And I thought this site was Airline Pilot Central.

 

CargoBoob is at it again....

 

The Redneck comment was directed at "cargobob" for his insightful response. What made you choose to take on that label?

 

Palladin, you are a smart guy, but I think your ideals cloud your thinking.

The industrial barons of the late 19th and early 20th century were not the benevolent father-figures you profess (with the possible exception of Ford, who was a true visionary... visit the Ford Museum in Detroit sometime, but I digress). In reality, the industrial tycoons used their workers like animals and paid them as little as possible. It was the work hours, lack of safety, and lack of pay in America's sweatshops that led to the union movement. Nearly all of the safety advances we see in factories today were brought about one way or another by unions. I will agree that some unions have become bloated monsters who are choking their industry (UAW comes to mind) but I would insist that most have stuck to their ideals. This is especially true in aviation. Airlines cannot cut safety, service, fuel, maintenance. They CAN cut crew wages and increase crew productivity through tighter work rules. The unions are very necessary in aviation because of this, and that's why it is one of the most highly unionized industries. Simply put, without them, the airline management would squeeze the workers to strangulation.

Since you brought up the Depression, I find it intersting that you bring up Germany. I never thought of that. I would conjecture that most historians agree the Depression was brought on by the stock market crash of 1929, which was caused by Wall Street overleveraging itself and driving up priced in the classic "bubble" scenario. This caused a mass extinction among American corporations, leading to factories closing, and job losses. Then the banks failed and everyone lost their savings. It was exacerbated by extreme drought for several years in the Midwest that caused farms to fail. I would say that the "New Deal" did more to improve the conditions than worsen them. Here in the South, they put thousands of men to work in the TVA, including my daddy. My parents were born during the depression, so yes, i'm old enough to know something about it. They lived it firsthand.

Getting back to the original debate, I will agree with you that there some runaway unions, and in this modern age, not every industry needs a union. I will, however, insist that the airline industry is one that needs unions.

 

One of the basic tenets of capitalism is to make money. It is an employer's duty to provide the largest return possible for the corporation's shareholders. That is his priority. As laborers (that is what we are, period) we have the same duty to make the greatest return possible for -- you guessed it; ourselves. Since we laborers have no individual powers (compared to our employers) we have found that the best way for us to enjoy part of our capitalisic system is to get together in a union to negotiate the best possible contract.

I think that the most common misconception among union bashers is that whenever a company does well it is due to the fine work of management and when it does poorly it is because of the unions. Most of the time the inverse is true.

Unions provide the little guy an opportunity to participate in capitalism, it is that simple.

As for the Canada-Europe-US comparison, one has to define what markers define a successful society. Poverty? Homicides? Abortions? Underage pregnancies? Individual debt? National debt? Trade deficits? Perceived wealth? Real wealth? Life-expectancy? Vacations? There are a lot of different parameters to consider when judging the success of a society. Perhaps instead of all the chest-pounding in the US of how we are the best at everything ever, maybe we should consider that other countries have systems that they believe work for them.

As far as the parameters above; the US is proudly ranked first in the first 10 categories and at the bottom of the last two compared with the other developed western nations. Now, I happen to like the system we have here in the US, but I am also acknowledging that we are not perfect and there is always room to make this great country even greater.[/I][/I]

 

…..“I think your ideals cloud your thinking”….. Really, I would argue that my ideals clarify my thinking.

I never said or implied the “industrial barons of the late 19th and early 20th century” were benevolent father-figures. They were far from it, at least when it came to their business lives. However, society still benefits from their benevolence through the foundations that many founded with their immense fortunes. To say they used their workers like animals is bit of a stretch as well as an appeal to emotion. Life in general was more difficult those days because of the lack of labor saving methods and devices we enjoy today. In fact life today is much easier because of the advancements in technology these “industrial tycoons” pioneered. As far as paying the employees as little as possible, corporate bosses do that to this day. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their share holders to gain maximum efficiency from the factors of production. Businessman worry about profits, no one pays them to be ideologically pure. This is where the union can best serve the American worker. I won’t argue the fact unions have been instrumental in working with industry to bring about safety in the work place. That is one area where they haven’t abdicated their responsibility to the American worker or consumer. However, I don’t think it is accurate to say these advances could have come about only through compulsory unionism. It is in everyone’s self interest to have safe working environment.

You are correct, most unions have "stuck to their ideals", but to borrow a phrase from the General in New Orleans, who salvaged the rescue effort after Hurricane Katrina, they are “stuck on stupid”. They have fought the wrong battles, for the wrong reasons, using the wrong tactics. For years they have been pursuing contradictory policies of protecting the rights of workers on one hand while violating the rights of all by supporting various and sundry government welfare programs, apparently in the belief the high cost of these programs can be financed by taxes on the “rich”. This tactic has failed because despite high taxes on the "rich" the revenues are still not sufficient to finance the explosion of government spending. This fact has forced the “Fed” to pursue a policy of manipulating the money supply and as history shows these kinds of policies always have disastrous economic consequences. For political reasons government has adopted these policies and allowed the fed to increase the quantity of money and credit. Unfortunately, the middle class is the victim of these onerous government programs and policies and organized labor is a part, although a shrinking part, of the “middle class”. Economic reality cannot be evaded or ignored, at least for long, so there will always be a day of reckoning. This day is upon us because now the actual value of organized labor’s, aka ALPA, forced “social gains”, in the form of pensions and other benefits, are being wiped out.

I would argue that unions can be a value and are necessary in most industries regardless of the era, modern or otherwise. They bring enormous value to their members by keeping them informed of current market conditions and are instrumental in negotiating wages and work rules. However, they must abandon the adversarial relationship many have with management. Union leaders as well as their members must understand that in the de-regulated market place all prices, including wages and profits, are not determined by the arbitrary whim of the rich or poor, not by anyone’s “greed” and certainly not by anyone’s “need”, but by the law of supply and demand. The moral meaning of which; is the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade with others their work or products in return.

As for the “Depression”, just because “most historians” agree it was brought on by the “crash of 1929” that doesn’t make it so. Most are just “pointy headed intellectuals” regurgitating Keynesian economic theory. If they were somehow stripped of their tenure and thrown out of their “Ivory Towers” they would be forced to live under bridges because none of them would be able to earn an honest living.

The “classic 'bubble' scenario” of which you speak was created by the manipulation of money supply by the Federal Reserve. For political reasons government policies were adopted that allowed them to increase the quantity of money and credit. It is has been estimated that the Fed expanded money supply by more than 60% from mid 1921 to mid 1929, resulting in a boom known as the “Roaring Twenties”. The bad thing about government created booms is that sooner or later there must be a day of painful reckoning. None of America’s depressions prior to 1929 lasted for more than four years. The Great Depression lasted twelve years because the government compounded its monetary errors with a series of harmful interventions.

When the government pursues policies that call for the Fed to inflate the money and credit supply, interest rates fall. Business invests this “easy money” in new production projects and a boom takes place in the capital goods sector. As the boom matures, the cost of doing business rises and soon thereafter interest rates re-adjust upward, and profits are squeezed. By early 1929 the Fed raised interest rates, thereby choking off the money supply, and presided over a money supply that shrank by 30 percent. The deflation that followed the massive amount of inflation during the 20’s brought the economy from a boom to a colossal bust. When the investors eventually sensed the change in Fed policy, they scrambled to sell and after a couple of months of moderate decline the “Great Crash of Twenty Nine” was underway. The point of this is that the crash was only a symptom, not the cause of the Great Depression. The market rose and fell in synchronization with the intervention of the Fed. The “New Deal” only exasperated the problem. It did put millions to back to work, but mostly the type of jobs that gave rise to the term “boondoggle”. The wasteful spending generated by many of these programs represented a diversion of valuable resources to politically motivated and economically counterproductive purposes.

 

Palladin, I'm glad we agree that unions have a necessary function in our society. As previously said, I agree that some need to shape up their act. But I still assert that the unions in the airline industry are doing exactly what they need to be doing, and in fact could stand to become more aggressive, particularly ALPA.

Your opinions about the cause of the depression are interesting. That's pretty arrogant of you to say you have it right and the historians have it wrong. That speaks volunes about you. But, alas, the depression is for another forum.

 

JP, we may be in agreement that unions have a necessary function in society; however I think our strategy on the methods they should use to represent their membership would differ. You state that ALPA is doing exactly what they need to be doing and go on to state they need to more aggressive. I am curious as to what end and what path your advocacy for a more aggressive stance by ALPA would take? That same question goes to anyone who may still be reading this thread and is of like mind with JP concerning ALPA’s negotiating strategy. It seems to me they are doing the only thing possible given the state of the airline industry. Each MEC/LEC is negotiating the best deal possible in context with the economic well being of each individual company.

As for the causes of the “Great Depression” I find it interesting that you continue to try and put “words in my mouth”. I never said I had it right and the historians had it wrong. The reason’s I cited for the Depression are not my opinion. They are recorded historical events which can be discovered by anyone willing to do due diligence researching the events leading up to The Great Depression.

 

...

You're right, you caught me contradicting myself.

I do believe ALPA should be more aggressive in that they tend to go after the legacy carriers, and give less attention to the regional industry, even though it is the modern battleground between unions and management. The legacy carriers are mostly in bankruptcy, and the concessionary bargaining there has been unavoidable. The regionals are fighting the modern equivalents of Frank Lorenzo and Carl Ichann in Orenstein and Atkins.

The "race to the bottom" in the regional industry is being caused by artificial "cost boxes" and greed. At ASA, we're being asked to take concesions while our parent company (Skywest) reports record profits. We've been in negotiations for 4 years. Mesa is constantly being told to be cheap and get the growth. ALPA is nowhere to be found.

I believe ALPA should devote more resources and attention to fighting management in this sector of the industry, one where second year copilots with families are still below the poverty level, senior captains make 70K a year, and the work rules remind one of a sweatshop with 14+ hour duty days.

 

Man, you guys know too much really useless sh1t to be airline pilots. I think you're both lawyers or something....