UALPA Turning Organized Labor on it's Head
02-04-2021, 12:39 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2021
Posts: 446
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.
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.
02-05-2021, 05:20 PM
#12
777 - ret
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Position: Waco CG-4 center seat
Posts: 863
Originally Posted by rickair7777
????
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.
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.
04-06-2021, 11:52 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
UALPA Turning Organized Labor on it's Head
Originally Posted by FollowMe
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 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 wasn’t 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.
04-09-2021, 08:28 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 241
Originally Posted by FXLAX
I don’t 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 wasn’t 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.
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 wasn’t 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.
04-12-2021, 11:59 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,398
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.
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.
05-20-2021, 09:28 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,261
Originally Posted by Rama
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.
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.
05-20-2021, 02:05 PM
#18
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,224
Originally Posted by Rama
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.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
