is Clinton intervening on AA- that's weak- and not remotely comparable to the money grab, pension stealers that the GOP facilitated in the post 9/11 world. )

In this case - hypocrit isn't a name call- it's accurate- cashing a union paycheck while militantly protecting your own seniority rights against free market competition, while simultaneously voting anti-union can be called nothing else. Tell me where I'm wrong....?

Yes we vote against the in general. Yet we pay union dues to worthless unions who give them millions. Kind of ironic isn't it. I would be willing to bet it was liberal judges that allowed the "pension stealing" to happen. You want to define "hypocrit" look no further your current president. He has broken every promise he campaigned on. We shall have to agree to disagree. Like I said before.....neither party has done ******************** to help our profession. They all pander to big business. And by the way, my union doesn't pay me. I pay them.

 

[waveflyer]

Acpilot- now we're talking- I personally believe most 121 pilots are operating below a market wage bc of seniority- mgmt knows we rather lose a limb than start over like a kid out of college by changing companies-
I only dream of a free market for pilots- while in the real world we all wave to each other as we cross-cross the skies on bad commutes for companies most of us believe to be evil....
What if we could punish those airlines and quit to work for someone else-
In our socialistic system, that's not a reasonable choice until the company you work for is on death row...

 

[Jetjockey]

You want to define "hypocrit" look no further your current president. He has broken every promise he campaigned on.

WRONG!

135 Campaign promises kept, 220 still in the works.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Those damn facts are pesky things, aren't they?

 

[Jetjockey]

And more political fun, categorized under Liar, liar, pants on fire: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/

 

[pilotyip]

If pilots could free themselves from the Railway Labor Act, and recognizance we need a true National Union, with a National Seniority list, we might actually get somewhere in a free market.

Yes a national union did wonders for the maritime industry. Fantastic wages, great benefits, and all you do is sit around the union hall waiting for your next gig. From the largest shipping fleet in world to about 25 boats sailing under the US Flag

 

[Jetjockey]

Yes a national union did wonders for the maritime industry. Fantastic wages, great benefits, and all you do is sit around the union hall waiting for your next gig. From the largest shipping fleet in world to about 25 boats sailing under the US Flag

No union can protect entirely against bad management. I'm sure your employees (as evidenced by turnover rate) will attest to that.

I certainly wouldn't expect a middle management lackey to be pro-union. Happy Mother's Day old man.

 

[pilotyip]

No union can protect entirely against bad management. I'm sure your employees (as evidenced by turnover rate) will attest to that.

I certainly wouldn't expect a middle management lackey to be pro-union. Happy Mother's Day old man.

turnover rate compared to what? SWA? or Central Air Cargo? Typical pilot has been here an average of 10 years, no one leaves for anywhere except a career move, which we encourage. Many of the older pilots are making so much they could not affrod to go anywhere else. Top guy was close to $180K last year. BTW. I not sure how I get tagged as management, as DA-20 stds, I don't set pay, work rules or any of stuff. BTW Good management can not over come a bad union, and if you are lucky some day you too may be reffered to as an old man. Happy Mother's Day to you too.

 

[Rick James]

WRONG!

135 Campaign promises kept, 220 still in the works.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Those damn facts are pesky things, aren't they?

Wow, the "promises kept" vs. the "promises broken" ratio is sad. Some of the items in the "promises broken" list are incredibly significant.


How does this play into your admiration?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0

 

[Four Strings]

Let's look at some current issues.

Q. Who wanted to pass a law making it possible to use the cockpit voice recorder to arbitrarily against pilots?
A. Republican Jim Demint (SC)

Q. Who is delaying the rule to change rest rules, and trying to strip certain segments of aviation out of protections?
A) Republican James Inhofe (OK)

Q. Who wants to change the way Unions organize, to make it more difficult for workers to organize?
A. Republican John Mica (FL)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...union-legislation-in-FAA-reauthorization-bill

Q. Who wants to tie the FAA's hands in making new rules, to make sure they don't financially burden the airlines?
A. Republicans

It goes on and on.

While I don't think the Democrats are utopia, they don't hate labor like the Republicans.

Lets face it, both sides suck. Left, Right, it does not matter. They will say or do whatever it takes to get elected. and do whatever it takes to preserve their position once they obtain it.

If any of you expect an elected official to improve your life. You will be very disappointed. They are simply improving their own. You are the only one capable of improving your life. Both parties have done a masterful job of convincing people that you can't do it with out them. Thus creating the die hard party followers. Wake Up!

 

[HA25]

it amazes me how many pilots vote republican and they're over here making a paltry $50-80K a year while their CEO's are making an order of magnitude more and filling the pockets of R candidates with contributions to keep unions weak..

I don't like the D's much myself, but of the two evils, their certainly the lesser..

I mean, does anyone really think the R's want to cut YOUR taxes? it's the top 1% they care about. at least the D's now want to keep people below $250K where they're at and only raise taxes on those making more... which frankly would go a LONG way to paying down this overblown debt.. we're at the lowest marginal tax rates in decades for the top 1% and yet they want to keep cutting..

 

[HA25]

Yes a national union did wonders for the maritime industry. Fantastic wages, great benefits, and all you do is sit around the union hall waiting for your next gig. From the largest shipping fleet in world to about 25 boats sailing under the US Flag

don't blame that on unions.... blame it on corporations that got the governemnt to allow them to OUTSOURCE... that's why we've lost a lot of jobs, union and otherwise in this country... unions are ILLEGAL in China... wana be like them??

Learn from Germany and France, the Swiss, or the Dutch.... they are making it work, and kicking our economic asses.. all while supporting the rest of the 3rd world members of the EU like Ireland and Greece.

 

[pilotyip]

don't blame that on unions.... blame it on corporations that got the governemnt to allow them to OUTSOURCE... that's why we've lost a lot of jobs, union and otherwise in this country... unions are ILLEGAL in China... wana be like them??

Learn from Germany and France, the Swiss, or the Dutch.... they are making it work, and kicking our economic asses.. all while supporting the rest of the 3rd world members of the EU like Ireland and Greece.

free country, write your elected offical, tell him you want 'Right to Work" outlawed. BTW The unions in Germany are under Gov't control. The gov't has the right to void a union contract if it does not increase productivity, one of the reason the Germans do so well. I bet they don't have 76 job classifications in their assembly plants.

 

[trip]

free country, write your elected offical, tell him you want 'Right to Work" outlawed. BTW The unions in Germany are under Gov't control. The gov't has the right to void a union contract if it does not increase productivity, one of the reason the Germans do so well. I bet they don't have 76 job classifications in their assembly plants.

Duoooh! Pesky facts getting in the way again.

 

[HA25]

A) I have written ad nauseum

B) I would gladly take the German domestic economic plan over ours. Having spent a lot of time there, I feel well enformed in saying so much.

 

[jonjuan]

i feel well enformed in saying so much.

lol..........

 

[Four Strings]

I mean, does anyone really think the R's want to cut YOUR taxes? it's the top 1% they care about. at least the D's now want to keep people below $250K where they're at and only raise taxes on those making more... which frankly would go a LONG way to paying down this overblown debt.. we're at the lowest marginal tax rates in decades for the top 1% and yet they want to keep cutting..

Have you ever known someone with a decent income that had a serious debt problem. If you gave them a raise, do you think they would begin to pay down their debt, or rationalize how they could afford the payment on the new car, boat, home remodel, vacation, etc? For most people is it not an income problem, it is a behavioral problem. They do not know how to behave with their money. Our government is no different.

Raising taxes on any group will not solve the debt/deficit problem. If you give them more money, they will find more ways to spend it. The only thing that will solve the debt/deficit is for Congress and our President (Both Parties) to make the hard choices and finally decide to live on less than they make. Unfortunately they would have to say NO to certain groups, individuals, countries, etc. For political reasons, none of them are willing to do that. Cut someones funding equals lose someones vote, and votes are all that matter. We will never pay down this overblown debt until the behavior of all the people in charge of our tax dollars changes.

 

[waveflyer]

And that's the crux of the debate- some want govt to do more- others want private companies to do more- for me, I do not care as long as there is pressure to be more efficient- and w/ some of the corporations running in the US these days- I don't forget or ignore that private companies can often be pretty damn inefficient and have a lot of red tape-
Look- everyone gets up in arms when a city or state manager gets over $200k a year, managing $billions- but the same private sector exec pulling in $millions upon obscene millions doesn't get people to bat an eye-

Rich overpaid is a problem

 

[HA25]

Have you ever known someone with a decent income that had a serious debt problem. If you gave them a raise, do you think they would begin to pay down their debt, or rationalize how they could afford the payment on the new car, boat, home remodel, vacation, etc? For most people is it not an income problem, it is a behavioral problem. They do not know how to behave with their money. Our government is no different.

Raising taxes on any group will not solve the debt/deficit problem. If you give them more money, they will find more ways to spend it. The only thing that will solve the debt/deficit is for Congress and our President (Both Parties) to make the hard choices and finally decide to live on less than they make. Unfortunately they would have to say NO to certain groups, individuals, countries, etc. For political reasons, none of them are willing to do that. Cut someones funding equals lose someones vote, and votes are all that matter. We will never pay down this overblown debt until the behavior of all the people in charge of our tax dollars changes.

that's a good point but the fact remains that the top tax rates are at historical lows when you look back over the past 70 years, and add to that in the past 30 years, military spending has gone up more than any other segment, including all social spending.. so the reality is we're wanting socialist retirement benefits and programs (i.e. social security, medicare, tri-care, etc..) but we don't want to pay the taxes necessary to support those costs.. and by "we" I mean the top income earners..

 

[pilotyip]

military spending has gone up more than any other segment, including all social spending.. so the reality is we're wanting socialist retirement benefits and programs (i.e. social security, medicare, tri-care, etc..) but we don't want to pay the taxes necessary to support those costs.. and by "we" I mean the top income earners..

that is BS, mil spending a a % of GNP is approaching all time lows since WWII, social spending i.e. Medicare, Social Security, WIN, unemployment is at an all time high as a % of GNP.

Rich overpaid is a problem

yea, lets kill'em like the Russians or run them out of the country like the British with a 99% tax rate.

 

[Four Strings]

that's a good point but the fact remains that the top tax rates are at historical lows when you look back over the past 70 years, and add to that in the past 30 years, military spending has gone up more than any other segment, including all social spending.. so the reality is we're wanting socialist retirement benefits and programs (i.e. social security, medicare, tri-care, etc..) but we don't want to pay the taxes necessary to support those costs.. and by "we" I mean the top income earners..

As I recall, it was the military that just took out Osama. I say money well spent. We all don't want socialistic benefits. You do. I see no reason why someone who earns a living should pay for someone who doesn't. You want it to be fair? Flat tax based on consumption. You buy a mega yacht with your millions you pay taxes on it. You buy a six pack of Natural Light, you pay taxes on it. Everyone makes choices and everyone pays the same percentage. At 38, I own my home, no mortgage. I did that by spending less than I earn and putting the difference to my debts. I owe nobody. Why should I pay more to help those that are not willing to sacrifice like my wife and I have for the last 7 years. If I can do it on an airline salary, the government can do it with my tax dollars. And I sure don't expect any social programs to help me when I'm older. I've taken care of myself by investing since I was 19. If you're not willing to make the hard choices, like doing without the latest and greatest so you can fund your IRA, then that's your problem. Lots of my friends had cool cars and gadgets while I was on a budget. Want and need are two different things. I learned the difference at a very young age and I am reaping the benefits now, yet you expect me to share that with others. No thanks, get your own. Go pick up a Dave Ramsey book. Read it for yourself and then pass it on to your elected official.

 

[HA25]

yea, lets kill'em like the Russians or run them out of the country like the British with a 99% tax rate.

Hey, there's a price to pay for everything..

 

[HA25]

As I recall, it was the military that just took out Osama. I say money well spent. We all don't want socialistic benefits. You do. I see no reason why someone who earns a living should pay for someone who doesn't. You want it to be fair? Flat tax based on consumption. You buy a mega yacht with your millions you pay taxes on it. You buy a six pack of Natural Light, you pay taxes on it. Everyone makes choices and everyone pays the same percentage. At 38, I own my home, no mortgage. I did that by spending less than I earn and putting the difference to my debts. I owe nobody. Why should I pay more to help those that are not willing to sacrifice like my wife and I have for the last 7 years. If I can do it on an airline salary, the government can do it with my tax dollars. And I sure don't expect any social programs to help me when I'm older. I've taken care of myself by investing since I was 19. If you're not willing to make the hard choices, like doing without the latest and greatest so you can fund your IRA, then that's your problem. Lots of my friends had cool cars and gadgets while I was on a budget. Want and need are two different things. I learned the difference at a very young age and I am reaping the benefits now, yet you expect me to share that with others. No thanks, get your own. Go pick up a Dave Ramsey book. Read it for yourself and then pass it on to your elected official.

Pass me some of that yummy Koolaid... I need a dose of lala land.