Airlines Cut Minimum Pilot Experience to 500 hours and Below

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, 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.


The company didn't de-certify the union the workers did. I've posted a wiki
article below.

That said there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about labor law in
this conversation. Which is understandable because it is a very complex set
of laws on both the federal and state level. But to simplify..

The federal law recognizes two different types of strikers. Economic
Strikers and Unfair Practice Strikers.

If the workers strike for raises the employer may replace and the workers
and there is no law requiring that the striking workers get their jobs back.

If the workers strike based on unfair labor practices and the employer is
found to have indeed carried out unfair labor practices the workers not only
get their jobs back but are also entitled to back pay.

Economic strikers have gained some additional protection over the years but
in a lot of cases they can still be replaced and not rehired.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coors_Brewing_Company


Labor Issues
In April 1977, the brewery workers union at Coors, representing 1,472
employees, went out on strike. The brewery kept operating with supervisors
and 250 to 300 union members, including one member of the union executive
board, who ignored the strike. Soon after, Coors announced that it would
hire replacements for the striking workers.[3] About 700 workers quit the
picket line to go back to work, and Coors replaced the remaining 500
workers, and kept making beer uninterrupted.[4] In December 1978, the
workers at Coors voted by greater than 2:1 to decertify the union, ending 44
years of union representation at Coors. Because the strike was by then more
than a year old, striking workers could not vote in the election.[5]

Labor unions organized a boycott to punish Coors for its labor practices.[6]
One tactic was to push for state laws to ban sales of unpasteurized canned
and bottled beer.[7] Because Coors was the only major brewer not
pasteurizing its canned and bottled beer, such laws would hurt only
Coors.[8] Sales of Coors suffered during the 10-year labor union boycott,
although Coors said the declining sales were also due to an industry-wide
downturn in beer sales, and to increased competition. To maintain
production, Coors expanded its sales area from the 18 western states to
which it had marketed for years, to nationwide distribution.[9]

The AFL-CIO ended its boycott of Coors in August 1987, after negotiations
with Pete Coors, head of brewery operations. The details were not divulged,
but were said to include an early union representation election in Colorado,
and use of union workers to build the new Coors brewery in Virginia.[10] In
1988, the Teamsters Union, which represented brewery workers at the top
three U.S. beer makers (Anheuser-Busch, Miller, and Stroh), gained enough
signatures to trigger a union representation election. Coors workers again
rejected union representation by more than 2:1.[11]

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
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, 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.


The company didn't de-certify the union the workers did. I've posted a
wiki article below.

That said there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about labor law in
this conversation. Which is understandable because it is a very complex
set of laws on both the federal and state level. But to simplify..

The federal law recognizes two different types of strikers. Economic
Strikers and Unfair Practice Strikers.

Thanks, but the question regards how much a company is beholden to a union.
It has nothing to do with strikes.

Matt W. Barrow writes:

A very long time ago, I believe it was Coors Brewing "decertified" the union
at Coors after years of thug tactics by the union.

What is "decertification," exactly?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Matt W. Barrow writes:

A very long time ago, I believe it was Coors Brewing "decertified"
the union at Coors after years of thug tactics by the union.

What is "decertification," exactly?


You'll never know since you'll never be certified.

Well, not in that way, anyway, frootlooops.


Bertie

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
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, 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.


The company didn't de-certify the union the workers did. I've posted
a wiki article below.

That said there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about labor
law in this conversation. Which is understandable because it is a
very complex set of laws on both the federal and state level. But to
simplify.. The federal law recognizes two different types of strikers.
Economic
Strikers and Unfair Practice Strikers.

Thanks, but the question regards how much a company is beholden to a
union. It has nothing to do with strikes.

You are the one I beleive that brought up the Coors decertification. I
answered that and used it as a jumping off point to correct some
misinformation that had been in the thread.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:

That said there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about labor
law in this conversation. Which is understandable because it is a
very complex set of laws on both the federal and state level. But to
simplify.. The federal law recognizes two different types of strikers.
Economic
Strikers and Unfair Practice Strikers.

Thanks, but the question regards how much a company is beholden to a
union. It has nothing to do with strikes.

You are the one I beleive that brought up the Coors decertification. I
answered that and used it as a jumping off point to correct some
misinformation that had been in the thread.

A union can be decertified at any time, not necessarily during a strike, but
the info you provided was helpful otherwise. It reminded me that I can
remember things from 30 years ago, but not from last week.

On Nov 30, 10:17 am, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:

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

How do you explain Airline pilots ? For glorified bus drivers they
dont do too bad. And why do unionized carriers have better working
conditions than the non unionized carriers ?

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

How does Bertie do that laugh ?

(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.

MXMatt , not the old "Union Thugs " chesnut again ! Puhleezzzzzze.
Happy holidays Matt. How are things at the hospital.
FKB

"F. Baum" wrote in
:

On Nov 30, 10:17 am, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:

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

How do you explain Airline pilots ? For glorified bus drivers they
dont do too bad. And why do unionized carriers have better working
conditions than the non unionized carriers ?


How many bus drivers do you know who can recite the hydropaling speed of
their bus?

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

How does Bertie do that laugh ?


Bwawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahw!


If you use it there're royalties. You may place a couple of washers in
the nearest dogs for the blind can.

(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.

MXMatt , not the old "Union Thugs " chesnut again ! Puhleezzzzzze.
Happy holidays Matt. How are things at the hospital.


I think the basic problem here is that there's a failure to understand
that while ALPA, amongst others, are very much like unions, there are
some fundamental differences. Thus the "association" tag..



Bertie

On Nov 30, 10:56 am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
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

Robert, you bust me up something fierce !! We NEED to get together for
beers at Oshkosh. Once again your post is straight out of some
textbook with no real world value to it. Has it occured to you that
(By and large) most of these companies get the labor relations that
they deserve.
FB

On Nov 28, 9:42 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Robert M. Gary writes:

Since all business
involves risk, its not possible to ask someone to take risk but
guarantee that they never lose.

Why should employees take risks if they don't receive the benefits?

Are you asking why any employee would want to work for the private
sector when they could work for the gov't??? By accepting a job in the
private sector you are accepting risk. Private sector == risk, nothing
hard to understand about that. I used to work for the state of
California, I left that safety for the private sector. Clearly there
are benefits to working in the private sector (i.e. taking risk) or no
one would leave gov't jobs.

-Robert