If unionizing is bad why isn't incorporation?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, but not this.

The military controls such a great part of a service member's life that it is impossible to say "it is a much better deal" like you did. No other business exerts as much control over its "employees" as the military does. Sure, you can argue that the benefits are great (and they do appear that way at times when presented exactly the right way) and you can even argue that the government is as bound by the contract as the service member is so bound (although personal experience says that is utter bullshit).

There is a grievance procedure ... that I've tried to use when I had a grievance and found out just how well it worked when you are accusing the organization of wrongdoing or you are accusing someone of sufficiently higher rank of wrongdoing. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Even going outside the system and writing my congresscritter about the conflict had no impact.

Going outside the system did help a friend of mine. He was scheduled to be discharged for failing to get promoted. The military was keeping him in so that they could get him to mess up and discharge him for that instead. His congresscritter intervened and he was finally sent home with a better discharge than the military wanted to give him.

Job security is your only real argument, because it is true that union members would love the job security the military provides. But the military job security comes at the cost of everything else military, and I very much doubt that most union members would accept the "everything else military" because the cost would be too damn high. And the job security is a two way street - you can't quit. And the job security isn't as secure as you might think, there are a few separation policies for those who want to leave but many for when they want to get rid of you. And if they want to get rid of you they can find a way to arrange the discharge for minimal veteran benefits. Vets being discharged for ptsd are getting diagnosed as having disorders as they entered (retroactively) so that the military can say "see this form says he was mentally unbalanced before we came in and didn't catch it at the time, so therefore we don't have to pay any disability."

Do you think that having so much of your life controlled by the "employer" is something any union member would want in their contract? I think people around this forum would be generally comfortable with the government controlling almost everything they do, but conversely wouldn't want an employer doing that.

No, the military contract is nothing at all like the union-employer contract. Not even when the employer is the government.

And military members are expressly forbidden from trying to unionize.

 

[Bronzeage]

Yes, but not this.

The military controls such a great part of a service member's life that it is impossible to say "it is a much better deal" like you did. No other business exerts as much control over its "employees" as the military does. Sure, you can argue that the benefits are great (and they do appear that way at times when presented exactly the right way) and you can even argue that the government is as bound by the contract as the service member is so bound (although personal experience says that is utter bullshit).

There is a grievance procedure ... that I've tried to use when I had a grievance and found out just how well it worked when you are accusing the organization of wrongdoing or you are accusing someone of sufficiently higher rank of wrongdoing. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Even going outside the system and writing my congresscritter about the conflict had no impact.

Going outside the system did help a friend of mine. He was scheduled to be discharged for failing to get promoted. The military was keeping him in so that they could get him to mess up and discharge him for that instead. His congresscritter intervened and he was finally sent home with a better discharge than the military wanted to give him.

Job security is your only real argument, because it is true that union members would love the job security the military provides. But the military job security comes at the cost of everything else military, and I very much doubt that most union members would accept the "everything else military" because the cost would be too damn high. And the job security is a two way street - you can't quit. And the job security isn't as secure as you might think, there are a few separation policies for those who want to leave but many for when they want to get rid of you. And if they want to get rid of you they can find a way to arrange the discharge for minimal veteran benefits. Vets being discharged for ptsd are getting diagnosed as having disorders as they entered (retroactively) so that the military can say "see this form says he was mentally unbalanced before we came in and didn't catch it at the time, so therefore we don't have to pay any disability."

Do you think that having so much of your life controlled by the "employer" is something any union member would want in their contract? I think people around this forum would be generally comfortable with the government controlling almost everything they do, but conversely wouldn't want an employer doing that.

No, the military contract is nothing at all like the union-employer contract. Not even when the employer is the government.

And military members are expressly forbidden from trying to unionize.

What can I say? Humans do human things. Military service is a contract with obligations on both sides. There are more similarities to union contracts than there are differences. I'm sure there are many people who did not like the deal, once they actually experienced it. Life is like that.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Um, no. Not unless you say those same similarities exist with any employment contract, union or non-union. If you cannot see that there are some vital crucial differences with regards to the military, I'd suggest you go down to your recruiter's office and get back to me in four years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Airline pilots unions. There can't be strikebreakers.

Note how airlines keep going bankrupt.

You prefer 2nd rate pilots? How about tired and sleepy pilots. There are plenty of non-union airlines where you will find them.

Blame the pilot's unions for that. They skew the compensation towards the most senior people, the most junior get chicken feed.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course that is your fantasy and not what anybody has said.

What was said was that if profits exist and perks and benefits exist for only a few in an organization, some of those profits and the money that pays for perks, like private jets and huge severance packages, could go to the people who actually work for a living.

Does anyone from the level of manager on up actually do anything or contribute anything to the process at all?

Certainly. Keeping things going smoothly is contributing.

Think of a car--the engine (the workers) do all the work, or do they? How far is it going to get without a driver (manager) keeping it on the road?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Airline pilots unions. There can't be strikebreakers.

Note how airlines keep going bankrupt.

So airlines go bust because pilots are in unions?

The airlines can't hire strikebreakers (FAA rules.) Thus the airline can capitulate to the pilots or shut it's doors. The pilots take as much of the profit as they can, the airlines have no margin to recover from bad times. Thus every time bad times come along you see a rash of Chapter 11s and the occasional Chapter 7.

- - - Updated - - -

Sufficient without measuring.

Nope, still fallacious reasoning.

Try explaining how you get from sufficient (without measuring) money to infinite money.

If you know it's enough without measuring either number (available profit, or cost of the proposal) then the amount available must be effectively infinite.

 

[Bronzeage]

You prefer 2nd rate pilots? How about tired and sleepy pilots. There are plenty of non-union airlines where you will find them.

Blame the pilot's unions for that. They skew the compensation towards the most senior people, the most junior get chicken feed.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course that is your fantasy and not what anybody has said.

What was said was that if profits exist and perks and benefits exist for only a few in an organization, some of those profits and the money that pays for perks, like private jets and huge severance packages, could go to the people who actually work for a living.

Does anyone from the level of manager on up actually do anything or contribute anything to the process at all?

Certainly. Keeping things going smoothly is contributing.

Think of a car--the engine (the workers) do all the work, or do they? How far is it going to get without a driver (manager) keeping it on the road?

Why exactly are pilot's unions to blame for non-union pilot work conditions? Are you saying that pilots at non-union commuter airlines work long hours with little rest, at low pay rates because union airline pilots are overpaid?

You can't possibly believe that if there was not a pilots union, less experienced pilots salaries would be higher. Please tell me that's not it.

That doesn't make any sense? Here's a question for you. If you were on a commercial flight and there was some kind of hazard, which you know nothing about. It might endanger the flight. Who would you prefer make the decision of whether or not to take off?

a. An airline company vice president
b. a union pilot who will make the same amount of money whether the plane flies, or not.
c. a non-union pilot whose hours on the schedule depend upon how cooperative he appears to be.

 

[Kharakov]

If you were on a commercial flight and there was some kind of hazard, which you know nothing about. It might endanger the flight. Who would you prefer make the decision of whether or not to take off?

a. An airline company vice president
b. a union pilot who will make the same amount of money whether the plane flies, or not.
c. a non-union pilot whose hours on the schedule depend upon how cooperative he appears to be.

"a" would only give the order to fly if they knew the risk/reward ratio for their company. If it is something that cannot be pinned on the company or the VP, even though it is dangerous, and insurance will cover the company's potential losses, you don't want the VP making the call if they are a profit merc, you do if they are someone who got to their position because they care about people in general. It's iffy- scum and cream could both rise to the top.

"b" More likely to feel secure in doing the right thing, although being in the union could result in an older pilot with a bit of mental deterioration. In addition, a crazy fuck could be in the union, protected from being fired despite being reckless.

"c" Could be a good person who won't do something dangerous to others for an hourly wage. Then again, they could be a heartless asshole who is living paycheck to paycheck. However, most people, in general, want to do the right thing unless they are having some form of psychotic break.

Anyway- a pilot has the last call, and isn't likely to risk the lives of the people they are in charge of unless they are a young reckless fuck, or an old senile disgruntled asshole.

 

[Bronzeage]

If you were on a commercial flight and there was some kind of hazard, which you know nothing about. It might endanger the flight. Who would you prefer make the decision of whether or not to take off?

a. An airline company vice president
b. a union pilot who will make the same amount of money whether the plane flies, or not.
c. a non-union pilot whose hours on the schedule depend upon how cooperative he appears to be.

"a" would only give the order to fly if they knew the risk/reward ratio for their company. If it is something that cannot be pinned on the company or the VP, even though it is dangerous, and insurance will cover the company's potential losses, you don't want the VP making the call if they are a profit merc, you do if they are someone who got to their position because they care about people in general. It's iffy- scum and cream could both rise to the top.

"b" More likely to feel secure in doing the right thing, although being in the union could result in an older pilot with a bit of mental deterioration. In addition, a crazy fuck could be in the union, protected from being fired despite being reckless.

"c" Could be a good person who won't do something dangerous to others for an hourly wage. Then again, they could be a heartless asshole who is living paycheck to paycheck. However, most people, in general, want to do the right thing unless they are having some form of psychotic break.

Anyway- a pilot has the last call, and isn't likely to risk the lives of the people they are in charge of unless they are a young reckless fuck, or an old senile disgruntled asshole.

Money is what motivates people when they wake up in the morning. Later in the day, it puts a person in situations they did not foresee. With a few notable exceptions, no pilot taxis onto the runway with the thought of crashing sometime during the flight. That's not the way it works.

The way it works is not that complicated. No on has to be a greedy bastard, a heartless asshole, a reckless fuck, or an old senile disgruntled asshole. All you have to be is over worked and poorly prepared. The best intentions can never overcome that combination.

 

[bilby]

You prefer 2nd rate pilots? How about tired and sleepy pilots. There are plenty of non-union airlines where you will find them.

Blame the pilot's unions for that. They skew the compensation towards the most senior people, the most junior get chicken feed.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course that is your fantasy and not what anybody has said.

What was said was that if profits exist and perks and benefits exist for only a few in an organization, some of those profits and the money that pays for perks, like private jets and huge severance packages, could go to the people who actually work for a living.

Does anyone from the level of manager on up actually do anything or contribute anything to the process at all?

Certainly. Keeping things going smoothly is contributing.

Think of a car--the engine (the workers) do all the work, or do they? How far is it going to get without a driver (manager) keeping it on the road?

Ask Google.

 

[DBT]

So airlines go bust because pilots are in unions?

The airlines can't hire strikebreakers (FAA rules.) Thus the airline can capitulate to the pilots or shut it's doors. The pilots take as much of the profit as they can, the airlines have no margin to recover from bad times. Thus every time bad times come along you see a rash of Chapter 11s and the occasional Chapter 7.

Do you have evidence to show that pilots do indeed ''take as much of the profit as they can?''