Unions - Important questions

ScottG

ScottG

Well-Known Member
DISCLAIMER: These are just questions I have as I have had family members in unions and a brother with a economics and finance degree working on taking the LSAT. Don't jump on me cause I really am trying to see the need\benefit for unions.

I have several family members who are former union, my brother as stated above and all of his past instructors telling me the negatives of unions in the modern workforce. So seeing as how I am seeking employment in a union workforce I am still trying to find someone who can rebuff their points which I will lay out as best I can in limited space.

1. With the successes realized world wide of truly free market systems, how is it possible to justify unions that establish artificial values for their workforce when time has shown that a free market with eventually reach optimal equilibrium. That means as far as safety(low time pilots) as well as pilot pay\benefits (at all levels).

2. Based on the above, how can union members think that they get to choose their pay when that is not what the market has set for them. Safety is not a valid point here because if low time pilots undercutting other pilots were to become unsafe it is assured that the public will demand more experience (which means more pay). Basically, what the pilots think they deserve and what the market says they deserve are very different values. Undercutting is the reason for economic advance again as it is what establishes the most efficient market.

3. Management is not dumb\abusive\evil. They do want to get rich. In a free market they are the one who get rich. The union members regardless of what they believe\have been taught, are not entitled to any given share of what the company makes. A free market is with out argument the best economy out there and in a free market management makes the money(sorry labor).

All this being said it is unknown what the market value is for a pilot, without unions eventually the market value might even exceed the current union value due to more efficient ops. Regardless, the supply of pilots along with acceptable safety as deemed by the public are (among other factors)what should set market value.

I had to type semi-fast here as I have some pressing matters, also please see above disclaimer, I DO encourage people with first hand knowledge to give me knowledgeable points proving these statement false. Even as it stands for my own personal gains I would belong to a union as I see the non union pilots and that doesn't look fun BUT until I see otherwise, I can't help but think - and don't hate cause I am waiting for info - "I could be a future scab". I throw myself at the mercy of the public, prove me wrong.:confused:
 
ScottG said:
The union members regardless of what they believe\have been taught, are not entitled to any given share of what the company makes.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your brother failed to explain that employees (yes, lowly, lowly pilots even) are included in the stakeholder umbrella. What I mean is, along with shareholders, management, creditors, and vendors, employees hold a stake in the company as well. It makes no sense to exclude a blue collar worker; otherwise, what's the incentive to work? The stake I'm talking about is a job that pays a livable wage with good working conditions. Certainly firms have a social responsibility in this respect....

ScottG said:
A free market is with out argument the best economy out there and in a free market management makes the money(sorry labor).
Click to expand...

Even in the US, markets are not entirely free. Do you disagree with government subsidy of agriculture, which "artificially" keeps food prices low? Or with federal control of interest rates, which has an "artificial" effect on the money supply? Or with OPEC, a cartel of oil suppliers who collectively limit supply to maximize their returns? Is that anti-capitalism? I ask because it certainly isn't representative of a "free market."


ScottG said:
Even as it stands for my own personal gains I would belong to a union as I see the non union pilots and that doesn't look fun
Click to expand...

ScottG said:
I throw myself at the mercy of the public, prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

Didn't you just do that yourself?

The study of economics may indeed raise some questions as to the necessity of labor unions in our economic system. However, economics, being a social science, shouldn't be viewed strictly in the context of "supply and demand" or "free markets" or "planned economic systems." It has more to do with policy, choice, and their effects on the lives of people. Because of this, what's deemed "best" for us (as a social system) often lies somewhere in the middle of black and white.
 
I said I would join a union for my immediate personal gain but at the same time it seems selfish it is not in the best interest of the economy (as it seems to this point). The motivation to work hard and efficiently come from I believe, the need to keep a job and make the money, not the fact that a union has provided a good environment. And while the US government has made some markets less than free it is usually due to our will to not be overwhelmed in foreign markets as farmers currently are. OPEC - not a U.S. institution - is not good for anyone but OPEC members, and yes it is very anti-capitalistic but that is dealing with a limited resource not necessarily a traditional business model, and as such I don't really have a problem with it(it still sucks for oil users though). Good points WAFlyBoy but I still think that if a market is truly free, won't it achieve high profits and then good working conditions by itself?
 
I think you're overstating the power of unions to make them appear detrimental. Unions do not enable their membership to "choose their own pay" any more than a non-unionized employee is able to, in fact they may have less individual negotiating power. Pay is still agreed upon by the company, the difference is collective bargaining vs. individual bargaining. Instead of one person quitting when they get fed up, they all quit (strike). Unionism also helps eliminate things like favoritism and nepotism in the workplace, especially when it comes to pilots. These are concepts that don't exist in the perfect world of some economic model but do exist in real life. I would argue that since most airline pilots are close to equal when it comes to job performance, collective bargaining works since there is little benefit in selectivey choosing who to promote/demote and when. Unions cannot stop supply and demand. They can slow down reaction times in order to ensure more equitable outcomes for the economic stakeholders known as employees. Union negotiations help to eliminate knee jerk reactions by companies. Even so, the negotations are still driven by basic economic princples, not some magical union voodoo that equates to so called "artificial salaries".

Again, there is nothing artificial about a union negotiated salary. Many unions negotiate pay cuts just as they negotiate pay raises. You make it sound as if no unionized employee has ever agreed to a pay cut. Just look at the airlines after 9/11. Many did just that becase they saw the writing on the wall.

I hope we are not doing someone's homework assignment, becaus this sounds suspiciously like a series of essay questions from a macroeconomics assignment :D

Lastly if you don't believe the employees are supposed to share in the prosperity of the company, then I suggest you take a business ethics class. Employees are an asset the company, just like management. The company can't run without either. Sure, most employees may be more readily replaceable than talented management, but in some cases employees with specific and specialized skills (like pilots) warrant relatively high pay. The company has to look at factors such as the cost to train a pilot as well as the limited number of individuals who are physically/mentally able to perform the job before they risk increasing attrition. The US and global economies aren't absolute free-market systems. This fact alone is should answer most of your original questions. You seem to be an economic idealist, but you should realize that the real world isn't a perfect vacuum in which free market economics can flow without diruption. Things like governments, people, and the environment get in the way.
 
Thank you ever so much Alchemy, that is the closest anyone has ever come to giving me what I want to hear. I guess you could say I am somewhat (though not entirely) and economic idealist. I might use a little of what you gave me to run by my peeps and see what their rebuttal is, cause while I can think on my own very capably, I enjoy hearing my brother talk on the subject. Also, while you comment is very helpful, there are still a few things that bother me......

1. Are people in unions GENERALLY angry when management ala CEO's get multi million dollar paychecks\benefits because I have seen this a little on this site (not an attack) as well as almost like hate videos bashing management? (just a question as I have never been a union member I don't know the true feeling towards this) It bugs me with my current understanding that NWA people are mad that they took a pay cut when management got millions, cause it is simply supply and demand. Millions is what it requires to bring in the talent to run any business not to mention any business as complex as one of aviation, isn't it?

2. Although I agree to some extent that union negotiated salaries are not far from the non union market value when everything is all said and done. It still seem a little monopolistic and unfair to use collective bargaining when a company is sometimes made to fight with one hand. It should be ultimately the companies right to hire non union employees. But I know that is not REALLY possible most of the time. (Underlined cause this is my biggest concern)


I do agree with certain rules like job protection given the nature of a pilots work place (loaded with FAR's) and with similar pilot ability a seniority system makes sense. But I think these could exist without unions, maybe not right away, but they would be seen as necessary by all parties.

Thanks for the input guys I feel a little less guilty about working for an airline (can I say that????:confused:) and I hope you don't feel like you have to "convince" me I just want productive conversation so everyone from lurkers\posters\casual readers\webmasters might gain a little more insight one way or another. As if the union deal hasn't been beating into the ground already.:whatever: I think the dialog so far has been very fresh and hopefully I don't come across unfavorably.
 
ScottG said:
1. Are people in unions GENERALLY angry when management ala CEO's get multi million dollar paychecks\benefits because I have seen this a little on this site (not an attack) as well as almost like hate videos bashing management?
Click to expand...

I personally don't think it's just people in unions that get upset about CEO's taking these huge benefits packages. I am not a pilot yet and have never worked for a union, but as a non union employee at a retail store, I can say that EVERYONE....even the management, resented it when Bob Nardelli took his $210 million compensation package that included $20 million in cash severance and $32 million in retirement benefits.

*edit* Bob Nardelli was the former CEO of Home Depot- He even took that severance package AFTER he drove the company into the ground.

I think that WaFlyboy and Alchemy are right in saying that the EMPLOYEES are also a stake in the company. the big wigs are not the only ones to help a company be successful because unless they want to fly the planes or stand behind the customer service desk themselves, the company has to hire employees and treat them fairly to make them want to stay. Treating your employees well reflects on the level of service that they give to the paying customers, which drives business.
 
pedex said:
Treating your employees well reflects on the level of service that they give to the paying customers, which drives business.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Take a look at the stock returns of the Fortune best companies to work versus the S&P 500.

Companies in that list outperform the S&P 500.
 
pedex said:
In terms of flying the line, does it matter which one I read first? A friend of mine gave me Volume 2 which I believe is the second half century of ALPA's history. Is it that neccesary to read the begining as well?
Click to expand...


I thought personally that Vol1 was much better than Vol2 at showing the early abuses of pilots by companies and management in a non-union environment, and thus the rationale behind union formation. II seemed to focus more about the backfighting between different factions within ALPA over the latter years. Those are my impressions, it's been 8 years since I read them.
 
Thanks MD- I'm gonna pick up volume one so that I read them in order (for history's sake)

sorry for the quick hijack Scottg
 
ScottG said:
3. Management is not dumb\abusive\evil. They do want to get rich. In a free market they are the one who get rich. The union members regardless of what they believe\have been taught, are not entitled to any given share of what the company makes. A free market is with out argument the best economy out there and in a free market management makes the money(sorry labor).
Click to expand...

This item makes no sense. If you are talking about entrepreneurs/owners they are the ones that take the risk, start the companies and create the jobs. Most of them work their guts out. If they are wrong they can lose everything.

If they are employing skilled workers, much in demand, they can expect to pay high salaries to get them.

Most of them know the value of a thriving economy and community. Most of them don't believe it's a zero sum game and that they can only get rich by abusing or taking advantage of others.

Free markets and entrepreneurship have done more for labor than any other system out there. It's not even close.

Having said that, no system is perfect and there are few truly free markets out there. Someone always has to try to control it, usually "for the common good". Unions can have a positive impact for all concerned. They can also take seriously wrong turns and end up hurting the very workers they are supposed to be helping. Evidence the relentless drive by AFL-CIO to punish business and steer the country towards socialism the inevitable result of which would be less jobs and lower pay. Go figure.

ALPA has a very important place in air transport, imo. And they have done a pretty good job of controlling the reactionary, self-destructive impulses that have destroyed many unions. The ALPA has probably done more for air safety than any single organization. It absolutely has made pay and working conditions better than they would have been without it. It would be a damned shame to lose it.
 
I'm reading Vol I right now. I had already started Vol 2, and I'm glad I stopped and went back. There's a lot of ground work laid earlier on that is built upon later (and continues to be built upon) that's crucial to know.

To those that think management isn't abusive or doesn't take advantages of thier employees, you really DO need to read these books. When they say history repeats itself, it can't be any clearer than it is when you're reading Flying the Line and then read up on current industry news. Pretty much everything that management is attempting now has been attempted before. TWA had a union VERY similar to what Skywest has now (and what Colgan is getting).

The guys that say the job is extremely cool and they'd love to fly a jet no matter what the pay is who the unions are fighting. Those are the guys that don't really know what the job is about and would cause the wages to fall through the floor if the free market were allowed to work its "magic." It doesn't help that a lot of schools use the actually cool parts of the job as marketing tools and conveniently leave out the cons of the job.

Plus, I don't think you can say the airline industry is a "free market" since it's so regulated by the government. It's a good thing, too. I see how many MX corners are already cut on a daily basis. I can only imagine what would happen without the feds checking up once in a while. People tend to forget that ALPA has made HUGE strides in public safety as far as airlines go. Next time someone starts talking about the evils of unions, ask them how safe they felt on their last airline flight, then tell them why it was so safe.
 
ScottG said:
It should be ultimately the companies right to hire non union employees. But I know that is not REALLY possible most of the time. (Underlined cause this is my biggest concern)
Click to expand...


That's true, but employees also should have the right to unionize, especially when companies are not treating/paying (or you could call it cheating) their employees what is socially right. For instance, extremely low pay and 12-14 hour work days was great for profits but not for the employees back in the beginning of last century. So, for the good of the employees they ought to have the right to speak out against that.

It's also true that Unions can become greedy just like management/companies and thus there are two sides to the coin, so to speak.
 
Good stuff guys, a few more questions for ya, based on you comments.

1. Service. I agree 100%. I like SWA, they show a video to their employees(former employee) called "Give them the pickle" about customer service, and it is apparent that happy employees give better service and better service equals more profits. BUT, given the trend of a free market to seek performance, wouldn't employees be given what would make them happy if it was possible in long run without unions?(the Fortune companies would think so)

2. Management again, I think that ultimately owners\shareholders(majority, not employee)\and management own the company shouldn't they determine how much of the money the company makes is theirs by setting pay with a take it or leave it kinda thing?

3. Banning unions would be unconstitutional as I understand it and I am all for the right to unionize. BUT, why shouldn't management be allowed to fire union personnel to bust them? If management is abusive on the other hand employees quit, its kinda like a check and balance system.



Great stuff again guys keep it coming, also never heard of the literature I will certainly look into it. THANKS:rawk:
 
" If a company is
worth being associated with, it must
demonstrate its real interest in its
people at a time when the chips appear
to be down."​

William A. Patterson.....

This and other sentiments of employees as assets and stakeholders were hallmarks of his time in management. Contrast this eminently successful executive with his contemporary....Was he a push-over when it came to dealing with unions? Not to my knowledge-my understanding is he was a shrewd and tough executive, who understood the importance of the contribution each employee group made.

If you are unfamiliar with "Pat" Patterson I am sure you will be acquainted with him in a business ethics class.

I just wonder why it is seen as anti free market for an individual with a rare skillset to group with others with the same skillset to maximize their share of the pie....seems like the free market in practice.

I suppose one of the problems with the "vote with your feet" philosophy of handling bad management is when more and more management teams are rewarded for abusing people, for short term gain, as opposed to long term business success, it leaves people, especially professionals with tremendous amounts invested in their careers, with little or no options. Some of the skillsets required in the labor pool surpass those of management, therefore requiring those professionals to take steps to protect themselves from those with the purse strings and potentially lacking ethics.

Blah blah blah. Please excuse my unfocused musings....
 
ScottG said:
Good stuff guys, a few more questions for ya, based on you comments.

1. Service. I agree 100%. I like SWA, they show a video to their employees(former employee) called "Give them the pickle" about customer service, and it is apparent that happy employees give better service and better service equals more profits. BUT, given the trend of a free market to seek performance, wouldn't employees be given what would make them happy if it was possible in long run without unions?(the Fortune companies would think so) Maybe, but the long run does not seem to always be a concern to management or majority shareholders. If it is, management in its duty would, in a purely free labor marketplace, find the lowest price for a given labor group or individual while balancing competence, "service". Unfortunately long term thinking is not necessarily rewarded or a priority (mesa) and therefore requires people to band together to protect themselves from the tyranny of the minority in power.

2. Management again, I think that ultimately owners\shareholders(majority, not employee)\and management own the company shouldn't they determine how much of the money the company makes is theirs by setting pay with a take it or leave it kinda thing? Labor, again, since they own their skills and services, can band together and make a price for management-take it or leave it. We have recently seen on more than one occasion, unionized mechanics at Northwest, ramp at Alaska, management basically say "thanks but no thanks." Globalization is a key component in the bulwarist arsenal, I think more and more management has the arrow in its quiver to dictate terms. The concessions the UAW made this week show how simple job security is taking precedence over "gravy" like retirements and high wages.

3. Banning unions would be unconstitutional as I understand it and I am all for the right to unionize. BUT, why shouldn't management be allowed to fire union personnel to bust them? If management is abusive on the other hand employees quit, its kinda like a check and balance system. Well, I sort of gave my opinion of "vote with your feet" earlier. If you have a more or less malevolent management class, you are left with little options unless you can take them to task. A ticket agent or ramper deserves to be paid well, however their skills can easily be used anywhere and are found readily, so they are not paid well, and can therefore "vote with their feet". An engineer, pilot, scientist, etc. all have tremendous amounts invested in their skills, however unlike other professions like a lawyer or doctor who are a lawyer or doctor wherever they go, their skills are not portable-no airplane, no need for a pilot. Professional associations and unions come in here.


Great stuff again guys keep it coming, also never heard of the literature I will certainly look into it. THANKS:rawk:
Click to expand...
 
Isn't the lowest price\pay for a labor group, regardless of how much is invested into their skill set, the right price? What is wrong with someone working for the lowest price management is willing to offer, given that if that price is in fact too low there will not be people willing to work? While it sounds ludicrous given what people are conditioned to think they deserve based on history and training cost etc., is 20,000\year for a regional FO really below current market value if people are willing to work for that (I think that if that was the price for long there would be less supply of pilots thus driving up the price till it reached equilibrium)? Keep in mind "deserve" does not exist in a free market.

(Again speaking kinda on what would create the "best" aviation economy\market ala greater profits, lower prices, better technology and eventually better pay)
 
Depends on the work force and the market. You don't hear of doctors and lawyers right outta school saying "Cool! I get to work in a big, shiny hospital! I'll do it for less than the other guy with more experience b/c it's neat." You do in aviation. Why? B/c there's a "cool" factor associated with aviation. Sadly, the downsides such as the high cost of training, the long hours away from home, the constant "on your toes" you have to keep if management or the FAA is breathing down your neck (sometimes quite literally) and the physical condition you have to maintain in order to keep your job. Those things tend to be left out of the press and the glossy flight school ads. So, people only see the neat stuff and have a distorted sense of what being a pilot is based on the 60s and movies like "Catch Me If You Can."

Some of the biggest complainers are the first year FOs because they didn't do their research.
 
I agree 100%, if people did a little research there would certainly be less supply of pilots, thus higher pay with no need for unions.:crazy:

But in all seriousness, I hear ya. It will be realized soon enough though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top