• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Once again, unions showing their true colors

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
51,349
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

article said:
New hires are expected to start off on ‘straight reserve’ rather than getting firm flying schedules, in order to reduce the number of existing flight attendants who have to work reserve. Different schedules and work rules for new hires versus existing crew is, essentially, advocating for ‘B scales’.

And this is simply a bigger version of the usual pattern of benfitting the senior workers over the junior. That ties workers to their jobs, severely reducing their ability to vote with their feet and thus leaving the union the only way to get fair treatment.
 

article said:
New hires are expected to start off on ‘straight reserve’ rather than getting firm flying schedules, in order to reduce the number of existing flight attendants who have to work reserve. Different schedules and work rules for new hires versus existing crew is, essentially, advocating for ‘B scales’.

And this is simply a bigger version of the usual pattern of benfitting the senior workers over the junior. That ties workers to their jobs, severely reducing their ability to vote with their feet and thus leaving the union the only way to get fair treatment.
If employers treated workers fairly, there would be no need for unions.

In many work places, newer hires get the less favorable schedules. Better schedules/better pay rewards workers fir loyalty and experience, both of which are beneficial to employers.
 

article said:
New hires are expected to start off on ‘straight reserve’ rather than getting firm flying schedules, in order to reduce the number of existing flight attendants who have to work reserve. Different schedules and work rules for new hires versus existing crew is, essentially, advocating for ‘B scales’.

And this is simply a bigger version of the usual pattern of benfitting the senior workers over the junior. That ties workers to their jobs, severely reducing their ability to vote with their feet and thus leaving the union the only way to get fair treatment.
And your position is that scheduling would be more fair and worker-centered if the employees weren't unionized?
 
Sounds to me as though it's AA who are dragging out negotiations and refusing to provide a pay and conditions package that is acceptable to their workforce.

Strikes are always a last resort. If employers were not so determined to stiff their workers, strikes wouldn't be necessary.

But rather than negotiate in good faith, AA are trying to smear the unions by claiming that perfectly normal rostering practices are somehow an unacceptable demand from the union.

The same conditions apply in my current job - new hires start as casual, then move up to what we call "yard sheets" - full time work on a roster that varies from week to week to match demand - before moving up again to a permanent roster pattern. Once on a roster, employees can go on the waiting list for a more desirable roster.

Moving up through these phases is based on merit and performance, insofar as promotion to the yard sheets, and then further promotion from the yard sheets to a roster, is dependent on an invitation from management. Only once on a roster is further advancement to more popular rosters determined on seniority.

It's difficult to see how you could manage staff differently in a complex scheduling environment with large numbers of routes, vehicles, and staff, all operating to a timetable with seasonal variations, and with a need to provide for contingencies.
 
A union should be a fellowship. When junior workers feel like they are not only fighting against the company but senior workers, it creates animosity between these union members. This does not strengthen the union. This is why when junior members are given the option to not join a union, they often take it with the attitude of, “why should I pay into a union that is just going to shit all over me?”
So this is not about union versus company. It is about union versus union. It’s only about the company inasmuch as you have to ask yourself the question, do you think the company enjoys seeing this kind of infighting?
 
A union should be a fellowship. When junior workers feel like they are not only fighting against the company but senior workers, it creates animosity between these union members. This does not strengthen the union. This is why when junior members are given the option to not join a union, they often take it with the attitude of, “why should I pay into a union that is just going to shit all over me?”
So this is not about union versus company. It is about union versus union. It’s only about the company inasmuch as you have to ask yourself the question, do you think the company enjoys seeing this kind of infighting?
I don't have to ask myself that at all.

The answer is, was, and likely always will be, YES.

That's why they're engendering it.
 

article said:
New hires are expected to start off on ‘straight reserve’ rather than getting firm flying schedules, in order to reduce the number of existing flight attendants who have to work reserve. Different schedules and work rules for new hires versus existing crew is, essentially, advocating for ‘B scales’.

And this is simply a bigger version of the usual pattern of benfitting the senior workers over the junior. That ties workers to their jobs, severely reducing their ability to vote with their feet and thus leaving the union the only way to get fair treatment.
I think what you mean is to remain employed instead of replaced by cheaper younger workers.

It is an odd dichotomy, but it isn't as simple as screw the young ones.

If there was ever a profession I wouldn't haggle on price, it'd be an airline pilot
 
Before I retired, I worked for a very large employer and was not unionized, basically because there was no reason to unionize. It isn't as though the workplace was perfect: There definitely were some things that were less than ideal but all in all, as far as how workers were treated, it was extremely fair and actually generous. Being such a large work place, it was broken down into hundreds of work units. Certain aspects of the job were left to individual workplaces to decide. Scheduling was one of those. Because it was health care, we worked holidays and holiday weekends. I know that some work units organized that strictly on seniority. Mine did when I first started working there but then they switched to a rotating schedule so that various holiday shifts were sorted into sets. In turn, each employee chose which set of holidays/holiday weekends they would work. The first year, this was strictly on a seniority basis BUT once you had your first pick, you moved to the end of the line. This worked extremely well. We were also allowed to trade weekends/holidays with each other, so long as everything was covered. It was fair and just. As time went on, people were more cooperative with one another, and much more willing to trade weekends or holidays to get a weekend off for a wedding or special event, or whatever. People who were normally fairly contentious with one another saw the benefit of cooperating and working towards the benefit of all parties.

BTW, I had to thank for this bit of justice the group of younger employees who were more interested in a healthy work/life balance, or at least who felt more entitled to work towards than rather than simply accept the status quo as all of us old farts did, grumbling to ourselves and letting our dissatisfaction grow.
 
I agree with the OP headline - the union is showing its true colors by fighting for better conditions for current workers. I strongly suspect the union is bargaining for improvements that a majority of their members suggested or approve of.

I find the OP rather confusing. No union contract ties any worker to their job because workers are always free to find other work - as libertarians (doctrainaire and moderate) always remind us.
 
A union should be a fellowship. When junior workers feel like they are not only fighting against the company but senior workers, it creates animosity between these union members. This does not strengthen the union. This is why when junior members are given the option to not join a union, they often take it with the attitude of, “why should I pay into a union that is just going to shit all over me?”
So this is not about union versus company. It is about union versus union. It’s only about the company inasmuch as you have to ask yourself the question, do you think the company enjoys seeing this kind of infighting?
The company probably does. Frankly, if the junior workers don't grasp the basic concept that they will not remain junior workers forever and that failure to join the union means their concerns and voice will be heard with less force, then they are either too selfish or stupid to care about.
 
A union should be a fellowship. When junior workers feel like they are not only fighting against the company but senior workers, it creates animosity between these union members. This does not strengthen the union. This is why when junior members are given the option to not join a union, they often take it with the attitude of, “why should I pay into a union that is just going to shit all over me?”
So this is not about union versus company. It is about union versus union. It’s only about the company inasmuch as you have to ask yourself the question, do you think the company enjoys seeing this kind of infighting?
At least someone gets it!
 
I agree with the OP headline - the union is showing its true colors by fighting for better conditions for current workers. I strongly suspect the union is bargaining for improvements that a majority of their members suggested or approve of.

I find the OP rather confusing. No union contract ties any worker to their job because workers are always free to find other work - as libertarians (doctrainaire and moderate) always remind us.
In a unionized marketplace changing jobs puts you at the bottom of the list. You always take a pay cut, likely a substantial one.

In a market where workers are paid on skills and experience if your employer is bad you move to the competition.
 
Also, isn't their a pilot shortage in the first place?
Senior pilots make tons, juniors make chicken feed. Is it any surprise that fewer people want to pay for pilot training? And the number of ex-military pilots has declined. (The airlines used to get most of their pilots this way, take advantage of the training the Air Force already paid for.)
 
In a unionized marketplace changing jobs puts you at the bottom of the list.
Not unless you're changing to an exactly similar job. Who does that?
You always take a pay cut, likely a substantial one.
No, you don't.
In a market where workers are paid on skills and experience if your employer is bad you move to the competition.
And unionised jobs are no different from non-union jobs in this regard. It's not the 1950s anymore. The difference is that with a union job, you have some chance of changing your current employer so that they're no longer a bad employer, obviating the disruption and inconvenience of moving to the competition.
 
I agree with the OP headline - the union is showing its true colors by fighting for better conditions for current workers. I strongly suspect the union is bargaining for improvements that a majority of their members suggested or approve of.

I find the OP rather confusing. No union contract ties any worker to their job because workers are always free to find other work - as libertarians (doctrainaire and moderate) always remind us.
In a unionized marketplace changing jobs puts you at the bottom of the list. You always take a pay cut, likely a substantial one.
Nonsense. Most jobs are not union.
 
I agree with the OP headline - the union is showing its true colors by fighting for better conditions for current workers. I strongly suspect the union is bargaining for improvements that a majority of their members suggested or approve of.

I find the OP rather confusing. No union contract ties any worker to their job because workers are always free to find other work - as libertarians (doctrainaire and moderate) always remind us.
In a unionized marketplace changing jobs puts you at the bottom of the list. You always take a pay cut, likely a substantial one.
Nonsense. Most jobs are not union.
It's a matter of your position. Any given job is either mostly union or mostly non-union.
 
I agree with the OP headline - the union is showing its true colors by fighting for better conditions for current workers. I strongly suspect the union is bargaining for improvements that a majority of their members suggested or approve of.

I find the OP rather confusing. No union contract ties any worker to their job because workers are always free to find other work - as libertarians (doctrainaire and moderate) always remind us.
In a unionized marketplace changing jobs puts you at the bottom of the list. You always take a pay cut, likely a substantial one.
Nonsense. Most jobs are not union.
It's a matter of your position. Any given job is either mostly union or mostly non-union.
Perhaps we are talking a cross purpose. For example, professors can be unionized or not. Electricians can be unionized or not. Police officers can be unionized or not. So, I am at loss at what you mean. Can you give an example of what you mean?
 
It's a matter of your position. Any given job is either mostly union or mostly non-union.
Perhaps we are talking a cross purpose. For example, professors can be unionized or not. Electricians can be unionized or not. Police officers can be unionized or not. So, I am at loss at what you mean. Can you give an example of what you mean?
Large police forces have police unions. Professors normally do not have unions.
 
Back
Top Bottom