Supply-Side case for unions....

[pilotyip]

Perhaps it wouldn't make sense to make such demands on a weak company.

It might make more sense to bail out for a better job.

but you are age 55 and making $100K/yr and have been there 15 years

 

[brokeflyer]

But the union demands upon a marginal company that does not give productivity increases can destroy the source of one's job. That is not the case of a non-union marginal company.

yet the ceo still pays himself 50 million per year.

ill take a union over ceo theft any day.

 

[gunfyter]

Sometimes you are screwed if you choose the wrong horse....

 

[paulsalem]

.......

 

[paulsalem]

I've read the books quoted above, and I agree with them. However I like Ron Paul's take on unions:

(paraphrasing)
In a free society, people should be free to unionize and attempt to bargain with management. Management should be free to choose to bargain with the union or to hire non-union workers. Thus there is a balance of power. What is not okay is when government takes power from one side and gives it to the other (from labor to management in the case of the railway labor act).

Because the regulations associated with aviation are very onerous the power would naturally rest with pilots. For example if American were to strike it would take months for replacement workers to go through the required training to begin flying.

 

[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?