Need some help in a debate....
 

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.

Airline CEO's and management are like little kids... You write rules down on paper, they know the rules and they know whats wrong and whats right, but yet they still try to see how far they can bend them. Without a union (parents) this would just be a free rain for the little kids.

In theory your wife is correct. If a company has good/great management/owners then there is no need for a union and all a union will do is add cost and slow down the company.

In reality you are right, because airlines have some of the worst management teams in any industry.

Have her read "Flying the Line." Ask her how many coal miners, steelworkers, pilots etc would be dead today if it were not for the unions pushing for safety regulations. And general QOL issues. Not every union is formed so a greeter at Wallymart can earn an extra $2/hour.
Better yet have her apply for a FA position at 9e when they start hiring and see how fast her attitude changes :D

Management is the dog; we are the fire hydrant.

Management knows they can lift their leg at will, because we actually want to do this job.

We have to negotiate contracts, to force them to stop.

Have her work for an airline for about a year. Argument won.

In a free market economy labor unions hinder the growth and strength of the economy. Basic economics models show this. I have had the same debate your wife and yourself are having with myself many times. In many of our large manufacturing industries labor unions have had an enormous detremental effect on our economy and have led to higher than necessary costs being passed on to the consumer. When a labor union negotiates 50 to 80 thousand dollar wages for unskilled and only basically educated workers it is bad for all of us, such as in the auto and steel industries just to name a few. However; when it comes to skilled, highly trained professional labor groups I have nearly convinced myself that labor unions are necessary. In the airline industry where safety and standardization are paramount it becomes nearly impossible for a pilot to compete for promotions and differentiate themselfs from other pilots. So we have to rely on our union to negotiate our labor to management. Without our unions we would be working to the maximums allowed in the regs and doing it for whatever the lowest bidder was willing to do it for. Those are the arguments I have come up with for union necessity for airline pilots.

You are all missing the point.

Your wife is ALWAYS right. End of story.

Therein lies the key to a blissful marriage.

Two things:

1. As a whole, pilots are not viewed as individuals who provide value, on an individual basis. They are seen as a group. More specifically, a labor group. Management views labor costs as something that hinders their ability to turn a profit. In this industry, there are very few forward-thinking upper-level managers who go by the philosophy of: "if you treat your employees well, they will put forth more effort, have better work habits, have less attrition, less training costs, etc., and in turn, will actually subsidize their higher pay and quality of life."

2. Unlike many professional and management positions, the experience level of pilots really has no value. For example, if a person goes to interview for an upper-level HR position at a company, and they bring up that they have a doctorate degree, 20 years of experience, have managed large HR teams, are hailed as speakers at industry conferences, etc., they will have more negotiating power for their wage and quality of life than someone fresh out of college with a BS degree in HR management. This is because there are many levels of HR management positions. The higher the level, the fewer qualified candidates, and the more negotiating power the experienced individual has. With pilots, we are all on the same level, as far as management is concerned. Because pilots all do the same job, whether they have 25,000 hours, or 250 hours, their experience is not valued. If a 25,000 hour pilot goes into an interview, and tells a lot of great stories about heroic adventures of handling complex emergency situations, such as flying the airplane with an engine failure on one side, and an engine fire on the opposite side, and tries to use these experiences to negotiate a higher salary, the interviewer will basically say, "yeah, that was a cool story, but why would I offer you the salary you want if there is a 250 hour pilot standing right outside the door, willing to do it for 1/2 the price?"

Overall, unions are a necessary evil. If management actually cared about having the "best and brightest", unions may be less of a necessity. Because we are viewed as a group, with our wages only hindering their profit ability, unions provide us a way to stand together, as a group, to negotiate fair and equitable wages. It helps curb what supply and demand would immediately destroy. It is a beautiful theory, however, reality can sometimes make one question the value unionism. In my opinion, it has proven itself to be the best way, no matter how flawed, over time. Remember, almost all of the original Legacy contracts were negotiated through unionism. The break down of Legacy pay and quality of life has mostly been through the break down of union contracts and unionism. Granted, a lot of the break down was the direct result of the RLA, and bankruptcies; but, these two things, ultimately, have led to the weakening of unionism and union contracts. This, undoubtedly, has caused many to question the validity of unionism in this industry.

I don't see why this argument is even happening. Tell you wife that she is NOT ALLOWED an opinion, and to get back in the kitchen and make you some pie!!










j/k ;);), MY wife was actually the one who suggested this. I happen to agree with the guy who said your wife is ALWAYS right.

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.

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.

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... :D

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.

Aren't you doing that already....

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

She's not right. She has an opinion. Don't confuse opinion and right-wing political belief with fact. By the way, I've never read a business or economics textbook that specifically said anything bad about unionism. If there is one out there, it is horribly slanted, presenting opinion as fact, and should be removed from the shelves. If it was fact, there would be no such thing as a left-wing, democrat economist. It's a difference of opinion with very valid arguments on each side of the issue; not something that can be directly quantified and proven as fact. Each side of the issue can work the numbers to show the validity of their argument.

There appears to be a second part to this gentleman's question. Am I reading this right? No one has addressed this yet:

Is this to say, that your wife is asking if you would cross picket lines and return to work during the Pinnacle pilot group authorized strike?

Am I reading this correctly?

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. (and no, I am not in management):)

Put yourself in the shoes of a manager running a regional airline. Realistically, we can surmise that there is no shortage of people willing to
take flying jobs for low pay, low benefits, and lousy QOL issues. With that being said, where is the incentive for management to raise the bar when there is a surplus of people willing to lower it even further?

I would say a natural product of capitalism is supply and demand.

Unions are only as good as their members, which often gets lost in the middle of all these arguments. Hence the reason why IMHO the ALPA leadership at XJT has been very successful at working with management to improve and/or resolve any issues through out the years. Conversely, if you look at a union leadership like that of MESA a few terms back, well not exactly who I would want in my corner, and they were also ALPA. So again, the union is as good as the people in it, supporting it.

As far as the original poster's question, one word for you...Lorenzo. Have your wife read jflying the line vol 1 & 2, and if that isn't enough, have her take a look around, Tilton, J.O., Bedford, need I say more?

Yes. Your examples cited above are unique only to the airline industry. The original poster is posed with a question regarding the effects of unions on business in a much broader sense.

Again, as I alluded to earlier, where is the incentive to offer high pay and excellent benefits when people are lined up out the door willing and ready to accept flying jobs for even lower pay and work rules? How many kids coming out of aviation colleges would accept a job right out of school at a major without even caring about pay and benefits?

The reason why people like Lorenzo and J.O. are able to do what they do is because the collective pilot work force gives them a blank check to do so.

Incentives: Higher quality employees (less risk of an accident), fewer bogus sick calls, less turnover and attrition, higher productivity, lower training costs, including retraining pilots who don't care about the quality of the work they do, as well as training new pilots, due to attrition, etc.

By the way, a natural product of capitalism is supply and demand. But, just because I don't want to be a victim of that fact, doesn't make me a communist, or socialist, or whatever right-wing slanted propaganda word is being recklessly and incorrectly thrown around by Fox News these days.;):)

All sectors of the transportation industry in the United States are covered by unions, cab drivers, bus drivers, truck drivers, pilots, delivery drivers, train operators, now why do you think that is? Could it be that although not the same, the business models are similar across the board..hmmm...imagine that? CEO's trying to maximize profit and in absence of positive margins, creating yields by attempting to take concessions from their work force. History has shown that to be the case at one point or another in all sectors of the transportation industry in the US.

As far as your reasoning behind folks like Lorenzo and J.O., well J.O. does fall under the category of pilots being our own worst enemy to a certain degree but not entirely; Lorenzo on the other hand, I suspect you're either too young to remember or do not know your history. You may want to brush up on your history.

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.

Ah, wasn't the general idea behind labor unions to protect those that really needed to be protected? Vis a vis, those poor, drooling uneducated masses didn't have the captiol or clout to be represented against those that sought to exploit them and use them under serf like conditions, and therefore required the benefit of an orgaization with that clout to do that for them? Now, for clarity, there is all the room in the world for representaion at every level, and payscales should be negotiated according to education, experience, skill set and, big one here, competency. $12/hr labor should not be paid $40/hr by sole virtue of having a negotiated contract, but you're not suggesting that only the top bun of the burger should enjoy the protection and QOL enhancements that orgaization can provide?

Gotta' tell 'ya, not in complete agreement with this, but, VERY well worded, and certainly some food for thought. Great post, and thank you for excercising intellect.

I have seen very compelling arguments, backed up by simple mathematics and very sound reasoning, from people who are far more informed than the both of us, who support unionization. I think you are operating more in the realm of opinion, rather than accepted theory, than you believe.

Uh, actually I remember my history quite well, thank you very much. Do you remember New York Air, Eastern, Texas International, and the old Continental? ;)

In case you misread me, I want to clarify that I was not defending Lorenzo. In fact, I think what he did was criminal. But, the fact that pilots are more unwilling to leave this profession for another actually helps the likes of people like Lorenzo. All I'm saying is that he probably knew that and used it to his advantage.

Because of Sicilian business "consultants" who take an interest in workers rights? :D

Not necessarily. I know several nurses who do much better in terms of pay, benefits, and time off than a lot of friends who are regional captains - and part of the analysis is the fact that they complain less than my captain friends. Anyways, hospitals are out to make a profit as well, and nurses are typically in high demand and non-union. Typically, because there are a few exceptions.

Of course they are, that is their job. And the job of our unions is to try to minimize or prevent those concessions. You can keep the higher wages, but when your competitor is paying 50% less because that is what the labor force accepts, it won't be long before your company is out of business - all other things being equal.

This is just my opinion, but I don't believe any of the above is directly related to whether one is union or not. For example, bogus sick calls are more of an integrity issue than anything else.

I don't think anyone is accusing you of being a communist or a socialist, at least I am not. Those are more political than labor oriented anyways.

However, may I humbly suggest that you may be allowing yourself to be a victim rather than capitalism forcing you to be one? I'll give you an example.

Several years ago, prior to hiring on at a major, I accepted a job at a non-union carrier rather than going to a unionized regional carrier because of supply and demand. The most a unionized regional could offer me at the time was $14,000.00 per year with an upgrade in the neighborhood of 2 to 3 years.

The job I accepted paid more than double that as an f/o and allowed me to upgrade in the jet in less than a year. The schedule was not anything to brag about and neither were the benefits, but I knew that when I signed up for the job and accepted it as it was. I also knew that the positives (pay and upgrade) outweighed the negatives (schedule and days off). I was afforded the opportunity to choose and ultimately accept that job thanks to supply and demand. Supply and demand is a pendulum - sometimes we're the windshield and sometimes we're the bug.

Oh quit being a popinjay. :D

Actually, you lose the argument by default, regardless of opinion.


Your wife has seniority.

macflyer made a much better argument for my school of thought toward unionization. I agree 100% with what he explained. That being said, I have been torn with the fact that our profession is highly unionized and have over the years tried to find for myself reasons why it may be necessary. Don't get me wrong; I do believe that our unions have done, or atleast tried at times to do, very great things to protect our profession.

As far as my response to the OP, I was simply trying to possibly explain to him the reason that his wife is not in support of unionization.

Oh believe me, I remember all too well unfortunately as a few members of my family were greatly affected by both Texas International and the Old Continental.

For some is not a matter of willingness, but rather the byproduct of circumstance, if you're making 6 figures as was the case of many in those days, it was extremely hard to just walk. A strike is one thing, but leave the profession altogether is another, and for some is not entirely an option, so I really don't see it. I could see leaving a certain outfit for another if you have the means to take the cut, but certainly not leave the industry. Quite frankly this was not part of Lorenzo's strategy, he was more of an executioner, but I see you remember your history now. ;)

Easy there boss, you might wake up in the trunk of a car :D

That's why I said the transportation industry, I have no expertise to speak of when it comes to other industries, but I will say that the fact that demand is high and supply is low certainly plays a huge roll on what they can get. Not the same with us, not yet!!!


I agree, illustrating my point. If it was up to management we would be paying them to work, proving that unions are a necessary evil. It's a matter of getting everyone on the same page, which management has successfully been able to deter by turning us against one another. With the exception of gojets, I believe we should all be trying to fight the same fight regardless of which union we belong to, which is why it is so critical that everyone negotiates the best rates and work rules possible as their contracts come up...we set the stage for each other, and in doing so, we begin to eliminate the companies that try to do this for "50% less" (a bit of an exaggeration there but I do get the point).

In essence I believe we're trying to address the same issues from different angles, but I do appreciate your point of view.

Bond

I just meant that fair and equitable compensation leads to those things, not necessarily unionism. Fair and equitable compensation can be given, or taken by force (by union)......or we can abolish unionism and wait for supply and demand to work it's magic, while our careers crumble before our eyes, and they start importing Chinese and Indian pilots to do our jobs for us. Dramatic, yes, but it's been done in other industries.

Did you read what I wrote earlier? This thread had not addressed the original posters thoughts one bit! This discussion is more than just about union vs. non union. I think the original poster is asking about crossing the line! Am I the only one who read the second part of his question that way?

Simmer there chap :p. I think the responses so far have addressed the crux of what he was getting at, which was the value of unionism. It's my impression that the "crossing the line" bit was just a side thought. Here's my answer, though: that person would be a scab, and deserves to be ostracized and black listed, without remorse, for stabbing his or her fellow pilots in the back.

No worries Chap. But I disagree, to some extent. Just so we are clear, I'll repost the original portion of the question so we can recall the subject:


I agree that crossing the line would be an abomination to his peers and a cause this man to suffer harsh career consequences in the long term, but does he understand what he is asking? Why haven’t we heard back from him? He did after all, start this thread.