Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-04-2021, 12:39 PM   #11  
Line Holder
 
BrianH's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2021
Posts: 77
Default

I was not complaining. Unity is all the pilots have, lose that and it is a race to the bottom.

My thought was more alone the lines of reminding us of the history of the Killer B's. As companies hire, the demographics change and so does the collective consciousness. Float all boats, even when times get tough. In the future, it will be interesting to see if the compromises were the right answer. I'm just saying it is hard to get right.
BrianH is offline  
Old 02-05-2021, 05:20 PM   #12  
777 - ret
 
Huell's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Position: Waco CG-4 center seat
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
????

1. Age has little to do with it. It's all about seniority... why would a senior pilot (of any age) be more concerned with junior pilots than himself? Makes no sense. The only thing different about a young senior pilot is that he cares if the company exists in 10-15 years.

2. How will junior pilots rule anything? If they're junior, that obviously implies there are senior pilots who will of course look after their own interests.



I'm not sure what you're complaining about... if this covid thing had happened 20 years ago, there would 30,000 pilots on the street in the US alone. Between uncle sugar and union creativity there are a lot of junior pilots getting pay and benefits to do nothing right now.
Iím thinking itís more of a generational difference as opposed to age.
Huell is offline  
Old 03-15-2021, 12:23 PM   #13  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Mar 2021
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huell View Post
Iím thinking itís more of a generational difference as opposed to age.
<filler...>
CRJ9 is offline  
Old 04-06-2021, 11:52 AM   #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FXLAX's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,038
Default UALPA Turning Organized Labor on it's Head

Quote:
Originally Posted by FollowMe View Post
Pilots have always been a perplexing group to study on whole, seemingly fueled by a mixture of coffee and cognitive dissonance. On the one hand we (by and large as a group) make a comfortable living thanks to collective bargaining, yet on the other hand overwhelmingly support political candidates who are downright toxic to labor struggle, typically backed up by dropping buzzwords like "capitalism" and with a healthy dose of American Exceptionalism. Never mind the fact that Adam Smith, the father of American economics, held the Labor Theory of Value as foundational to his economic principles. For those that don't know the Labor Theory of Value implies that value can only be created by imparted labor (e.g. a chunk of gold buried in the ground is worthless until labor is imparted to it, namely someone digging it out and cleaning it up). I only bring Smith up to demonstrate how little understanding of economics, and in particular the history of American economic theory, most pilots possess. I'm happy to discuss economic theory, however that is not the main topic of my bewilderment here. At issue is that this most recent crisis has seemingly pushed pilots beyond even a mere air of contempt towards labor while benefitting from it's vehicles and principles, to actively rearranging the entire concept of relationships between labor and the businesses it supports.
I donít have a specific position on what UALALPA did or did not do. But since you brought up this labor theory and an example, it piqued my curiosity.

I understand your example about gold not being worth anything until a human digs it out and cleans it. But what if the gold is thousands of feet in the ground and not 100% pure, and so no group of laborers can dig it out. So someone who can afford to buy or build the machine(s) that can dig that far down takes the risk that there may be gold there and pure enough for it to be worthwhile takes that risk and puts forth the capital to buy or manufacture the machine plus the capital to hire labor to work the machine. In that labor theory, is the labor the only thing that gave that gold value? Would labor have a job if it wasnít for the person with the capital and willingness to take the risk to use their capital? In other words, is it a one way street where labor is 100% credited with the value or is there a symbiotic relationship in which both the ones who provide the labor and the ones who provide the capital contribute to the value of the gold and the only question is the negotiating capital between the two sides as to the share in the value? Can a laborer without capital make value for himself on the work he does for himself? Would he be paying himself? And if so, he would be working for free since he has no capital. If he is providing a service, then his client is providing the capital for which to pay him for the value of his service. Anything in this theory without capital seems like would be the equivalent to a perpetual motion machine.
FXLAX is offline  
Old 04-09-2021, 08:28 PM   #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Escargot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FXLAX View Post
I donít have a specific position on what UALALPA did or did not do. But since you brought up this labor theory and an example, it piqued my curiosity.

I understand your example about gold not being worth anything until a human digs it out and cleans it. But what if the gold is thousands of feet in the ground and not 100% pure, and so no group of laborers can dig it out. So someone who can afford to buy or build the machine(s) that can dig that far down takes the risk that there may be gold there and pure enough for it to be worthwhile takes that risk and puts forth the capital to buy or manufacture the machine plus the capital to hire labor to work the machine. In that labor theory, is the labor the only thing that gave that gold value? Would labor have a job if it wasnít for the person with the capital and willingness to take the risk to use their capital? In other words, is it a one way street where labor is 100% credited with the value or is there a symbiotic relationship in which both the ones who provide the labor and the ones who provide the capital contribute to the value of the gold and the only question is the negotiating capital between the two sides as to the share in the value? Can a laborer without capital make value for himself on the work he does for himself? Would he be paying himself? And if so, he would be working for free since he has no capital. If he is providing a service, then his client is providing the capital for which to pay him for the value of his service. Anything in this theory without capital seems like would be the equivalent to a perpetual motion machine.
This self-proclaimed economics expert conflated Marx with Smith. He got the theory right, at least. A cowpie by any other name...
Escargot is offline  
Old 04-12-2021, 11:59 AM   #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Rama's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,159
Default

The problem with "labor friendly" politicians is they typically are pro-labor and anti high earner.
They like low wage earners because they hold out a carrot, but always want to tax those with decent incomes and corporations more.
My state has proposed to raise state income tax from 11 to 16% on income over $200k.
Rama is offline  
Old 05-20-2021, 09:28 AM   #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
sailingfun's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,423
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rama View Post
The problem with "labor friendly" politicians is they typically are pro-labor and anti high earner.
They like low wage earners because they hold out a carrot, but always want to tax those with decent incomes and corporations more.
My state has proposed to raise state income tax from 11 to 16% on income over $200k.
What state?
sailingfun is offline  
Old 05-20-2021, 02:05 PM   #18  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 29,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rama View Post
The problem with "labor friendly" politicians is they typically are pro-labor and anti high earner.
They like low wage earners because they hold out a carrot, but always want to tax those with decent incomes and corporations more.
My state has proposed to raise state income tax from 11 to 16% on income over $200k.
Pilots have interests in both camps (union labor and high income). Ultimately we each have to decide which side of the bread has more butter... assuming you vote strictly based on butter, as opposed to other political issues.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 05-24-2021, 11:52 AM   #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Rama's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,159
Default

The Hawaii state senate introduced it, but it failed in the end.
Rama is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Martinaire Caravan down DirectTo Safety 30 03-30-2017 02:24 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:03 AM.