Slavery In Aviation

----- Original Message -----
Seriously though, it is unethical and (under California labor law),
illegal
for an employer to compel an employee to perform services for a firm, for
no
compensation.


Indeed. But it depends on one's definition of "compensation". If he gets
hours out of it, I'm curious how your IRS would account for that -- a
non-cash remuneration.

Frankly, I'd fly for free to just build hours, assuming I was insured by the
company while doing so.

Greg.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 07:47:01 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Just because unfair labor practices are common
does not make them right.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:02:33 GMT, "Gary Mishler"
wrote in Message-Id:
tEOrb.161931$Fm2.143657@attbi_s04:

You call it Slavery, we called it Work Ethic.

My advice: Sure, you can call the Labor Commission, you can talk to a
lawyer, you could file a complaint. Then what?

If you seek information from the state labor board concerning the
labor laws, you are educating yourself. Wouldn't you agree that it is
prudent for an employee to understand the legal implications of his
employer's practices and acts? Head-in-the-sand thinking is for those
too weak to face the truth.

If the employee sees the employer's attempt to secure free labor for
the unjust robbery it truly is, it may cause the employee to
reevaluate his misguided dedication to an exploitative boss. We can
hope.

Then you are labeled a trouble maker, a whiner, etc. and there
goes your references for better employment.

I can appreciate your sentiment in providing labor to the FBO gratis,
because you want to see the firm prosper. Such an attitude is a
common tacit requirement for all employment. An employee who lacks
"team spirit" negatively impacts company morale. And your contention
that it is morally good to demonstrate industry will find little
argument.

However, consider how you've become inculcated into working without
compensation and accepting it as normal and right! As you state, one
of the reasons you provide labor without compensation is fear of
reprisal for demanding to be compensated for ALL your labor that
benefits the FBO. What justification does the employer offer for that
prejudicial judgement of an employee who demands payment for his
labor? How does an employee's being "labeled a trouble maker, a
whiner, etc." as a result of insisting on payment for his labor, not
reveal the employer's duplicitous intent to cheat his labor force from
their rightful due?

The reason there are labor laws today is because oppressed workers of
the past shed their blood and fought hard to see that just laws were
enacted. Business operators, necessarily concerned with profit,
develop an eye to cost cutting in all business related expenses. This
necessarily perpetuates a socioeconomic force directed against the
principles of justice and fairness embodied in the labor laws. It's a
natural result of free market capitalism. But it necessitates an
opposing attitude in the minds of the labor force to insure that the
principles contained within the labor laws are upheld in the
workplace. If not, those hard-won concessions to fairness, justice
and human decency will erode (as is currently occurring).

It is the collective responsibility of all people of employee status
to band together in a common effort to oppose that managerial force
that seeks to take "just a little more" of workers' rights from them.
Those employees who fail to adequately understand the labor v
management dynamics of the workplace, and through a misguided sense of
"duty to the company" and "work ethic," inadvertently undermine the
legal shield that separates employees from the inhumane, exploitative
labor practices of the past, know not the harm they cause their
fellows. Remind them of the fact, that if their fellow workers of the
past hadn't suffered to extract just treatment from their employers,
they'd be working 18 hour days for coolie wages.

So it's every employee's responsibility to choose how he interacts
with his employer. Does he give away the commodity he is selling, his
labor, or does he demand to be paid for it? It's really a matter of
professionalism, ideology, history, and personal self-worth. Don't
let it become a betrayal of those oppressed employees of the past who
fought hard for the 8 hour work day, 7 day work week. Think about it.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...

Hmmm. If you talked that way to a migrant worker, you would be clapped in
irons.

Oh, really? Where would this occur, and by whom?

Sydney (who thinks migrants most places don't have a lot of options)

"Bob Dole" wrote in message

Has anyone else noticed ? ------

While numerous responders shoot off in multiple directions, expounding on
everything from moral work ethic to the oppression of the proletariat, our
original troll, Mr. "Bob Dole" chooses only to sit back and watch the show.

Indeed. But it depends on one's definition of "compensation". If he gets
hours out of it, I'm curious how your IRS would account for that -- a
non-cash remuneration.

It's only the FAA that thinks that intangible job experiece is renumeration.

However, if you can put a dollar value on the compensation then it is generally
taxable. For example, if they let him rent the plane at no cost for his own use,
that's taxable, but the experience of doing his job (even though he is logging it)
isn't.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

Indeed. But it depends on one's definition of "compensation". If he gets
hours out of it, I'm curious how your IRS would account for that -- a
non-cash remuneration.

It's only the FAA that thinks that intangible job experiece is
renumeration.

They got it from the IRS and their version of "Wages and Salaries" (not what
the 16th originally defined).


However, if you can put a dollar value on the compensation then it is
generally
taxable. For example, if they let him rent the plane at no cost for his
own use,
that's taxable, but the experience of doing his job (even though he is
logging it)
isn't.

"Greg Chapman" wrote in message |
| Frankly, I'd fly for free to just build hours, assuming I was insured by
the
| company while doing so.
|

And that is really the problem, isn't it? There are too many knotheads
willing to fly for free, so instructors cannot have a decent wage or working
conditions.

"Tom S." wrote in message ...

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

Indeed. But it depends on one's definition of "compensation". If he gets
hours out of it, I'm curious how your IRS would account for that -- a
non-cash remuneration.

It's only the FAA that thinks that intangible job experiece is
renumeration.

They got it from the IRS and their version of "Wages and Salaries" (not what
the 16th originally defined).

Nope, the IRS doesn't hold that "job experience" is taxable.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
|
| "Bob Dole" wrote in message
|
| Has anyone else noticed ? ------
|
| While numerous responders shoot off in multiple directions, expounding on
| everything from moral work ethic to the oppression of the proletariat, our
| original troll, Mr. "Bob Dole" chooses only to sit back and watch the
show.

However, the topic needs to be discussed. There appear to be a number of
deluded individuals that think being forced to work without pay is a good
thing. Personally, I think it is theft and, at bottom, an offense as serious
as murder.

One wonders: why all these people willing to put up with such conditions?
They think that if they just build enough hours or 'pay their dues' that
they will eventually get a decent paying job. So, when do you suppose they
will think they have built up enough hours or paid enough dues that they are
entitled to be paid for their labor? Or do you think that they will just
continue being willing to fly 747s on international routes for free just to
build up hours?

And when they do start demanding to be paid, does that mean that they have
lost their work ethic? When they refuse to shovel the walk to the air
terminal, does that mean they have no more team spirit?