Unions, Why? Do we really need one?

[bobbysamd]

Flying the Line

Thank you. Excellent. I'll look for it.

 

[enigma]

He was a piece of work, wasn't he? I didn't realize that Mr. Reed was Mr. Beech 1900
at Mesa.

Ornstein and Grady were making the point of mine that you quoted. Supply and demand.
Too many people want to be pilots and will work for nothing to do it. It is the same for
other "glamour" professions, such as broadcasting. People want to be big-time disk
jockeys and announcers and don't care how much they're paid. Radio stations don't have
much trouble finding help. I've been there and done that. I never worked in a union shop,
though.

Unions by their definition can affect wages. The flame on Grady Reed is intentional.

Grady Reed ....Mr 1900??????????????????????????????????????

Heck He only passed the type ride because he was management. He and another management type got lost between ICT and DEN when they attempted to deliver N2YV, the first 1900D. To my knowledge, Grady never flew the line. He was hired in 1989 as an
FO but was moved to management before he checked out when Risley found out about his management experience in the Air Force. After Mesa built a bunkhouse across from HQ to
house the pilots/FA's/agents in training, we always made sure we flushed twice to send a 'grady-gram" across the way.
Actually, I never had any personal problem with Grady, but he was NOT a friend to pilots.

I don't have time at present to get too deep into economics, but I will say this. Unions can only affect wages in the short term. Long term, supply and demand will rule.

I previously asked whether anyone knew of the difference between a trade union and an Industrial Affiliation union. No one has, as of yet, addressed this point. I believe in trade
unions. (unions of professionals banded together to uphold the standards of their trade) And I think that as a trade union ALPA has a vital role in maintaining the common good of airline pilots as it pertains to professional standards, safety, protection against arbitrary management actions against individual members, etc.

As a collective bargaining agent, a union can only control wages by "shutting the door" on other pilots. In other words, we legally control the supply.. ONLY AT THE COMPANY THAT OUR CBA IS MADE WITH.

SCOPE is a legal device to achieve this goal, but eventually the market will win. Supply and Demand.

For example, DALPA can control scope within Delta, but it can't do anything about AirTran. In the macro economic environment, other suppliers of the product, in our case air transportation, who have taken advantage of the williness of others to work for less,
will eventually cause the wages to drop. It has something to do with competition. (just a little sarcasm there, sorry)

Bottom line, a union may bring up wages at one particular company, but in the total free market environment, that company will eventually go broke when it is undercut by its competitors who access the true labor market.

Those who work for less are the true enemy.

I'm out of time, More later.

8N

 

[kilomike]

Greedy Reedy

Maybe Grady Reed's name should be "Greedy" Reed!

 

[av8instyle]

Unions are responsible for the low pay of new pilots

Besides the previous points regarding this statement, I'd have to say that airline pay wouldn't be anywhere close to what it is today if it weren't for unions.

 

[bobbysamd]

Grady Reed

I didn't know that Reed and the other Mesa type got lost delivering the first 1900. That's pretty rich. I did know about his AF background and I knew that Risley liked that and made him a "manager." The reason I referred to him as Mr. 1900 was because I had found out later that he managed that part of Mesa or something like that.

I've heard about the Grady valve story, in which he opened a cap to an hydraulic valve under pressure and it spewed forth fluid, on him primarily.

On the other hand, I heard that his son joined Mesa and was actually a sharp guy and nothing like Grady.

I remember clearly how much Risley loved the 1900s. Nothing wrong with that. I always understood the airplane made money with a load factor of something like two pax. I do recall that Risley hated the Brasilias. They seemed to go down often for maintenance and G-d forbid that Risley would have to fork up the extra bucks for maintenance. I always found that to be ironic, considering that Risley had a maintenance background.

Enigma makes a point that basic economics impacts wages in the long term. Also, consider the mood of the country. More history. Remember around the late '70s to '80s how times were tough? The mood of the country was turning conservative and people blamed unions for the moribund times. Anti-union sentiment developed. Companies were demanding givebacks from their unions and received them. Union strength eroded. Remember the Continental and United strikes and the infamous "B" scale business? Frank Lorenzo and Carl Icahn? Let me throw in two-pilot airplanes. I may be wrong about this, but ALPA expressed concern that these aircraft would eliminate jobs. The companies loved them because they felt that three-pilot airplanes constituted featherbedding. Then, in the late '80s-early '90s, all businesses scaled back and demanded more work from fewer employees, and more givebacks. Then, whaddaya know? With trimmed-down workforces companies began making money again. Many people would opine that the mood of the country during those years indeed affected wages during those years.

I agree, people who work for less than scale hurt others. But I don't see much you can do about it if the jobs are there and people take them.

 

[Timebuilder]

You are right, Bobby. I remember those days. We can add the Chrysler bailout and the decline of American Made Steel. Wait a minute....that sounds familiar.... .

 

[Pikey]

A better question should be, why do companys hate unions?

Why was there so much blood shed during the infancy of the organized labor movement?

Why did Delta spend money during an ecomomic downturn to prevent its flight attendants from joining the AFA?

 

[Timebuilder]

A better question should be, why do companys hate unions?

1) Money.

2) Power.

With the presence of a union, another entity must be provided for in the steering of the company. The contract becomes the manual for daily activity, and management must conform its desires to the contract. Management sees this as a constriction on their ability to make daily decisions, and they must face a process for grievances brought by employees. In effect, management must "share" power and profits based on the agreements reached in the contract.

Generally speaking, most management groups would prefer that they be able to run their companies without these added complications.

 

[bobbysamd]

Union dislike

I agree with Timebuilder. A lot has to do with salaries. Employee compensation is one of the biggest expenses for companies. It is axiomatic that to raise profits you cut expenses. Therefore, if a non-union airline can attract pilots of equal quality as a union shop and pay them less, it has cut expenses. Not to mention fewer benies.

Many companies oppose pay according to scale. They'd prefer to pay, or not pay, according to merit. Let's say we have two pilots. Somehow, the company feels that Pilot A, who makes himself/herself available for extra reserve and comes in to work in the training department on days off is more valuable than Pilot B, who sits on interview boards on days off and chairs the United Way committee. Let's say both are 747 captains. Obviously, both pilots are valuable, but there is no objective criteria to evaluate merit. With scale, both are compensated equally. Fairly? Weigh it against the industry.

Now, once again, the other point of view might be my dad's business philosophy. His business was dirty and hazardous and he regarded his employees to be a valuable resource. He wanted to pay them better than any union contract, but was stymied by that when he had the union.

Power. I will not say that companies "oppress" workers. That sounds too much like Karl Marx or Hegel, perhaps. But many businesses and companies take unfair advantage of their employees and their cooperative nature, and single out certain employees or groups of employees. For example, I worked in a lawfirm in which the principal attorney habitually kept staff late and heaped unreasonable amounts of work on them. Staff worked long hours and for no extra pay. The principal got away with it because she considered staff to be "professionals" and exempt from overtime. Not that a union would have been practical in our small lawfirm, but if we could have spoken up with one voice we might have been able to combat this abuse.

 

[enigma]

Re: Union dislike

Power. I will not say that companies "oppress" workers. That sounds too much like Karl Marx or Hegel, perhaps. But many businesses and companies take unfair advantage of their employees and their cooperative nature, and single out certain employees or groups of employees. For example, I worked in a lawfirm in which the principal attorney habitually kept staff late and heaped unreasonable amounts of work on them. Staff worked long hours and for no extra pay. The principal got away with it because she considered staff to be "professionals" and exempt from overtime. [/B]

First. This is a nice polite debate. Thanks

It beats all of the name calling that most of these degenerate into.

I must say that unless those law office workers were somehow indentured, or slaves, it was their CHOICE to accept the extra work. I believe that it is safe to say, that in the US of A, we the workers have the right to quit an oppresive job.
I know that I am painting with a broad brush, but in our free market system, employees set the wages and determine the work rules.
regards
8N

 

[bobbysamd]

Well, yeah, but .....

No, we couldn't refuse the work. Or, we could and she'd likely can us. So, this lawyer had us by the you-know-whats (apologies for the horrible mixed metaphor). Maybe if we had the Paralegal Union I could have filed a grievance or something with my steward.

She told me several times that I could not go home until I finished a project for X client. You have to understand that emergencies and rushes come up from time to time in lawfirms and sometimes you have to stay late. It comes with the territory. However, with this lawyer, to her everything was an emergency. In reality, we had few true emergencies.

This was not an emergency but one time, she started a client conference around 4ish. I caught the assignment. It continued until 7. There was no way I could extricate myself from it to call my wife. You had to be there. You had to understand this lawyer's personality. Once again, my wife had to keep my dinner warm.

And, you're right again. We could resign, but finding a new job, as we all know well, is not always easy. Sometimes, you're stuck between dealing with the "oppression" or not work and have no paycheck. After a time, I had all I could stand. I started looking and found a better job that paid par for paralegals in my city. This other lawyer was underpaying me based on my experience.

This is obviously not the Paralegal Message Board. I provide these experiences to make a point and maybe further our very friendly discussion (and Grady zapping).

Publisher has weighed in. Are there any more aviation management types who would care to provide their points of view?

 

[enigma]

Re: Well, yeah, but .....

Bobbysamd,
You say that the lawyer could have canned you. Why do you think that she could can you? I would venture to say that she could can you only because she could replace you. If no other paralegals were willing to take the crap, she would either have to treat you better, or do with out a paralegal.

It's a very simple reality, and it applies to every situation. If you are irreplacable, you can write your own check. Why does Michael Jordan get paid millions every year to play basketball? Because he can't be replaced. I can be replaced by any breathing pilot with a ATP and a DC9 rating. And while there is only one MJ there are a couple of thousand jurassic jet drivers. If I don't like the wages, the company will have me replaced tommorrow.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but supply and demand are not really arguable.

gotta go check on my laundry, later
8N

 

[publisher]

points

Going back to the original poster, the points that have been made here are all valid. They have certainly been posted in a manner above what the RJDC debate has.

Unionism in the US has in general been declinging over the last two generations. The reasons, several.

First, the safety issue has been largely wiped out. There are many other ways, groups, and legislative interest that has made this argument pretty low on the priorities.

Secondly, we are a country made up more and more of small business and entrepenuers. They do not have the time or money for this madness.

Thirdly, many recognized that organized labor was pretty much so large it was as big a problem as a solution.

Fourth, no business operates in a vacumn. We are still a supply and demand country and business. When things get our of whack, the natural process takes over. This leads to niche companies with a different model. Think SWA and Alaska.

Like I have said before, it is not a simple subject. Many on these boards are not.

 

[flydog]

Publisher:

Safety issue wiped out?

If it wasnt for ALPA pilots would be on duty 24 hrs straight. The safety issue in aviation is NOT largely wiped out. If it wasnt for unions no one would be there to back up a Captain who denied a trip because it was unsafe. Pilots who fly 91 or 135 dont have this luxury. At my company and every corporate jet operator I have worked at if you turned down a trip because the owner wanted to fly into Aspen and it was night and not legal you kight as well clear out your desk the next morning.

Also try being passed up for upgrade because your company decided to hire a guy with ZERO JET TIME because he was willing to pay for their own type rating and simuflite check $15,000 !!!!! Is this safe? Hell no! Does it save money and put more profit on the so called small businessman's entrepreneurial pockets? Definitely

As far as entrepreneurs and small business they may not have time for the madness as you call it but they do have a profit motive. Most will put money ahead of safety time and time again. If you dont think its true fly 135 for a while and see how many rules get bent to make an extra buck. Again its a safety issue

The reasons unions exist in the airline business is because of a requirement of highly skilled personnel to crew and fix the airplanes. Couple this with the inability of most airlines to weather a prolonged strike and you have incredible leverage to bring about changes in safety, pay and working conditions which the employess are ethically and legally entitled to.

Before you make opinions on the necessity of unions you need to fly the line for a while.

Of course I know you are going to come back with some witty comment about "supply and demand" and "..if the market bears it..." but nothing can justify saving money at the expense of the life of a passenger

 

[bobbysamd]

My former lawyer

Yes, absolutely, she could have replaced me within a couple of weeks, though she liked my work. My state is an at-will employment state, which means an employer can terminate an employee at any time for no reason and an employee can leave at any time for no reason. I don't think that's fair. At-will employment is skewed toward employers, though the doctrine has undergone modifications in recent years.

There are plenty of paralegals looking for work, which meant that I would have joined them and done without a paycheck for G-d knows how long. I chose between putting up with her BS and receiving a paycheck or opting out immediately and not receiving a paycheck. Had there been a union, perhaps there would have been some kind of work rule or agreement that would have forced her to compensate me for all the extra time I put in or outlawed her from working staff to the bone. Maybe there would have been some kind of grievance procedure through which I could have complained to my steward.

This is not a good example. I bring it up to provide a non-aviation example to illustrate why workers formed unions. To combat abuse and unfair treatment by management. Better wages and working conditions.

Publisher raises some points. Think SWA. But haven't they organized, finally? Indeed, unions are not a simple subject.

PS - I thought Southwest had organized, but wasn't sure.