7 ms·

No, 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 pi

No, 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 ago
  For 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 ago
    Because 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
    - gamblor956 9y ago
      Literally everything you said is FUD and a maliciously deliberate misrepresentation of the purpose of unions. Unions exist to collectively bargain on behalf of workers in markets in which individual workers do not have sufficient bargaining power to achieve the same results. They remain in power in those markets precisely due to their continuing ability to achieve better-than-free-market rates for their members, as evidenced by the death/diminishment of unions in many fields where they are not able to maintain above-market compensation for their members.
      - chimeracoder 9y ago
        > They remain in power in those markets precisely due to their continuing ability to achieve better-than-free-market rates for their members, as evidenced by the death/diminishment of unions in many fields where they are not able to maintain above-market compensation for their members. They remain in power in those markets due to their legally-granted right to remain in power in perpetuity without periodic recertification or reauthorization elections. That's not an opinion; that's legal fact, just like saying that the President of the United States is in power because the law grants him that right until January 2021. Unlike government, where politicans have to run for re-election every N years, once a union forms, there is no legal obligation to hold an election to keep them in power. (The process for petitioning for a decertification election is incredibly difficult, and unions are actually granted a great deal of leeway by the law in taking action to prevent these elections from happening. Furthermore, even in cases where they do happen, and the majority votes to decertify the union, the election results may be overturned by the NLRB.) All in all, if you want to argue the case that unions successfully bargain for better results on behalf of workers, you can't really rely on the fact that they remain in power, because that's already the default - it takes an extraordinary degree of opposition to remove them.
        lostboys67 9y ago
        Union's have regular democratic elections for positions CEO's don't face a mandatory share holder vote every year or two do they
- kalleboo 9y ago
  If unions gave people a bad deal, then why would anyone start working at a union shop? Unions would die out because workers would abandon the workplaces that are covered by them for more lucrative non-union workplaces.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    They do. That's why unions that subsist usually have some special command of power, normally enforced by the state. For example, in argentina its impossible to hire pilots from other countries.
vanattab 9y ago
>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. I am not ant-union but unless they live/work? in a "right to work" state I don't think they gave a choice but to pay dues or quit.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  But where does the union come from?
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > But where does the union come from? Of all union members in the country, only 7% actually have ever cast a vote in favor of the union that represents them. The vast majority never have the opportunity to vote one way or the other, because once a union is formed, it is legally granted authority in perpetuity. They only lose that right if a majority for decertification or deauthorization, but for a number of legal reasons, it's almost impossible for those elections to even be held, even in cases when the majority of workers oppose union representation. So, to answer your question, "But where does the union come from?" - most likely, from the people who happened to work there years ago, when 50% (plus one) voted in favor of it. It may or may not actually represent the wishes of the current workforce, were an election to be held today.
    - timecube 9y ago
      Of all employees in the country, certainly less than 7% actually have ever cast a vote in favor of the company that employs them.
      - nitrogen 9y ago
        > Of all employees in the country, certainly less than 7% actually have ever cast a vote in favor of the company that employs them. 100% of people who accepted a job accepted the job...

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 ago
For 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 ago
  Because 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
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    Literally everything you said is FUD and a maliciously deliberate misrepresentation of the purpose of unions. Unions exist to collectively bargain on behalf of workers in markets in which individual workers do not have sufficient bargaining power to achieve the same results. They remain in power in those markets precisely due to their continuing ability to achieve better-than-free-market rates for their members, as evidenced by the death/diminishment of unions in many fields where they are not able to maintain above-market compensation for their members.
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > They remain in power in those markets precisely due to their continuing ability to achieve better-than-free-market rates for their members, as evidenced by the death/diminishment of unions in many fields where they are not able to maintain above-market compensation for their members. They remain in power in those markets due to their legally-granted right to remain in power in perpetuity without periodic recertification or reauthorization elections. That's not an opinion; that's legal fact, just like saying that the President of the United States is in power because the law grants him that right until January 2021. Unlike government, where politicans have to run for re-election every N years, once a union forms, there is no legal obligation to hold an election to keep them in power. (The process for petitioning for a decertification election is incredibly difficult, and unions are actually granted a great deal of leeway by the law in taking action to prevent these elections from happening. Furthermore, even in cases where they do happen, and the majority votes to decertify the union, the election results may be overturned by the NLRB.) All in all, if you want to argue the case that unions successfully bargain for better results on behalf of workers, you can't really rely on the fact that they remain in power, because that's already the default - it takes an extraordinary degree of opposition to remove them.
      - lostboys67 9y ago
        Union's have regular democratic elections for positions CEO's don't face a mandatory share holder vote every year or two do they
kalleboo 9y ago
If unions gave people a bad deal, then why would anyone start working at a union shop? Unions would die out because workers would abandon the workplaces that are covered by them for more lucrative non-union workplaces.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  They do. That's why unions that subsist usually have some special command of power, normally enforced by the state. For example, in argentina its impossible to hire pilots from other countries.

vanattab 9y ago

>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. I am not ant-union but unless they live/work? in a "right to work" state I don't think they gave a choice but to pay dues or quit.

emodendroket 9y ago
But where does the union come from?
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > But where does the union come from? Of all union members in the country, only 7% actually have ever cast a vote in favor of the union that represents them. The vast majority never have the opportunity to vote one way or the other, because once a union is formed, it is legally granted authority in perpetuity. They only lose that right if a majority for decertification or deauthorization, but for a number of legal reasons, it's almost impossible for those elections to even be held, even in cases when the majority of workers oppose union representation. So, to answer your question, "But where does the union come from?" - most likely, from the people who happened to work there years ago, when 50% (plus one) voted in favor of it. It may or may not actually represent the wishes of the current workforce, were an election to be held today.
  - timecube 9y ago
    Of all employees in the country, certainly less than 7% actually have ever cast a vote in favor of the company that employs them.
    - nitrogen 9y ago
      > Of all employees in the country, certainly less than 7% actually have ever cast a vote in favor of the company that employs them. 100% of people who accepted a job accepted the job...