Suppy and Demand and Unionized labor

[JoeMerchant]

Too much of a good thing is bad. Too much union power and you have inefficiencies, too little union power and you have slave labor. A nice balance has worked many times in the past. Don't forget that Southwest is the most unionized airline out there and the most successful.

Good point....SWA unions worked WITH management...It's a chicken and egg argument, but some unions work WITH managment and some don't....

 

[CX880]

But it is what you'd call a union pilot group...... point?

They were saying southwest is what it is because of the union. It's because of a willing management and it's tons of cash the union can divide.

 

[JoeMerchant]

They were saying southwest is what it is because of the union. It's because of a willing management and it's tons of cash the union can divide.

....and a union that didn't overplay it's hand..

Willing and smart management + profits&cash + union = success....Take out the first two and you have a problem whether you are union or not...

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

They were saying southwest is what it is because of the union. It's because of a willing management and it's tons of cash the union can divide.

Agreed..... pilots don't want to harm their airlines... good management is key.....

 

[Flightdawg]

Correct me if I am wrong but before 9-11 Southwest pilots were the lowest paid pilots in the 100-200 seat market. Now with the 50% pay cuts at the other airlines they are now the highest by default. Not exactly what I would call heroic.

A bit true, but also a bit apples and oranges. They were among the lowest paid of the major airlines, but this was mainly due to the fact, by default, their average aircraft size was a 737. Other majors averaged larger aircraft and, as a consequence, larger paychecks. Southwest didn't have a defined pension plan either. They were well paid for what they flew, but limited by the size of the aircraft they could fly.

The fall of the legacies has shot them up compared to pre9/11, but they've always been pretty good.

 

[DoinTime]

The fall of the legacies has shot them up compared to pre9/11, but they've always been pretty good.

You're kidding right? You need to read up on the history of Southwest. Being "pretty good" is a new development for them.

 

[Flightdawg]

You're kidding right? You need to read up on the history of Southwest. Being "pretty good" is a new development for them.

My post could have been clearer. Southwest has always had a terrific reputation as a place to work. Rarely have I ever heard of a Southwest pilot leaving to go work for United, Delta, American, etc pre-9/11. Even though they didn't pay as much compared to the Legacies, the pay and quality of life provided a happy pilot group. The fall of the legacies after 9/11 didn't affect SWA as much so, by comparison, they are paid better than the legacies.

Is that better for ya?

 

[DoinTime]

My post could have been clearer. Southwest has always had a terrific reputation as a place to work. Rarely have I ever heard of a Southwest pilot leaving to go work for United, Delta, American, etc pre-9/11. Even though they didn't pay as much compared to the Legacies, the pay and quality of life provided a happy pilot group. The fall of the legacies after 9/11 didn't affect SWA as much so, by comparison, they are paid better than the legacies.

Is that better for ya?

The legacy carriers are full pilots who quit from places like SWA and FedEx. 20-30 years ago airlines like these used to be a place to build jet time in hopes of landing a "good" job. Where does your version of reality come from?

 

[Flightdawg]

The legacy carriers are full pilots who quit from places like SWA and FedEx. 20-30 years ago airlines like these used to be a place to build jet time in hopes of landing a "good" job. Where does your version of reality come from?

I've heard of pilots quitting UPS to go to SWA, but never the other way around or from SWA to Legacy carriers. I'm sure it happened but seriously doubt the Legacies are "full of pilots who quit from" SWA.

In the end, so what? What are we arguing about? The demise of the Legacies? That SWA is or isn't an airline which treats its employees well compared to the Legacies? Why are you so consternated that you are driven to toss insults on people's "version of reality"? Did SWA turn you down? Why do you care?

 

[pilotyip]

Some very good posts here. Moving away from the usual unions are the best thing to ever happen to an employee, into unions have a place and limitations. I am a union realist, as a former ALPA and Teamster member I have seen what unions can and can not do. They can not make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear. Bringing in a union will not make a bad place good, however it could make a good place bad.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Some very good posts here. Moving away from the usual unions are the best thing to ever happen to an employee, into unions have a place and limitations. I am a union realist, as a former ALPA and Teamster member I have seen what unions can and can not do. They can not make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear. Bringing in a union will not make a bad place good, however it could make a good place bad.

Always looking for a managment position, eh yip....

http://baselinescenario.com/2009/04/14/unions-and-business/




What happened to the global economy and what we can do about it
Unions and Business

One of the themes of the GM debate goes like this. On the one hand, the UAW is the problem, because it’s the high cost of union labor (and in particular, union retiree health benefits) that is crippling U.S. automakers. On the other hand, the UAW negotiated for those benefits fair and square, giving up higher current wages as part of the bargain, so it’s the fault of management for making promises they couldn’t keep. On the third hand, the UAW should have realized that when you negotiate for retirement benefits from a private corporation, one of the risks you take is that that corporation might go bankrupt. (For one example of these arguments, see Room for Debate at the NYT.)
Instead of touching that question any more than I already have, I wanted to raise the larger issue of whether unions are bad for business – which is what you would assume, given the lengths many companies go to in order to prevent unions from gaining collective bargaining rights. In general, this is a hard question to answer empirically. While you can observe differences between companies with unions and companies without unions, there is a huge problem of selection bias: since companies with unions are unlike companies without unions in many ways, you can’t say whether any differences in outcomes are due to the effect of the unions themselves, or due to the effect of other factors that would be there regardless of the unions.
John DiNardo and David Lee have an elegant way of getting around this problem in a 2004 paper, “Economic Impacts of New Unionization on Private Sector Employers: 1984-2001.” (The real economists out there probably know this paper already.) Instead of comparing all companies with unions to all companies without unions, they focus on companies where the union certification vote either barely won or barely lost, since these two companies are very similar to each other except for the treatment effect (having collective bargaining rights). This isolates the effect of unionization from other characteristics of the companies in question. They find that unions that barely win an election are successful in obtaining a collective bargaining agreement. Otherwise, however, the effect of successful unionization is insignificant on the company: differences in wages, employment, productivity, and output are all insignificant.
The UAW, historically, is a special case which people can debate for as long as they want. But the evidence is that in recent decades unions are not dangerous to firm survival.

 

[pilotyip]

unions? good or bad?

Always looking for a managment position, eh yip....

http://baselinescenario.com/2009/04/14/unions-and-business/




What happened to the global economy and what we can do about it
Unions and Business............ But the evidence is that in recent decades unions are not dangerous to firm survival.

Exactly what I said, unions have place, but they can not make a bad place good. BTW with all the unions airlines out there, only two airline's pilots have increased theier wages in the last 8 years, and one of those airlines is non-uinion JB, in fact they voted a union down, maybe to get a pay rasie. what do you think?

 

[Flightdawg]

Exactly what I said, unions have place, but they can not make a bad place good.

Disagreed in that the situation shouldn't be painted as pure black and white. Unions are not management, this is clear. Nor is management labor. They are two halves of a whole. Management and labor are symbiotic and need each other for survival. If one abuses the other, it endangers the entire system. This is one of the problems with GM and the UAW, in my humble opinion.

Unions are simply grassroots organizations which make it easier for labor to communicate their issues and concerns to management. ALPA was founded on the motto of "Schedule with Safety" due to the excesses and abuses of management which resulted in numerous deaths and injuries of employed pilots. Safety has always been ALPA's primary concern although some people involved with it don't always believe so. Like management, ALPA (or any union), it's members or any other human endeavor are not without flaws.

BTW with all the unions airlines out there, only two airline's pilots have increased theier wages in the last 8 years, and one of those airlines is non-uinion JB, in fact they voted a union down, maybe to get a pay rasie. what do you think?

I'd recommend not reading too much into a couple of events without taking into consideration the larger picture. Specifically, the ramifications of and continuing evolution of the industry post-Deregulation and in a global economy.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

I would have fewer problems with unions in general if they would avoid thug tactics, and group thinking. They demonize anyone who thinks differently from them, calling them names, saying they are "scabs" etc. Come on, if you can't motivate people to be in your club by example or by positive means, STFU.

 

[Hamburger]

I've always found if funny that Anti-Union types always seem to also be anti-illegals as well.
They'll tell you how terrible it is that illegals are crossing the border and taking jobs away from Americans because they are willing to work for chicken feed and no benefits.
Then they'll turn around and lay that down that Ayn Rand, free market, company is doing you a favor giving you a job jive.

Union labor put in a lot of hard work to make it a job worth having.
They're just trying to Protect their Borders...........Get it?

 

[Flightdawg]

I would have fewer problems with unions in general if they would avoid thug tactics, and group thinking. They demonize anyone who thinks differently from them, calling them names, saying they are "scabs" etc. Come on, if you can't motivate people to be in your club by example or by positive means, STFU.

Are you accusing "them" of overgeneralizing, being narrow-minding and mischaracterizing someone or something because of the actions of a few?

Personally, my first experience with a union has been a good one. ALPA pilots are a good group of people. True, there are some selfish people who don't understand the meaning of teamwork and try to shove through personal agendas regardless of the long-term impact on the pilot group, but they are rare. Heck, any group has their share of asshats. We shouldn't let the actions of a few discolor the solid and good work of the majority.

 

[pilotyip]

Pro-union

I've always found if funny that Anti-Union types always seem to also be anti-illegals as well.
They'll tell you how terrible it is that illegals are crossing the border and taking jobs away from Americans because they are willing to work for chicken feed and no benefits.
Then they'll turn around and lay that down that Ayn Rand, free market, company is doing you a favor giving you a job jive.

Union labor put in a lot of hard work to make it a job worth having.
They're just trying to Protect their Borders...........Get it?

Then of course there are the pro-union types who rhink unions can do no wrong and the further you stick it to management the better your union. EAL in the 80's comes to mind, the Mechs, GM UAW comes to mind. There is a middle road.

 

[CesnaCaptn]

Exactly what I said, unions have place, but they can not make a bad place good. BTW with all the unions airlines out there, only two airline's pilots have increased theier wages in the last 8 years, and one of those airlines is non-uinion JB, in fact they voted a union down, maybe to get a pay rasie. what do you think?

Which two airlines are you thinking of? Are you counting any airline I could find on apc.com or are you only referring to scheduled pax 121 national/legacy/majors?

 

[Hamburger]

There is a middle road.

Indeed. There's a middle road with damn near everything. People let themselves get so whipped up by the guy on the TV selling outrage, they forget to think. It's a shame, really.

 

[rtmcfi]

Exactly what I said, unions have place, but they can not make a bad place good. BTW with all the unions airlines out there, only two airline's pilots have increased theier wages in the last 8 years, and one of those airlines is non-uinion JB, in fact they voted a union down, maybe to get a pay rasie. what do you think?

Unions can also keep a good place from turning bad.