Need some help in a debate....
07-07-2009 | 03:15 PM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 0
From: Leftof longitudinal
No conflict of interest really, a free market allows the owners and the employers to work out a mutually beneficial market solution. For employees, that might be a better benefit to be in a union.
Employers may go into a market as a 'union' as well, just like all the airline partnerships.
It is only a problem when govt favors one party over another. Nothing perfect, but squares with the market. Naturally both parties desire the politicians to favor their position.
Unions are not the answer for all employment situations, but it isn't actually a liberal/conservative scenario unless one limits their thinking and are strictlky partisans. YMMV
Employers may go into a market as a 'union' as well, just like all the airline partnerships.
It is only a problem when govt favors one party over another. Nothing perfect, but squares with the market. Naturally both parties desire the politicians to favor their position.
Unions are not the answer for all employment situations, but it isn't actually a liberal/conservative scenario unless one limits their thinking and are strictlky partisans. YMMV
07-07-2009 | 04:22 PM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
From: Jet Pilot
I guess I should have provided a little context to my previous posts. I'm just countering those who say that anyone who knows anything about economics would say that outsourcing is great, and unionization is bad. Sorry I'm being so confusing. I think I'm confusing myself now....
Unions are a part of the free market system. Just like management has many tools at its disposal, so too does labor in the form of organized labor or a union. In a perfect world, each is free to bargain/negotiate and then agree on a contract of terms. Then the organization takes its place in the free market and is able to compete effectively or not effectively against other similar entities. The market will dictate whether the company is competitive or not.
The waters get murky when politics enters the picture, particularly when a party favors one side over the other. Instead of referees making sure both football teams play by the rules, the refs skew the game by favoring one team over the other. With that analogy you can see how the market isn't really "free" under those circumstances.
I think it is nonsense to correlate a particular political affiliation with a particular stance on unions. It is entirely plausible to be conservative and still support your union. You must look at the union, it's purpose, and it's goals from a business perspective and not from a political one. The only reason any given politician says he or she is pro-union isn't because they care about workers' rights, it is because they are using you to get your vote. In other words, unions are just part of a politician's playbook.
Is unionization bad for business? In order to answer that question I think you have to ask it in the context of a particular union(s) in a specific industry with their respective company(s). I don't believe there is a simple yes or no answer that would cover all avenues.
07-07-2009 | 05:38 PM
#113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
From: Beech 1900D
When talking economics one should be careful not to taint it with politics - from either side of the fence.
Unions are a part of the free market system. Just like management has many tools at its disposal, so too does labor in the form of organized labor or a union. In a perfect world, each is free to bargain/negotiate and then agree on a contract of terms. Then the organization takes its place in the free market and is able to compete effectively or not effectively against other similar entities. The market will dictate whether the company is competitive or not.
The waters get murky when politics enters the picture, particularly when a party favors one side over the other. Instead of referees making sure both football teams play by the rules, the refs skew the game by favoring one team over the other. With that analogy you can see how the market isn't really "free" under those circumstances.
I think it is nonsense to correlate a particular political affiliation with a particular stance on unions. It is entirely plausible to be conservative and still support your union. You must look at the union, it's purpose, and it's goals from a business perspective and not from a political one. The only reason any given politician says he or she is pro-union isn't because they care about workers' rights, it is because they are using you to get your vote. In other words, unions are just part of a politician's playbook.
Is unionization bad for business? In order to answer that question I think you have to ask it in the context of a particular union(s) in a specific industry with their respective company(s). I don't believe there is a simple yes or no answer that would cover all avenues.
Unions are a part of the free market system. Just like management has many tools at its disposal, so too does labor in the form of organized labor or a union. In a perfect world, each is free to bargain/negotiate and then agree on a contract of terms. Then the organization takes its place in the free market and is able to compete effectively or not effectively against other similar entities. The market will dictate whether the company is competitive or not.
The waters get murky when politics enters the picture, particularly when a party favors one side over the other. Instead of referees making sure both football teams play by the rules, the refs skew the game by favoring one team over the other. With that analogy you can see how the market isn't really "free" under those circumstances.
I think it is nonsense to correlate a particular political affiliation with a particular stance on unions. It is entirely plausible to be conservative and still support your union. You must look at the union, it's purpose, and it's goals from a business perspective and not from a political one. The only reason any given politician says he or she is pro-union isn't because they care about workers' rights, it is because they are using you to get your vote. In other words, unions are just part of a politician's playbook.
Is unionization bad for business? In order to answer that question I think you have to ask it in the context of a particular union(s) in a specific industry with their respective company(s). I don't believe there is a simple yes or no answer that would cover all avenues.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I probably did skew politics and economics a bit (more like a lot), but it's difficult not to. Political action can show the practical application of economic theory. The only real point I was trying to make is that there are people in the academic field, who are authorities in the area of economics, who are not anti-labor, and have very good reasons for believing what they believe. They believe that looking at the affects of unionism go beyond just measuring the immediate affects on profits that unions have. They believe you have to look at what union workers will do with increased income (union workers, on average, earn 10-15% more), how income is shifted between classes of people, and the effect these things have on the overall strength of business, and our economy. When looking at the value of unions, it's almost impossible not to skew politics with economics.
07-07-2009 | 06:00 PM
#115
On Reserve
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
While I see the argument you are trying to support, I do not think you are thinking about the entire picture. In a healthy capitalist free market system, the driving force, what the smithians know as the “invisible hand”, is driven by greed and the natural incentive to want more and not less. This can “greed” can be satisfied in many different form and not just limited to monetary terms, such as a sense of fulfillment, happiness, desire to succeed, or simply not having to feel the pain of poverty.
As to your example of the farmer, though a good example, it fails to ignore the “greed” factor. It ignores the fact that the farmer is energized by the incentive to be better or earn more if he possibly can. If the farmer, in a free market, decides to take a job which feeds his family on rare occasions, the farmer has done so willingly and knowingly. In the absence of the unlikely even that the farmer is masochist or a sadist to his family, this represents the fact that the current choice of opportunity is the best for the farmer at the given time. He simply has no better offer then the 5% the land owner is willing to throw at him. If he did have a better opportunity he would most certainly take advantage.
The farmer has exercised his choice and the land owner is under no obligation to pay him any amount more then the farmer is willing to work for. Its not charity, its business.
The farmer has the option to make due with the current situation in blind hope of a brighter one in the future or make himself more marketable either by education or learning future trade or skills in areas that are in demand and will be in the future.
The problem with a union setting is that the incentive for bettering yourself is completely eliminated. This incentive is replaced by an arbitrary rules of compensation not associated with actual merit or production value. Further more, as we all know, no one person can force anyone to hire them as an employee, yet, what the unions do is force an employer to enter into CBAs that are not forcable and are considered inapporpriate under individual circumstances.
This totalitarian approach along with lack of incentive for competing on a open forum drives down production, raises costs, and shrinks industry.
In short, your wife is right.
As to wether this is politics, facts, or opinions....
This is not politics. Politics has no place is economics or business but unfortunately our government is very blind to that fact, more so today then ever.
I have read many books, college text or otherwise, which on bases of business and sound economic theory advise against unionization and promote free market. They do this with long and solid theories backed by simple mathematics, but as you said they are in the end “theories”.
Unfortunately for you or anyone who is in chase of “facts”, they do not exists. After many years of studies in physical sciences and economics, I myself cannot think how to distinguish a “fact” from a theory. Its a very thin grey line.
Also, once again you are correct in saying that unless something is a “fact” its an opinion. Theories are opinions, but they are opinions of the educated type vs. less educated or very commonly, none educated.
Your wife has a great opinion, Im not sure if it is of the educated relam or not. I would assume it is of the kind. Nevertheless, she is correct in her humble opinion.
As to your example of the farmer, though a good example, it fails to ignore the “greed” factor. It ignores the fact that the farmer is energized by the incentive to be better or earn more if he possibly can. If the farmer, in a free market, decides to take a job which feeds his family on rare occasions, the farmer has done so willingly and knowingly. In the absence of the unlikely even that the farmer is masochist or a sadist to his family, this represents the fact that the current choice of opportunity is the best for the farmer at the given time. He simply has no better offer then the 5% the land owner is willing to throw at him. If he did have a better opportunity he would most certainly take advantage.
The farmer has exercised his choice and the land owner is under no obligation to pay him any amount more then the farmer is willing to work for. Its not charity, its business.
The farmer has the option to make due with the current situation in blind hope of a brighter one in the future or make himself more marketable either by education or learning future trade or skills in areas that are in demand and will be in the future.
The problem with a union setting is that the incentive for bettering yourself is completely eliminated. This incentive is replaced by an arbitrary rules of compensation not associated with actual merit or production value. Further more, as we all know, no one person can force anyone to hire them as an employee, yet, what the unions do is force an employer to enter into CBAs that are not forcable and are considered inapporpriate under individual circumstances.
This totalitarian approach along with lack of incentive for competing on a open forum drives down production, raises costs, and shrinks industry.
In short, your wife is right.
As to wether this is politics, facts, or opinions....
This is not politics. Politics has no place is economics or business but unfortunately our government is very blind to that fact, more so today then ever.
I have read many books, college text or otherwise, which on bases of business and sound economic theory advise against unionization and promote free market. They do this with long and solid theories backed by simple mathematics, but as you said they are in the end “theories”.
Unfortunately for you or anyone who is in chase of “facts”, they do not exists. After many years of studies in physical sciences and economics, I myself cannot think how to distinguish a “fact” from a theory. Its a very thin grey line.
Also, once again you are correct in saying that unless something is a “fact” its an opinion. Theories are opinions, but they are opinions of the educated type vs. less educated or very commonly, none educated.
Your wife has a great opinion, Im not sure if it is of the educated relam or not. I would assume it is of the kind. Nevertheless, she is correct in her humble opinion.
07-07-2009 | 06:43 PM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,333
Likes: 0
I guess I should have provided a little context to my previous posts. I'm just countering those who say that anyone who knows anything about economics would say that outsourcing is great, and unionization is bad. Sorry I'm being so confusing. I think I'm confusing myself now....
07-07-2009 | 07:17 PM
#117
Gets Weekend Reserve
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,277
Likes: 273
From: B737CA
Originally Posted by SaltyDog
"Pal".... Duly noted your disdain. <g> Struck a nerve, anyway, notice you cherry picked. Care to answer the safety concerns?
Signed
Your "pal"
Signed
Your "pal"
Safety concerns... let me put it another way. Do you see a max exodus of people from the places like JetBlue or Skywest because of mass firings of any captain refusing to fly a broken or unsafe airplane? I don't.
Is it to say that the unions did nothing for safety? Of course not. But in today's day and age... if an operator is disregarding basic safety, I don't think having a union is going to help, but it will sure block you from trying to leave by making the price of you leaving too steep/unaffordable by the way of first year wages elsewhere.
07-07-2009 | 08:53 PM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
From: Beech 1900D
999% disagreed; .001% Agreed. My example with the farmer was just bringing up a basic Marxist idea of capitalism causing employees to become disconnected from their labor, and as a result, becoming a legion of zombies (No, I'm not a communist, or socialist). I wasn't even trying to bring it to the level he did. Plus, the "greed" factor doesn't take into account that people get stuck in their jobs. Actually, a high percentage of employees become stuck in their jobs, and become disengaged and disgruntled. This, rather than unionism, is more the key to the destruction of productivity, in my opinion. A person can be in a union, and still remain actively engaged in their job. But, most likely, union or non-union, a person will become disengaged and unproductive, at some point in their careers. This is from Your HR Digest - Helping To Maximize The HR Function In All Companies
Research by the Gallup Organization suggests that approximately seven out of 10 Americans - an estimated 101 million workers - are not engaged in their jobs.
Disengaged workers include those who merely show up for a paycheck to disgruntled workers who act out their unhappiness and undermine what their engaged co-workers accomplish.
In economic terms, actively disengaged workers cost our economy $250 - $300 billion every year.
Some experts argue that the greatest threat to America’s economy is not offshoring labor, downsizing or unethical corporate practices, it’s employee disengagement.
In fact, statistics indicate that:
PS.-Workers of the world, Unite!!!
....
Research by the Gallup Organization suggests that approximately seven out of 10 Americans - an estimated 101 million workers - are not engaged in their jobs.
Disengaged workers include those who merely show up for a paycheck to disgruntled workers who act out their unhappiness and undermine what their engaged co-workers accomplish.
In economic terms, actively disengaged workers cost our economy $250 - $300 billion every year.
Some experts argue that the greatest threat to America’s economy is not offshoring labor, downsizing or unethical corporate practices, it’s employee disengagement.
In fact, statistics indicate that:
- Engaged employees outperform average employees by 20 percent (2004 study conducted by the Corporate Executive Board)
·Highly engaged employees are 87 percent less likely to leave their organizations than highly disengaged employees (2004 study by the Corporate Executive Board) - 44 percent of engaged employees strongly agree that the conditions of their lives were excellent, in contrast to just nine percent of actively disengaged workers (Gallup Management Journal survey)
- 54 percent of disengaged employees say they think their work lives are having a negative effect on their physical health (Gallup Management Journal Employee Engagement Index survey of U.S. workers)
- 51 percent of actively disengaged employees feel their work lives are having a negative effect on their psychological well-being (Gallup Management Journal Employee Engagement Index survey of U.S. workers)
PS.-Workers of the world, Unite!!!
....
Last edited by 1900luxuryliner; 07-07-2009 at 09:43 PM.
07-07-2009 | 08:54 PM
#119
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: CRJ 200 Furloughed FO
Have you found your plane yet?
For the sake of the argument – please tell me how this list would work?
For example at what point would one become a member? First commuter job? What if he/she flies crop dusters or tows banners; would they be eligible to join? What about the military pilots? Would they get credit for their military years? Would part 135 and 91 pilots be able to join?
If an employer has a choice to hire someone with let's say combined 15 years of National List seniority from his/her previous jobs why wouldn't he/she hire someone straight out of flight school instead? It's all about economics, isn't it?
I do see some of your points but overall a National Seniority List has an odor of communism lingering over it and I feel that it's a very bad idea... So go ahead and convince me how it'd work in today's environment...
For the sake of the argument – please tell me how this list would work?
For example at what point would one become a member? First commuter job? What if he/she flies crop dusters or tows banners; would they be eligible to join? What about the military pilots? Would they get credit for their military years? Would part 135 and 91 pilots be able to join?
If an employer has a choice to hire someone with let's say combined 15 years of National List seniority from his/her previous jobs why wouldn't he/she hire someone straight out of flight school instead? It's all about economics, isn't it?
I do see some of your points but overall a National Seniority List has an odor of communism lingering over it and I feel that it's a very bad idea... So go ahead and convince me how it'd work in today's environment...
I understand how you night catch a wiff of socialism/communism with the NSL idea, but I respectfully disagree. The difference, in my opinion is in that the people (pilots) would be initiating and running things, not the government requiring membership and pretending it's because the people want it. Think of it as the way ALPA should work.
We bind our own hands in this industry by whipsawing and berating each other. For example, you can read an entire thread about how GJ/Mesa/Colgan pilots are scum and then those pilots will turn around and say that Comair/Pinnacle/Republic pilots are scum. This is solidarity? We're all supposed to be on the same team here. We're too busy fighting each other to make any real progress.
Again, example: If we had an NSL GJ would either not exist, the pilots would be perfectly acceptable as they would be on the seniority list, or they would be scabs. (This is not a GJ discussion, just the best example I could think of). Maybe it shouldn't be called an NSL. Maybe the name throws people off - they think of it as this big communist machine. It would simply be pilots uniting in one seniority list. Maybe the United Seniority List? That sounds a little more patriotic. As for when people would join the list, when do they join now? Cropdusters, CFI's, and banner towers don't belong to ALPA, and they wouldn't be on an NSL. You could basically apply the principle that if it would qualify you for an ALPA membership, it would qualify you for a spot on the NSL.
As for why HR would hire a 15 year pilot compared to a newbie, maybe there could be a clause in the National Contract that requires priority for current and qualified NSL members. That may be a good option. Remember, there would be ONE contract. Not one for every pilot group, because there would be ONE pilot group. I also read on here the idea that we would basically be contract pilots, similar to an electrician working out of the union hall.
I'm not claiming to have all the answers, this just seems like a good solution to our collective problem. Imagine, maybe with an NSL we'd actually get enough people interested in union business to make a difference. Some of the numbers of pilots on the seniority list compared to those who turn out for a vote are disgusting. Anyway I'm done preaching...
No, I haven't found my plane yet. I hear Comair has it parked in CVG... Saving gas that way at least.
07-07-2009 | 09:23 PM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,333
Likes: 0
Ifoundyourplane:
AV8OR: I understand how you night catch a wiff of socialism/communism with the NSL idea, but I respectfully disagree. The difference, in my opinion is in that the people (pilots) would be initiating and running things, not the government requiring membership and pretending it's because the people want it. Think of it as the way ALPA should work.
We bind our own hands in this industry by whipsawing and berating each other. For example, you can read an entire thread about how GJ/Mesa/Colgan pilots are scum and then those pilots will turn around and say that Comair/Pinnacle/Republic pilots are scum. This is solidarity? We're all supposed to be on the same team here.
Well, I am confused now… You want solidarity yet you think it’s ok for let’s say Gojet pilots to be taking jobs away from their TSA brothers and sisters? When Gojet was formed their whole premise was for the TSA Holdings management to circumnavigate dealings with the TSA union and while TSA pilots were being let go they were hiring to their Gojet unit… Where was the solidarity then?
We're too busy fighting each other to make any real progress. Again, example: If we had an NSL GJ would either not exist, the pilots would be perfectly acceptable as they would be on the seniority list, or they would be scabs. (This is not a GJ discussion, just the best example I could think of). Maybe it shouldn't be called an NSL. Maybe the name throws people off - they think of it as this big communist machine. It would simply be pilots uniting in one seniority list. Maybe the United Seniority List? That sounds a little more patriotic.
As for when people would join the list, when do they join now? Cropdusters, CFI's, and banner towers don't belong to ALPA, and they wouldn't be on an NSL. You could basically apply the principle that if it would qualify you for an ALPA membership, it would qualify you for a spot on the NSL.
Well my airline does not belong to ALPA (IPA) so are we out? Also, if the NSL took effect I can guarantee you that all the pilots at those small operators would actively seek a membership in ALPA – would you tell them sorry, you’re just not important enough?
As for why HR would hire a 15 year pilot compared to a newbie, maybe there could be a clause in the National Contract that requires priority for current and qualified NSL members. That may be a good option. Remember, there would be ONE contract. Not one for every pilot group, because there would be ONE pilot group. I also read on here the idea that we would basically be contract pilots, similar to an electrician working out of the union hall.
I'm not claiming to have all the answers, this just seems like a good solution to our collective problem. Imagine, maybe with an NSL we'd actually get enough people interested in union business to make a difference. Some of the numbers of pilots on the seniority list compared to those who turn out for a vote are disgusting. Anyway I'm done preaching...
I’m sorry, I'm willing to listen and to discuss but I still think a National List is a horrendous idea… Not practical but also extremely unfair to those who researched/gambled/lucked out (whatever your preference) in choosing the ‘right’ airline for their long term career…
I’m fed up with subsidizing mortgages for those who bought houses they couldn’t afford… I know this is going to sound very cold but I do not think I should have to subsidize other pilots’ career progression if their airline goes out of business…
Similarly, if my company goes belly up a few years down the road I will not expect for you or anyone else to slow down your current progression (a.k.a. earnings, benefits, schedules, etc.) just because I had bad luck…
I believe that having many airlines is good for the competition and for our job choices but so is having many unions…
No, I haven't found my plane yet. I hear Comair has it parked in CVG... Saving gas that way at least.
I think I saw it, it was being painted in UnitedUSFedUPSDeltaContinental Airways colors now that the NSL forced all the airlines to merge into this one National Airline List behemoth…
AV8OR: I understand how you night catch a wiff of socialism/communism with the NSL idea, but I respectfully disagree. The difference, in my opinion is in that the people (pilots) would be initiating and running things, not the government requiring membership and pretending it's because the people want it. Think of it as the way ALPA should work.
We bind our own hands in this industry by whipsawing and berating each other. For example, you can read an entire thread about how GJ/Mesa/Colgan pilots are scum and then those pilots will turn around and say that Comair/Pinnacle/Republic pilots are scum. This is solidarity? We're all supposed to be on the same team here.
Well, I am confused now… You want solidarity yet you think it’s ok for let’s say Gojet pilots to be taking jobs away from their TSA brothers and sisters? When Gojet was formed their whole premise was for the TSA Holdings management to circumnavigate dealings with the TSA union and while TSA pilots were being let go they were hiring to their Gojet unit… Where was the solidarity then?
We're too busy fighting each other to make any real progress. Again, example: If we had an NSL GJ would either not exist, the pilots would be perfectly acceptable as they would be on the seniority list, or they would be scabs. (This is not a GJ discussion, just the best example I could think of). Maybe it shouldn't be called an NSL. Maybe the name throws people off - they think of it as this big communist machine. It would simply be pilots uniting in one seniority list. Maybe the United Seniority List? That sounds a little more patriotic.
As for when people would join the list, when do they join now? Cropdusters, CFI's, and banner towers don't belong to ALPA, and they wouldn't be on an NSL. You could basically apply the principle that if it would qualify you for an ALPA membership, it would qualify you for a spot on the NSL.
Well my airline does not belong to ALPA (IPA) so are we out? Also, if the NSL took effect I can guarantee you that all the pilots at those small operators would actively seek a membership in ALPA – would you tell them sorry, you’re just not important enough?
As for why HR would hire a 15 year pilot compared to a newbie, maybe there could be a clause in the National Contract that requires priority for current and qualified NSL members. That may be a good option. Remember, there would be ONE contract. Not one for every pilot group, because there would be ONE pilot group. I also read on here the idea that we would basically be contract pilots, similar to an electrician working out of the union hall.
I'm not claiming to have all the answers, this just seems like a good solution to our collective problem. Imagine, maybe with an NSL we'd actually get enough people interested in union business to make a difference. Some of the numbers of pilots on the seniority list compared to those who turn out for a vote are disgusting. Anyway I'm done preaching...
I’m sorry, I'm willing to listen and to discuss but I still think a National List is a horrendous idea… Not practical but also extremely unfair to those who researched/gambled/lucked out (whatever your preference) in choosing the ‘right’ airline for their long term career…
I’m fed up with subsidizing mortgages for those who bought houses they couldn’t afford… I know this is going to sound very cold but I do not think I should have to subsidize other pilots’ career progression if their airline goes out of business…
Similarly, if my company goes belly up a few years down the road I will not expect for you or anyone else to slow down your current progression (a.k.a. earnings, benefits, schedules, etc.) just because I had bad luck…
I believe that having many airlines is good for the competition and for our job choices but so is having many unions…
No, I haven't found my plane yet. I hear Comair has it parked in CVG... Saving gas that way at least.
I think I saw it, it was being painted in UnitedUSFedUPSDeltaContinental Airways colors now that the NSL forced all the airlines to merge into this one National Airline List behemoth…
Last edited by ⌐ AV8OR WANNABE; 07-07-2009 at 09:37 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AZFlyer
Hangar Talk
10
11-22-2008 02:57 AM
