Originally Posted by
RV5M
Economics aside, the intimidation/poor treatment the union uses to keep people in line is, in itself, a red flag for me. If airline unions are the best choice, why is the issue not open to discussion? Instead, dissenters are suppressed while the union entrenches itself with laws and red tape. How quickly would ALPA fall apart in Right to Work states without the Railway Labor Act?
It's all incredibly complex. I'm not out to get the union and was just looking for examples of poor treatment. Surprisingly little is written about the system, so getting involved would be a good way to understand it better.
Poor treatment and intimidation that the union uses? Huh? Would you mind providing examples of pilot unions using intimidation "to keep people in line"?
If you're talking about union members' views, and not union leadership, you may have a point. Don't mistake how non-members are viewed by their peers vs. nonexistent social engineering programs by union management. Pilots view non-members as weak sisters that rely on someone else to do the heavy lifting, yet are happy to enjoy the benefits earned by union members efforts.
Originally Posted by
sulkair
Personally, I would never treat anyone differently based on a decision to be a member or not. I might rationally discuss their reasons with them, but I'd never let it become personal, and would get along fine with them.
I would, screw those guys. Many union members disagree with tactics, process, and direction with the organization but still show up in the union hall to have their voices heard and be part of the process to change the direction. Non-members claim to conscientious objectors to make themselves feel better, but the reality is they're leeches.