Airlines Cut Minimum Pilot Experience to 500 hours and Below

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Matt W. Barrow writes:

They can refuse to recognize (or whatever the legal term is) them.

They don't have to "recognize" them. Once they are there, they are
there, "recognition" or not.


You're completely clueless, aren;t you?

Bertie

Jim Logajan wrote:

Newps wrote:

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not
allow unions

It's not their decision to make.


I think he means that they employ legal means (such as paying union scale
wages) to reduce incentive of employees to unionize. They also locate
plants where the work population has few ties or historical interest in
unionizing. The results, such as they are, speak for themselves.

Well sure that makes sense. My father accomplished the same thing at
the company he worked for. Every couple of years the union would come
in and make their pitch and get laughed out of the building.

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
Newps wrote:


B A R R Y wrote:
Matt W. Barrow wrote:



Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not
allow unions


It's not their decision to make.


_I_ didn't say that. G

I did. And, yes, they do have decisions at their disposal...they just
haven't use them in some decades.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Jim Logajan wrote:

Newps wrote:

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not
allow unions

It's not their decision to make.


I think he means that they employ legal means (such as paying union scale
wages) to reduce incentive of employees to unionize. They also locate
plants where the work population has few ties or historical interest in
unionizing. The results, such as they are, speak for themselves.

Well sure that makes sense. My father accomplished the same thing at the
company he worked for. Every couple of years the union would come in and
make their pitch and get laughed out of the building.

A very long time ago, I believe it was Coors Brewing "decertified" the union
at Coors after years of thug tactics by the union. This has to be a good 25
or 30 years ago. It really raised some dander, but it CAN happen.

A company, IIRC, can refuse to recognize a union, but the PR and other
side-effects don't lean to using that course of action. Today might be
different, but the MSM would raise holy hell regardless of what "pranks" the
union engaged in.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Newps wrote:
Matt W. Barrow wrote:
Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not
allow unions

It's not their decision to make.

I think he means that they employ legal means (such as paying union scale
wages) to reduce incentive of employees to unionize. They also locate
plants where the work population has few ties or historical interest in
unionizing. The results, such as they are, speak for themselves.

Sorta.

Do note that some of the highest paid professions are certainly not
unionized and never were.

Compensation is strictly a factor of supply and demand and unions cannot
fakeout that reality.

(as stated elsewhere) IIRC, a company does not have to recognize a union,
but given union thuggery, it would be injudicious to do so, given the cover
unions receive from government regardless of the legality of their actions.

Newps wrote:


Jim Logajan wrote:

Newps wrote:

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not
allow unions

It's not their decision to make.


I think he means that they employ legal means (such as paying union scale
wages) to reduce incentive of employees to unionize. They also locate
plants where the work population has few ties or historical interest in
unionizing. The results, such as they are, speak for themselves.

Well sure that makes sense. My father accomplished the same thing at
the company he worked for. Every couple of years the union would come
in and make their pitch and get laughed out of the building.

What usually works is for the company to provide a good benefit package
that would go to zero and have to be negotiated if the company were to
unionize.

If there is a good package to start with, most people won't take the
chance that they will wind up with less after unionization.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:



A very long time ago, I believe it was Coors Brewing "decertified" the union
at Coors after years of thug tactics by the union. This has to be a good 25
or 30 years ago. It really raised some dander, but it CAN happen.

A company cannot decertify a union.

On Nov 30, 9:17 am, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:

Do note that some of the highest paid professions are certainly not
unionized and never were.

Compensation is strictly a factor of supply and demand and unions cannot
fakeout that reality.

But that is what unions do. The purpose of a union is to grain
compensation packages beyond what the free market would offer by
restricting what employees an employer can hire (i.e. you can't just
hire someone else when the union strikes to demonstrate that their
demands are in excess of the market). Unions avoid the free market by
dictating terms across the board. If employers got together and
decided what saleries to dictated to employees they would quickly be
in violation of anti-trust laws, but unions are explicitly excempt
from anti-trust (because they are, by their nature antitrust, thereby
avoiding freemarkets) The auto unions had this going on well for many
years, it was only when new companies joined the industry that were
not under their control (Toyota, etc) that they could no longer avoid
the affects of the free market. If the unions were able to organize
the employees in Japan and everywhere else in the world auto workers
would still have the same omnipower that they did in the 70s.
What people forget is that these excess wages (excess to what the
market would dictate) are paid by someone. Since companies don't print
money, it's always people that end up paying. In the 70's Americans
subsidized the wages of the auto industry with high prices for crappy
cars. I suppose the unions just thought automakers would just print
extra money in the basement in order to meet the union's salary
demands.

-Robert

On Nov 28, 8:40 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:
"Tina" wrote in message

...

Matt, you may not understand labor laws very well.

Oh, I suppose having over 1,000 people worl for me last year, I guess I
understand them well enough.

The US branches of
Honda et al can work at keeping unions out, but they cannot by dictate
keep them out.

They can refuse to recognize (or whatever the legal term is) them.

Throughout the previous century politicians have given more and more
power to unions. As a result an employer cannot ignore a collective
bargaining unit if it has been properly set up. This includes a vote
by employees. If an employer refuses to negotiate with the union (and
instead tries to go directly to employees) the union can seek a court
order to force the employer to comply. Every single labor law is
stacked in favor of the unions. Remember that the U.S. almost become a
socialist country in the early 1900's and we are still left with some
of those affects.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

But that is what unions do. The purpose of a union is to grain
compensation packages beyond what the free market would offer by
restricting what employees an employer can hire (i.e. you can't just
hire someone else when the union strikes to demonstrate that their
demands are in excess of the market).



You most certainly can hire someone else when the union is on strike.