Airlines Cut Minimum Pilot Experience to 500 hours and Below

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article
,
"F. Baum" wrote:

On Nov 27, 8:43 am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Many of us have a great successful career without every being a member
of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members. In fact,
the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think your point
is countered.

Robert, you rascal ! I love your simplistic answers. Lets take a look
at things that didnt exist before organized labor; Child labor laws,
healt care benifits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance, paid vacation,
benifits packages, retirement, DC plans,overtime and the list goes
on................ If you had a great career with any of these benies
you can thank organized labor
FB

You are assuming that these "benies" exist because of organized
labor.

Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
and what laws would go away?

And which would have evolved naturally with increased productivity and
increased expertise in management (that had been going on for a couple
hundred years). That's out of Baum's mental grasp, unfortunately.
--

Funny thing is, you are all right. Everything mentioned here both pro and
con has contributed to the wages paid in this country today for most every
job. Child labor laws, health care benefits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance,
paid vacation, benefits packages, retirement, overtime pay, minimum wage,
etc, etc. It's all had a balancing effect on the wages we all draw every
day. Without unions we would all be working for less, no matter what our
profession. Unions balance the booty between the CEO and his cronies, and
the worker bees. It's that simple. Comparing upper management salaries in
the airline business to many of the fortune 500 companies are a good
example. Unions have been very successful in keeping the worker bees on a
level playing field with management. Other industries have gone quite the
opposite. Non union job work places and imports have been very successful,
even in the airline business, of offering competitive products and services
to the consumer, that greatly limit how much unions gain by bargaining
alone. The real problem now is dilution of the work force. The mass transit
system we call a southern border is adding to the number of worker bees so
fast, everything gain by the unions in the past 70 or 80 years is being lost
very quickly. Health benefits being the first to fall.

On Nov 27, 9:47 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in ...







"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article
,
"F. Baum" wrote:

On Nov 27, 8:43 am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Many of us have a great successful career without every being a member
of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members. In fact,
the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think your point
is countered.

Robert, you rascal ! I love your simplistic answers. Lets take a look
at things that didnt exist before organized labor; Child labor laws,
healt care benifits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance, paid vacation,
benifits packages, retirement, DC plans,overtime and the list goes
on................ If you had a great career with any of these benies
you can thank organized labor
FB

You are assuming that these "benies" exist because of organized
labor.

Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
and what laws would go away?

And which would have evolved naturally with increased productivity and
increased expertise in management (that had been going on for a couple
hundred years). That's out of Baum's mental grasp, unfortunately.
--

Funny thing is, you are all right. Everything mentioned here both pro and
con has contributed to the wages paid in this country today for most every
job. Child labor laws, health care benefits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance,
paid vacation, benefits packages, retirement, overtime pay, minimum wage,
etc, etc. It's all had a balancing effect on the wages we all draw every
day. Without unions we would all be working for less, no matter what our
profession.

None of my people are under a collective bargaining agreement. There
are business reasons to provide compensation packages that are
attractive to gain and retain employees. There are business reasons to
maintain productivity. However, there is not one person here would
believes his job would be subsidized if we no longer had customers. If
anyones (including my) position no longer makes business sense it will
be elimiated. That's what makes an economy efficient and maximizes
return to investors. If you don't like it you should work for the
gov't.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Nov 27, 9:47 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
...







"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article
,
"F. Baum" wrote:

On Nov 27, 8:43 am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Many of us have a great successful career without every being a
member
of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members. In fact,
the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think your
point
is countered.

Robert, you rascal ! I love your simplistic answers. Lets take a look
at things that didnt exist before organized labor; Child labor laws,
healt care benifits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance, paid vacation,
benifits packages, retirement, DC plans,overtime and the list goes
on................ If you had a great career with any of these benies
you can thank organized labor
FB

You are assuming that these "benies" exist because of organized
labor.

Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
and what laws would go away?

And which would have evolved naturally with increased productivity and
increased expertise in management (that had been going on for a couple
hundred years). That's out of Baum's mental grasp, unfortunately.
--

Funny thing is, you are all right. Everything mentioned here both pro and
con has contributed to the wages paid in this country today for most
every
job. Child labor laws, health care benefits, 40 Hour work weeks,
severance,
paid vacation, benefits packages, retirement, overtime pay, minimum wage,
etc, etc. It's all had a balancing effect on the wages we all draw every
day. Without unions we would all be working for less, no matter what our
profession.

None of my people are under a collective bargaining agreement. There
are business reasons to provide compensation packages that are
attractive to gain and retain employees. There are business reasons to
maintain productivity. However, there is not one person here would
believes his job would be subsidized if we no longer had customers. If
anyones (including my) position no longer makes business sense it will
be elimiated. That's what makes an economy efficient and maximizes
return to investors. If you don't like it you should work for the
gov't.


I believe and agree with you Robert, 100%.

I do feel unions have been quite useful to all of us for "raising the bar"
globally across the US of the past 75 or whatever years. But I also believe
many of them have had a very negative impact as well, and should take
responsibility for many jobs leaving the country.

Over the years I have work as a member of both good and bad unions, and in
good and bad non union environments. While I can fully appreciate their
value, I have also seen situations where they were nothing but a parasite to
not only the companies they control, but their membership as well.

I also worked some 17 years in a non union environment, where without
warning I was singled out and terminated just two years short of my first
retirement step, effectively cutting the guts out of my retirement package,
with nothing but awards and letters of recommendations in my personal file.
So the door really does swing both ways.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Nov 27, 9:47 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
...

Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
and what laws would go away?

And which would have evolved naturally with increased productivity and
increased expertise in management (that had been going on for a couple
hundred years). That's out of Baum's mental grasp, unfortunately.
--

Funny thing is, you are all right. Everything mentioned here both pro and
con has contributed to the wages paid in this country today for most
every
job. Child labor laws, health care benefits, 40 Hour work weeks,
severance,
paid vacation, benefits packages, retirement, overtime pay, minimum wage,
etc, etc. It's all had a balancing effect on the wages we all draw every
day. Without unions we would all be working for less, no matter what our
profession.

Without unions we'd all be working for more. Wages are, like any other
economic good, based on supply and demand. What unions do is shift the wages
from one industry to another. In that case, somethign has to give. The only
thing that can raise wages in improved productivity and union have been
instrumental in trashing productivity. In the long run, unions have
probably done more to depress wages and ruin their industries. As such I
haven't an ounce of sympathy for them and their thug cohorts.



None of my people are under a collective bargaining agreement. There
are business reasons to provide compensation packages that are
attractive to gain and retain employees. There are business reasons to
maintain productivity. However, there is not one person here would
believes his job would be subsidized if we no longer had customers. If
anyones (including my) position no longer makes business sense it will
be elimiated. That's what makes an economy efficient and maximizes
return to investors. If you don't like it you should work for the
gov't.

Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not allow
unions and their employees are at the top in terms of production and
compensation and their futures look bright compared to GM, Ford and Chrysler
who are at death's door.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Matt, you may not understand labor laws very well. The US branches of
Honda et al can work at keeping unions out, but they cannot by dictate
keep them out.

And if you choose to interview street picks instead of an enriched
pool of potential employees, you must be doing something else very
right because your HR folks are wasting time and resources..




On Nov 28, 10:23 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in ...





On Nov 27, 9:47 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
...

Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
and what laws would go away?

And which would have evolved naturally with increased productivity and
increased expertise in management (that had been going on for a couple
hundred years). That's out of Baum's mental grasp, unfortunately.
--

Funny thing is, you are all right. Everything mentioned here both pro and
con has contributed to the wages paid in this country today for most
every
job. Child labor laws, health care benefits, 40 Hour work weeks,
severance,
paid vacation, benefits packages, retirement, overtime pay, minimum wage,
etc, etc. It's all had a balancing effect on the wages we all draw every
day. Without unions we would all be working for less, no matter what our
profession.

Without unions we'd all be working for more. Wages are, like any other
economic good, based on supply and demand. What unions do is shift the wages
from one industry to another. In that case, somethign has to give. The only
thing that can raise wages in improved productivity and union have been
instrumental in trashing productivity. In the long run, unions have
probably done more to depress wages and ruin their industries. As such I
haven't an ounce of sympathy for them and their thug cohorts.



None of my people are under a collective bargaining agreement. There
are business reasons to provide compensation packages that are
attractive to gain and retain employees. There are business reasons to
maintain productivity. However, there is not one person here would
believes his job would be subsidized if we no longer had customers. If
anyones (including my) position no longer makes business sense it will
be elimiated. That's what makes an economy efficient and maximizes
return to investors. If you don't like it you should work for the
gov't.

Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not allow
unions and their employees are at the top in terms of production and
compensation and their futures look bright compared to GM, Ford and Chrysler
who are at death's door.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"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.


And if you choose to interview street picks instead of an enriched
pool of potential employees, you must be doing something else very
right because your HR folks are wasting time and resources..

English your first language?


On Nov 28, 10:23 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
...





On Nov 27, 9:47 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
...

Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
and what laws would go away?

And which would have evolved naturally with increased productivity
and
increased expertise in management (that had been going on for a
couple
hundred years). That's out of Baum's mental grasp, unfortunately.
--

Funny thing is, you are all right. Everything mentioned here both pro
and
con has contributed to the wages paid in this country today for most
every
job. Child labor laws, health care benefits, 40 Hour work weeks,
severance,
paid vacation, benefits packages, retirement, overtime pay, minimum
wage,
etc, etc. It's all had a balancing effect on the wages we all draw
every
day. Without unions we would all be working for less, no matter what
our
profession.

Without unions we'd all be working for more. Wages are, like any other
economic good, based on supply and demand. What unions do is shift the
wages
from one industry to another. In that case, somethign has to give. The
only
thing that can raise wages in improved productivity and union have been
instrumental in trashing productivity. In the long run, unions have
probably done more to depress wages and ruin their industries. As such I
haven't an ounce of sympathy for them and their thug cohorts.



None of my people are under a collective bargaining agreement. There
are business reasons to provide compensation packages that are
attractive to gain and retain employees. There are business reasons to
maintain productivity. However, there is not one person here would
believes his job would be subsidized if we no longer had customers. If
anyones (including my) position no longer makes business sense it will
be elimiated. That's what makes an economy efficient and maximizes
return to investors. If you don't like it you should work for the
gov't.

Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not allow
unions and their employees are at the top in terms of production and
compensation and their futures look bright compared to GM, Ford and
Chrysler
who are at death's door.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:40:47 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote in
:

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


You actually employed over 1,000 people last year, paid their Social
Security benefits and other pay-check deduction to the government, and
reported their earnings to the IRS, or did you merely CONTRACT with
them?

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.

Honda may refuse to recognize their employees' labor union should
their employees decide to organize, but in the hypothetical event of a
walk-out, Honda would be forced to either negotiate with union
representatives, or hire a replacement workforce.

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.

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

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