Union vs Non-Union
 

Just looked the cargo section.
Almost all union airlines have people on furlough; almost all non-union airlines have no furloughs. Why?

Because at non-union/non-contract carriers, the company can reduce the workforce through terminations instead of the furlough process.

Permanent pink-slip vs. temporary furlough.

No furloughs here at FedEx with 4,600 pilots doing OK. A contract can be structured around pay, benefits, quality of life, etc. Sometimes the pay is real good but working conditions are not. Some have lower pay but perhaps a better retirement plan or rest provisions. There are cargo outfits in which the crews are away from home for 21 or more consecutive days. Generally speaking, non-union working conditions are poor in contrast.

The point is, without a contract, the folks on furlough might likely have not ever been hired. It would be less expensive to hire as few as possible, and run them ragged. Over hiring is bad business. Under hiring is also. A contract which allows flexibility for labor and management is desirable, as long as the language is well thought out and clearly written. (4.A.2.b haters understand what that meant). Labor can reduce flying (and income) and people won't get furloughed, but only to a certain degree.

Take a real close look at working conditions at the union and non- union carriers and you'll have a better understanding.

Many more Unionized carriers than not. As was stated your fired is permanent, your furloughed gives you a shot in the future. Besides for the cargo (large to heavy aircraft) I can think of only one non union carrier, National.

Unions are a necessary evil. And it all depends on how strong the reps are, current economy, strength of the membership, etc.

I don't think "evil" is a fair characterization. Trade & craft unions have been around for centuries. Unions in the US rose in the early part of the century as a counterbalance to the unbridled power of corporations as they rode roughshod over labor in pay and working conditions.

Only the power of a collective bargaining concept provided a modicum of a balance of power. There is a plethora of information on the history & why. If you look at how corporations were treating thier workers in the 1920's I would dare you to say a union was evil.

The taft hartley act reduced the power of unions, and their roles and memberships have diminshed significantly since then. Corporations and business are bit more discreet in how treat their employees now, federal & state laws provide some basic worker safety protection (e.g. ERISA- OSHA), but if you look at corporate profits, corporate balance sheets (lots of cash), compared to the average workers salary growth and compensation especially on the basis of worker productivity, the worker has had stagnant wages, and reduced benefits, all the while his productivity (benefiting the business) has gone up. i.e. he has not shared the benefits of his increased productivity. The attitude of many employers is don't like it-leave.

last year CAT had record profits, record low debt, high earnings, and order backlogs, but refused to give their workers a raise, and demanded that some take a 50% cut (CEO took 60% raise tho). Productivity was at an all time high as the compay streamlined increasing the workload with fewer workers. The guys had no recourse. Could a larger more effective union collectively bargained for a share of the profit that they helped create?? CAT must have thought so, because they outsourced much of their work and move plants to "right to work states", where they could have the don't like it- leave attitude.

In these right to work states, wages, rates of employer sponsored health plans, and pensions are all lower than the non right to work states. Unions & collective bargaining have some effect on garnering some of these benefits. Is this evil?

A unions purpose of collectivley bargaining to attempt to be fairly compensated for their efforts is hardly evil. If you look at many of the benefits that people take fro granted- medical, sick leave, 40 hour work week, paid vacation, pensions, many came from the efforts of early unions. Is that "evil"?

Unions are no more or less evil than unbridled capitalist that conduct unethical practices for their own aggrandizement at the expense of shareholders and/or employees.

Here here!! Wish more Americans realized this.

And of course unemployment in right to work states is generally lower.

If you know of any unbridled capitalist corporation please let me know, sounds like a good investment. But I do agree with your sentiment; unions can be (and have been) as bad as the corporations the negotiate with.

Good example and is a story repeated many times. It is, in fact, the standard corporations seek to maintain.

However, a few years back CAT had a big problem when workers wanted raises comparable those negotiated by John Deere workers. But CAT's products and customers were in a different, globally competitive market. This didn't work out so well and CATs profits tumbled badly.

Managements overstep and unions, at some point, overstep. But unions overstep far less frequently. Corporate management can ALWAYS be counted on to overstep and they need a union counterbalance.

Perhaps not such a good investment - the purpose of a bridle is to give direction and control over a horse. A creature larger and more powerful than any man, which was used to improve the human condition before the industrial age made them obsolete. Without a bridle, the horse does what he wants. With a bridle his energy can be directed and put to good use.

An undirected, out of control corporation probably is not going to be a good long term bet.