14 ms·
Union's also capping it at a contractual 150%. Free-market AA could offer better incentives, but the union doesn't think that's fair.
by jachee 9y ago
Union's also capping it at a contractual 150%.
Free-market AA could offer better incentives, but the union doesn't think that's fair.
- tyingq 9y agoThat cap is likely in the contract as some trade-off for something else the pilots wanted. A free market does exist at some companies for pilots, and they are compensated and treated far less well than their unionized counterparts. Because of the specialized training, pilots have lots of leverage. You can't quickly and easily replace them.
- klodolph 9y agoPilots have leverage because you can’t replace them with other pilots. Imagine if Java developers weren’t legally allowed to write C# until they got certified… keep in mind it’s just an analogy.
- tyingq 9y agoSure, and it's more complex than that even. You might be qualified to fly an A320, but not over open water. And not without being checked on airline X's specific A320 configuration.
- sjwright 9y agoYou can also be qualified to land at some airports but not others!
- Spooky23 9y agoPilots have almost no leverage and the pilots association screwed up years ago. Because so many of them were the same age, the pilots voted long ago to screw over the younger pilots. It’s pretty easy to replace pilots. Entry level pilots make less than a fast food manager.
- dsacco 9y ago> Because so many of them were the same age, the pilots voted long ago to screw over the younger pilots. What did they do?
- Blackthorn 9y agoI don't know specifics in this case, but I'll never forgive the ALPA for torpedoing the removal of the third-class medical certification, thus ensuring that I'll never be able to get one without an extremely costly special issuance. In return, I'll happily do anything I can to lobby against their interests in perpetuity until they correct that mistake. What I'm trying to say is, older pilots screwing over younger pilots and would-be pilots is pretty common.
- upvotinglurker 9y ago"...how can we explain a 19:1 pay differential for workers with similar training and tasks? The answer is to look at who controls the pilot's union: very senior pilots. The airline management is mostly interested in what percentage of its revenues are paid out to pilots; the distribution of the money among the pilots does not affect profitability. The very senior pilots on the other side of the table say 'We need the most senior pilots to get $300,000 in pay and benefits.' The airline's response is 'The only way that could work is if we pay the new pilots $16,000 per year.' The group of senior pilots responds 'We can live with that.'"[0] [0] http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines
- gaius 9y agoCompare the pilots at BA to those at Ryanair. Or the cabin crew.
- daemin 9y agoThat's because a lot of the pilots at BA are more senior as they have been at the job for longer and don't need to retire any time. A lot of the pilots at the cheaper carriers are more junior and earlier on in their careers, mainly because the larger airlines are full and don't need to employ them. I have a friend who's a first officer at a low cost airline because he couldn't get a job flying at the majors.
- mulmen 9y agoThe free market would be the IT department example where you get pizza if you are lucky.
- jermaustin1 9y ago>Free-market AA could offer better incentives Baseless/Unsubstantiated comment. Unions come in when the people who are working there feel they aren't being treated fairly. Sure Free-market AA could offer better incentives to SOME, but at the detriment to MOST.
- conanbatt 9y agoCan't speak to the peculiarities of this situation, but in general, unions have the exact opposite effect: they benefit SOME workers at the expense of MOST workers outside the bargain. Argentina is a model example of what happens when the pilots have a strong union: they have the highest pilot salary in south america and there are consistent service outages due to strikes on holidays. Fear not that if union workers could collect a paycheck without showing up to work and no consequence, you would not see any working.
- jackvalentine 9y ago> Fear not that if literally anyone in the world could collect a paycheck without showing up to work and no consequence, you would not see any working. Fixed that for you.
- conanbatt 9y agoI agree 100%
- ubernostrum 9y agoSo you're in favor of a 100% estate tax, and outlawing parents creating trust funds or other vehicles for their children to get around that tax, yes?
- pavel_lishin 9y agojackvalentine didn't propose anything, just stated a fact. You should ask politely before trying to put things in people's mouths.
- Dangeranger 9y agoNo, that’s not likely to have been the outcome without a union in place. The more likely outcome would have been a policy within their contract requiring the pilot to work in the case of a holiday period crunch, if the pilot were lucky enough to have any contract at all. The 150% maximum pay was also likely a negotiation point between the airline and the union when agreeing on a contract. You seem to think that negotiations between an at will pilot and an airline are on equal ground, they are not. The pilot is very unlikely to get a better deal outside of collective bargaining. That is why people are willing to pay a due and give up some freedoms in order to use them as leverage in compensation negotiations.
- conanbatt 9y ago> You seem to think that negotiations between an at will pilot and an airline are on equal ground, they are not. The pilot is very unlikely to get a better deal outside of collective bargainin The pilots would most definitely get a better deal outside of the collective bargaining. That is, all the ones that get left out because of this contract receive no benefits at all.
- macromage 9y agoFor anyone reading along at home, this is one of the oldest and most standard anti-union talking points. #1 on the list, in fact. [1] [1] http://www.bankableinsight.com/ways-unions-hurt-the-economy.html http://www.bankableinsight.com/ways-unions-hurt-the-economy.... [2] http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/17/unions-harmful-workers.html http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/17/unions-harmful-wor...
- conanbatt 9y agoBecause its true. Unions can only increase wages by reducing the amount of workers. Unions dont get wage increases by reducing the profits of capital in the long term. If uber drivers unionized and made uber pay them more, then less capital would go to uber and eventually have less workers. Ultimately the return on capital will end up being the same, because capital looks for returns and will move. So in effect, it would only increase wages of drivers as long as it can prevent other drivers from showing up. For anyone at home that wants to listen to someone that knows more about economy than any of us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4
- geofft 9y agoCould. Free-market AA could also say, we're canceling your vacation, if you don't show up you're fired. Why is your scenario more likely?
- adrr 9y agoReally? I had a major project assigned to me last minute right before my planned vacation scheduled months in advance. Even worked Xmas day. I didn't have choice but to do it without any additional comp. This was at a fortune 500 company.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago> I didn't have choice but to do it without any additional comp. You had a choice. It just wasn't a fair one.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- monsieurgaufre 9y agoAh, the usual exceptionalism of commenters on HN. All leaders in their field of work apparently.. Being more serious for a minute, can you explain why you think like that? With data, not anecdotes.
- clairity 9y agoyou seem to be for free markets and against unions, but that's contradictory. free markets precisely allow participants to join together (e.g., unionize) to strike better deals in the marketplace (in fact, that was one of the original advantages of forming a company, to band people together to gain market power).
- saalweachter 9y agoA lot of people like to pretend that government invented unions, when what the government did was step in and set things up so companies would stop hiring mercenaries to shoot unionized workers and unionized workers would stop burning down factories. Making it harder for government to effectively mediate labor disputes won't eliminate labor disputes, in the long run, it will just bring back the thuggery of the late 19th/early 20th century.
- dnautics 9y agoThe government does far more than stop companies from hiring thugs to shoot union members (which it should do). The government does things like obligate non union members to pay union dues even when they choose not to participate.
- msla 9y agoThe government forces people to pay union dues even when they choose to not support the political groups unions give money to.
- Spooky23 9y agoUnions don’t fight overtime rates. That’s almost certainly a concession management demanded to avoid stacked overtime. Case in point: several years ago when I was an SA we were having some sort of big piece of Verizon equipment in our office due to our bandwidth and phone demands. The guy was coming from Philly (to upstate ny) and was on his 10th consecutive day, on a Sunday, on a holiday weekend at like 3 AM and a forced double shift. I think he said he was on something like 10x overtime. Even paying that kind of ridiculous OT was preferred by them vs hiring more CWA guys. CWA is/was a stronger union that would strike over that kind of cap.
- lostboys67 9y agowell it makes sense for the rare occasion you need extra resource to pay OT it also helps to make sure mangers properly schedule work if the costs are high working on say thanksgiving at dark o clock
- Consultant32452 9y agoYou're correct, in a free market the union could offer better incentives. They could also just say, "Whoops, we messed up the leave schedule. You now have to work the holidays or you're fired." I suspect a combination of the two, some carrot and some stick, would happen without the union contract.
- URSpider94 9y agoIf there were no union, AA would just send around an email stating that there was an error in the scheduling software, and that everyone now needs to go in and re-do their schedule for December. Sorry to those folks who already booked vacation for Christmas week, counting on having the time off. Companies do this all the time, with zero repercussions. Of course, that would never work if they had made an error in their purchase of jet fuel futures -- the futures market does not have a do-over function. The union is forcing the company to be professional in its dealings with employees, in the same way that it is professional in its dealings with vendors, regulators, bankers, customers -- pretty much every other stakeholder.