skydog
New Member
I'm not blaming anybody. I'm just saying that long term, sustainable wage increases are related to profits, not who is in the White House.
Airline pay and Obama
- Thread starter greaper007
- Start date
I'm not blaming anybody. I'm just saying that long term, sustainable wage increases are related to profits, not who is in the White House.
Nick
Well-Known Member
Profits or lack of profits drive how many pilots are needed or not needed.
The wage increases or decreases clearly have not had much long-term effect on profits in the past few years. The business is either going to make money, or lose money. And if the airline wants to lose money they will find a way to show that.
For instance, $100+ oil and paycuts aren't going to do much. The whole operation would need to change.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
I am laughing at your comment. It would appear that you somehow, someway think President Obama will come in with his magic wand and make things better with Prater at his side.
Something I seriously doubt but keep your fingers crossed, okay?
Nick
Well-Known Member
The resounding theme in this thread has not been that, but rather, that anything other than the Bush NMB will be give at least slightly more leverage to labor instead of management.
skydog
New Member
I didn't say that profits are related to wages. I said wages are related to profits. There's a difference. They're a lot of reasons why airlines don't make a profit. But without a profit, you're not going to see significant wage increases.
ladder360
Well-Known Member
Perhaps it deserves it's own thread, but there was an interesting article on MSNBC today about labor unions and Obama...
"Unions Seeking Payback for Helping Obama"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27649167/
Discuss.
"Unions Seeking Payback for Helping Obama"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27649167/
Discuss.
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
Wanna adjust those payrates for inflation? That's like saying movies gross more now than in the 70s. Yeah, that's 'cause ticket prices are higher. In relative terms, we're making less now than pilots in the 70s thanks to inflation and the lack of wages keeping up with them. Might have had MORE airline strikes under Bush if he hadn't said upfront that he'd stop them. Here's one for American FAs, June 26, 2001:
Here's the United mechanics, February 2002:
Northwest, March 13, 2001:
Clinton issued a PEB for American in 97. So, Clinton stopped one strike. By my count, Bush stopped 3. Possibly more since anyone else after 2002 would have known they'd get stopped in their tracks if they even made it past the NMB. I think the fact that more strikes were STOPPED by the Bush admin than allowed is a more telling stat.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
The Obama appointees to the NMB (he gets to pick two of the three) will likely not be made until at least the spring. We have another 6-9 months of dealing with the Bush NMB, unfortunately. However, the Obama appointees will make life much easier for labor as soon as they're in place. There's no doubt about that.
Polar, Mesaba, and World were also authorized to strike, but all of those cases involved management wanting the release in order to break the union. Repeated requests for releases by labor were ignored. Only when management wanted a release was the NMB willing to go along with it. It's sad just how transparently pro-management these Shrub appointees are.
This is a key point. A pro-labor NMB won't need to release unions to strike, because management already has the motivation to get the deal done without it getting to that point. They know from the get-go that a release is inevitable if they don't bargain in good faith, which is the polar opposite of the current situation in which they know that there will never be a release unless they want one. The goal isn't to strike, the goal is to reach a good deal, and a pro-labor NMB will get you that deal without needing to strike.
Join the club.
Nah, you've got it all wrong. Our esteemed soon-to-be-former leader got it right: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Just to be perfectly clear, Clinton only stopped that strike by issuing a PEB at the request of the APA. Clinton's Chief White House Counsel, Bruce Lindsey, called the APA President and asked him what they wanted President Clinton to do. The APA's response: "Well, let me just say that we wouldn't be opposed to a PEB." If the APA had wanted that strike, Clinton would have given it to them.
Polar, Mesaba, and World were also authorized to strike, but all of those cases involved management wanting the release in order to break the union. Repeated requests for releases by labor were ignored. Only when management wanted a release was the NMB willing to go along with it. It's sad just how transparently pro-management these Shrub appointees are.
This is a key point. A pro-labor NMB won't need to release unions to strike, because management already has the motivation to get the deal done without it getting to that point. They know from the get-go that a release is inevitable if they don't bargain in good faith, which is the polar opposite of the current situation in which they know that there will never be a release unless they want one. The goal isn't to strike, the goal is to reach a good deal, and a pro-labor NMB will get you that deal without needing to strike.
Join the club.
Nah, you've got it all wrong. Our esteemed soon-to-be-former leader got it right: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Just to be perfectly clear, Clinton only stopped that strike by issuing a PEB at the request of the APA. Clinton's Chief White House Counsel, Bruce Lindsey, called the APA President and asked him what they wanted President Clinton to do. The APA's response: "Well, let me just say that we wouldn't be opposed to a PEB." If the APA had wanted that strike, Clinton would have given it to them.
A couple of issues on why it's important who is in the white house.
Cabotage - If the president wants to erode cabotage laws and let foreign carriers fly point to point in the United States, it will drive wages lower because of increased competition. Everyone loves to say, "Look at wonderful Ireland!" Ireland has absolutely laughable labor laws and we would have to compete with that. Take a peek at Ryan Air.
Collective Bargaining - One of the candidates, luckily not the one who was elected was a proponent of baseball-style arbitration/"Winner Takes All". Labor brings it's demands, the Company brings theirs and an arbitrator decides which package is more reasonable. A semi recent example is a legislation whose name rhymes with "Shmccain-Lott"
Off the top of my head, there are a number of items like the "Airline Industry Lost Retirement Act" that for many of us, would provide for a lot of help, especially those that are nearing mandatory retirement. If el Presidente thinks we're a bunch of whining, unpatriotic crybabies, chances of legislation such as that getting signed are slim to none.
The president doesn't have a magic bullet, but as labor, his philosophies toward labor can have a positive or a very negative affect when it comes to negotiating contracts.
I've been through a strike and maybe four different contract cycles so I'm not speaking as an academic.
Cabotage - If the president wants to erode cabotage laws and let foreign carriers fly point to point in the United States, it will drive wages lower because of increased competition. Everyone loves to say, "Look at wonderful Ireland!" Ireland has absolutely laughable labor laws and we would have to compete with that. Take a peek at Ryan Air.
Collective Bargaining - One of the candidates, luckily not the one who was elected was a proponent of baseball-style arbitration/"Winner Takes All". Labor brings it's demands, the Company brings theirs and an arbitrator decides which package is more reasonable. A semi recent example is a legislation whose name rhymes with "Shmccain-Lott"
Off the top of my head, there are a number of items like the "Airline Industry Lost Retirement Act" that for many of us, would provide for a lot of help, especially those that are nearing mandatory retirement. If el Presidente thinks we're a bunch of whining, unpatriotic crybabies, chances of legislation such as that getting signed are slim to none.
The president doesn't have a magic bullet, but as labor, his philosophies toward labor can have a positive or a very negative affect when it comes to negotiating contracts.
I've been through a strike and maybe four different contract cycles so I'm not speaking as an academic.
skydog
New Member
I concede your point that the person in the white house can make a difference. The question them becomes, is the difference good or bad? I tend to think Obama's philosophy's, if they are as they seem to be, are bad, and here's why.
Cabotage is no problem as long as: 1) foreign carriers are required to conform to the same laws as American carriers when operating in this country, and 2) American carriers are given the same opportunity in other countries. It has to be reciprocal. If it's competition you're afraid of, then I don't know what to tell you. Competition is the american economy and way of life. It brings out the best in everything, for the benefit of everybody. If American labor law is so much better than the aforementioned Irish labor law, how long do you think it will be before those Irish employees start clamoring for law american style (a little 70's tv lingo there). Either that, or they'll decide they don't want to work for companies that don't have American business practices.
Airline labor enjoys an advantage that most workers don't. Effectively, they cannot be replaced, for three reasons: 1) pilots and mechanics are highly trained and skilled workers. It's not like the employer can just go out and hire someone of the street to replace them. 2) The legally sanctioned training requirements are such that replacments can only be hired and trained a few at a time. Trying to replace 1000 employees two dozen at a time would take a lot longer than any company could likely survive. 3) ALPA and the other unions have been successful at seizing the moral high ground in labor disputes. It's doubtful that an airline could recruit anywhere near the numbers of people they would need in the time they would have. All this means that a strike of any length would likely kill the company. If McCain-Lott prevents a strike, then I see that as leveling the playing field.
Why should the law allow employees to destroy a company? Employees are not risk takers. They show up, put in a day's work, and at the end of the day, get paid. If the company didn't make any money that day, they still get paid. They lose nothing. Contrast that with the owner, who goes home with nothing, or even less than what he started with.
There is also a larger concern. There has to be an incentive to take a risk. Just as employees want the security of a paycheck, the owner/investor wants the rewards of his risk taking. If there is no reward, then there is no incentive to take risk, hence no reason to start a business. That doesn't create jobs.
Why is arbitration something to be feared? If employees are truly worth the wages they are asking, the arbitrator will understand that and decide appropriately. He has to. If he returns a wage too low, than the employees will go elsewhere. How does that help the employer? If he returns a wage too high, the company is at a competitive disadvantage and will likely go out of business. How does that help the employer or the employee?
Cabotage is no problem as long as: 1) foreign carriers are required to conform to the same laws as American carriers when operating in this country, and 2) American carriers are given the same opportunity in other countries. It has to be reciprocal. If it's competition you're afraid of, then I don't know what to tell you. Competition is the american economy and way of life. It brings out the best in everything, for the benefit of everybody. If American labor law is so much better than the aforementioned Irish labor law, how long do you think it will be before those Irish employees start clamoring for law american style (a little 70's tv lingo there). Either that, or they'll decide they don't want to work for companies that don't have American business practices.
Airline labor enjoys an advantage that most workers don't. Effectively, they cannot be replaced, for three reasons: 1) pilots and mechanics are highly trained and skilled workers. It's not like the employer can just go out and hire someone of the street to replace them. 2) The legally sanctioned training requirements are such that replacments can only be hired and trained a few at a time. Trying to replace 1000 employees two dozen at a time would take a lot longer than any company could likely survive. 3) ALPA and the other unions have been successful at seizing the moral high ground in labor disputes. It's doubtful that an airline could recruit anywhere near the numbers of people they would need in the time they would have. All this means that a strike of any length would likely kill the company. If McCain-Lott prevents a strike, then I see that as leveling the playing field.
Why should the law allow employees to destroy a company? Employees are not risk takers. They show up, put in a day's work, and at the end of the day, get paid. If the company didn't make any money that day, they still get paid. They lose nothing. Contrast that with the owner, who goes home with nothing, or even less than what he started with.
There is also a larger concern. There has to be an incentive to take a risk. Just as employees want the security of a paycheck, the owner/investor wants the rewards of his risk taking. If there is no reward, then there is no incentive to take risk, hence no reason to start a business. That doesn't create jobs.
Why is arbitration something to be feared? If employees are truly worth the wages they are asking, the arbitrator will understand that and decide appropriately. He has to. If he returns a wage too low, than the employees will go elsewhere. How does that help the employer? If he returns a wage too high, the company is at a competitive disadvantage and will likely go out of business. How does that help the employer or the employee?
Wow, just wow.
Do you want to take this one?
v1valarob
Well-Known Member
Its not the actual labor laws, because they would have to follow labor laws. However because of the weak dollar, they can afford to pay much less than what American carriers have to pay. And goes the other way, if an American airline opened up a hub in say Europe, they would have to pay much higher wages than they pay over here just for people to survive. Government doesn't control pilot pay, the company does.
The European carrier already has an advantage, and can use that advantage to drive prices down. Essentially knocking out American run airlines.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
I'll try.
I'm going to keep it simple skydog and ask what type of world you live in?
You must live in a world where a company goes bankrupt, you have tens of thousands of people lose their jobs, billions of dollars in pensions, retirements, and savings liquidated and the business leaders of that company PAY those people back.
The world I live in is where the above is said, except the business leaders of the company land on their golden parachute with government bailouts.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
I just shake my head.
Why do you guys even try persuading skydog anymore? I'm done taking the bait, if I might suggest the rest of us also lay off.
You can't convince a Capitalist that trade unions in the aviation industry are good things. You just can't.
Why do you guys even try persuading skydog anymore? I'm done taking the bait, if I might suggest the rest of us also lay off.
You can't convince a Capitalist that trade unions in the aviation industry are good things. You just can't.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I certainly won't. I'm done with him. As Surreal has pointed out multiple times now, Skydog has no vested interest in any of this. He isn't an air line pilot. He hasn't been for a while. He should stick to dealing with issues in whatever profession he's in now. As for this profession, he's completely clueless.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I feel ya dawg, it's hard to keep doing it day in, day out when you know you're not getting anywhere.
skydog
New Member
None taken.
