Supply-Side case for unions....

[pilotyip]

But unions have the power to destroy companies. Unions are in the business of restricting productivity to increase union membership, i.e more people to do the same work. When a union pushes management into a corner with a strike threat, the company often has to do things they know may not be in their best interest. Reference GM in 1994 when they knew they could not afford the union contract in the long term, but knew that would be less devastating than a strike in the short term for a company that had borrowed to the limit and needed the cash flow to stay solvent. This same applies to airlines that are pushed to give benefits they can not afford.

 

[gunfyter]

Paul ... the power would rest with the pilots except for one thing ... the RLA!

Also the regulations do not favor the pilots ... I am not sure why you say this. Are not the regulations to favor air safety?

 

[paulsalem]

Paul ... the power would rest with the pilots except for one thing ... the RLA!

Agreed, mostly because of the reason below, in my opinion.

Also the regulations do not favor the pilots ... I am not sure why you say this. Are not the regulations to favor air safety?

Yes the FARs are for air safety (mostly). But the lengthy trainign process mandated by the FARs is beneficial to the union.

For example, if a pilot union goes on strike tomorrow (no RLA) it will take months to put a pilot through indoc, sim, and IOE. So the airline would be without pilots for a long time. This is a major advantage for labor.

However if the janitors union went on strike it wouldn't take very long to get the replacement janitors on the job.

 

[gunfyter]

If the unions were too powerful ... you wouldn't have this...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flyingcheap/view/

 

[nordo_2]

But unions have the power to destroy companies. Unions are in the business of restricting productivity to increase union membership, i.e more people to do the same work. When a union pushes management into a corner with a strike threat, the company often has to do things they know may not be in their best interest. Reference GM in 1994 when they knew they could not afford the union contract in the long term, but knew that would be less devastating than a strike in the short term for a company that had borrowed to the limit and needed the cash flow to stay solvent. This same applies to airlines that are pushed to give benefits they can not afford.

There you go again. What does GM have to do with pilots. Different animals. Are you from Detroit?

 

[pilotyip]

There you go again. What does GM have to do with pilots. Different animals. Are you from Detroit?

This started as a supply side discussion of unions, didn't see it was restrcited to airlines. Do I need to post what happened a UAL, AAL, NWA, etc?
BTW of course I am from Detroit, that is why I am pilotyip. I got to watch first hand how the UAW made the Detroit auto companies so unproductive that they cold not survive.

 

[nordo_2]

This started as a supply side discussion of unions, didn't see it was restrcited to airlines. Do I need to post what happened a UAL, AAL, NWA, etc?
BTW of course I am from Detroit, that is why I am pilotyip. I got to watch first hand how the UAW made the Detroit auto companies so unproductive that they cold not survive.

So, your saying pilots destroyed those airlines?

 

[gret]

So, your saying pilots destroyed those airlines?

By themselves...no. Did deregulation, mgmt and the unions contribute to the downfall...yes.

 

[pilotyip]

So, your saying pilots destroyed those airlines?

No it was the flyign publuic and internet access to airline fares, it drove the price down so the airlines coudl not fulfill their contract obligations. The unions coudl doing nothing to prevent this.

 

[pilotyip]

If the unions were too powerful ... you wouldn't have this...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flyingcheap/view/

I am not sure what your drift is, but if is caused by not having representation since Colgan is represented by a union. And from what I have seen unions do not shut down companies with strikes over pilots who failed check rides who still have their jobs, or that a crew member uses their rest time to commute. So you are telling me if the union was more powerful the accident would not have happened?

 

[brokeflyer]

i can understand auto workers needing unions. The problem is, its pathetic that pilots require the protection of a union in the first place.

Salary, benefits, fatigue policy, sick time, long term disability all the nice things we have should be required just out of regulation. You shouldnt have to fight for them. A pilot puts in twice the amount of training and work experience than a typical CEO.

So having said that, i have no sympathy for a company that ********************s all over its people. Unions protect the company from itself.

 

[gunfyter]

My drift is not the accident but the low pay and lifestyle of a lot of pilots.... If unions were powerful we wouldn't have th

 

[bizicmo]

I am not sure what your drift is, but if is caused by not having representation since Colgan is represented by a union. And from what I have seen unions do not shut down companies with strikes over pilots who failed check rides who still have their jobs, or that a crew member uses their rest time to commute. So you are telling me if the union was more powerful the accident would not have happened?

I not sure but weren't they still non union at the time of the accident? That's all i'm commenting on, the time line of unionization at colgan in relation to the accident. I am not commenting on whether or not a union would have or not prevented a crash or collapse of a company.

 

[nordo_2]

I not sure but weren't they still non union at the time of the accident? That's all i'm commenting on, the time line of unionization at colgan in relation to the accident. I am not commenting on whether or not a union would have or not prevented a crash or collapse of a company.

You are correct. The captain was hired in 2005. Well before the union drive at colgan.