Originally Posted by
NoSidNoStar
...However I am failing to understand why, you think, a union is detrimental to the pilots in the long run. I still believe that it benefits the individual.
Again, to be clear, I'm not specifically against unions or the many positive accomplishments and contributions unions have made to this industry.
The detriment stems from the manipulation of union priorities to cause a long term and consistent reduction in average airline pilot salary over time. This is not arguable, it is a fact that average airline pilot salaries have consistently fallen over a long period of time. One can of course argue that salaries may be even lower had unions not protected us but I don't see that as a valid argument if the goal is to maintain salaries or improve salaries and considering the fact that some airline pilots are stuck at poverty level salaries for a significant portion of their career due to no fault of their own. I see it as an overall failure of the system that is in place.
Without reiterating my previous posts, there are many factors that have come into play but the fact is the end result has been a failure and the general response of the union system is to keep trying the same things over and over looking for a different "long term" result.
Unions are self sustaining entities that have an instinct for survival just like a corporation and will do what is necessary to survive.
You talked about the regionals. Isn't the "scope clause" a possible defense of a pilot group from the outsourcing to regionals? And isn't this outsourcing to regionals a product of the free market lowest bidder?
I see the scope clause as the enabler of outsourcing. Either stand by the union principle or don't but this in between whittling away is the worst thing to do. Scope as I see it is the failure of the union to protect the collective as it is supposed to. If the union fails to protect the pilots it has failed. The fact that the union survives demonstrates the self preservation aspect.
The union should either work on the industry wide scale or company wide but not both. It is a conflict of interest to have a national level union that is designed to create barriers for it's members preventing the transition to a different union job at a different company within the same union organization.
How can an individual protect himself better than an union?
A union is not designed to protect an individual rather than a collective. The individual interests are secondary to the collective. In a union environment, as an individual, you won't have a choice....only a vote....maybe. In a free market, you are an individual who markets himself as in individual. If the employer doesn't work out for whatever reason, you are free to market yourself elsewhere. Supply and demand determine compensation.
Investors get together, form a corporation which becomes a legal entity (the employer) with a lot of power versus the individual employee. Getting together as employees and forming a union to enhance the negotiation power is only a natural result. Assuming an honest union, that looks after the entire group, how is that so negative for the individual?
This is a description of a union in it's purest form. Unions have historically been very effective at allowing workers to protect themselves and their jobs from overzealous management.
The problem is when the union becomes more interested in self preservation than the workers.
In the case of airline pilots, the career has changed significantly since deregulation but the union structure has not. The typical airline pilot today can not reasonably expect to stay at one company his or her entire career and is likely to work at several airlines or many airlines. The current union structure is not friendly to this career path.
The main problem is seniority. Seniority is a unique animal in the airline business and not duplicated anywhere else, not even the military. Seniority creates an inefficient distribution of experience and locks senior or experienced pilots out of the job market. That's not protection and it effectively eliminates free market forces from affecting pilot salaries at the high end. What it does is force the free market to only work at the entry level and make experience a non issue for airlines looking to hire new pilots.
Sorry that I am slightly off the main scab topic. Just trying to understand others point of view.
I am sure Airhoss, TonyC, and the others have plenty reasons to feel so passionate about the scabs issue, and have directly being broken by it.
I know I would be really belligerent if I had been effected. And then again, may be we are all effected by it, directly or not.
I understand it was an emotional time and I witnessed it first hand. We haven't really seen anything like it in recent years but the animosity remains and in my opinion is unhealthy and exploited to the overall detriment of the piloting profession.
Even beyond the issue of scabs, I fail to understand the intense emotional disrespect pilots can have for each other across company lines, types, history etc. I find it intensely ironic that the pilot of a mainline carrier can be disrespectful of the pilot of a regional carrier (who may even have been flying longer) when the mainline scope agreement created that regional airline in the first place.
Regardless of the impact it had, I believe the big airline unions have done more damage by selling out the bottom half of their career than any individual who may have decided to cross a picket line. That's just my opinion but I believe I've validated my point.