Airlines Cut Minimum Pilot Experience to 500 hours and Below

Quick survey question: will every entrepreneure/excective/investor who
started a union shop in the United States please stand up?

I know a good number of such people, and an almost universal goal is
to keep their labor forces non-union. The MX school of management
seems to think it might be otherwise. I guess that school has the
same credentials as the MX flying school, the MX school of
medicine. . .

..


On Nov 30, 8:35 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Larry Dighera writes:
When the union is seen as a ready reservoir of skilled labor that they
have trained and tested, and their burgeoning function is secondary.

Unfortunately, the IBEW is not in that category, which is a problem for
employers, since they must take whoever is next in line, be he qualified or
not.

Starting a non-union shop fixes this.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

The issue you raise has more to do with the Reagan administration's
changes to labor laws and the influx of illegal immigrants than it
does with any flaws in the way the IBEW is structured. And it has
absolutely nothing to do with professional pilots.

all part of that vast right-wing conspiracy!!!

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Tina wrote in
:

Quick survey question: will every entrepreneure/excective/investor who
started a union shop in the United States please stand up?


I was union chair for two years, does that count?



Bertie

Bob Noel wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

The issue you raise has more to do with the Reagan administration's
changes to labor laws and the influx of illegal immigrants than it
does with any flaws in the way the IBEW is structured. And it has
absolutely nothing to do with professional pilots.

all part of that vast right-wing conspiracy!!!


Wow, reverse paranoia.


Kewl





Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
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.

No. In his first year in office, Reagan gave corporations
the wink/nod that government was entering a period of
"malign neglect" that continues to this day. Most changes
in labor law and policy since then have eroded worker
rights. Even Clinton intervened to prevent American pilots
from striking.

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.

Ignorant claptrap.

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.

"Almost became a socialist country"? Another silly
overstatement. That's like saying that America almost
became a collective farm when hippies started living in
communes.

I think unions are in many cases a demonstration that inept management
was at work. A union chair, huh? What style chair were you-- shaker?
No, they were not union, so you wouldn't have been in the early
American, style, either.

Ah, French!

Or electric.

Yeah, electric, a style not known for subtlity. Bertie, the Electric
Chair. That has a nice ring to it.


On Dec 1, 11:43 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Tina wrote :

Quick survey question: will every entrepreneure/excective/investor who
started a union shop in the United States please stand up?

I was union chair for two years, does that count?

Bertie

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:21:43 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

The issue you raise has more to do with the Reagan administration's
changes to labor laws and the influx of illegal immigrants than it
does with any flaws in the way the IBEW is structured. And it has
absolutely nothing to do with professional pilots.

Of course it does, in the manner that you brought it up.

Individuals who obtain their own education and ratings (electrical
licenses) are free to work where they choose.

Those individuals who trained through the union can only work on union
jobs, of which there are fewer and fewer, so they _don't_ work very
much.

The same would go for pilots if the ALPA trained them.

Illegals have nothing to do with the lack of union electrical work, as
they can't get an electrical license with illegal status.

Tina wrote in
:

I think unions are in many cases a demonstration that inept management
was at work.

Mmm, not really. There was a definite management style, though. I
suppose the union as started in the early days because of inept
management, though.

A union chair, huh? What style chair were you-- shaker?
No, they were not union, so you wouldn't have been in the early
American, style, either.

Ah, French!

Or electric.

Yeah, electric, a style not known for subtlity. Bertie, the Electric
Chair. That has a nice ring to it.


I wish. I was in opposition to one of the most infamous chief execs in
the industry. An electric chair would have been nice, actually.

The things I saw you would not believe. The second two most horrific
years of my life. Had to be done though, and I will definitely stand by
the statement I made earlier about safety most definitely being enhanced
by our membership.
There;s a world of difference between a bus drivers' union and a
pilot's, though. Most of what I was involved in was safety. Duty hours,
food availability, training expenditure. All airlines would like to
minimise their cost in these areas. How do you feel about having a pilot
that got that 5% less training or who's so tired he can't see straight?


Bertie



Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
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.

There are unions for doctors and lawyers. (None for Indian
chiefs that I know of, though.) They are a small minority
but they do exist. As a class, some of the highest paid
"professionals" (to use the term somewhat loosely, but it
still fits) are professional athletes, who are unionized in
the major "big ticket" sports.

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

True. The market disciplines workers who over-price their
services just as it disciplines corporations. Thanks for
proving that unions are not "omnipotent" and cannot
"dictate" terms.

But that is what unions do. The purpose of a union is to
grain
compensation packages beyond what the free market

That depends on your definition of a free market - which,
strictly speaking, doesn't exist anyway except conceptually
as the laissez-faire theory. Every economic system imposes
constraints. And most of the direct benefits of the entire
system of such constraints go to the owners, not the
workers.

would offer by
restricting what employees an employer can hire (i.e. you
can't just
hire someone else when the union strikes

What do you think a scab is? As has been noted here,
workers can be replaced at will in an economic strike.

to demonstrate that their
demands are in excess of the market). Unions avoid the
free market by
dictating terms across the board.

Dictating? YGBSM. Absent a union, it is the employer who
dictates. As long as he doesn't break any other laws (such
as hiring discrimination), he may dictate terms in a way
that attracts and keeps skilled, productive workers (which
not coincidentally makes unionizing less attractive), or
that encourages turnover (perhaps even as a deliberate
policy) and attracts only those willing (or desperate)
enough to work on those terms.

Unions have to negotiate the sale of labor, just as
third-party suppliers have to negotiate the sale of their
products and services to the employer. That's why it's
called "bargaining".

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)

Unions don't "dictate" wages, benefits and working
conditions. If that were true, janitors would be making
six-figure incomes.

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.

Every aspect of every job, unionized or not, is affected by
market conditions. Market conditions for the sale and
purchase of labor vary locally and change over time. So
does the market for cars - the manufacturers also have had
to adjust to the fact that nowadays it takes more than just
bigger fins and more chrome to attract buyers.

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

There you go again with ridiculous overstatements.

that they did in the 70s.
What people forget is that these excess wages (excess to
what the
market would dictate)

Again, which market? One where employers can dictate terms
and are constrained only by their own needs because no
individual can come close to matching the power of a
corporation, or one that attempts to balance this power by
allowing workers to exercise the power of numbers?

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.

Management decided to produce those crappy cars, not the
workers. Imports made inroads into the domestic markets for
two reasons. Low-end models, where price competition is
most intense, were produced by cheap overseas labor (mostly
Asian). At the other end of the spectrum, European makers
started giving consumers the option to buy vehicles with
better engineering and features. Later, the Asian makers
learned to exploit that end of the market, too, because
cheap costs and pricing will only get you the bottom end of
the market. American car makers probably would still be
profitable today (even with union wages) if all they had to
concede was the market for small, cheap sedans, which don't
command premium prices.

I suppose the unions just thought automakers would just
print
extra money in the basement in order to meet the union's
salary demands.

No. All contract bargaining is predicated on both parties
acting rationally in the sense that neither side would
accept terms that are impossible to meet (both short- and
long-term). It's not the union's responsibility to
determine whether an employer can stay in business if it
meets a given proposal, any more than it's the employer's
responsibility to determine whether or how well its workers
can live on what the company is offering to pay. It's like
any other transaction: You put your offer on the table, the
other side considers the cost, benefits, *and consequences*
of the deal, and accepts or rejects it.

Maxwell writes:

Is that the official position of the "International Brotherhood of French
Speaking English Teachers"?

No, it is the unofficial position of electrical contractors, and has been for
decades.