Slavery In Aviation

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Sorry, CJ, but disagreeing with you that unpaid work equates to
theft or that theft equates to murder does not indicate lack of
control on the part of those who disagree (like myself).

Quite correct.

Slavery is a non-voluntary situation. It encompasses _force_ (in the proper
context that Rand applied).

Theft also requires force (or a correlary, fraud). Likewise murder.

Implying that it does, simply makes you look ridiculous. Again.

Sadly true -- even worse when using someone (Rand) as a reference for a
point of view that is quite opposite to that persons conclusion.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:28:59 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Unions seem to me to be far too vulnerable to corruption.

No more so than management, IMO.

Robert Perkins wrote in message . ..
On 14 Nov 2003 15:43:42 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:
If Ayn Rand is the source of your viewpoint equating unpaid work,
theft, and murder, you would appear to be reading her rather selectively.

I don't suppose it would help at all to point out that Rand is, at
root, not correct?

Hee! Hee! Well, I was trying to leave my personal opinion of
Ayn Rand out of this, as being even more off topic than usual!

Let's just say that as a biochemist, I have no trouble at all
perceiving distinct differences which are not merely of degree
between taking an hour of someone's life, vs. taking someone's
life. Most ethical systems also perceive differences.

Sydney (trying to resist the temptation to say more)

Dylan Smith wrote in message ...

In article , Tom S. wrote:
And right there is a main issue: If you want to work for someone else, don't
bellyache, go be self-employed. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In an ideal world we could all do that.

Huh? Looks like a fundamental contradiction to me. If you want
to work for someone else, you can't be self-employed

I know what you both mean, though. Given some of Tom's posts
elsewhere lashing people for making spelling or grammar mistakes,
I just couldn't resist. My bad.

The root of the problem is that in most places, flight instruction
is a minor-league apprenticeship for a career as a professional pilot,
not a way to make a living. And realistic alternatives aren't always
available, just as they aren't available to most physicians who would like
to practice medicine without going through the high-stress, high-hours
low-pay grinder which is internship and residency.

But it's still not slavery, theft, or murder in either case. It's
a choice -- hopefully an informed choice -- the apprentices have
made in order to pursue career goals which they value.

Clearly there *is* a market niche for CFIs of experience who wish
to make a living. Things like the PIC 10 day instrument courses,
the sort of recurrent training Paul Sanchez specializes in, CFIs
who specialize in proficiency training or aerobatics.

I've been kinda waiting to hear from our mutual friend Michael on
this one. I think what he'd say is, the fact that most young
inexperienced CFIs can't make a living at flight instruction is
fundamentally the market voting on what they're actually worth
at that level of training and aviation experience. But that's just
my SWAG, I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth and it's neither
here nor there.

In my opinion, the real solution is to change the FAA rules so
that there's a realistic way for wanna-be professional pilots to
build the hours they need without flight instruction. Then we
can hear bellyaching about 'slavery in aviation' flying night
cargo or pipeline patrol or what-have-you.

But I think it would be a dramatic improvement for student pilots.
They could be taught by people who want to instruct, and since
there'd presumably be fewer CFIs FBOs which wished to retain them
would have to treat them rather better.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
Dylan Smith wrote in message
...

In article , Tom S. wrote:
And right there is a main issue: If you want to work for someone else,
don't
bellyache, go be self-employed. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In an ideal world we could all do that.

Huh? Looks like a fundamental contradiction to me. If you want
to work for someone else, you can't be self-employed

I know what you both mean, though. Given some of Tom's posts
elsewhere lashing people for making spelling or grammar mistakes,
I just couldn't resist. My bad.

Ummm...I make too many errors (even with a spelling checker) to play
"teacher" (unless it's someone hopelessly illiterate), I leave the
grammar-cop stuff to CJ and George.

If you want to ding someone, please stay away from hyperbole. If you're so
adept at point out my vulgarity toward some punk, then don't set yourself up
at the same time.

The root of the problem is that in most places, flight instruction
is a minor-league apprenticeship for a career as a professional pilot,
not a way to make a living.

And the companies one works for is NOT a monoply...probably not even in the
local area.

And realistic alternatives aren't always
available,

Sure they are; it's finding those alternatives that make someone an
entrepreneaur.

just as they aren't available to most physicians who would like
to practice medicine without going through the high-stress, high-hours
low-pay grinder which is internship and residency.

Well, that's a PROFESSION that is regulated by a private body (AMA) under
the guise of a government body. (Actually, it's more a guild.)

But it's still not slavery, theft, or murder in either case.

Correct.

It's
a choice -- hopefully an informed choice -- the apprentices have
made in order to pursue career goals which they value.

Damn...what did folks do 40-50 years ago, before "Flight Schools".


[snip]

I've been kinda waiting to hear from our mutual friend Michael on
this one. I think what he'd say is, the fact that most young
inexperienced CFIs can't make a living at flight instruction is
fundamentally the market voting on what they're actually worth
at that level of training and aviation experience. But that's just
my SWAG, I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth and it's neither
here nor there.

The fact there's a glut of both pilots and instructors right now certainly
doesn't help, but I'm sure you also agree that someone has a right to a
particular career, but not necessarily to make money at it (see: Hollyweird)


In my opinion, the real solution is to change the FAA rules so
that there's a realistic way for wanna-be professional pilots to
build the hours they need without flight instruction. Then we
can hear bellyaching about 'slavery in aviation' flying night
cargo or pipeline patrol or what-have-you.

I know a few professional pilots and only two have EVER been instuctors.

But I think it would be a dramatic improvement for student pilots.
They could be taught by people who want to instruct, and since
there'd presumably be fewer CFIs FBOs which wished to retain them
would have to treat them rather better.

I guess hanging out at the airport and washing planes is passé anymore :~)

In article , Tom S. wrote:
However, that doesn't exist at the vast majority of airports. The planes
are owned by the flight school, and your typical 18-23 year old
instructor isn't going to be able to afford their own plane to give
instruction in (unless Daddy's rich). They don't have the experience yet
to seriously go freelance either (virtually all the freelancers I've met
had at least 600-700 hours of real world flying before starting
instructing, and hence had something to bring to the student over and
above the neophyte instructors the flight school had.

Why does this pseudo-instructor feel he needs to work at THAT particular
airport?

Once again, it's the means. It's all very well yelling "So MOVE!", but
as you undoubtedly know, unless you can be bankrolled by someone
who will take the risk, opening your own flight school from the
position of the vast majority of flight instructors is not possible -
they simply don't have the resources. They probably don't have the
resources to even move away from home!

So the position they are in: either flight instruct for poor pay at
a flight school that doesn't respect its employees, or not flight
instruct at all.

Show me your entraprenurial spirit and tell me how YOU would solve that
dilema!

We are not talking about me. (For the record, I am a self-employed
software consultant making enough money to overhaul a very old house,
that has so far cost me more than overhauling both engines on a Baron,
so I *think* i might just be managing there). We are talking about the
typical young CFI who doesn't have the resources behind them. If I
wanted to start a flight school, I could have done so. However, I'd
rather fly for fun quite frankly, and do something else as the day job.

So MOVE!

No. I happen to like the Isle of Man.

And they wonder why so many thinks the world (or XYZ Company) owes them a
living.

No, nobody's saying that. What I am trying to explain (but obviously
failing) is that a good employee-employer relationship is built on
mutual trust. Exploitation of young, often life-inexperienced CFIs who
don't yet have access to any significant resources is just not on.
Saying that they aren't entrepenurial doesn't make it any more
acceptable. Many flight schools would do much, much better if the owners
showed not only respect, but more entreprenurial spirit than they are
now! Why do so many people not realise that mutual trust and respect
between employees and employers is often a very important part of a
successful business?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom S. wrote:
However, that doesn't exist at the vast majority of airports. The
planes
are owned by the flight school, and your typical 18-23 year old
instructor isn't going to be able to afford their own plane to give
instruction in (unless Daddy's rich). They don't have the experience
yet
to seriously go freelance either (virtually all the freelancers I've
met
had at least 600-700 hours of real world flying before starting
instructing, and hence had something to bring to the student over and
above the neophyte instructors the flight school had.

Why does this pseudo-instructor feel he needs to work at THAT particular
airport?

Once again, it's the means. It's all very well yelling "So MOVE!", but
as you undoubtedly know, unless you can be bankrolled by someone
who will take the risk, opening your own flight school from the
position of the vast majority of flight instructors is not possible -
they simply don't have the resources. They probably don't have the
resources to even move away from home!

So someone else has to provide the means AND can't set the rules under which
that ASSOCIATION constines to exist?



So the position they are in: either flight instruct for poor pay at
a flight school that doesn't respect its employees, or not flight
instruct at all.

Show me your entraprenurial spirit and tell me how YOU would solve that
dilema!

We are not talking about me. (For the record, I am a self-employed
software consultant making enough money to overhaul a very old house,
that has so far cost me more than overhauling both engines on a Baron,
so I *think* i might just be managing there). We are talking about the
typical young CFI who doesn't have the resources behind them. If I
wanted to start a flight school, I could have done so. However, I'd
rather fly for fun quite frankly, and do something else as the day job.

So MOVE!

No. I happen to like the Isle of Man.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.'

And they wonder why so many thinks the world (or XYZ Company) owes them
a
living.

No, nobody's saying that.

Not directly, no. They're a bit more sophisticate than that.

What I am trying to explain (but obviously
failing) is that a good employee-employer relationship is built on
mutual trust. Exploitation of young, often life-inexperienced CFIs who
don't yet have access to any significant resources is just not on.

That's all true but it's a whole different issue. We're talking about
purported "slavery" in a voluntary association. That would be mutaully
exclusive.

Saying that they aren't entrepenurial doesn't make it any more
acceptable. Many flight schools would do much, much better if the owners
showed not only respect, but more entreprenurial spirit than they are
now! Why do so many people not realise that mutual trust and respect
between employees and employers is often a very important part of a
successful business?

Again, that's a whole different issue (people management skills).

So try again and stick to the point, please, instead of going off on
tangents.

A company is run for the OWNERS, not for the EMPLOYEES. Having good
relations with employees is a good idea, but NOT having good relations IS
NOT slavery.

In article , Tom S. wrote:
So someone else has to provide the means AND can't set the rules under which
that ASSOCIATION constines to exist?

They can set some of the rules, yes - but not ALL of the rules. Labour
laws say that they cannot set all of the rules - some are set by
legislation. If you don't like the labour laws, then MOVE! :-)

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.'

Sure you can.

A company is run for the OWNERS, not for the EMPLOYEES. Having good
relations with employees is a good idea, but NOT having good relations IS
NOT slavery.

Oh, I never disagreed with that point. I just contend that running a
company in such a way that there isn't a mutual employer-employee
respect and trust is grossly stupid.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:29:19 -0700, "Tom S." wrote
in Message-Id: :


So someone else has to provide the means AND can't set the rules under which
that ASSOCIATION constines to exist?

Not of the rules she sets violate the prevailing law. There's a
technical term for such an individual: criminal.

[...]

A company is run for the OWNERS, not for the EMPLOYEES. Having good
relations with employees is a good idea, but NOT having good relations IS
NOT slavery.

And failing to pay employees for their labor is actionable in most
states.

Dylan Smith wrote in message ...

Once again, it's the means. It's all very well yelling "So MOVE!", but
as you undoubtedly know, unless you can be bankrolled by someone
who will take the risk, opening your own flight school from the
position of the vast majority of flight instructors is not possible -
they simply don't have the resources. They probably don't have the
resources to even move away from home!

So the position they are in: either flight instruct for poor pay at
a flight school that doesn't respect its employees, or not flight
instruct at all.

With respect, Dylan, and with some ignorance of the job market in
UK, it does seem as though there must be other alternatives.

For example, seems to me the flight instructor could work at another
job for a bit, save money, pool his resources to share apartments
and such, and work for a better flight school somewhere else.

I do agree completely with (what I take to be) your point that
not everyone has the enterpreneurial spirit, nor should it be
required as an alternative to being treated like spit.

OTOH harkening back to the start of this thread, I'm pretty sure
you don't disagree that being treated poorly or unfairly
on a job is no wise equivalent to slavery, theft, or murder.

No, nobody's saying that. What I am trying to explain (but obviously
failing) is that a good employee-employer relationship is built on
mutual trust. Exploitation of young, often life-inexperienced CFIs who
don't yet have access to any significant resources is just not on.
Saying that they aren't entrepenurial doesn't make it any more
acceptable. Many flight schools would do much, much better if the owners
showed not only respect, but more entreprenurial spirit than they are
now! Why do so many people not realise that mutual trust and respect
between employees and employers is often a very important part of a
successful business?

Very well put!

Sydney