Union vs non-Union question...

Thanks, fixed the quote. :)

I agree. It's hard to pinpoint where exactly we fit into the traditional categories of blue/white collar. Our actual job activities and responsibilities put us in the white collar camp, but our hourly wage and union affiliation tend to lean towards blue collar. As long as pilots remember that we're part of the overall labor movement, then I don't think the titles matter all that much.
 
No matter what they pay you, unless you've included the capital (or part of it) to run the business you are still simply a laborer, perhaps a highly paid or highly skilled one though.

The difference between pilots and doctors and lawyers is that doctors and lawyers routinely start their own business or practice or firm or become partners in one -- they are directly involved with the capital of the business.

Don, even as a captain at UPS, and even making a very nice salary is still a skilled laborer. Doctors and lawyers may negotiate well or poorly also based on their individual skills and the fact that their customers are most of the times the end consumer of their product -- some may be exceptional litigators and may demand a premium for their time. As a pilot you are either qualified or not qualified, even if you're the best in the industry. I think we've all gone over the threads based on merit promotions and can see why this is.

So, and I'm going to continue to use Don in my examples -- sorry if you don't approve, in a hypothetical attempt of him going to attempt to negotiate by himself at UPS (in a world without unions), something like this may occur:
Don: Hey, boss... I've been flying these 767s for a long time now as FO and I think it's time to upgrade.
UPS: Why, I think you're right, Don.
Don: Great! I've been looking forward to this pay increase so I could buy a gold-plated back scratcher.
UPS: Pay increase? What do you mean?
Don: Uh, you have increased responsibilities and therefore increased compensation. That's how it works?
UPS: Well, you will have increased compensation compared with the guy we're finding to take your old job. We're paying him half of what we are paying you now! He seems to think it is a great deal.
Don: I don't think this is a good deal for me.
UPS: Well, you can take it or leave it. And by leave it, I mean quit. With the great number of furloughs from AA, CAL and DAL we've got a number of candidates who are qualified to captain a 767 from outside and they seem to think the salary we'd offer you is a lot better than not eating.
Don: ####! If only there was something we could dooooooo! :( :( :(
Click to expand...
 
cre8flyer said:
I'm not saying it is good and I'm not saying it is bad. I'm saying that your beloved union had no impact except to slow the process down. I can't figure out why you think they're so great.
Click to expand...

You didn't ask me, but *I* think they're so great because I work for a company that doesn't have one and uses it to their advantage. I am getting a good lesson on exactly how important they are. Although there are rumors of some pretty good changes to stuff here... mainly becuase of the high turnover of pilots trying to go to <gasp> unionized companies.

I agree on the low time thing, which is why I'm asking questions. However, the responses I'm receiving are emotional appeals and insults, which are not very convincing.
Click to expand...
 
Chris_Ford said:
hellfrozeover.png
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who thinks this is effin hilarious??? :laff:
 
A point to ponder...

The general wisdom is that airline employees would be worse off if their companies were not union. However, airline unions, or at least ALPA, have been around since the 1930's, which pretty much corresponds with the birth of the modern airline industry. For the most part, the airline industry has never operated in a non-union environment, so we don't actually know what would have transpired in such an environment.

What we do know is this: In over seventy years of a unionized airline industry, there has only been one stable, consistently profitable airline. Why is that? Is it because, in all that time, only one person has ever learned how to manage an airline and its people? That seems unlikely to me.

No doubt the industry certainly has seen its share of robber barons (Lorenzo, Icahn, Ornstein), but to hold the unions blameless for the state of the industry is a bit unrealistic. The unions certainly shoulder their share of blame as well. The featherbedding work rules and the artificially propped up wages propogated by the unions certainly have an impact on profitability, which is the first thing you need if you want a stable, secure airline.
 
Skydog, just a suggestion.

If you're going to say
Skydog said:
In over seventy years of a unionized airline industry, there has only been one stable, consistently profitable airline.
Click to expand...

At least tell us what airline it is . . . if not for everyone else, for me. :)

And second, do you mean by being profitable in the sense of from Day 1 through the 70 years, to today profitable? Or that year over year, they maintained a profit from the past year?
 
Skydog, have you ever worked at a nonunion carrier with no commuter clause and no CASS? Have you ever worked at a nonunion carrier with a non matching 401K plan, expensive health care, and work rules that change depending who you talk to or your status with a crew scheduler (like you are sleeping with them so you get better treatment/pay credit for the day)?

Unions are necessary in this industry. After working at a nonunion carrier for two years I see why it is needed.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
The difference between pilots and doctors and lawyers is that doctors and lawyers routinely start their own business or practice or firm or become partners in one -- they are directly involved with the capital of the business.

Don, even as a captain at UPS, and even making a very nice salary is still a skilled laborer. Doctors and lawyers may negotiate well or poorly also based on their individual skills and the fact that their customers are most of the times the end consumer of their product -- some may be exceptional litigators and may demand a premium for their time. As a pilot you are either qualified or not qualified, even if you're the best in the industry. I think we've all gone over the threads based on merit promotions and can see why this is.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right. You can argue all day long about whether pilots are "white collar" or "blue collar." In the end, the only point that matters, when it comes to unionization, is the fact that pilots are completely fungible. Pilots are either qualified or not. It doesn't matter which captain is in the left seat or which pilot is in the right seat. The system is specifically designed so that pilots are as interchangeable as light bulbs. In that environment, an individual pilot has absolutely no (none, zip, zilch, nada) bargaining power. The only way airline pilots can improve their lot is through collective bargaining and, if necessary, collective job action (strike). An airline can replace one or two pilots easily enough. It can't replace 500.

Doctors and lawyers are fundamentally different because they can set themselves apart and create individual bargaining power for themselves. They can specialize, they can build a large and loyal client base, they can just be extremely good at their jobs.

I've said it before, and I say it again, anyone who thinks they can get by in the airline environment without collective bargaining and protections needs to have their head examined.
 
I consider the regional airline level blue collar for a couple of reasons. I also consider "most" majors and legacies to be white collar.

1. I fly with a lot of guys that don't have college degrees. You don't have to have one at the regional level.

2. I do get dirty flying, I have to do walkarounds and put in gear pins. This amounts to me getting a dirty sludge all over my uniform shirts.

3. This is the biggest most important one. I might make 21,0000 dollars this year. When I worked construction at a mixed union non-union site (they were working on the sly) The union construction guys were pulling in about 50,000-90,000 a year. They told me an apprentice makes about 30,0000 a year. That means an 18 year old kid with zero experience or formal training. I was a non-union laborer and I was still pulling down 600 a week, which is double what I make now.
 
skydog said:
There is no right or wrong here. The only reason carriers such as GoJets, Freedom, and Skybus are "wrong" is because ALPA has been very successful in seizing the moral high ground and painting those three carriers as evil, union busting, scabbrous, or whatever term you care to use. A non-union carrier has a much right to exist and prosper as a union carrier. Likewise, as a pilot, you have the right to work for whomever you please, under whatever conditions you can set or agree to.

That said, it has been my experience that pilots, in general, view anything that threatens to alter their status quo, as "evil" or "wrong." Understand that if you accept an employment situation that they consider to be a threat to their way of life, then you will be labeled a scab, a backstabber, a pariah, and treated as such.

To me, the only "wrong" here is intelligent, educated adults turning into thugs and acting like playground bullies whenever someone comes along who happens to disagree with them.
Click to expand...

ALPA's moral high ground has nothing to do with why these carriers are wrong. They're wrong because they don't pay fair wages to a skilled profession. They also offer zero protection for certificate action.

Most of us have 4 year college degrees, about 6 different certificates, and years of experience by the time we make it to the major level. On top of that you have the responsibility for hundreds of peoples lives in your hands (insurance companies rate each passengers life as being worth about 5 million dollars in accident payoffs). Frankly, an Airbus or Boeing driver deserves to make more than a truck driver or plumber.

If these airlines payed decent wages and offered certificate action protection I would have no problem with them. My father flys for SWA which is a non ALPA carrier (which wasn't originally their choice, but that's a subject for another thread). However, he makes about 280,000 dollars a year and has a company union that protects him.
 
surreal1221 said:
Skydog, just a suggestion.

If you're going to say

At least tell us what airline it is . . . if not for everyone else, for me. :)

And second, do you mean by being profitable in the sense of from Day 1 through the 70 years, to today profitable? Or that year over year, they maintained a profit from the past year?
Click to expand...

Well I thought it was obvious, but for those who don't know, I am referring to Southwest Airlines. Southwest wasn't always profitable. It lost money in its first two years. It made its first profit in, I believe, 1973, and has not stopped making money since. Sometimes the profit wasn't much, but it was always a profit. Every company has a bad quarter or year. That's to be expected. But when you look at the historical profits and losses of this industry, they have never made a profit, according to Warren Buffett, anyway.
 
Minnesota_Flyer said:
That's exactly right. You can argue all day long about whether pilots are "white collar" or "blue collar." In the end, the only point that matters, when it comes to unionization, is the fact that pilots are completely fungible. Pilots are either qualified or not. It doesn't matter which captain is in the left seat or which pilot is in the right seat. The system is specifically designed so that pilots are as interchangeable as light bulbs. In that environment, an individual pilot has absolutely no (none, zip, zilch, nada) bargaining power. The only way airline pilots can improve their lot is through collective bargaining and, if necessary, collective job action (strike). An airline can replace one or two pilots easily enough. It can't replace 500.

Doctors and lawyers are fundamentally different because they can set themselves apart and create individual bargaining power for themselves. They can specialize, they can build a large and loyal client base, they can just be extremely good at their jobs.

I've said it before, and I say it again, anyone who thinks they can get by in the airline environment without collective bargaining and protections needs to have their head examined.
Click to expand...

If Doug were logged on he'd probably say. "It's great to have a labor union attorney on the site!"
 
Seggy said:
Skydog, have you ever worked at a nonunion carrier with no commuter clause and no CASS? Have you ever worked at a nonunion carrier with a non matching 401K plan, expensive health care, and work rules that change depending who you talk to or your status with a crew scheduler (like you are sleeping with them so you get better treatment/pay credit for the day)?

Unions are necessary in this industry. After working at a nonunion carrier for two years I see why it is needed.
Click to expand...

I have worked at both union and non-union carriers. Only one had a commuter clause and CASS. The others were pre 9-11 so CASS was a non-issue. As far as a commuter clause goes, I have always chosen to live in base so commuting was never an issue for me. I don't believe in commuter clauses. To me, a commuter clause is one of those featherbedding work rules I talked about. To my knowledge it does not exist in any other industry or for any group of employees other than crew members. Its sole reason for existence is to give individual crew members a pass for missing work. I believe it is an individual's responsibility to show up for work, and if they do not, and there is no reasonable explanation for it, then they deserve whatever sanction their employer chooses to levy. An employer has to be able to rely on their employees showing up for work on time. A commuter clause does just the opposite. It protects employees from sanction from missing work because of a personal choice to live in out of base.

As to the healthcare or non-matching 401K employers. The answer is no, I have not worked for one. Not because I haven't had the opportunity, but because I made the choice not to. I once received an offer to go work for Ryan International. I declined it precisley for the reasons you mentioned.

Employers have no obligation to offer any kind of retirement or healthcare benefits at all. To my knowledge there is no law requiring it. Most do because they recognize that they need to in order to attract quality employees. Over the course of my career, most of my employers have been non-union, and nearly all offered at least a decent benefits package, including healthcare and a matching 401K.

Never got to sleep with a scheduler although there have been a few that I wished I could have. :-)

Bottom line: If unions are needed in this industry, it is because there is such a surplus of labor falling all over themselvles and others for the chance to fly an airplane.
 
skydog said:
I have worked at both union and non-union carriers. Only one had a commuter clause and CASS. The others were pre 9-11 so CASS was a non-issue. As far as a commuter clause goes, I have always chosen to live in base so commuting was never an issue for me. I don't believe in commuter clauses. To me, a commuter clause is one of those featherbedding work rules I talked about. To my knowledge it does not exist in any other industry or for any group of employees other than crew members. Its sole reason for existence is to give individual crew members a pass for missing work. I believe it is an individual's responsibility to show up for work, and if they do not, and there is no reasonable explanation for it, then they deserve whatever sanction their employer chooses to levy. An employer has to be able to rely on their employees showing up for work on time. A commuter clause does just the opposite. It protects employees from sanction from missing work because of a personal choice to live in out of base.

As to the healthcare or non-matching 401K employers. The answer is no, I have not worked for one. Not because I haven't had the opportunity, but because I made the choice not to. I once received an offer to go work for Ryan International. I declined it precisley for the reasons you mentioned.

Employers have no obligation to offer any kind of retirement or healthcare benefits at all. To my knowledge there is no law requiring it. Most do because they recognize that they need to in order to attract quality employees. Over the course of my career, most of my employers have been non-union, and nearly all offered at least a decent benefits package, including healthcare and a matching 401K.

Never got to sleep with a scheduler although there have been a few that I wished I could have. :-)

Bottom line: If unions are needed in this industry, it is because there is such a surplus of labor falling all over themselvles and others for the chance to fly an airplane.
Click to expand...


An excuse to miss work. Ahh no. A commuter clause clearly states that you have to list yourself for two flights with open seats. If they get operationally canceled or fill up last minute THEN you use the clause. Calling in sick is an excuse to miss work. My airline has opened/closed about 7 bases in my two years I have been here. Kind of hard to make moves once every few months.

Basically what you are saying is that you chose to go to airlines with good contracts based on ALPA support and negiotiating.
 
greaper007 said:
ALPA's moral high ground has nothing to do with why these carriers are wrong. They're wrong because they don't pay fair wages to a skilled profession. They also offer zero protection for certificate action.

Most of us have 4 year college degrees, about 6 different certificates, and years of experience by the time we make it to the major level. On top of that you have the responsibility for hundreds of peoples lives in your hands (insurance companies rate each passengers life as being worth about 5 million dollars in accident payoffs). Frankly, an Airbus or Boeing driver deserves to make more than a truck driver or plumber.

If these airlines payed decent wages and offered certificate action protection I would have no problem with them. My father flys for SWA which is a non ALPA carrier (which wasn't originally their choice, but that's a subject for another thread). However, he makes about 280,000 dollars a year and has a company union that protects him.
Click to expand...

They are not wrong for offering what you consider to be "low wages." You are wrong for accepting what you consider to be low wages. They can offer whatever they want to. It is up to you to decide whether or not it is acceptable. If it isn't, then move on. No one is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to work for wages you do not consider acceptable. This is not slave labor.

Years ago when I was training, I met a girl who was interested in flying. She knew nothing about it, and I must confess I probably didn't know much more, but I told her everything I knew, both the upsides and the downsides. She seemed really interested until we came to the issue of compensation. When she came to understand that she could put all her efforts into entering a field in which the likelihood was that she might never earn more 50K a year and have no stability, she lost interest. I could literally see the interest fade away from her face. Looking back on it, I'm sure she thought, as a co-worker of mine later eloquently stated, "There are easier ways to starve to death."

She was the smart one. She looked at the requirements vs. the rewards, and made a different choice. Contrast that with the typical "I just gotta fly" pilot wanna-be, (which I was at the time) who ignores all the potential downsides, proceeds full steam ahead, and then spends the next 30 years bitching about the money or the life.

Comes down to one thing. Employers will always pay the least that they can, and pilots make it easy for employers to do it by being willing to do whatever they have to just to fly an airplane.
 
skydog said:
Comes down to one thing. Employers will always pay the least that they can, and pilots make it easy for employers to do it by being willing to do whatever they have to just to fly an airplane.
Click to expand...

Another myth. . .a majority of the newer pilots I have spoken to, actually give a #### about how much they are making and are and have always expected to be paid more. And accordingly, they are working at union operators for the fight for better wages.
 
Seggy said:
An excuse to miss work. Ahh no. A commuter clause clearly states that you have to list yourself for two flights with open seats. If they get operationally canceled or fill up last minute THEN you use the clause. Calling in sick is an excuse to miss work. My airline has opened/closed about 7 bases in my two years I have been here. Kind of hard to make moves once every few months.

Basically what you are saying is that you chose to go to airlines with good contracts based on ALPA support and negiotiating.
Click to expand...

I am aware of how commuter clauses basically work. Perhaps "a pass" is not the best way to describe it. But it comes down to the the same thing. It is an excuse for missing work because your choice to live out of base worked against you that day. In your situation, where apparently you work for a company that opens and closes bases at the drop of a hat, I can see where a commuter clause can be a necessity. I don't know, I have never been in that situation.

I have not chosen to work at companies with good ALPA contracts. I have chosen to work at good companies that have ALPA contracts. It's a subtle difference perhaps, but a fundamental one. ALPA is at Mesa and TSA too, but I certainly wouldn't go to work at either one. Maybe I am naive, but I think the reason some companies have good ALPA contracts is because the company was good in spite of ALPA, not because of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top