Originally Posted by
kycycles
good post...however, i will dis-agree with this. i am not sure about fed-ex but SW did good because the were smart in the way the negotiated their fuel contracts. that negotiation was a gamble that worked out for them, but may turn around and bite the in the butt if prices stay this low for too long. They may find themselves paying more when everyone is paying less.
These are two good examples that show i union can be present in a successful company. however, i could dig up a hundred examples of how unions have played a huge part in the failure of many different industries, including the airlines, over the years.
My opinions are based on years experience. there are always exceptions to the rule. but the statistics do not favor the union cause when it comes to the success of a company.
i do not blame or think less of anyone that will try and better their lives. my angle is long term stability is more important than short term gain. The unions do not have a history of making a company more stable....... in my opinion
You mean like the unions at UAL, NWA, DAL, AAL, FDX, UPS, ALA, and SWA? They have all been around for a pretty long time. Some longer than others and a few from the beggining of airlines. Many airlines also have gone by the wayside but I would challenge you to name one that went out of business because of a pilot union. Hell, many people complain that pilots give in too easily in concessions to keep their airlines alive just to see the airline shut down anyways. Stability is not the purpose of the union. Stability is supposed to be one of the goals of management. Sure, there are somtimes economic conditions that management cannot control. And in those cases, its where a good union can help its members deal with furloughs, downgrades, concessions, bankruptcy, etc.