4 ms·

You are being completely ignorant. My girlfriend, who has a college degree, works for Delta as a flight attendant. After the North West merger, her colleagues

You are being completely ignorant. My girlfriend, who has a college degree, works for Delta as a flight attendant. After the North West merger, her colleagues collectively voted against a union because of perceived corruption and expectedly high union dues. In the year since the failed vote, there have been substantial adverse changes to vacation and sick leave rules, increased abuse of duty days by crew scheduling, and decreased medical benefits. That's 20,000 people who thought they had guarantees on paid vacation who suddenly need to spend more of their own money to get a doctors note on holiday weekends. By the way, if you need a doctors note at 4am before going to work: You need to go to the ER... which is expensive. Meanwhile, they are being forced to work longer and longer hours for depreciating pay. The ~9,000 people who knew to vote for collective bargaining power should not be punished by the ~11,000 short sighted ones. Furthermore, government exists to provide for the common welfare. That's its role. Those 20,000 people already pay their taxes, why should they also have to pay union dues to get basic protections for their working conditions and compensation? This story happens over and over again in many industries. These people aren't incompetent, yet you're suggesting that they'd have to be in order for someone to believe that they need government to protect them. In the common case, they are hardworking, educated, friendly people who are being screwed by people like you. Wether you and our elected officials are ignorant or malicious, I don't know. But what you are saying is bullshit.

dillona 13y ago
Wouldn't that indicate that she should find another position?
- snprbob86 13y ago
  Where? She could go to a totally different industry, but she'd be starting her career over again at the bottom. She loves flying & traveling, so she'd probably want to go to another airline. However, Delta (one of the largest airlines) accepts a only few thousand new flight attendants per year out of many tens of thousands of applicants. Smaller airlines would be even more difficult to get a job at. All the airlines are also seniority based, so she's have to start her career over again at the bottom. Experience at other airlines wouldn't contribute one iota to her standing in a new airline. College put her (and everybody else) in substantial debt, so she can't start a business or do anything really risky like that. This is a story you have all heard over and over again... If you're a well paid engineer, it might be hard for you to understand: Educated, hard working people, are constantly screwed by the system and consistently ignored by people who don't understand their plight.
  - sultezdukes 13y ago
    She could go to a totally different industry, but she'd be starting her career over again at the bottom. She loves flying & traveling, so she'd probably want to go to another airline. So why didn't your girlfriend research the industry she was going into? Just because she loves flying and traveling doesn't mean she had to make a career out of being a flight attendant. And it's not like she was a the top of her "career" anyway as a flight attendant, so what's the big deal. Your sense of entitlement is disturbing, but pretty common.
    - snprbob86 13y ago
      You're missing the point. She was treated very well at Northwest pre-merger and at Delta until the union vote failed. She's have to take a major pay cut to reboot her career. I'm not saying that due to a sense of entitlement. That's a fact. But other than the recent changes, she likes her job, so she's started volunteering for the union and otherwise actively working to improve the situation for her and her coworkers. Your willingness to parrot the party line (specifically the word "entitlement") is disturbing, but pretty common.
  - dillona 13y ago
    How much responsibility do you place on her for choosing a career with low mobility and high competition?
    - snprbob86 13y ago
      Not every profession has high mobility and low competition. In fact, the overwhelming majority of professions, even highly skilled ones, have medium-low mobility and high competition. Even doctors and lawyers have pretty low mobility these days, thanks to crushing debt. What do you think would happen if the > 90% of workers in low mobility jobs just magically got high mobility jobs? There would be no one left doing the sorts of critical jobs that make civilized life possible for us pampered engineers.
      - RestlessMind 13y ago
- potatolicious 13y ago
  In an idealized, theoretical economy where skills are highly liquid and exchangeable, yes. Real life doesn't quite work that way. Many people develop skill tracks that do not easily (or at all) adapt to another skill track. When one (or a few) players monopolize the demand for said skill track, there are frequently few choices. We, as software engineers, are fortunate in that we live in an age where people are practically bashing down our doors to give us jobs in a wide array of subfields. Not everyone is as fortunate, and indeed, it is impossible to create a population where this is the case for everyone. It is extremely easy for us to say, to another programmer, "man that sucks, you should get a new job", the reality fo the vast majority of the population is much, much harder.
- MisterBastahrd 13y ago
  Sure, but most US companies would start her at 0 or 1 week of vacation and she'd need to work there for years to accrue what she might have already had. For average people, businesses aren't going to give an inch. I have a friend who is a fantastic programmer at a telecom in Texas. He was a contract employee before they decided to bring him on full time. They invented a position specifically for him in order to pay him what he wanted. What they would not budge on? Vacation time. One week, non-negotiable. Of course, now he's worked there for several years, and he's earned a couple more weeks.
RestlessMind 13y ago
> The ~9,000 people who knew to vote for collective bargaining power should not be punished by the ~11,000 short sighted ones. Whoa! This is a very dangerous mindset - "if election doesn't go as per my wish, majority must be stupid".
- snprbob86 13y ago
  Delta ran a substantial anti-union campaign during the union vote. The popular opinion of the majority was "Why should I pay for a union? I like my working conditions and benefits. How could a union help?" Management worked very hard to bolster that message. Now, there is another union establishment effort occurring. There is significant evidence that the popular opinion has swayed dramatically in favor of a union. I'm not saying that the majority is stupid, I'm saying that they decided they didn't want to pay union dues and assumed that things would stay the way they are. They didn't understand that the threat of a union was one of the few things eliminating their need for a union. That's ignorance of business realities, not stupidity in general. My mindset isn't "the majority must be stupid". My mindset is "post-election events have proven the majority to be shortsighted."
splintercell 13y ago
There are numerous issues involved in here. You're assuming that with a union you guys will be able to get everything you want. Don't forget a few things. The merger meant new look at the books. If Delta was doing something inefficiently, now the merger forced them to reconsider. If things had continued as they did, you have no guarantee that your gf would have kept her job if Delta just went bankrupt instead. Unions only benefit one group of people at the cost of another group which you usually fail to see. The only way workers' salary/benefits go up when their real productivity goes up, which only goes up as capital accumulation goes up. In most of the cases, unions actions either make non-union member suffer, or more experienced members benefit at the cost of less experienced members. Some people get fired, and the new union numbers suggest that overall wages went up. Not only that, many times the hours are cut for some workers, so they have to pick extra jobs in other industries so the wages are depressed in other industries. Take for instance almost all struggling actors/actresses work as a bartender or waiting jobs in NY/LA, because of heavy unionization they just don't have enough work to work full time as an actor. So they suppress wages of waiting industry. Nepotism is very heavily promoted in unionized industries, because if wages are artificially pushed up, then the industry entrants, cannot be chosen for a job based on how cheap they come, so other factors can be considered(like relationships with existing union members, etc). In hollywood, this is precisely the whole conspiracy about people of one specific religion/ethnic group control everything. Or this is why you have to sleep with someone to get your big break.
- opinali 13y ago
  > The only way workers' salary/benefits go up when their real productivity goes up, which only goes up as capital accumulation goes up. LOL. No, if productivity goes up the most likely outcome is that some executives will put all new money in their own bonuses and salaries. This is the country where CEOs earn >350x the common worker.
sultezdukes 13y ago
The ~9,000 people who knew to vote for collective bargaining power should not be punished by the ~11,000 short sighted ones. Are you even capable of understanding that people have differences of opinions regarding the role of unions, government, etc.?

dillona 13y ago

Wouldn't that indicate that she should find another position?

snprbob86 13y ago
Where? She could go to a totally different industry, but she'd be starting her career over again at the bottom. She loves flying & traveling, so she'd probably want to go to another airline. However, Delta (one of the largest airlines) accepts a only few thousand new flight attendants per year out of many tens of thousands of applicants. Smaller airlines would be even more difficult to get a job at. All the airlines are also seniority based, so she's have to start her career over again at the bottom. Experience at other airlines wouldn't contribute one iota to her standing in a new airline. College put her (and everybody else) in substantial debt, so she can't start a business or do anything really risky like that. This is a story you have all heard over and over again... If you're a well paid engineer, it might be hard for you to understand: Educated, hard working people, are constantly screwed by the system and consistently ignored by people who don't understand their plight.
- sultezdukes 13y ago
  She could go to a totally different industry, but she'd be starting her career over again at the bottom. She loves flying & traveling, so she'd probably want to go to another airline. So why didn't your girlfriend research the industry she was going into? Just because she loves flying and traveling doesn't mean she had to make a career out of being a flight attendant. And it's not like she was a the top of her "career" anyway as a flight attendant, so what's the big deal. Your sense of entitlement is disturbing, but pretty common.
  - snprbob86 13y ago
    You're missing the point. She was treated very well at Northwest pre-merger and at Delta until the union vote failed. She's have to take a major pay cut to reboot her career. I'm not saying that due to a sense of entitlement. That's a fact. But other than the recent changes, she likes her job, so she's started volunteering for the union and otherwise actively working to improve the situation for her and her coworkers. Your willingness to parrot the party line (specifically the word "entitlement") is disturbing, but pretty common.
- dillona 13y ago
  How much responsibility do you place on her for choosing a career with low mobility and high competition?
  - snprbob86 13y ago
    Not every profession has high mobility and low competition. In fact, the overwhelming majority of professions, even highly skilled ones, have medium-low mobility and high competition. Even doctors and lawyers have pretty low mobility these days, thanks to crushing debt. What do you think would happen if the > 90% of workers in low mobility jobs just magically got high mobility jobs? There would be no one left doing the sorts of critical jobs that make civilized life possible for us pampered engineers.
    - RestlessMind 13y ago
potatolicious 13y ago
In an idealized, theoretical economy where skills are highly liquid and exchangeable, yes. Real life doesn't quite work that way. Many people develop skill tracks that do not easily (or at all) adapt to another skill track. When one (or a few) players monopolize the demand for said skill track, there are frequently few choices. We, as software engineers, are fortunate in that we live in an age where people are practically bashing down our doors to give us jobs in a wide array of subfields. Not everyone is as fortunate, and indeed, it is impossible to create a population where this is the case for everyone. It is extremely easy for us to say, to another programmer, "man that sucks, you should get a new job", the reality fo the vast majority of the population is much, much harder.
MisterBastahrd 13y ago
Sure, but most US companies would start her at 0 or 1 week of vacation and she'd need to work there for years to accrue what she might have already had. For average people, businesses aren't going to give an inch. I have a friend who is a fantastic programmer at a telecom in Texas. He was a contract employee before they decided to bring him on full time. They invented a position specifically for him in order to pay him what he wanted. What they would not budge on? Vacation time. One week, non-negotiable. Of course, now he's worked there for several years, and he's earned a couple more weeks.

RestlessMind 13y ago

> The ~9,000 people who knew to vote for collective bargaining power should not be punished by the ~11,000 short sighted ones. Whoa! This is a very dangerous mindset - "if election doesn't go as per my wish, majority must be stupid".

snprbob86 13y ago
Delta ran a substantial anti-union campaign during the union vote. The popular opinion of the majority was "Why should I pay for a union? I like my working conditions and benefits. How could a union help?" Management worked very hard to bolster that message. Now, there is another union establishment effort occurring. There is significant evidence that the popular opinion has swayed dramatically in favor of a union. I'm not saying that the majority is stupid, I'm saying that they decided they didn't want to pay union dues and assumed that things would stay the way they are. They didn't understand that the threat of a union was one of the few things eliminating their need for a union. That's ignorance of business realities, not stupidity in general. My mindset isn't "the majority must be stupid". My mindset is "post-election events have proven the majority to be shortsighted."

splintercell 13y ago

There are numerous issues involved in here. You're assuming that with a union you guys will be able to get everything you want. Don't forget a few things. The merger meant new look at the books. If Delta was doing something inefficiently, now the merger forced them to reconsider. If things had continued as they did, you have no guarantee that your gf would have kept her job if Delta just went bankrupt instead. Unions only benefit one group of people at the cost of another group which you usually fail to see. The only way workers' salary/benefits go up when their real productivity goes up, which only goes up as capital accumulation goes up. In most of the cases, unions actions either make non-union member suffer, or more experienced members benefit at the cost of less experienced members. Some people get fired, and the new union numbers suggest that overall wages went up. Not only that, many times the hours are cut for some workers, so they have to pick extra jobs in other industries so the wages are depressed in other industries. Take for instance almost all struggling actors/actresses work as a bartender or waiting jobs in NY/LA, because of heavy unionization they just don't have enough work to work full time as an actor. So they suppress wages of waiting industry. Nepotism is very heavily promoted in unionized industries, because if wages are artificially pushed up, then the industry entrants, cannot be chosen for a job based on how cheap they come, so other factors can be considered(like relationships with existing union members, etc). In hollywood, this is precisely the whole conspiracy about people of one specific religion/ethnic group control everything. Or this is why you have to sleep with someone to get your big break.

opinali 13y ago
> The only way workers' salary/benefits go up when their real productivity goes up, which only goes up as capital accumulation goes up. LOL. No, if productivity goes up the most likely outcome is that some executives will put all new money in their own bonuses and salaries. This is the country where CEOs earn >350x the common worker.

sultezdukes 13y ago

The ~9,000 people who knew to vote for collective bargaining power should not be punished by the ~11,000 short sighted ones. Are you even capable of understanding that people have differences of opinions regarding the role of unions, government, etc.?