Originally Posted by Zapata (Post 640179)

Not only are you in favor of excluding an entire demographic from a privilege granted by labor laws solely based on their chosen fields, but you're also in favor that this demographic shouldn't even exist in the USA? :rolleyes: Your opinion is more than elitist, it is downright un American.

According to one definition of most dictionaries, your opinion is elitist.

The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

Originally Posted by ZDub (Post 640183)

Had a few days off, and wow were they great. Checking back in here and apparently picking up where we left off. Surely you can't be serious? (Yeah, yeah, go with the Airplane jokes..) You honestly believe this? Is it your opinion that the people in those groups shouldn't exist, or that the labor groups they exist in shouldn't exist? Please make that clear to us. I really believe that is a somewhat poor attempt at humor, because to believe otherwise is to be convinced that you are representing an increadibly arrogant and super-elitist view. If you are serious, can you defend why you believe that this is not an elitist statement?

Originally Posted by elfouquer (Post 637944)

My wife has this crazy idea that unions are bad, and they are bad for business. I have tried every arguement that I can think of that without the union, life would be much worse. She even had the nerve to ask "If your company(9e) goes on strike, can't you keep working?" So I am asking anyone out there that might be able to provide some good arguements that I may not have thought of in order to change her mind. Please don't bash my wife as I love her dearly, she just has some crazy notions that need to be turned around. Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 640192)

Why doesn't the union raise first year FO pay to a livable wage? This is a union negotiated rate, management does not set pay rates, the unions do. Pay is not a result of supply and demand in this industry, it is negotiated by the respective pilot groups. $20K a year is because pilots at your company believe that is all you are worth, not management.

The union is a business just like the airline, it will seek to raise the overall pay of its members to increase its own revenue. It does not care if they are making $20K as long as someone is making $200K. This is the problem with unions, it does not allow new hires to negotiate their own pay. If a pilot wants to work in this industry he has to accept the low pay, under the guise of paying ones dues. The problem with this is that management will focus all its attention on making pilots work for the low salaries the unions have created. Pilots should be able to negotiate their own rates. Why can't ALPA be a non-union professional society, it would make way more money that way....

Originally Posted by hemaybedid (Post 640301)

To clarify my opinion. I feel that the labor groups which have been discussed already exist on false pretenses being that our government restricts trade with other countries that can supply the same products made by their unskilled labor groups for far lower prices. These far lower prices would benefit each and every American. If fare trade were allowed, which is blocked by lobbying by their unions, our unskilled labor groups would be freed from their artificially inflated incomes to receive higher skills and education. With these new skills and education these workers would be able to grow our economy in areas that the U.S. is in a prime position to lead the world economy and bring in money from other world economies. You see I don't believe any person is superior to another. I simply believe that these unions have been a detrement to their represented laborers and more importantly to every American citizen.

"Why can't ALPA be a non-union professional society, it would make way more money that way...." -sorry Mesabah couldn't get it to quote like normal.

I have been thinking about this quite a bit. It would seem to me that ALPA has done a lot more for the profession in terms of safety and standardization than anything else. If we took them out of pay negotiation and decided how much they were worth to us on an individual basis I think we might get a lot more value out of them i.e. AOPA. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by hemaybedid (Post 640301)

...To clarify my opinion. I feel that the labor groups which have been discussed already exist on false pretenses being that our government restricts trade with other countries that can supply the same products made by their unskilled labor groups for far lower prices. These far lower prices would benefit each and every American. If fare trade were allowed, which is blocked by lobbying by their unions, our unskilled labor groups would be freed from their artificially inflated incomes to receive higher skills and education. With these new skills and education these workers would be able to grow our economy in areas that the U.S. is in a prime position to lead the world economy and bring in money from other world economies. You see I don't believe any person is superior to another. I simply believe that these unions have been a detrement to their represented laborers and more importantly to every American citizen....

Originally Posted by ⌐ AV8OR WANNABE (Post 639823)

We all have choices and one of those choices is to pick an employer we want to work for... If 10 years down the road your choice turns out to be the wrong choice no one but you should be responsible for making that choice...

A National Seniority list would put the blame for your mistake on all of us and would make us pay for your mistake in the form of longer upgrades, worst schedules, etc, etc...

Not that long ago there was actually a National Seniority list in another country and no matter which airplane you flew once you were hired you had a 'countrywide' seniority number... The country of course was the Soviet Union and the airline was Aeroflot... Of course, to fly outside the country you also had to be a vetted Communist Party member to prevent defections... Heck, maybe soon we'll be heading in that direction too? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by wheresmyplane (Post 640370)

Back in the day (yes, I just said back in the day) Pan Am was the airline to work for. So was United at one time. Nobody hired then could have guessed that they would go the way they have. I understand your point, but as I said before, the pilot group should not have to pay the price for an airline's mismanagement. Do you think Frank Lorenzo's living off of Ramen Noodles? Now what about the pilots he affected? They all got to apply at the bottom of the list at other carriers, if they got on anywhere. Again - not the pilot's fault.

As for the USSR's NSL: I'm pretty sure the circumstances are different in the USSA. This wouldn't be a government mandated list, but a list to protect the hard work and sacrifice of pilots across the country. I only want to have to live like this once, what about you?

No harsh words intended, just my assesment.

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 640192)

This is the problem with unions, it does not allow new hires to negotiate their own pay.... Pilots should be able to negotiate their own rates.....

Originally Posted by hemaybedid (Post 640301)

To clarify my opinion. I feel that the labor groups which have been discussed already exist on false pretenses being that our government restricts trade with other countries that can supply the same products made by their unskilled labor groups for far lower prices. These far lower prices would benefit each and every American. If fare trade were allowed, which is blocked by lobbying by their unions, our unskilled labor groups would be freed from their artificially inflated incomes to receive higher skills and education. With these new skills and education these workers would be able to grow our economy in areas that the U.S. is in a prime position to lead the world economy and bring in money from other world economies. You see I don't believe any person is superior to another. I simply believe that these unions have been a detrement to their represented laborers and more importantly to every American citizen.

"Why can't ALPA be a non-union professional society, it would make way more money that way...." -sorry Mesabah couldn't get it to quote like normal.

I have been thinking about this quite a bit. It would seem to me that ALPA has done a lot more for the profession in terms of safety and standardization than anything else. If we took them out of pay negotiation and decided how much they were worth to us on an individual basis I think we might get a lot more value out of them i.e. AOPA. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by SaltyDog (Post 639969)

BTW, what if the other pilot is your last post was willing to work for half of your current price? Leverage it is, and not for you.

Originally Posted by elcid79 (Post 640722)

RJSAviator76, Here's the thing about unions:

God forbid you have a catastrophic event in flight and the over-60 geezer in the left seat freezes or has a heart attack. So now, you manage to bring that crippled airliner back on the ground and save the day... guess what? Sorry, no bonus for you... not only do you not get a bonus, you can't even get a pay raise or upgrade to captain. Why? Ask your union.

Think Sully and his crew can get a bonus or raise from USAirways? Think again... and oh yeah, if USAirways goes under, and Sully decides to stay in the airlines in the US, he'll be an FO slinging gear for some kid in the RJ, and he'll be making 20k a year. Care to guess why? Yep, you guessed it. He can thank the union.

Originally Posted by RJSAviator76 (Post 640575)

Well, he might be willing to come work for half price at a flight department. But guess what... in a union shop, as a new-comer, I HAVE NO CHOICE but to work for not for half my current price, but try 90% less - courtesy of the seniority system.

I got to thinking about this whole thing when I was still a union pilot flying 737NG's. I remember another FO that took my plane is making 30% of my wage FOR THE SAME JOB... yet, at the time, he had more flight time than me, more experience, was laid off from UAL after 9/11. This guy was flying for 30% of my wage!!!! What's worse is that the union swears that that's OK.

Sorry pal, I'll take my "chances" that someone will try undercut me... their 'offer to undercut' will get some great laughs.

In any case, it could never be worse than the union undercutting.

Originally Posted by AtlCSIP (Post 640783)

Although I do not claim to have the answers to the union question as it relates to the airline industry, I do know that my experience in business over 25 years has shown me that IN GENERAL, companies that rely on unions cripple their ability to provide exceptional products or service at a reasonable price. I make well over 4 times the amount offered to me as a first officer at a regional, and more than the highest paid captain at the same regional, all while flying piston twins at rates I negotiated with the owners and charter companies, all without any union representation. I get any day off I want, whenever I want it, for as long as I like. No, it's not paid time off, but it is MY choice. In my OPINION, if the unions were completely disbanned, the airline industry would become one where the best rise to the top and the bottom of the pile stay at the bottom complaining, just like in most other industries in the free world.

Originally Posted by ZDub (Post 640356)

Clear as mud. It's your contention that the labor groups in the US that produce goods that in turn are a part of the GDP of this nation exist on "false pretences"? Further, you're sold on the idea that we should turn over the production of goods to third world countries where they can produce goods for a dollar a day in sweat shops? And the upside is we keep grwoing thier economies? Isn't that pretty much what we do now? I defy you to walk into Home Depot and pick out any 10 items at random. 9 out of 10, if not all 10 are manufactured overseas. And please, defend the notion that workers need to be "freed" from thier incomes.....I'm still clinging to the belief that you're joking.

Originally Posted by 1900luxuryliner (Post 640357)

Undercutting the middle class is not an effective way to grow the economy. They are the backbone of the economy. Management, in search of short term profits, has been in a constant search for ways to undercut their labor force. This includes outsourcing. The problem is, when this is done on a large scale, the very people who purchase the products and services a company produces are sent into an economic downward spiral, and can't purchase these products and services. This only weakens the economy in the long-term, even though it may be good for a short-term boost. What says that more skilled jobs will be available, if unskilled jobs are continually eliminated? Even if a company ships all their unskilled labor overseas, it doesn't mean the number of skilled jobs will increase within that same company, and especially not by the same number that were eliminated. It just means more working-class Americans will be on the street, and not able to make any contribution to the economy. The American working class has been an essential part of our economy since the very beginnings of our country. I know many, many people who have had their jobs eliminated by outsourcing. Believe it or not, every single person has been forced into a worse job, because of outsourcing! It didn't force them to get more education, or improve their situation. It only forced them into a situation of desperation, where they had to take a job that was lower on the totem pole, in order to pay bills and feed their family. How can they afford to re-educate themselves when they are working some crap job, barely paying bills, and paying off student loans for the education that was geared toward the job that just got outsourced out from under them?

Originally Posted by LeftWing (Post 640567)

Sometimes, people can be out of touch with reality because they're being too academic. In your case, you're not even an academic. Your views are remarkably inconsistent with the fundamentals of economics, history and ultimately, reality. And yes, I agree with the others. Your views are quite elitist.

Originally Posted by hemaybedid (Post 640953)

This has become like discussing religion or politics. More likely influenced by the latter on your parts. On my part, I stand by my opinions based on my understanding of basic economics. And ZDUB, I'm not joking!

Originally Posted by 1900luxuryliner (Post 640988)

... few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans...

Originally Posted by ⌐ AV8OR WANNABE (Post 640993)

So a liberal professor at a liberal university claims that the economy is better off under the Democrats?
I'm shocked! :eek:

Originally Posted by hemaybedid (Post 640953)

This has become like discussing religion or politics. More likely influenced by the latter on your parts. On my part, I stand by my opinions based on my understanding of basic economics. And ZDUB, I'm not joking!

Originally Posted by 1900luxuryliner (Post 641003)

I actually erased that, because it was a bit too political. But, the entire article is in the link. No reason to be shocked. Just showing that there is a difference of opinion on what economic policies are more favorable towards economic growth, EVEN IN THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY!

Originally Posted by ⌐ AV8OR WANNABE (Post 640983)

I often listen to the Phil Valentine radio show and I agree with him 95% of the time (he's very conservative).

However, I disagree with his disdain for the unions because I feel he's a little hypocritical on that subject. For example he often says that when he negotiated his current salary and benefits at the radio station he used an experienced negotiator who's dealt with similar negotiations before... Well, how is that different from us, pilots, getting together so we can use expert negotiators to our advantage? :confused:

Originally Posted by ⌐ AV8OR WANNABE (Post 641011)

Now I am confused... What exactly did you erase? ...and are you saying this professor is a conservative? If not, why do say there's difference in opinion "even in the academic community"? :confused:

Originally Posted by 1900luxuryliner (Post 641020)

I erased the "copy/paste" from the article, because it was a little out of context with the rest of the article; plus, it was obviously way too political to be posting on this forum. The professor is not conservative. He's a liberal. Way more so than I am. The only point of my original post, is to show that there is a difference of opinion, even in the academic community. I see a lot of people who say they are using a "basic understanding of economics" to basically post right-wing conservative opinion on economic theory. I'm just showing that not everyone agrees with them; even those who are authorities in the subject area.

Originally Posted by ZDub (Post 641017)

So, how do you square conservatisim with pro-unionism?

Originally Posted by ⌐ AV8OR WANNABE (Post 641032)

I see now what you're trying to explain even though I disagree with your premise...

You're quoting a liberal professor while trying to show that there's disagreement in the academic community?

IF he was a liberal trying to show the democrats are wrong I'd understand your point, however since our universities are a liberal bastion it's pointless to argue that there's disagreement in their ranks because pretty much all of them will always claim that democrats are better in this and better in that...

Originally Posted by ZDub (Post 641017)

So, how do you square conservatisim with pro-unionism?

Originally Posted by 1900luxuryliner (Post 641045)

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....:D

Originally Posted by Lab Rat (Post 641094)

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.

Originally Posted by macflyer (Post 638262)

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.

Originally Posted by 1900luxuryliner (Post 641045)

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....:D

Originally Posted by elcid79 (Post 640730)

not to totally torpedo your argument here.. But Sully and his crew DID get a monetary compensation from the company. Several times over... Go do some research before making a bad argument

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" :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by CosmoKramer (Post 641162)

1000% AGREED!!

Originally Posted by ⌐ AV8OR WANNABE (Post 640507)

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...