DryMotorBoatin

Finally...someone on here who actually understands the REAL argument. This isnt about unions and management. Way to see the forrest through the trees!

In all seriousness, if she doesn't believe in unions, take her to a country where there are no such thing. That'll make her a quick believer. And thats comin from a staunch free market conservative. If I'm pro-union than you can still convince her.

Twin Wasp

Remember, you're just a resource - something that gets used to produce something. They even quit calling us personnel, now we're just Human Resources. It's management's duty to get the most out of us. I'm not saying that in a bad way, they have to maximize the shareholder's return. The only thing pilots have going for them is the owners don't want to fly the planes (or build the cars or mine the ore.) But an individual doesn't have much else to barter with. The idea of a union is to help balance the playing field.

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

elfouquer – technically your wife is correct but that’s only in an ideal world where all managers are trustworthy and look out not only for their businesses but also for their employees’ job satisfaction and their needs…

Management ranks all over the world are full of selfish crooks and I guess it’s best to “trust but verify” to use my favorite president’s quote… (off the subject - I know he wouldn’t want me to quote him in a union discussion but I view him as the best president this country EVER had!)…

A balance is always best; when either the management or the unions have too much to say things usually deteriorate fast… I’ve witnessed unions getting too hungry in Europe where often they’d end up bringing some companies onto their knees but I’ve also seen how irresponsible and borderline criminal managers greatly “contributed” to pilots’ and other employees’ losing their pensions and benefits here in the good ‘ole US of A…

So I view the unions as necessary evil… Would be nice if we could trust each other but we can’t…

Remember - your company writes your paycheck but your union decides how big your paycheck will be…

However… ultimately your wife is right because she's your wife...

Mason32

In general your wife is correct. The unions of today generally drive productivity down to the lowest level that can be obtained from the worst worker.... so that then everybody is treated "fairly" on that expectation of work produced.

A prime example of this would be JetBlue. A non union carrier, that seeks to only hire the best employee they can find... and has just proven through dramatic and industry leading raises that unions do very little for pilots that do their job.

Now, if you find yourself a screw-up, being late all the time, calling in sick all the time, breaking company rules, filing more than your share of ASAP's to CYA... then you would benefit greatly from a union.

Mason32

Aren't you doing that already....

wheresmyplane

have your wife Google "Triangle Factory NYC" for a lesson on why unions are a good thing. This is relevant because ALPA's main focus in the beginning was safety issues. If management could be counted on to act with integrity and do whats in the best interest of everyone, not just their interests, then no, unions wouldn't be necessary

own nav

Sooooo.... is this something she actually wants you to fix? Quit your job, give up your seniority number and find a non-union company to work for?

Or, is it just another one of those things where you show empathy for her point of view, and give her emotional support.

Not to be insensitive, but women can be complicated like that.

macflyer

Your wife is right, she seems to be the more business minded of the two of you. Pickup any business or economics textbook and you'll see why she is correct and how unions destroy the workforce while trying to help.

1900luxuryliner

I have seen extreme slothfulness in many jobs that were non-union, as well. I would say the main problem is the disconnection between labor, and the fruits of labor; a natural product of capitalism. By the way, I'm not saying I'm a communist. The following explains. For example, why would a farmer work harder than he has to, in order to grow crops, if harvest time comes around, and the land owner, who hasn't lifted one finger to grow the crops, gets to keep 100% of the harvest. Then, the farmer receives compensation that allows him to only purchase 5% of the harvest, which will just barely feed his family. Performance-based compensation can help with this problem. Not all union jobs are non-performance based, and not all non-union jobs are performance-based. In order to get maximum productivity out of laborers, you have to connect them to their work. Get them involved with upper-level decision making, and connect them to the results of those decisions; whether it includes reward, or punishment. Reward them for a well job done. Treat them well, compensate them fairly, treat them as humans, as opposed to just numbers and a hindrance to increased profits, etc. Because of the constant exploitation of labor, by management, unionism becomes necessary, unfortunately. Unionism didn't create the problem; management did, through constant exploitation of labor in the name of short-term profits; not realizing that long-term profits will only be hurt through this exploitation. I hate to say it, because of how much of a cliche' it is, but take Southwest as an example of hard working union employees who are connected to their work, and are compensated fairly.

Lab Rat

Try this. Look at your pay rates and work rules that your union negotiated and compare that to the amount of union dues taken out of your paycheck. Next, ask yourself if that is money well spent.

Each management/union relationship is unique and I don't think one can definitively give a yea or nay answer to whether unions are good, bad, or indifferent.

For example, I am happy with the services provided my independent union. On the contrary, I would not want to spend a single dime on ALPA representation.