• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

Suppy and Demand and Unionized labor

Twisted Mind

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Posts
242
Total Time
3,000+
In a free market economy, employers must bid competitively for the services of workers, just as they must bid competitively for all other factors of production. If an employer attempts to pay wages which are lower than his workers can obtain elsewhere, he will lose his workers and thus will be compelled to change his policy or go out of business; if, other things being equal, an employer pays wages which are above the market level, his higher costs will put him at a competitive disadvantage in the sale of his products, and again he will be compelled to change his policy or go out of business. Employers do not lower wages because they are cruel, nor raise wages because they are kind. Wages are not determined by the employer’s whim. Wages are the prices paid for human labor and, like all other prices in a free economy, are determined by the law of supply and demand.
Since the start of the Industrial Revolution and capitalism, wage rates have risen steadily—as an inevitable economic consequence of rising capital accumulation, technological progress and industrial expansion. As capitalism created countless new markets, so it created an ever-widening market for labor: it multiplied the number and kinds of jobs available increased the demand and competition for the workers services, and thus drove wage rates upward.
It was the economic self-interest of employers, that led them to raise wages and shorten working hours—not the pressure of labor unions. The eight-hour day was established in most American industries long before unions acquired any significant size or economic power. At a time when his competitors were paying their workers between two and three dollars a day, Henry Ford offered five dollars a day, thereby attracting the most efficient labor force in the country, and thus raising his own production and profits. In the 1920’s, when the labor movement in France and Germany was far more dominant than in the United States, the standard of living of the American worker was greatly superior. It was the consequence of economic freedom.
Needless to say, men have a right to organize into unions, provided they do so voluntarily, that is, provided no one is forced to join. Unions can have value as fraternal organizations, or as a means of keeping members informed of current market conditions, or as a means of bargaining more effectively with employers—particularly in small, isolated communities. It may happen that an individual employer is paying wages that, in the overall market context, are too low; in such a case, a strike or the threat of a strike, can compel him to change his policy, since he will discover that he cannot obtain an adequate labor force at the wages he offers. However, the belief that unions can cause a general rise in the standard of living, is a myth.
Today, the labor market is no longer free. Unions enjoy a unique, near-monopolistic power over many aspects of the economy. This has been achieved through legislation, which has forced men to join unions, whether they wished to or not, and forced employers to deal with these unions, whether they wished to or not. As a consequence, wage rates in many industries are no longer determined by a free market; unions have been able to force wages substantially above their normal market level. These are the “social gains” for which unions are usually given credit. In fact, however, the result of their policy has been (a) a curtailment of production, (b) widespread unemployment, and (c) the penalizing of workers in other industries, as well as the rest of the population.
(a) With the rise of wage rates to inordinately high levels, production costs are such that cutbacks in production are often necessary, new undertakings become too expensive, and growth is hindered. At the increased costs, marginal producers—those who have been barely able to compete in the market—find themselves unable to remain in business. The overall result: goods and services that would have been produced are not brought into existence.
(b) As a result of the high wage rates, employers can afford to hire fewer workers; as a result of curtailed production, employers need fewer workers. Thus, one group of workers obtains unjustifiably high wages at the expense of other workers who are unable to find jobs at all. This—in conjunction with minimum wage laws—is the cause of our widespread unemployment problem today. Unemployment is the inevitable result of forcing wage rates above their free market level. In a free economy, in which neither employers nor workers are subject to coercion, wage rates always tend toward the level at which all those who seek employment will be able to obtain it. In a frozen, controlled economy, this process is blocked. As a result of allegedly “pro-labor” legislation and of the monopolistic power that labor unions enjoy, unemployed workers are not free to compete in the labor market by offering their services for less than the prevailing wage rates; employers are not free to hire them. In the case of strikes, if unemployed workers attempted to obtain the jobs vacated by union strikers, by offering to work for a lower wage, they often would be subjected to threats and physical violence at the hands of union members. These facts are as notorious as they are evaded in most current discussions of the unemployment problem—particularly by government officials
 

Twisted Mind

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Posts
242
Total Time
3,000+
The point is the union controls the “market” and sets its own wages. It is not a free market. In the regional pilot’s case the union set the wage really low. It is a double edged sword. If you don’t believe me why did ALPA turn down Mesabas offer to raise first year F.O. raises a few years ago?
 

DoinTime

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
2,523
Total Time
6000+
Wow...what a load of crap.
 

Jar Jar

I spake!
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Posts
536
Total Time
999999
gee and here I wanted to blame the leaches in the banking industry who hoarded billions of dollars among a small groups of individuals while producing no tangible goods or services for this mess.. turns out it was the working man's fault all along.
 
Last edited:

CX880

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Posts
2,861
Total Time
1898
In a free market economy, employers must bid competitively for the services of workers, just as they must bid competitively for all other factors of production. If an employer attempts to pay wages which are lower than his workers can obtain elsewhere, he will lose his workers and thus will be compelled to change his policy or go out of business; if, other things being equal, an employer pays wages which are above the market level, his higher costs will put him at a competitive disadvantage in the sale of his products, and again he will be compelled to change his policy or go out of business. Employers do not lower wages because they are cruel, nor raise wages because they are kind. Wages are not determined by the employer’s whim. Wages are the prices paid for human labor and, like all other prices in a free economy, are determined by the law of supply and demand.
Since the start of the Industrial Revolution and capitalism, wage rates have risen steadily—as an inevitable economic consequence of rising capital accumulation, technological progress and industrial expansion. As capitalism created countless new markets, so it created an ever-widening market for labor: it multiplied the number and kinds of jobs available increased the demand and competition for the workers services, and thus drove wage rates upward.
It was the economic self-interest of employers, that led them to raise wages and shorten working hours—not the pressure of labor unions. The eight-hour day was established in most American industries long before unions acquired any significant size or economic power. At a time when his competitors were paying their workers between two and three dollars a day, Henry Ford offered five dollars a day, thereby attracting the most efficient labor force in the country, and thus raising his own production and profits. In the 1920’s, when the labor movement in France and Germany was far more dominant than in the United States, the standard of living of the American worker was greatly superior. It was the consequence of economic freedom.
Needless to say, men have a right to organize into unions, provided they do so voluntarily, that is, provided no one is forced to join. Unions can have value as fraternal organizations, or as a means of keeping members informed of current market conditions, or as a means of bargaining more effectively with employers—particularly in small, isolated communities. It may happen that an individual employer is paying wages that, in the overall market context, are too low; in such a case, a strike or the threat of a strike, can compel him to change his policy, since he will discover that he cannot obtain an adequate labor force at the wages he offers. However, the belief that unions can cause a general rise in the standard of living, is a myth.
Today, the labor market is no longer free. Unions enjoy a unique, near-monopolistic power over many aspects of the economy. This has been achieved through legislation, which has forced men to join unions, whether they wished to or not, and forced employers to deal with these unions, whether they wished to or not. As a consequence, wage rates in many industries are no longer determined by a free market; unions have been able to force wages substantially above their normal market level. These are the “social gains” for which unions are usually given credit. In fact, however, the result of their policy has been (a) a curtailment of production, (b) widespread unemployment, and (c) the penalizing of workers in other industries, as well as the rest of the population.
(a) With the rise of wage rates to inordinately high levels, production costs are such that cutbacks in production are often necessary, new undertakings become too expensive, and growth is hindered. At the increased costs, marginal producers—those who have been barely able to compete in the market—find themselves unable to remain in business. The overall result: goods and services that would have been produced are not brought into existence.
(b) As a result of the high wage rates, employers can afford to hire fewer workers; as a result of curtailed production, employers need fewer workers. Thus, one group of workers obtains unjustifiably high wages at the expense of other workers who are unable to find jobs at all. This—in conjunction with minimum wage laws—is the cause of our widespread unemployment problem today. Unemployment is the inevitable result of forcing wage rates above their free market level. In a free economy, in which neither employers nor workers are subject to coercion, wage rates always tend toward the level at which all those who seek employment will be able to obtain it. In a frozen, controlled economy, this process is blocked. As a result of allegedly “pro-labor” legislation and of the monopolistic power that labor unions enjoy, unemployed workers are not free to compete in the labor market by offering their services for less than the prevailing wage rates; employers are not free to hire them. In the case of strikes, if unemployed workers attempted to obtain the jobs vacated by union strikers, by offering to work for a lower wage, they often would be subjected to threats and physical violence at the hands of union members. These facts are as notorious as they are evaded in most current discussions of the unemployment problem—particularly by government officials

Yea that's true the vast majority of the unemployed are union shop members and labor groups. As far as the airlines, they are welcomed to form an airline that does not require a union. Apparently it's almost impossible to do since about 95% of the airlines are union or are trying to be union. Frankly I don't get it because the two airlines I know that are not union are doing pretty well.
 

Flightdawg

el Jefe
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Posts
139
Total Time
plenty
gee and here I wanted to blame the leaches in the banking industry who hoarded billions of dollars among a small groups of individuals while producing no tangible goods or services for this mess.. turns out it was the working man's fault all along.

Can't get good help this days, I guess. Good thing superior management is carrying the load.

Frankly I don't get it because the two airlines I know that are not union are doing pretty well.

Which two? Isn't Gojet thinking about unionizing?
 

pilotyip

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
13,629
Total Time
14000
Unions have pushed the envelope and have made the workplace better in many areas. Respect for seniority, single rooms on RON's, Dental care, vision care, etc. But the problem with unions, with their tremendous ability to shut down a business and destroy it, is they always push the envelope, what they have is never good enough. They always want a little bit more for their DUES paying members. If they did not push the envelope, the members might say why am I paying dues. So unions always ask for more and companies give it even when they know in the long run it is not sustainable. GM in 93 on retiree health care, UAL with a 35% pay raise in 2000, Zantop with hard days off. Etc.
 

Twisted Mind

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Posts
242
Total Time
3,000+
Because only two non unions airlines exist they must offer near to what the union airlines offer to attract quality workers.
I believe that unions are a necessity for airlines because of the specialized nature of the jobs. Unions provide protection and help for the workers far beyond pay. What I am saying is that the union has effectively removed supply and demand from compensation issues.
 

cybourg10

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2006
Posts
481
Total Time
1,000
Some groups might have better leverage these days to have the threat of unionizing than to actually be unionized already.

The pro corporate conservatives out there have been waging a war on unions and labor for decades now and their psychological class warfare tactics have convinced many in the dying middle class that it is not in their best interest to ask for higher wages and better working conditions.
 

CoATP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Posts
476
Total Time
10k+
Supply and Demand is not just a wages/benefits issue at airlines. The emotional value of SJS outweighs much. How many 200hr wonders ask pay rates before they hire on? It's "quick upgrade" as the first question.
 

Rez O. Lewshun

Save the Profession
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Posts
13,422
Total Time
X>X
Some groups might have better leverage these days to have the threat of unionizing than to actually be unionized already.

The pro corporate conservatives out there have been waging a war on unions and labor for decades now and their psychological class warfare tactics have convinced many in the dying middle class that it is not in their best interest to ask for higher wages and better working conditions.


That would be the house help scolding the field hands while Master chuckles....
 

mesaserf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Posts
489
Total Time
19000+
Some groups might have better leverage these days to have the threat of unionizing than to actually be unionized already.

The pro corporate conservatives out there have been waging a war on unions and labor for decades now and their psychological class warfare tactics have convinced many in the dying middle class that it is not in their best interest to ask for higher wages and better working conditions.


Dead on man.

I remember when I was a union volunteer I use to help with the new hire briefings the union put on at the training center.

I sat back in disbelief and listened to kids tell me how they were willing to work for sub par wages to help the company prosper. And in the next breath they let me know how much they disliked unions and were not looking forward to paying dues after their year probation was up.

What the hell is being taught to these kids in school?
 

cybourg10

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2006
Posts
481
Total Time
1,000
Dead on man.

I remember when I was a union volunteer I use to help with the new hire briefings the union put on at the training center.

I sat back in disbelief and listened to kids tell me how they were willing to work for sub par wages to help the company prosper. And in the next breath they let me know how much they disliked unions and were not looking forward to paying dues after their year probation was up.

What the hell is being taught to these kids in school?

You have asked the right question. The educational system has shifted in America. Kids were once taught critical thinking and problem solving i.e. thinking outside the box. Today it is all rote memorization, pass the test and move on. Students are not taught to ask why people do things, only the date and time of which the event occurred. My mom has been in the Texas public school system for almost 30 years, in that time the textbooks have become much smaller with less information and the football stadiums and weight rooms have increased in size astronomically. The cafeteria food has lost nearly all nutritional value (is ketchup still a vegetable?) and any trouble making kid is now sent to an "alternative" school instead of getting the extra time and attention that is needed.

Our society does not value a hard days work, we now value the image associated with the work. This is where SJS comes from, no worry about the wage and benefits just worry about what the image is with that job. With the abundance of credit cards and easy money one no longer needs to work and save for material things. The propaganda against unions and all things associated with the pro labor agenda have been condemned as anti american and communist in nature. Create a dumb society and then convince them that they are better off letting those in charge decide their worth. Its genius plan to convince the middle class that the trickle down and free market system allows them to someday become rich, only if they vote for the politicians that will deregulate the system. If you watch Fox News long enough you will find out that it was the unions that brought down GM, and the poor people buying houses they couldn't afford that brought down Wall St. The New World Order is not a form of government, it is a collection of corporations.
 
Top