flynavyj

very fair point, when united states its cutting 3000 jobs, those guys get the boot, and most likely will be seeing paycuts as well....bad mojo man, bad mojo.

SaltyDog

Excellent question:If truly studying and serious, go read some labor law and the RLA and it's application to airlines. Next, study the people in office when airline pilots fought against managements. (You'll find airline pilots court little favor with either of the two parties) Both dislike us in general. RLA is designed for employers and to keep employees at work.
Next: read history on salary slashing/job cuts of engineers in the aerospace indusrty. Architects and lawyers find competition at the paralegal/internet side.
My analysis: We need unions, members need to be engaged. Weak unions indicative of weak members. However, can't dimiss the market forces at play in the equation. If something is going in, you make the best landing you can with the altitude and airspeed you have.
Anyway, that is the biggest challenge, however, just look at the UAL/UAX jumpseat issue. Pilots are carnivores, we also eat our own. Unions protect us from each other nearly as much as they give some measure of protection against management.

1forflying

This is a fantastic question that I feel all unions (especially the AFL CIO) need to address. New people coming into todays job market have always been told that unions are bad and that is the reason for Americas decline. I have to disagree as the worker has taken a huge hit recently as corporate officers continue to receive huge bonuses for running their own companies into the ground. If that is not enough of a sound reason I think everyone should ask themselves "would I feel safe flying these aircraft if nobody was watching my back"? Unions have fought for years to increase safety and to provide relief to workers who would have been forced to fly aircraft that otherwise would have been grounded for damage.

One may tell you that it is your "choice" to fly aircraft that are unsafe for your passengers, cargo, and crew (while that is true), should you lose your job over that decision? Would you want your family flying on an airplane where the Captain had to make a go,no-go decision solely on how bad he was in need of a job instead of their years of experience? What if making such a choice prevented future employment at another airline?

Another question one might ask is about seniority at an airline. While upgrading and retaining pilots (and for that matter paying us) on merit alone might sound reasonable, what is to keep management from furloughing or even firing from the top of the list in order to save a buck? How would you feel if you invested 30-40 years only to be put out in the street in favor of a new-hire, by some CEO who has only been in the business and with the company for a few years and at the same time receiving a huge bonus for doing so?

The unions are facing many challenges ahead. A lot is based on public perception in which we have lost ground in recent years. The only way we can bring it back is through each member working together for a common goal. I'm going to volunteer more of my time to make this a reality.

ComeFlyWithMe

Quote:

Originally Posted by skywatch

That is an interesting observation. People always complain that management treats them like a number and not an individual - and yet, the union itself insists on using a system where the only thing that is allowed to determine your value is your date of hire. People complain that management de-humanizes them, and yet the system the union insists on following seems to take any/and all individual value away from the employee outside of his hire date. Interesting.

Agreed. It does make one think.
The unions do lump all pilots into one basket when it comes to hiring; everyone's the same skill-wise. You can never tell your employer "you can't fire me, my experience is valuable to this company," because to them your are just pilot #7845. The system seems very dehumanizing. This is what keeps professionals from getting screwed pay-wise: they know how to market themselves. In the case of lawyers, pharmacists, accountants, etc., they market their skills individually and get paid for it. BUT If their company goes belly-up, they're SOL. The question is whether it is better to be SOL and unemployed, or employed at reduced pay. I think SOL is better in the long term because it's easier to get another job than it is to raise pay after it has been lowered. Few people are permanently unemployed. Times are tough, but I'd rather they be tough temporarily than permanently.

I see unions as a double-edged sword. They can protect you from management abuse, but they can get annoying as well. The "seniority system" prevents ass-kissing brownnosers from getting ahead on their stupid charm, but it also can be problematic in the case of mergers. The dehumanizing system of employment seems silly, but employees are given the choice to determine their own situation in times of crisis as opposed to being fired outright.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1forflying

Unions have fought for years to increase safety and to provide relief to workers who would have been forced to fly aircraft that otherwise would have been grounded for damage.

A great example of the good a good union can do, and a reason why I am not anti-union. But I feel some unions (like the teachers' union) have abused their power, while others have given theirs completely away. Unions have a time and a place, the question is finding out where and when.

LoudFastRules

Could the prevailing anti-labor, anti-union sentiment in the USA be the problem?

Could unbridled, shameless corporate greed be the problem?

Could failed "trickle-down" economic policies be the problem (consumers cannot spend money if they aren't able to earn any money!)

Could the average consumer's sense of entitlement to cheap products be the problem?

skywatch

Just so we are clear, it is the shameless corporate greed that is the problem and leads to our number one issue - pilots need to make more money...right?