>>> More Evidence of the Pilot Shortage

PILOT SHORTAGE HITS REGIONALS
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1004-full.html#196655)
American Eagle, the regional subsidiary of American Airlines, has
trimmed flights from its winter schedule in part because it
doesn't have enough pilots. "It's one of several reasons, but that
does play into it," Eagle spokeswoman Andrea Huguely told the Fort
Worth Star-Telegram
(http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/322928.html). "The
pilots are crucial, and without them, the planes don't fly." Eagle
is one of several airlines that has cut minimum experience
requirements by two-thirds to 500 hours to attract more recruits.
According to the newspaper, Trans States Airlines, which operates
a regional service for American under the name American
Connection, briefly lowered its experience requirement to 250
hours during the summer. Although no one seems to deny the value
of experience, industry spokesmen contacted by the newspaper
seemed to agree that safety is not being seriously compromised.


http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/852841/
The carriers have reduced required flight hours for job applicants
by as much as two-thirds, and in a few cases have hired pilots
with the minimum experience required by the Federal Aviation
Administration for a pilot's license. ...

"The rush to push pilots through training and into the cockpits
raises obvious safety concerns," said John Prater, a veteran
Continental Airlines pilot and president of the Air Line Pilots
Association. ...

"New pilots today are going straight into the [co-pilot's] seat,
and moving into the [captain's] seat in a hurry," he said. "And
they're doing it in airplanes that are great machines but can be
unforgiving." ...

For example, a starting pilot at Trans States, a regional airline
that flies for American under the name American Connection, earns
$22 a flight hour, with 74 hours guaranteed a month, according to
AirlinePilotCentral.com, which tracks pilot salaries. That
translates to an annual starting salary of $19,500. A pilot flying
1,000 hours a year -- the most allowed under federal rules --
would earn about $22,000. ...

Airlines are aggressively recruiting on college campuses and
offering signing bonuses to new hires who complete their training.

Yeah, and what do many non-pilots don't fully understand is that pilots get
paid for the hours they fly...not for the hours they work. In an 8 hour
workday they may only get 4 hours of flight pay. Flight planning,
preflight, postflight, etc are not paid hours of work. $22.00/hour pay
rate (flight time) can translate to $11.00 an hour for actual working time.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> >>> More Evidence of the Pilot Shortage
>
> PILOT SHORTAGE HITS REGIONALS
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1004-full.html#196655)
> American Eagle, the regional subsidiary of American Airlines, has
> trimmed flights from its winter schedule in part because it
> doesn't have enough pilots. "It's one of several reasons, but that
> does play into it," Eagle spokeswoman Andrea Huguely told the Fort
> Worth Star-Telegram
> (http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/322928.html). "The
> pilots are crucial, and without them, the planes don't fly." Eagle
> is one of several airlines that has cut minimum experience
> requirements by two-thirds to 500 hours to attract more recruits.
> According to the newspaper, Trans States Airlines, which operates
> a regional service for American under the name American
> Connection, briefly lowered its experience requirement to 250
> hours during the summer. Although no one seems to deny the value
> of experience, industry spokesmen contacted by the newspaper
> seemed to agree that safety is not being seriously compromised.
>
>
> http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/852841/
> The carriers have reduced required flight hours for job applicants
> by as much as two-thirds, and in a few cases have hired pilots
> with the minimum experience required by the Federal Aviation
> Administration for a pilot's license. ...
>
> "The rush to push pilots through training and into the cockpits
> raises obvious safety concerns," said John Prater, a veteran
> Continental Airlines pilot and president of the Air Line Pilots
> Association. ...
>
> "New pilots today are going straight into the [co-pilot's] seat,
> and moving into the [captain's] seat in a hurry," he said. "And
> they're doing it in airplanes that are great machines but can be
> unforgiving." ...
>
> For example, a starting pilot at Trans States, a regional airline
> that flies for American under the name American Connection, earns
> $22 a flight hour, with 74 hours guaranteed a month, according to
> AirlinePilotCentral.com, which tracks pilot salaries. That
> translates to an annual starting salary of $19,500. A pilot flying
> 1,000 hours a year -- the most allowed under federal rules --
> would earn about $22,000. ...
>
> Airlines are aggressively recruiting on college campuses and
> offering signing bonuses to new hires who complete their training.
>
>

"Panic" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah, and what do many non-pilots don't fully understand is that pilots
> get paid for the hours they fly...not for the hours they work. In >an 8
> hour workday they may only get 4 hours of flight pay. Flight planning,
> preflight, postflight, etc are not paid hours of work. >$22.00/hour pay
> rate (flight time) can translate to $11.00 an hour for actual working
> time.

I'm curious as to why the airline pilots haven't all gone on strike to
demand better pay. Clearly, they can't be easily replaced or the airlines
wouldn't be scraping the bottom of the barrel for new hires. I learned
about supply/demand in Economics 101 but I'm sure the airline executives
know exactly what they're doing.

I'm sorry, but, there's a Burgerville down the road that pays better than
$11/hr, and a car dealership that pays better too; why would I invest tens
of thousands of dollars, submit myself to annual medical exams, corporate
nonsense (such as pilot salary) and inherent job insecurity, and then
separate myself from my family for less than what the guy flipping burgers
or selling Toyotas down the street makes?

Here's one otherwise-interested commercial pilot that the airlines won't get
for less than the $42,000 I could make resetting people's
e-mail and router passwords from the safety of an air-conditioned office.

-c

On Nov 26, 9:38 am, "Gatt" > wrote:
> "Panic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Yeah, and what do many non-pilots don't fully understand is that pilots
> > get paid for the hours they fly...not for the hours they work. In >an 8
> > hour workday they may only get 4 hours of flight pay. Flight planning,
> > preflight, postflight, etc are not paid hours of work. >$22.00/hour pay
> > rate (flight time) can translate to $11.00 an hour for actual working
> > time.
>
> I'm curious as to why the airline pilots haven't all gone on strike to
> demand better pay. Clearly, they can't be easily replaced or the airlines
> wouldn't be scraping the bottom of the barrel for new hires. I learned
> about supply/demand in Economics 101 but I'm sure the airline executives
> know exactly what they're doing.

First, you can only strike if you are part of a union. Federal laws
give unions protections that allow them to gain excess benefits,
beyond what supply and demand allow for. In short, when a union is
involved you do not have a free market (the employeer has his hands
tied and his nuts in a vice).

Second, even a union (like a parasite) cannot kill its host. Most
airlines are on the edge of bankruptcy (if not already in bankruptcy)
so asking for more money would just kill the host. Today competition
in the market has made margins slim in the industry and the survivors
are those that can produce their profit for the lowest cost
(Southwest, Jetblue, etc). Asking your airline to increase its cost
structure to increase your pay can literally put it out of business in
today's market.

-Robert

> Here's one otherwise-interested commercial pilot that the airlines won't get
> for less than the $42,000 I could make resetting people's
> e-mail and router passwords from the safety of an air-conditioned office.

Apparently you aren't interested enough. Luckily for the airlines,
other's are. As long as there are lots of applications on their desk
there is no reason to seek out you. I have no doubt that the airlines
will fill their vacacies.

-Robert

>> Here's one otherwise-interested commercial pilot that the airlines won't
>> get
>> for less than the $42,000 I could make resetting people's
>> e-mail and router passwords from the safety of an air-conditioned office.
>
> Apparently you aren't interested enough. Luckily for the airlines,
> other's are. As long as there are lots of applications on their desk
> there is no reason to seek out you. I have no doubt that the airlines
> will fill their vacacies.

Clearly. That's why there's a hiring shortage and they're having to scrape
the bottom of the barrel of qualified applicants to fill those jobs.

-c

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
news:8fe9b408-db41-494c-8015-

>> Clearly, they can't be easily replaced or the airlines wouldn't be
>> scraping the bottom of the barrel for new hires. I learned
>> about supply/demand in Economics 101 but I'm sure the airline executives
>> know exactly what they're doing.
>
> First, you can only strike if you are part of a union. Federal laws give
> unions protections that allow them to gain excess benefits,
> beyond what supply and demand allow for. In short, when a union is
> involved you do not have a free market (the employeer has his >hands tied
> and his nuts in a vice).

Well, having worked as a system administrator and seen countless jobs
shipped over to Bumfkistan, I'm not so interested in employers' interest
anymore. It is quite literally us and them. You do what the desk-pilot
with the MBA says, when they say, for how much they say, for as how long
they say, and it doesn't matter how well you do it because as soon as they
can hire somebody offshore to do it for less, your ass is out the door.

>Most airlines are on the edge of bankruptcy (if not already in bankruptcy)
>so asking for more money would just kill the host.

They should fire an executive and hire a couple of dozen pilots with the
money.

> Asking your airline to increase its cost structure to increase your pay
> can literally put it out of business in
> today's market.

What do you suppose their HR, marketing and IT people make? I'd bet that
their 20-year-old Help Desk techs make more than starting pilots. All kinds
of people talk about it and excuse the behavior but the reality is that the
airlines are desperate for pilots; dangerously so, according to the media
and inevitable consumer opinion. But, hey, when an engine fails on a 737,
maybe they can call the Help Desk.

America reaps, America sows. Consistently, America makes excuses for its
backwardass business logic. (In 1980 few people would have bought anything
"Made in the U.S.S.R." Now we're having to check to make sure the crap the
rival superpower we helped build isn't feeding our kids lead paint.

-c

> > Apparently you aren't interested enough. Luckily for the airlines,
> > other's are. As long as there are lots of applications on their desk
> > there is no reason to seek out you. I have no doubt that the airlines
> > will fill their vacacies.
>
> Clearly. That's why there's a hiring shortage and they're having to scrape
> the bottom of the barrel of qualified applicants to fill those jobs.

When they run out of apps, they'll raise the pay until they get some
more apps.

That's how it works in every business.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Nov 26, 10:50 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> First, you can only strike if you are part of a union. Federal laws
> give unions protections that allow them to gain excess benefits,
> beyond what supply and demand allow for. In short, when a union is
> involved you do not have a free market (the employeer has his hands
> tied and his nuts in a vice).

Robert, this post (Just like many of your other posts) shows that you
dont really have a grasp of the situation. If you dont like organized
labor thats fine, but you are making yourself look silly by painting
things with a broad brush.
>
> Second, even a union (like a parasite) cannot kill its host. Most
> airlines are on the edge of bankruptcy (if not already in bankruptcy)
> so asking for more money would just kill the host. Today competition
> in the market has made margins slim in the industry and the survivors
> are those that can produce their profit for the lowest cost
> (Southwest, Jetblue, etc). Asking your airline to increase its cost
> structure to increase your pay can literally put it out of business in
> today's market.

Where did you come up with this. Which airlines are on the brink ?
With the exeption of Doug Parker and USAirways the airlines have been
doing quite well. Pick up a newspaper once in awhile ;).
F Baum
>
> -Robert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:37ebfada-110b-4b3e-a0cb-]

>> Clearly. That's why there's a hiring shortage and they're having to
>> scrape
>> the bottom of the barrel of qualified applicants to fill those jobs.
>
> When they run out of apps, they'll raise the pay until they get some
> more apps.
>
> That's how it works in every business.

Meanwhile, the cream of the crop will go fly for El Al of Lufthansa, and UAL
scrounges around hiring inexperienced pilots.

Makes perfect sense.

-c

"F. Baum" > wrote in message news:f721a757-cfe1-4c34-aef2-

> Where did you come up with this. Which airlines are on the brink ?
> With the exeption of Doug Parker and USAirways the airlines have been
> doing quite well. Pick up a newspaper once in awhile ;).

Hey, all, just FYI. My wife and I got round-trip UAL tickets to New Orleans
for Mardi Gras for $210 each including taxes last month. In 1997 they were
something like $1,200. I see that they're up to $500-something right now.

Same ol' same ol'. 'Course, last year it took us 45 minutes to fly to NOLA
from Houston and 55 minutes for the building jockey to hook the jetway up to
the airplane so everybody could exit. (The pilot said quipped through the
intercom, "those jetways are complicated devices." I'd bet anything the guy
banging the jetway against the fuselage was making more than the pilot,
since the pilot wasn't making anything while he was sitting there waiting
for the professionals figure out how to open the door.)

-c

On Nov 26, 11:03 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Nov 26, 10:50 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > First, you can only strike if you are part of a union. Federal laws
> > give unions protections that allow them to gain excess benefits,
> > beyond what supply and demand allow for. In short, when a union is
> > involved you do not have a free market (the employeer has his hands
> > tied and his nuts in a vice).
>
> Robert, this post (Just like many of your other posts) shows that you
> dont really have a grasp of the situation. If you dont like organized
> labor thats fine, but you are making yourself look silly by painting
> things with a broad brush.

In the U.S. all labor unions are exempt from anti-trust laws, so yes
the brush if broad. If employers all tried to get together and set
saleries they would end up in jail pretty quick. The same bahavior is
legal for unions. When a union decides to strike it has no basis in
the current market value of the labor, it is only based on who can
squeeze who's balls the most. Since labor can strike as long as they
want and the employers can't replace them (thereby prooving the labor
value in the market) guess who has the unfair advantage. Nothing free
market about it. If you think there is anything free market about it
you should say so intstead of making vague statements of "you don't
really have a grasp on the situation".
I've worked in the free market (non-union) all my life and I've never
experienced the horror that unions warn us about. I don't get abused
by my employer, I don't get offered below market saleries (which would
be fooling of a company).
If union supporters had the opportunity to run a bussiness for just 6
months they would change their minds. The idea that you can get
unlimited employees of any skill level for nearly free (if it were not
for unions and local laws) is such a fatasy. Why do you think
McDonalds pays above minimum wage, its not because they are just being
nice. Its because there is a market for labor and emploers must pay
what is necessary for people to want to do the job. Why did we just
pay $80K/year for our most recent SA, its not because we were just
being charitable to him. In your world we could just pay him minimum
wage and he'd be happy about it, but that's because union leaders
don't understand the demand side of the labor market.

-Robert, MBA

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:50:24 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>In short, when a union is
>involved you do not have a free market (the employeer has his hands
>tied and his nuts in a vice).

And without a union, employees are in a similar situation.

If the USAF isn't the training ground for ATRs then instructing is.
It's nice to know the pilots in the military, in addition to flying
some neat airplanes, are paid better than those flying for the
commuter airlines. Who knows, some may decide to stay in the service
longer.

The US has been exporting jobs for a long time, it would be
interesting if now we began to import pilots. Somehow seeing a bearded
man wearing a turban in the left seat would awaken some concerns --
yeah, I know, profiling is not nice.


On Nov 26, 2:06 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
> news:37ebfada-110b-4b3e-a0cb-]
>
> >> Clearly. That's why there's a hiring shortage and they're having to
> >> scrape
> >> the bottom of the barrel of qualified applicants to fill those jobs.
>
> > When they run out of apps, they'll raise the pay until they get some
> > more apps.
>
> > That's how it works in every busine
> Meanwhile, the cream of the crop will go fly for El Al of Lufthansa, and UAL
> scrounges around hiring inexperienced pilots.
>
> Makes perfect sense.
>
> -c

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:06:17 -0800, "Gatt" >
wrote in >:

>Meanwhile, the cream of the crop will go fly for El Al of Lufthansa, and UAL
>scrounges around hiring inexperienced pilots.
>
>Makes perfect sense.

Isn't deregulation grand? :-)

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Apparently you aren't interested enough. Luckily for the airlines,
>>> other's are. As long as there are lots of applications on their desk
>>> there is no reason to seek out you. I have no doubt that the
>>> airlines will fill their vacacies.
>>
>> Clearly. That's why there's a hiring shortage and they're having to
>> scrape the bottom of the barrel of qualified applicants to fill
>> those jobs.
>
> When they run out of apps, they'll raise the pay until they get some
> more apps.
>
> That's how it works in every business.

Well obviously first they are going to lower the number of hours required.
Hey, at 500 they still have some room to lower them further.

Where they will first hear about the problem is when the captains start
bitching about having to fly all the legs because the 1st officer can't even
taxi without running into the grass.

"Tina" > wrote in message
news:fb315978-3985-4e96-9461-

> The US has been exporting jobs for a long time, it would be interesting if
> now we began to import pilots. Somehow seeing a bearded
> man wearing a turban in the left seat would awaken some concerns -- yeah,
> I know, profiling is not nice.

Not nice, but, reality is reality.

"Hello, my name is Captain Apu Nahasapeemapetilon. Your first officer is
Zheng Xiaoyu. To be thanking you for flying American Airlines..."

-c

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
news:bc402878-8f91-4edb-8ca7-

> -Robert, MBA

Ah.

MBA.

That explains everything. MBAs get paid a lot so others don't have to. ;>

-c

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...


> Well obviously first they are going to lower the number of hours required.
> Hey, at 500 they still have some room to lower them further.
>
> Where they will first hear about the problem is when the captains start
> bitching about having to fly all the legs because the 1st officer >can't
> even taxi without running into the grass.

Assuming the captain lives.

"[The runway] looks weird with no lights."
"Yeah..."


-c

On Nov 26, 12:31 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Nov 26, 11:03 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 26, 10:50 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
Robert, thanks for the response. What I am about to post may seem a
little harsh, but please dont take anything personally. First, I am
greatly amused by your posts. You come off like MX, in the sense that
you may have some basic book knowlege, but never having had a union
card, all of your knowlege is just theory (Thanks for admitting this)
without any experience to back it up. Your post sounds like something
out of a textbook.
Now I am not going to be all one sided so I will readily admit that
there are good unions and bad and they dont always do the best thing.
Every negotiation and contract is different and you have some very
unique considerations in the airline biz. You cannot characterize all
of them from one chapter in your textbook.
Maybe someday we can have a beer at Oshkosh or S&F and I will explain
some of how ALPA works.
F Baum

On Nov 26, 11:34 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:50:24 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >In short, when a union is
> >involved you do not have a free market (the employeer has his hands
> >tied and his nuts in a vice).
>
> And without a union, employees are in a similar situation.

Again that is the myth that labor tries to put out there. However, it
is based on the assumed belief that labor has no intrinsic market
value, only the value that organized labor can get for it. In truth
companies pay lots of money to recruiters and HR departments to seek
out employees. In truth the majority of American's do not work under a
collective bargaining unit but still are paid above minimum wage. The
reason is that there is a market for their labor and employers must
either pay it or do without. The fear of "the sky is falling" that
oraganized labor has put out there hasn't happened. In most cases non-
union employees make more than organized employees. The only one
making money off the unions are the fat cats that run the unions.

-Robert

On Nov 26, 11:38 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:06:17 -0800, "Gatt" >
> wrote in >:
>
> >Meanwhile, the cream of the crop will go fly for El Al of Lufthansa, and UAL
> >scrounges around hiring inexperienced pilots.
>
> >Makes perfect sense.
>
> Isn't deregulation grand? :-)

Yep, now families and individuals can fly. Back in the 70's only
companies could afford to fly. Even with inflasion at trip that used
to cost $1500 can be found for under $200. Are you willing to pay an
extra $1300 per seat to ensure the pilot is paid more than he's
willing to work for?

-Robert

> Well obviously first they are going to lower the number of hours required.
> Hey, at 500 they still have some room to lower them further.
>
> Where they will first hear about the problem is when the captains start
> bitching about having to fly all the legs because the 1st officer can't even
> taxi without running into the grass.

Obviously just for jokes. In truth many of the world's safest airlines
hire zero hour pilots right out of school all the time. In truth
internal training is often better than the hours someone would get
being a CFI in a 172.

-Robert

Gatt wrote:
>
>I'm curious as to why the airline pilots haven't all gone on strike to
>demand better pay. Clearly, they can't be easily replaced or the airlines
>wouldn't be scraping the bottom of the barrel for new hires. I learned
>about supply/demand in Economics 101 but I'm sure the airline executives
>know exactly what they're doing.
>

Right now they're not quite scraping the bottom of the barrel. The
current market for new regional FOs is about what it was during the last boom
period in the late 90s (when many also lowered the minimum hrs. to 500).
Rather than raising salaries, the airlines can just lower the experience
requirements to tap a reserve of potential recruits that wouldn't have
previously applied.

Supply and demand really does work. Previously, the regionals ate up the
supply of 800 hr. potential hires, and just lowered the requirements to
increase the supply to meet the demand. Granted, there is a limit to how
low they can go, but the 500 hr. minimum has been used before, so it'll
probably stay until the market changes.

I'm not so sure that upping the pay would make a great difference.
Assuming that they raised the starting pay 50% (a pretty hefty increase,
percentagewise), how many more qualified applicants would jump out of the
woodwork to fly for 30K/yr. instead of 20K/yr. My guess is :not many.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200711/1

On Nov 26, 1:49 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> Obviously just for jokes. In truth many of the world's safest airlines
> hire zero hour pilots right out of school all the time. In truth
> internal training is often better than the hours someone would get
> being a CFI in a 172.

Robert, this is as far off as your bankrupcy comments. It is called Ab-
Inito and most of the airlines who do this has terrible safety
records.
> -Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
news:c84afa29-03c9-46c6-aea8-

> Yep, now families and individuals can fly. Back in the 70's only
> companies could afford to fly. Even with inflasion at trip that used
> to cost $1500 can be found for under $200. Are you willing to pay an
> extra $1300 per seat to ensure the pilot is paid more than he's
> willing to work for?


Yeah, if he's fully-qualified. Seems glaringly freakin' obvious to me.
Otherwise, you could hire high school dropouts or ex-convicts to do it for
less.

"Hi. I'm not type-rated and don't have a driver's license or live in the
US, but I've logged -thousands- of hours on MSFS-X! I'll work for $12.50
per flight hour! Why would you pay pilots more than they're willing to work
for?"

The same could be said for business executives. Although I suppose Carly
Fiorina was WORTH all that money to HP.

-c

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
news:a3d92f7a-fd7f-4bcb-bcc7-


>> And without a union, employees are in a similar situation.
>
> Again that is the myth that labor tries to put out there.

Just think, if all those Chinese coolies had organized labor, there'd still
be no Union Pacific.

-c

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:7bce8f5bb74bf@uwe...

> Rather than raising salaries, the airlines can just lower the experience
> requirements to tap a reserve of potential recruits that wouldn't have
> previously applied.

Try that crap with their executive salaries and see how they howl.

> I'm not so sure that upping the pay would make a great difference.

Where are all the qualified pilots going these days? Overseas? Why was
that, again?

> Assuming that they raised the starting pay 50% (a pretty hefty increase,
> percentagewise), how many more qualified applicants would jump out of the
> woodwork to fly for 30K/yr. instead of 20K/yr.

*hand raised*

-c

On Nov 26, 1:56 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> Gatt wrote:
>
>>
> Right now they're not quite scraping the bottom of the barrel. The
> current market for new regional FOs is about what it was during the last boom
> period in the late 90s (when many also lowered the minimum hrs. to 500).
> Rather than raising salaries, the airlines can just lower the experience
> requirements to tap a reserve of potential recruits that wouldn't have
> previously applied.

Not even close! During the last boom the A list commuters never got
below the ATP. Another thing you are ignoring is that at these wages,
commuters (And Majors) are not retaining people. NASA just did some
work on this and found out that 20% of pilots under 40 were planning
to leave the industry over pay and working conditions.

>
> Supply and demand really does work. Previously, the regionals ate up the
> supply of 800 hr. potential hires, and just lowered the requirements to
> increase the supply to meet the demand. Granted, there is a limit to how
> low they can go, but the 500 hr. minimum has been used before, so it'll
> probably stay until the market changes.

Way too simplistic. At some point they will run out of dedicated
profesionals who are willing to do the job with current conditions.

>
> I'm not so sure that upping the pay would make a great difference.
> Assuming that they raised the starting pay 50% (a pretty hefty increase,
> percentagewise), how many more qualified applicants would jump out of the
> woodwork to fly for 30K/yr. instead of 20K/yr. My guess is :not many.

It will take more than $$$$, thats for sure. I think the kids starting
out need to see marked improvement in working conditions, pay and job
security, or they will just go do something more meaningful for a
living.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200711/1

F. Baum wrote:
> On Nov 26, 1:49 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
>> Obviously just for jokes. In truth many of the world's safest
>> airlines hire zero hour pilots right out of school all the time. In
>> truth internal training is often better than the hours someone would
>> get being a CFI in a 172.

> Robert, this is as far off as your bankrupcy comments. It is called
> Ab- Inito and most of the airlines who do this has terrible safety
> records.

Lufthansa's safety record is not so bad....

regards,
Friedrich

On Nov 26, 2:26 pm, "Friedrich Ostertag"
> wrote:
> F. Baum wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 1:49 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>

> > Robert, this is as far off as your bankrupcy comments. It is called
> > Ab- Inito and most of the airlines who do this has terrible safety
> > records.
>
> Lufthansa's safety record is not so bad....

True, but they run their program differently than most. Take a look at
some of the US Regionals and some of the Asian carriers
>
> regards,
> Friedrich
Regards,
F B

On Nov 26, 1:09 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:

> "Hi. I'm not type-rated and don't have a driver's license or live in the
> US, but I've logged -thousands- of hours on MSFS-X! I'll work for $12.50
> per flight hour! Why would you pay pilots more than they're willing to work
> for?"

So your concern is that the airlines are going to put pilots in the
seat without a type rating? So if the airlines guarantee that pilots
have a type rating you're ok?

> The same could be said for business executives. Although I suppose Carly
> Fiorina was WORTH all that money to HP.

The investors decided to give her a shot. She didn't work out and they
lost their money. That's the way the world works. In order for a
business to succeed the investors *MUST* take risk. When the risks pay
off everyone is happy but when they don't people like you damn them
for having taken the risk in the first place.

-Robert

F. Baum schrieb:

>> Obviously just for jokes. In truth many of the world's safest airlines
>> hire zero hour pilots right out of school all the time. In truth
>> internal training is often better than the hours someone would get
>> being a CFI in a 172.

> Robert, this is as far off as your bankrupcy comments. It is called Ab-
> Inito and most of the airlines who do this has terrible safety
> records.

Many if not most European airlines do it. They understand that thousand
hours in a spam can won't teach you how to operate heavy metal (or heavy
plastc) in a multi crew cockpit. I'm not aware that European airlines
have a significantly worse saftey record than US carriers.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Since labor can strike as long as they
> want and the employers can't replace them



They most certainly can. Happens all the time. If you go on strike you
have effectively quit. An employer is free to hire a replacement at his
discretion. Sometimes it's cost effective for the employer to do this,
sometimes it isn't. And if the employer hires replacements then you
will be laid off.

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:50:24 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>>In short, when a union is
>>involved you do not have a free market (the employeer has his hands
>>tied and his nuts in a vice).
>
>
> And without a union, employees are in a similar situation.
>

Why? Are you being forced to stay at that employer against your will?

F. Baum wrote:
>
>Not even close! During the last boom the A list commuters never got
>below the ATP.

Don't know who you consider A list, but at the time, two 500 hr. flight
instructors from my local FBO got right seat jobs with Mesa/AmWestExpress.
>
>
>Way too simplistic. At some point they will run out of dedicated
>profesionals who are willing to do the job with current conditions.

You'd think so. Odd that it hasn't happened yet. Commuters have been
paying starvation wages for at least the last 20 yrs (as long as I've been
aware of it). Even during boom times.


>
>It will take more than $$$$, thats for sure. I think the kids starting
>out need to see marked improvement in working conditions, pay and job
>security, or they will just go do something more meaningful for a
>living.
>
Realistically, most of the airline-bound young pilots I know don't care
about any of that. They just want to fly for a living, and they'll do
whatever is required to get into an airline cockpit. I'm not saying it's
right on the part of the airlines, or smart on the part of the pilots, but it
seems to have been (and still be) the way it is.


John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

Gatt wrote:
>
>> I'm not so sure that upping the pay would make a great difference.
>
>Where are all the qualified pilots going these days? Overseas? Why was
>that, again?

I thought we were talking about the marginally qualified pilots that the
commuters are currently settling for.

>> Assuming that they raised the starting pay 50% (a pretty hefty increase,
>> percentagewise), how many more qualified applicants would jump out of the
>> woodwork to fly for 30K/yr. instead of 20K/yr.
>
>*hand raised*

OK. That's one. Seriously, my point was that there are not a huge
number of qualified pilots such as yourself who are sitting on the sidelines
waiting for salaries to hit the 30K mark. Most people on an airline pilot
career path are well aware of what the starting salaries are, and they're
prepared to bite the bullet for a few years flying commuters. At least
that's been the case with most of the aspiring airline pilots I've known.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200711/1

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:

>
>
> You'd think so. Odd that it hasn't happened yet. Commuters have been
> paying starvation wages for at least the last 20 yrs (as long as I've been
> aware of it). Even during boom times.

One difference today is that the starting pay of the more attractive
jobs is way down. We have a commuter based here in Billings, Big Sky
Airlines. They fly Beech 1900's and pay $25K for the right seat and
$40K to start in the left seat. If you want to then go fly for Skywest
or Horizon flying RJ's you're back down to mid $20's again for a while.
I think also that if you get that job with Northwest or United you'll
be starting below $40K.

On Nov 26, 3:55 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
>
> Don't know who you consider A list, but at the time, two 500 hr. flight
> instructors from my local FBO got right seat jobs with Mesa/AmWestExpress.
>
Rest my case. Mesa is one of the worst, make that THE worst operation
that has ever existed.

On Nov 26, 3:09 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Nov 26, 3:55 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
>
> > Don't know who you consider A list, but at the time, two 500 hr. flight
> > instructors from my local FBO got right seat jobs with Mesa/AmWestExpress.
>
> Rest my case. Mesa is one of the worst, make that THE worst operation
> that has ever existed.

Yet pilots want to work for them. I guess what ever they are getting
from it is enough to put up with any downside.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message

>> "Hi. I'm not type-rated and don't have a driver's license or live in the
>> US, but I've logged -thousands- of hours on MSFS-X! I'll work for $12.50
>> per flight hour! Why would you pay pilots more than they're willing to
>> work
>> for?"
>
> So your concern is that the airlines are going to put pilots in the
> seat without a type rating? So if the airlines guarantee that pilots
> have a type rating you're ok?

No. I was being sarcastic.

>> The same could be said for business executives. Although I suppose Carly
>> Fiorina was WORTH all that money to HP.
>
> The investors decided to give her a shot. She didn't work out and they
> lost their money.

A whole bunch of engineers I know who designed the products and
manufacturing infrastructures that made those products industry leaders lost
their jobs in the subsequent fallout, too. She got more in her severance
pay than most of their annual salaries combined, and then the bitch had the
gall to get up and tell the graduating class of OSU that she was unemployed
just like them.

....'Course, not only did she get tens of millions of dollars in severance,
they gave her $50,000 for--get this--"financial and legal counseling."
Apparently she can't afford a laywer, so, hell, just axe an engineer or
technical writer and give her the money. She's out of a job and all.

Nope. The system is broken. It's funny how only the people making all the
money think the system works. Meanwhile, a business executive's bonus
shouldn't be worth a toddlers' lead poisoning but America has clearly sold
out to the China. It can't help itself. We can't control ourselves. In
other newsgroups we've got the right wing calling everybody communists and
then defending Wal Mart China.

> That's the way the world works.

For odd values of "works." It sure as hell works for China, India, Taiwan
and everywhere else America has outsourced itself, hasn't it?
Are they offshoring MBAs yet?

-c

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:7bcfaa8a07f95@uwe...
> Gatt wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not so sure that upping the pay would make a great difference.
>>
>>Where are all the qualified pilots going these days? Overseas? Why
>>was
>>that, again?
>
> I thought we were talking about the marginally qualified pilots that the
> commuters are currently settling for.

As soon as they're qualified, they're leaving. That's why the majors are
hiring, too.

-c

> Since labor can strike as long as they
> want and the employers can't replace them ([...])
> guess who has the unfair advantage.

I guess the key word is "unfair". Sheer size (of a corporation or
industry vs. an employee) is also an advantage. Is it unfair? Does it
(unfettered) lead to unfair practices?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I think you are a little off in your pay scale. For different airline pay
scale look here http://willflyforfood.cc/airlinepilotpay/


"Panic" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah, and what do many non-pilots don't fully understand is that pilots
> get paid for the hours they fly...not for the hours they work. In an 8
> hour workday they may only get 4 hours of flight pay. Flight planning,
> preflight, postflight, etc are not paid hours of work. $22.00/hour pay
> rate (flight time) can translate to $11.00 an hour for actual working
> time.
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> >>> More Evidence of the Pilot Shortage
>>
>> PILOT SHORTAGE HITS REGIONALS
>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1004-full.html#196655)
>> American Eagle, the regional subsidiary of American Airlines, has
>> trimmed flights from its winter schedule in part because it
>> doesn't have enough pilots. "It's one of several reasons, but that
>> does play into it," Eagle spokeswoman Andrea Huguely told the Fort
>> Worth Star-Telegram
>> (http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/322928.html). "The
>> pilots are crucial, and without them, the planes don't fly." Eagle
>> is one of several airlines that has cut minimum experience
>> requirements by two-thirds to 500 hours to attract more recruits.
>> According to the newspaper, Trans States Airlines, which operates
>> a regional service for American under the name American
>> Connection, briefly lowered its experience requirement to 250
>> hours during the summer. Although no one seems to deny the value
>> of experience, industry spokesmen contacted by the newspaper
>> seemed to agree that safety is not being seriously compromised.
>>
>>
>> http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/852841/
>> The carriers have reduced required flight hours for job applicants
>> by as much as two-thirds, and in a few cases have hired pilots
>> with the minimum experience required by the Federal Aviation
>> Administration for a pilot's license. ...
>>
>> "The rush to push pilots through training and into the cockpits
>> raises obvious safety concerns," said John Prater, a veteran
>> Continental Airlines pilot and president of the Air Line Pilots
>> Association. ...
>>
>> "New pilots today are going straight into the [co-pilot's] seat,
>> and moving into the [captain's] seat in a hurry," he said. "And
>> they're doing it in airplanes that are great machines but can be
>> unforgiving." ...
>>
>> For example, a starting pilot at Trans States, a regional airline
>> that flies for American under the name American Connection, earns
>> $22 a flight hour, with 74 hours guaranteed a month, according to
>> AirlinePilotCentral.com, which tracks pilot salaries. That
>> translates to an annual starting salary of $19,500. A pilot flying
>> 1,000 hours a year -- the most allowed under federal rules --
>> would earn about $22,000. ...
>>
>> Airlines are aggressively recruiting on college campuses and
>> offering signing bonuses to new hires who complete their training.
>>
>>
>
>

On Nov 26, 3:58 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:

> ...'Course, not only did she get tens of millions of dollars in severance,
> they gave her $50,000 for--get this--"financial and legal counseling."
> Apparently she can't afford a laywer, so, hell, just axe an engineer or
> technical writer and give her the money. She's out of a job and all.

But HP didn't ask you to put one dime into her severancebucket. The
company took the risk and the company lost their money. I wouldn't
want to live in a world where I have to get permission from the gov't
to decide how I want to risk my own money.

> Nope. The system is broken. It's funny how only the people making all the
> money think the system works. Meanwhile, a business executive's bonus
> shouldn't be worth a toddlers' lead poisoning but America has clearly sold
> out to the China.

You can always offer to hire the CEO for your company without a bonus
package. There is no law requiring a bonus. The owners of the company
choose the compensation package of their executives and its the owners
who have to pay it. If they were spending gov't money I could see why
you would get upset but they are risking their own money. If HP had
made billions as a result of their new CEO I'm sure you wouldn't have
a problem sharing in that. Risk is inherit to business you can't run a
business without taking risks. You can't punish investors for risking
their own money without killing business and jobs.

-Robert

On Nov 26, 4:11 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > Since labor can strike as long as they
> > want and the employers can't replace them ([...])
> > guess who has the unfair advantage.
>
> I guess the key word is "unfair". Sheer size (of a corporation or
> industry vs. an employee) is also an advantage. Is it unfair? Does it
> (unfettered) lead to unfair practices?

Only if they are the only employer around. Otherwise if you are being
paid less than what the market dictates you just go elsewhere.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 26, 3:58 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
>
>> ...'Course, not only did she get tens of millions of dollars in
>> severance, they gave her $50,000 for--get this--"financial and legal
>> >>counseling." Apparently she can't afford a laywer, so, hell, just axe
>> an engineer or
>> technical writer and give her the money. She's out of a job and all.
>
> But HP didn't ask you to put one dime into her severancebucket.


Did I not mention that a whole hell of a lot of engineers, etc, lost their
jobs? Accountants, technicians, service employees...HP Corvallis just
about imploded and parts of their new campus were a ghost town last time I
was there.

>The company took the risk and the company lost their money. I wouldn't
> want to live in a world where I have to get permission from the gov't

Who mentioned the government?


> You can always offer to hire the CEO for your company without a bonus
> package. There is no law requiring a bonus. The owners of the company
> choose the compensation package of their executives and its the owners
> who have to pay it.

Did I not mention that the engineers and the people who actually designed,
manufactured and marketed the HP technology are the ones that lost their
jobs?

Honestly. Thousands of Americans lost their jobs and she got tens of
millions of dollars as a firing bonus, and not only that, they gave her
average employee's annual salary to cover her "financial and legal
expenses."

> If they were spending gov't money I could see why you would get upset but
> they are risking their own money.

People who worked for HP for a decade or more lost their homes. It's awful
goddamn casual to say 'Aw, well, they're risking their own money.'

> If HP had made billions as a result of their new CEO I'm sure you wouldn't
> have a problem sharing in that.

If they had made billions she would have been worth the 40-odd million
dollars they blew showing her the door, wouldn't they?
How many engineers--who actually contributed to the success of the
company--can you hire for forty million dollars they paid to fire her.

Sure the owners can do whatever they want. But they're not doing it with
my stock investments. I'll save it for a company who doesn't have its head
up some bazillionairre's ass.

All this bull**** about "risking money" might sound great in a boardroom or
on Wall Street, but when people's livelihoods are at stake it's about equal
to talking about it in Vegas.

You guys can justify it all you want, but, Hewlett Packard is a shell--a
joke--of what it was when I was there in 1993 when employees were happy,
jobs were secure and HP inket and laser printers were worldwide industry and
technology leaders.

-c

On Nov 26, 4:54 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> Yet pilots want to work for them. I guess what ever they are getting
> from it is enough to put up with any downside.

Not so much anymore. They, along with other regionals, are canceling
flights from lack of crews. Take a look at their turn over.
>
> -Robert

>> Since labor can strike as long as they
>> want and the employers can't replace them ([...])


Since when?

On Nov 26, 7:37 pm, Newps > wrote:
> >> Since labor can strike as long as they
> >> want and the employers can't replace them ([...])
>
> Since when?

Oh yea, your a controller! :)

On Nov 26, 5:40 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:

> If they had made billions she would have been worth the 40-odd million
> dollars they blew showing her the door, wouldn't they?
> How many engineers--who actually contributed to the success of the
> company--can you hire for forty million dollars they paid to fire her.

They paid what they needed to to get the CEO they thought they needed.
Its easy to Monday Morning Quarter back when you've not been in the
board room. Maybe you would have been a better chairman of their
board, who knows. Maybe you should apply for the position.

> Sure the owners can do whatever they want. But they're not doing it with
> my stock investments. I'll save it for a company who doesn't have its head
> up some bazillionairre's ass.

You should do that. You should not invest your money in any company
you don't feel comfortable investing in. If enough people argued with
you HP's stock would be nearly worthless and they would probably not
last long.

> All this bull**** about "risking money" might sound great in a boardroom or
> on Wall Street, but when people's livelihoods are at stake it's about equal
> to talking about it in Vegas.

Now that is a different argument. What you are arguing now is the
primary purpose of a company. To me, the primary purpose of a for-
profit company is to maximize return to their investors. In fact in
the U.S. companies have a legal, fiduciary responsibility to do just
that. That is a central tenant of capitalism. There are other forms of
economic policies in other countries that make employment a core
mission of companies. In fact employment for the workers of a country
is a central tenant of communism as well as a core tenant of more left
leaning socialist countries ("Worker's Party", "People's Republic",
etc).
To say one type of economy is better than another is largely
philosophical issue. However, I would argue that employees in
capitalist countries fair far better than those in communist and
restricted socialist countries.

-Robert

On Nov 26, 7:11 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:54 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yet pilots want to work for them. I guess what ever they are getting
> > from it is enough to put up with any downside.
>
> Not so much anymore. They, along with other regionals, are canceling
> flights from lack of crews. Take a look at their turn over.

If that is true then the companies that are not able to man flights
will go out of business and those that can crew flights will gain
their business. You just need to wait and all the regionals that can't
crew flights will soon be gone.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 26, 5:40 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
>
>> If they had made billions she would have been worth the 40-odd million
>> dollars they blew showing her the door, wouldn't they?
>> How many engineers--who actually contributed to the success of the
>> company--can you hire for forty million dollars they paid to fire her.
>
> They paid what they needed to to get the CEO they thought they needed.
> Its easy to Monday Morning Quarter back when you've not been in the
> board room. Maybe you would have been a better chairman of their
> board, who knows. Maybe you should apply for the position.

Or, for example, consider how much Jack Welch got paid while bringing GE
from a $7B company to a $35B company.

Fact is, without unions, the airpline industry wouldn't have blossomed into
what i was and, more importantly, be as safe as it is today.




End of story.

Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:a3d92f7a-fd7f-4bcb-bcc7-
:

> On Nov 26, 11:34 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:50:24 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >In short, when a union is
>> >involved you do not have a free market (the employeer has his hands
>> >tied and his nuts in a vice).
>>
>> And without a union, employees are in a similar situation.
>
> Again that is the myth that labor tries to put out there.


No, it isn't



Bertie

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Realistically, most of the airline-bound young pilots I know don't
> care about any of that. They just want to fly for a living, and
> they'll do whatever is required to get into an airline cockpit.
> I'm not saying it's right on the part of the airlines, or smart on
> the part of the pilots, but it seems to have been (and still be) the
> way it is.
>
>

And there is the problem. In the past it was pretty much an internship into
a REALLY good paying and respected job with the majors so kids were willing
to put up with it. Now days the pay at the majors is down and the respect is
WAY down.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> And there is the problem. In the past it was pretty much an internship
into
> a REALLY good paying and respected job with the majors so kids were
willing
> to put up with it. Now days the pay at the majors is down and the respect
is
> WAY down.
>

It's no wonder that the airlines are going to have to hire inexperienced
pilots. They're trying to dismantle their training ground (general aviation)

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>> Realistically, most of the airline-bound young pilots I know don't
>> care about any of that. They just want to fly for a living, and
>> they'll do whatever is required to get into an airline cockpit.
>> I'm not saying it's right on the part of the airlines, or smart on
>> the part of the pilots, but it seems to have been (and still be) the
>> way it is.
>>
>>
>
> And there is the problem. In the past it was pretty much an internship into
> a REALLY good paying and respected job with the majors so kids were willing
> to put up with it. Now days the pay at the majors is down and the respect is
> WAY down.
>
>

Greyhound bus drivers make more than regional pilots.

The crash is coming

On Nov 26, 10:48 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> >> And without a union, employees are in a similar situation.
>
> > Again that is the myth that labor tries to put out there.
>
> No, it isn't

Many of us have a great successful career without every being a member
of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members. In fact,
the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think your point
is countered.

-Robert

On Nov 26, 10:48 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Fact is, without unions, the airpline industry wouldn't have blossomed into
> what i was and, more importantly, be as safe as it is today.
>
> End of story.

Whenever someone presents opinions as facts (especially as inarguable
facts) my B.S. detector starts to blow up.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Nov 26, 10:48 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Fact is, without unions, the airpline industry wouldn't have
>> blossomed into what i was and, more importantly, be as safe as it is
>> today.
>>
>> End of story.
>
> Whenever someone presents opinions as facts (especially as inarguable
> facts) my B.S. detector starts to blow up.


It is a fact.


Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:50993f84-402f-4a0d-b800-
:

> On Nov 26, 10:48 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> >> And without a union, employees are in a similar situation.
>>
>> > Again that is the myth that labor tries to put out there.
>>
>> No, it isn't
>
> Many of us have a great successful career without every being a member
> of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members. In fact,
> the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think your point
> is countered.


No, it isn't


Bertie

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Panic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Yeah, and what do many non-pilots don't fully understand is that pilots
>> get paid for the hours they fly...not for the hours they work. In >an 8
>> hour workday they may only get 4 hours of flight pay. Flight planning,
>> preflight, postflight, etc are not paid hours of work. >$22.00/hour pay
>> rate (flight time) can translate to $11.00 an hour for actual working
>> time.
>
> I'm curious as to why the airline pilots haven't all gone on strike to
> demand better pay. Clearly, they can't be easily replaced or the
> airlines wouldn't be scraping the bottom of the barrel for new hires. I
> learned about supply/demand in Economics 101 but I'm sure the airline
> executives know exactly what they're doing.

It's somewhat like the guy in the circus whose job is to shovel out the
elephant manure each day. When someone asked him why he didn't quit he said
"What? And give up show business?" We are our own worst financial enemy.
Too many pilots enjoy flying so much that they'll work for peanuts.
>
> I'm sorry, but, there's a Burgerville down the road that pays better than
> $11/hr, and a car dealership that pays better too; why would I invest tens
> of thousands of dollars, submit myself to annual medical exams, corporate
> nonsense (such as pilot salary) and inherent job insecurity, and then
> separate myself from my family for less than what the guy flipping burgers
> or selling Toyotas down the street makes?
>
> Here's one otherwise-interested commercial pilot that the airlines won't
> get for less than the $42,000 I could make resetting people's
> e-mail and router passwords from the safety of an air-conditioned office.
>
> -c
>

On Nov 27, 8:42 am, "Panic" > wrote:

> It's somewhat like the guy in the circus whose job is to shovel out the
> elephant manure each day. When someone asked him why he didn't quit he said
> "What? And give up show business?" We are our own worst financial enemy.
> Too many pilots enjoy flying so much that they'll work for peanuts.

Exactly. And if you pay above what pilots are asking all you do is
create a situation where there are more pilots than jobs. Only when
saleries match the market demand is there an even demand for jobs with
the offering of jobs. Those that don't love the jobs as much as
others will simply find other jobs that make them happy.

-Robert

"F. Baum" > wrote in message news:6f383433-c03a-4acf-9dd0-

>> Yet pilots want to work for them. I guess what ever they are getting
>> from it is enough to put up with any downside.
>
> Not so much anymore. They, along with other regionals, are canceling
> flights from lack of crews. Take a look at their turn over.

My wife and I got stuck in London a couple of years ago because United
couldn't find a flight crew out of Heathrow who was eligible to fly the 747
back to Seattle. They unloaded the entire airplane onto buses, put us up
in a really nice hotel near Hounslow, gave us a great buffet dinner and a
small amount of spending money. I don't know how many passengers were on
the 747, but I bet it filled up the hotel.

Imagine what that cost the company just because they didn't have two extra
pilots available.

I've gone beyond the hope that the current management generation is going to
get anything done, but the entire management and human resources paradigm is
about to change based on the stuff they're teaching in college business
courses now. Lots of emphasis on issues such as Enron and corporate ethics
and HR compensation and benefit strategies that were previously unthinkable.
Nike's corporate headquarters in Oregon are a great example of this. If
you're lucky enough to work for them in the US, you have flexible hours,
child care and a pretty stunning departure from the typical gray
let's-live-in-stalls-and-get-fat-like-veal corporate workplace. They're
able to attract employees willing to work for the conditions and the
benefits moreso than the pay, which costs them less in the long run.
..

-c

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
news:305cc595-ec96-4a36-8947-

>> Not so much anymore. They, along with other regionals, are canceling
>> flights from lack of crews. Take a look at their turn over.
>
> If that is true then the companies that are not able to man flights will
> go out of business

Or rob their employee's pensions to cover their loss, or beg the government
for bailouts.

-c

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
news:fc821152-8b1d-4014-a385-

> They paid what they needed to to get the CEO they thought they needed.
> Its easy to Monday Morning Quarter back when you've not been in the
> board room. Maybe you would have been a better chairman of their
> board, who knows. Maybe you should apply for the position.

I wouldn't have been. On the other hand...what... I might have cost them
thousands of jobs, hundreds of millions of dollars, industry prestige and
leadership, taken 40 million just to leave, and gotten fired after just a
few years. Oh, wait...

I'd could wreck their company for a fraction of what they paid her to do it,
and for a fraction of what they paid her to stop. Doesn't take hindsight.

> However, I would argue that employees in capitalist countries fair far
> better than those in communist and
> restricted socialist countries.

That's sort of a serious tangent, but, I bet plenty of employees in
communist countries fair far better economically than pilots trying to pay
off their school loans and survive for under $25,000 a year. Sure, the
primary purpose of a for-profit company is to maximize return to their
investors, but the laws against slavery, illegal labor, child labor, etc
demonstrate a developing sense in America that there is a higher value and
ethic than simply making money for investors. Otherwise, we'd still have
Chinese coolies dying on the job and doing backbreaking labor or kids locked
in New England sweatshops, which are two things that happened in America
when we let investors and executives run amok. The course has been set and
now, practically nobody would say that locking children into a firetrap
warehouse filled with sewing machines is acceptable. But it wasn't the
investors or clothing executives that slayed that dragon.

I'm not saying that government or union intervention is the solution. I'm
saying the people of the United States of America need to rethink their
priorities. America isn't just about what's best for the investors. (That
would be, what, China? Saudi Arabia? It's hard to keep track of who owns
our asses anymore.)

-c

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Nov 26, 7:37 pm, Newps > wrote:
>
>>>>Since labor can strike as long as they
>>>>want and the employers can't replace them ([...])
>>
>>Since when?
>
>
> Oh yea, your a controller! :)

Yes, but that's irrelevant.

On Nov 27, 9:36 am, "Gatt" > wrote:
> I'd could wreck their company for a fraction of what they paid her to do it,
> and for a fraction of what they paid her to stop. Doesn't take hindsight.

I worked for Agilent at that same time. Agilent had spun off from HP
before things went bad. I can tell you that things at Agilent were not
much better. The market changed. In fact, in our later analysis at
Agilent we concluded that we could have reduced much of the pain if we
hadn't waited so long to begin lay offs (we called them "Work Force
Management"). When revenues are falling because of the "telecom
winter" and you wait too long to reduce your cost structure, everyone
suffers in the end.
On the other hand, we were not able to reduce our workforce in the
same way in France. As a result, France saw fewer layoffs. However, we
also are very, very slow to hire in France because of that and, as a
result, France has very, very high unemployment. Companies MUST be
able to adjust their cost structure (up and down) as necessary to
react to the market. There simply isn't endless loads of cash coming
in the back door to make decisions easier the way it was in the old HP
days. When revenues were easy HP was a choice place to work. However,
there is simply no economic way to continue that when the revenues go
away.

> That's sort of a serious tangent, but, I bet plenty of employees in
> communist countries fair far better economically than pilots trying to pay
> off their school loans and survive for under $25,000 a year.

Maybe but most of us choose to live in a capitalist country because we
believe in it. GA is a perfect example of the benefits of a free
society. Look at what a 172 rents for in France.

> Sure, the
> primary purpose of a for-profit company is to maximize return to their
> investors, but the laws against slavery, illegal labor, child labor, etc
> demonstrate a developing sense in America that there is a higher value and
> ethic than simply making money for investors.

Again, if you want to say that the purpose of a company is to provide
employement then you are operating on a different premise. If you are
saying a company should continue to lose money because its cost
structure is well beyond its income (which is what happened to HP), in
order to protect the employees, to the cost of investors, then you are
saying that investors have the burden of providing employment. You are
certainly allowed to start your own company and in your articles of
incorporation and in your SEC filing state that the purpose of your
company is to provide employment. However, having been in the
situation of falling revenues with a high cost (employee) overhead, I
can tell you that you either must adjust to the situation or go out of
business fast. There is only so much money out there and you can't
forever fund a company that is losing money that doesn't attempt to
reduce costs.

-Robert

On Nov 27, 8:18 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > Many of us have a great successful career without every being a member
> > of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members. In fact,
> > the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think your point
> > is countered.
>
> No, it isn't
>
> Bertie


Did you just stomp your feet? :)

On Nov 27, 10:04 am, Newps > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 7:37 pm, Newps > wrote:
>
> >>>>Since labor can strike as long as they
> >>>>want and the employers can't replace them ([...])
>
> >>Since when?
>
> > Oh yea, your a controller! :)
>
> Yes, but that's irrelevant.

Its relevant in that the President of the United State of America
authorized the strike to be broken. That is not typically an option
for employers. Certainly not a typical situation.

-Robert

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:43:35 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:


>Did you just stomp your feet? :)


He pouted. I swear... <G>

On Nov 27, 8:43 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> Many of us have a great successful career without every being a member
> of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members. In fact,
> the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think your point
> is countered.

Robert, you rascal ! I love your simplistic answers. Lets take a look
at things that didnt exist before organized labor; Child labor laws,
healt care benifits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance, paid vacation,
benifits packages, retirement, DC plans,overtime and the list goes
on................ If you had a great career with any of these benies
you can thank organized labor ;)
FB


>
> -Robert

Another aspect of the work environment that organized labor is
responsible for is the better treatment of non unionized workers.

Years ago young managers were told in no uncertain terms they had to
treat their workers well so as to make the protections unions provided
unnecessary. It really was a part of first line supervisor training in
some industries, like the high tech ones in the northeast.

I don't know if that is still going on. I do know labor turnover is a
significant factor in rating supervisor skills (those here with profit/
loss responsibility surely know how expensive it is to bring an
employee up to effective levels of contribution, and that is a cost
that is repeated every time someone new is hired).

Sometimes, though, people who are consistantly underperforming, if
training doesn't help, need to be discharged, and that can't be done
with tenure protected teachers in public school systems for example.
Hey, some of us in colleges need to be kick restarted from time to
time, for that matter.



..



workersOn Nov 27, 9:43 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Nov 27, 8:43 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Many of us have a great successful career without every being a member
> > of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members. In fact,
> > the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think your point
> > is countered.
>
> Robert, you rascal ! I love your simplistic answers. Lets take a look
> at things that didnt exist before organized labor; Child labor laws,
> healt care benifits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance, paid vacation,
> benifits packages, retirement, DC plans,overtime and the list goes
> on................ If you had a great career with any of these benies
> you can thank organized labor ;)
> FB
>
>
>
>
>
> > -Robert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In article >,
"F. Baum" > wrote:

> On Nov 27, 8:43 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> >
> > Many of us have a great successful career without every being a member
> > of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members. In fact,
> > the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think your point
> > is countered.
>
> Robert, you rascal ! I love your simplistic answers. Lets take a look
> at things that didnt exist before organized labor; Child labor laws,
> healt care benifits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance, paid vacation,
> benifits packages, retirement, DC plans,overtime and the list goes
> on................ If you had a great career with any of these benies
> you can thank organized labor ;)
> FB

You are assuming that these "benies" exist because of organized
labor.

Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
and what laws would go away?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On 2007-11-26 09:38:31 -0800, "Gatt" > said:

>
> "Panic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Yeah, and what do many non-pilots don't fully understand is that pilots
>> get paid for the hours they fly...not for the hours they work. In >an 8
>> hour workday they may only get 4 hours of flight pay. Flight planning,
>> preflight, postflight, etc are not paid hours of work. >$22.00/hour pay
>> rate (flight time) can translate to $11.00 an hour for actual working
>> time.
>
> I'm curious as to why the airline pilots haven't all gone on strike to
> demand better pay. Clearly, they can't be easily replaced or the airlines
> wouldn't be scraping the bottom of the barrel for new hires. I learned
> about supply/demand in Economics 101 but I'm sure the airline executives
> know exactly what they're doing.

Right now it is the unions that are in the way of new hires getting
better pay. As union contracts are re-negotiated you will start to see
higher starting pay. For now, the airlines are making do with signing
bonuses or even referral bonuses.



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-11-26 08:56:00 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:

>
> >>> More Evidence of the Pilot Shortage
>
> PILOT SHORTAGE HITS REGIONALS
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1004-full.html#196655)
> American Eagle, the regional subsidiary of American Airlines, has
> trimmed flights from its winter schedule in part because it
> doesn't have enough pilots. "It's one of several reasons, but that
> does play into it," Eagle spokeswoman Andrea Huguely told the Fort
> Worth Star-Telegram
> (http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/322928.html). "The
> pilots are crucial, and without them, the planes don't fly." Eagle
> is one of several airlines that has cut minimum experience
> requirements by two-thirds to 500 hours to attract more recruits.
> According to the newspaper, Trans States Airlines, which operates
> a regional service for American under the name American
> Connection, briefly lowered its experience requirement to 250
> hours during the summer. Although no one seems to deny the value
> of experience, industry spokesmen contacted by the newspaper
> seemed to agree that safety is not being seriously compromised.

Safety is not being seriously compromised, but the airlines are
shutting off the supply of new pilots. You have to be an instructor for
two years to make a new flight instructor. There are no new pilots
without flight instructors. But airlines are grabbing flight
instructors before they have been working for two years, so the pool of
flight instructors is shrinking very rapidly. It has become so bad that
places like Embry-Riddle have been offering huge incentives for
instructors to stay beyond their 600 hour commitment. Those who are
willing to stay are given a salary of $42,000 a year plus a full
benefits package.



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> "F. Baum" > wrote:
>
>> On Nov 27, 8:43 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> >
>> > Many of us have a great successful career without every being a member
>> > of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members. In fact,
>> > the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think your point
>> > is countered.
>>
>> Robert, you rascal ! I love your simplistic answers. Lets take a look
>> at things that didnt exist before organized labor; Child labor laws,
>> healt care benifits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance, paid vacation,
>> benifits packages, retirement, DC plans,overtime and the list goes
>> on................ If you had a great career with any of these benies
>> you can thank organized labor ;)
>> FB
>
> You are assuming that these "benies" exist because of organized
> labor.
>
> Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
> and what laws would go away?

And which would have evolved naturally with increased productivity and
increased expertise in management (that had been going on for a couple
hundred years). That's out of Baum's mental grasp, unfortunately.
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> news:a3d92f7a-fd7f-4bcb-bcc7-
>
>
>>> And without a union, employees are in a similar situation.
>>
>> Again that is the myth that labor tries to put out there.
>
> Just think, if all those Chinese coolies had organized labor, there'd
> still be no Union Pacific.
>

There would be no Wal Mart either.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 26, 10:48 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> >> And without a union, employees are in a similar situation.
>>
>> > Again that is the myth that labor tries to put out there.
>>
>> No, it isn't
>
> Many of us have a great successful career without every being a member
> of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members. In fact,
> the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think your point
> is countered.
>

But not all of you. Many non union management people have been screwed to
the bone, while union employees in the same company have thrived. Airlines
are a terrific example.

"Tina" <> wrote

> Sometimes, though, people who are consistantly underperforming, if
> training doesn't help, need to be discharged, and that can't be done
> with tenure protected teachers in public school systems for example.

That is a subject that many people do not understand.

A tenured teacher is not totally protected, from being discharged for under
performing. Most people do not understand that fact.

It is true that it is more difficult to do, but if concrete reasons do
exist, the teacher is informed, written and through a conference with
administrators, of the areas of inadequate performance and possible ways to
bring the performance up to standards. If in one year, progress has not
been made, they can be dismissed.
--
Jim in NC

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article
>> >,
>> "F. Baum" > wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 27, 8:43 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Many of us have a great successful career without every being a member
>>> > of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members. In fact,
>>> > the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think your point
>>> > is countered.
>>>
>>> Robert, you rascal ! I love your simplistic answers. Lets take a look
>>> at things that didnt exist before organized labor; Child labor laws,
>>> healt care benifits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance, paid vacation,
>>> benifits packages, retirement, DC plans,overtime and the list goes
>>> on................ If you had a great career with any of these benies
>>> you can thank organized labor ;)
>>> FB
>>
>> You are assuming that these "benies" exist because of organized
>> labor.
>>
>> Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
>> and what laws would go away?
>
> And which would have evolved naturally with increased productivity and
> increased expertise in management (that had been going on for a couple
> hundred years). That's out of Baum's mental grasp, unfortunately.
> --

Funny thing is, you are all right. Everything mentioned here both pro and
con has contributed to the wages paid in this country today for most every
job. Child labor laws, health care benefits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance,
paid vacation, benefits packages, retirement, overtime pay, minimum wage,
etc, etc. It's all had a balancing effect on the wages we all draw every
day. Without unions we would all be working for less, no matter what our
profession. Unions balance the booty between the CEO and his cronies, and
the worker bees. It's that simple. Comparing upper management salaries in
the airline business to many of the fortune 500 companies are a good
example. Unions have been very successful in keeping the worker bees on a
level playing field with management. Other industries have gone quite the
opposite. Non union job work places and imports have been very successful,
even in the airline business, of offering competitive products and services
to the consumer, that greatly limit how much unions gain by bargaining
alone. The real problem now is dilution of the work force. The mass transit
system we call a southern border is adding to the number of worker bees so
fast, everything gain by the unions in the past 70 or 80 years is being lost
very quickly. Health benefits being the first to fall.

"C J Campbell" <> wrote

> There are no new pilots without flight instructors. But airlines are
> grabbing flight instructors before they have been working for two years,
> so the pool of flight instructors is shrinking very rapidly. It has become
> so bad that places like Embry-Riddle have been offering huge incentives
> for instructors to stay beyond their 600 hour commitment. Those who are
> willing to stay are given a salary of $42,000 a year plus a full benefits
> package.

Although this sounds like a big improvement, and it probably is, the sad
thing is that 42 thou. is what they should have been making, in the first
place.

I know, supply demand, yada, yada, yada... All I am saying is that this
amount of pay should be expected for a person doing a demanding, highly
skilled job, and to have enough money to have a family and a nice house, and
a decent standard of living. Even then, it sure is not going to be a
luxurious standard of living, at that pay level.

It all boils down to the fact that flying is such a cool job for so many
people, that they are willing to work for lower pay, just to do the job.
--
Jim in NC

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:01:19 -0800 (PST), Robert M. Gary wrote:

> But HP didn't ask you to put one dime into her severancebucket. The
> company took the risk and the company lost their money. I wouldn't
> want to live in a world where I have to get permission from the gov't
> to decide how I want to risk my own money.

But you do. It's called tax laws. Permission and direction (by tax law) are
ultimately, the end result of your investment choices, are the same thing.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:00:39 -0800 (PST), Robert M. Gary wrote:

> To me, the primary purpose of a for-
> profit company is to maximize return to their investors. In fact in
> the U.S. companies have a legal, fiduciary responsibility to do just
> that. That is a central tenant of capitalism. There are other forms of
> economic policies in other countries that make employment a core
> mission of companies. In fact employment for the workers of a country
> is a central tenant of communism as well as a core tenant of more left
> leaning socialist countries ("Worker's Party", "People's Republic",
> etc).
> To say one type of economy is better than another is largely
> philosophical issue. However, I would argue that employees in
> capitalist countries fair far better than those in communist and
> restricted socialist countries.
>
> -Robert

No argument with the for-profit agenda. "Largely" as philosophical issue"is
philosophy vs real economy or the latter as defined as how much wealth is
spread, or not spread. Enter the philosophy.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:555ad2a8-8f27-4060-998e-
:

> On Nov 27, 8:18 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > Many of us have a great successful career without every being a member
>> > of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members. In fact,
>> > the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think your point
>> > is countered.
>>
>> No, it isn't
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Did you just stomp your feet? :)
>

Nope.


Bertie

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:43:35 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Did you just stomp your feet? :)
>
>
> He pouted. I swear... <G>
>

Nope.


Bertie

Bob Noel > wrote in
:

> In article
> >,
> "F. Baum" > wrote:
>
>> On Nov 27, 8:43 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> >
>> > Many of us have a great successful career without every being a
>> > member of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members.
>> > In fact, the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think
>> > your point is countered.
>>
>> Robert, you rascal ! I love your simplistic answers. Lets take a look
>> at things that didnt exist before organized labor; Child labor laws,
>> healt care benifits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance, paid vacation,
>> benifits packages, retirement, DC plans,overtime and the list goes
>> on................ If you had a great career with any of these benies
>> you can thank organized labor ;)
>> FB
>
> You are assuming that these "benies" exist because of organized
> labor.
>
> Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
> and what laws would go away?
>


Well, the laws that protect what you eat, for one.



Ooops. too late.


Bertie

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article
>> >,
>> "F. Baum" > wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 27, 8:43 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Many of us have a great successful career without every being a
>>> > member of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members.
>>> > In fact, the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think
>>> > your point is countered.
>>>
>>> Robert, you rascal ! I love your simplistic answers. Lets take a
>>> look at things that didnt exist before organized labor; Child labor
>>> laws, healt care benifits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance, paid
>>> vacation, benifits packages, retirement, DC plans,overtime and the
>>> list goes on................ If you had a great career with any of
>>> these benies you can thank organized labor ;)
>>> FB
>>
>> You are assuming that these "benies" exist because of organized
>> labor.
>>
>> Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
>> and what laws would go away?
>
> And which would have evolved naturally with increased productivity and
> increased expertise in management (that had been going on for a couple
> hundred years). That's out of Baum's mental grasp, unfortunately.



Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahwhhawhhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwh ahwhahwhahhwhahwhah!



Bertie

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>>>Oh yea, your a controller! :)
>>
>>Yes, but that's irrelevant.
>
>
> Its relevant in that the President of the United State of America
> authorized the strike to be broken. That is not typically an option
> for employers. Certainly not a typical situation.


The President did no such thing.

Jim, in places like New York, more specifically Long Island, with its
thousands of teachers, some earning -- ready for this? -- $100,000
plus a year (speaking of effective union negotiations!) the number who
are discharged after being tenured is very very small. Those who are
jailed for sex with students do lose their jobs though.

I know of no other profession where people at the one percentile of
effectiveness are retained and given the same salary increases as
those at the 95th percentile.

Although I live and work in NC, I don't know that much about the
public school system here. The little I do know about it is often
awful, but this is not the venue for that discussion.




On Nov 28, 12:38 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Tina" <> wrote
>
> > Sometimes, though, people who are consistantly underperforming, if
> > training doesn't help, need to be discharged, and that can't be done
> > with tenure protected teachers in public school systems for example.
>
> That is a subject that many people do not understand.
>
> A tenured teacher is not totally protected, from being discharged for under
> performing. Most people do not understand that fact.
>
> It is true that it is more difficult to do, but if concrete reasons do
> exist, the teacher is informed, written and through a conference with
> administrators, of the areas of inadequate performance and possible ways to
> bring the performance up to standards. If in one year, progress has not
> been made, they can be dismissed.
> --
> Jim in NC

"Tina" > wrote

> Jim, in places like New York, more specifically Long Island, with its
> thousands of teachers, some earning -- ready for this? -- $100,000

Holy ****, batman ! ! ! I think I'm living in the wrong place! I make
well less than half that, and I have about 25 years experience!

Really, in many places, that is battle pay. I don't know how rough the Long
Island schools are, but I would guess that they are not too bad, as compared
to large inner city schools.

Teaching in a small rural school does have its good points. The kids are
generally not well motivated, but I think that is a sign of the times.
Other than that, they are generally good kids.

> plus a year (speaking of effective union negotiations!) the number who
> are discharged after being tenured is very very small. Those who are
> jailed for sex with students do lose their jobs though.
>
> I know of no other profession where people at the one percentile of
> effectiveness are retained and given the same salary increases as
> those at the 95th percentile.

One percentile does not mean much, if you had a staff of all highly
dedicated and qualified teachers. Even in a situation like that, someone
would be classified as the one percentile, for that school.

I do understand what you are saying; I'm not blind. There are some teachers
in almost every school that need to get up to speed. The problem goes back
to the administration, I feel, for not getting after the teachers that are
not doing what they need to be doing.

> Although I live and work in NC, I don't know that much about the
> public school system here. The little I do know about it is often
> awful, but this is not the venue for that discussion.

Yes, you are right about the venue. I know there is room for improvement,
about any place you go, though, so let's leave the discussion at that.
--
Jim in NC

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:02:59 -0800 (PST), Tina wrote:

> Another aspect of the work environment that organized labor is
> responsible for is the better treatment of non unionized workers.

The back-forth argument regarding union vs nonunion is just that.
Back-forth. It's really not worth pursuing.

Unions came about because employers overstepped their bounds. Union
influence declined when the overstepped their bounds. It was bound to be :)

The only real question, imo, is whether this pendulum, over time, balances
the employer-employee relationship.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Morgans wrote:

> "Tina" > wrote
>
>
>>Jim, in places like New York, more specifically Long Island, with its
>>thousands of teachers, some earning -- ready for this? -- $100,000
>
>
> Holy ****, batman ! ! ! I think I'm living in the wrong place! I make
> well less than half that, and I have about 25 years experience!

You make more money when you factor in the cost of living.

"Newps" > wrote
>
> You make more money when you factor in the cost of living.

Is it really more than double? That is surprising to me, if it is.
--
Jim in NC

Well, I have no idea where you live but the way I look at it I feel
sorry for anybody that lives in the Northeast. I could make an extra
$40K or so by moving to a big city but it's a net loss due to the
increases cost of living.

Morgans wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote
>
>>You make more money when you factor in the cost of living.
>
>
> Is it really more than double? That is surprising to me, if it is.

Newps wrote:
> Well, I have no idea where you live but the way I look at it I feel
> sorry for anybody that lives in the Northeast.

Don't feel sorry for me, I really like it here. ;^)

Gatt writes:

> I'm sorry, but, there's a Burgerville down the road that pays better than
> $11/hr, and a car dealership that pays better too; why would I invest tens
> of thousands of dollars, submit myself to annual medical exams, corporate
> nonsense (such as pilot salary) and inherent job insecurity, and then
> separate myself from my family for less than what the guy flipping burgers
> or selling Toyotas down the street makes?

Because (1) you start out with a tremendous love of flying, and (2) by the
time you figure out how poor you'll be, you've already invested a great deal
in the training and the profession, and you're afraid to throw it all away.

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
>> Well, I have no idea where you live but the way I look at it I feel sorry
>> for anybody that lives in the Northeast.
>
> Don't feel sorry for me, I really like it here. ;^)

What is it that you like about it?

Gatt writes:

> Yeah, if he's fully-qualified.

What does "fully qualified" mean?

> Otherwise, you could hire high school dropouts or ex-convicts to do it for
> less.

It's perfectly possible to train people off the street to fly planes, just as
it is possible to train them to drive trains, trucks, and ships.

Piloting isn't rocket science.

Robert M. Gary writes:

> But HP didn't ask you to put one dime into her severancebucket. The
> company took the risk and the company lost their money.

The company imposed the risk on its employees, and the employees lost.

> The owners of the company choose the compensation package of their
> executives and its the owners who have to pay it.

When a company has a large number of anonymous and institutional shareholders,
its owners have virtually no influence on how it is run.

Gatt writes:

> Did I not mention that a whole hell of a lot of engineers, etc, lost their
> jobs? Accountants, technicians, service employees...HP Corvallis just
> about imploded and parts of their new campus were a ghost town last time I
> was there.

HP is still firing people worldwide, even though it is turning a profit. It
is firing people because the profits aren't big enough.

> You guys can justify it all you want, but, Hewlett Packard is a shell--a
> joke--of what it was when I was there in 1993 when employees were happy,
> jobs were secure and HP inket and laser printers were worldwide industry and
> technology leaders.

Unfortunately true.

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Now that is a different argument. What you are arguing now is the
> primary purpose of a company. To me, the primary purpose of a for-
> profit company is to maximize return to their investors. In fact in
> the U.S. companies have a legal, fiduciary responsibility to do just
> that.

Over what time period?

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gatt writes:
>
>> I'm sorry, but, there's a Burgerville down the road that pays better
>> than $11/hr, and a car dealership that pays better too; why would I
>> invest tens of thousands of dollars, submit myself to annual medical
>> exams, corporate nonsense (such as pilot salary) and inherent job
>> insecurity, and then separate myself from my family for less than
>> what the guy flipping burgers or selling Toyotas down the street
>> makes?
>
> Because (1) you start out with a tremendous love of flying, and (2) by
> the time you figure out how poor you'll be, you've already invested a
> great deal in the training and the profession, and you're afraid to
> throw it all away.
>



Nope, wrong again, fjukkkwit



Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gatt writes:
>
>> Yeah, if he's fully-qualified.
>
> What does "fully qualified" mean?
>


Everything you aren't


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> But HP didn't ask you to put one dime into her severancebucket. The
>> company took the risk and the company lost their money.
>
> The company imposed the risk on its employees, and the employees lost.
>
>> The owners of the company choose the compensation package of their
>> executives and its the owners who have to pay it.
>
> When a company has a large number of anonymous and institutional
> shareholders, its owners have virtually no influence on how it is run.
>

Yes, they do fjukktard


Wrong again


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gatt writes:
>
>> Did I not mention that a whole hell of a lot of engineers, etc, lost
>> their jobs? Accountants, technicians, service employees...HP
>> Corvallis just about imploded and parts of their new campus were a
>> ghost town last time I was there.
>
> HP is still firing people worldwide, even though it is turning a
> profit. It is firing people because the profits aren't big enough.
>


That what they told you?


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> Now that is a different argument. What you are arguing now is the
>> primary purpose of a company. To me, the primary purpose of a for-
>> profit company is to maximize return to their investors. In fact in
>> the U.S. companies have a legal, fiduciary responsibility to do just
>> that.
>
> Over what time period?



Good grief


Bertie

On Nov 28, 12:45 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > But HP didn't ask you to put one dime into her severancebucket. The
> > company took the risk and the company lost their money.
>
> The company imposed the risk on its employees, and the employees lost.

Then the employees should start their own company. Since all business
involves risk, its not possible to ask someone to take risk but
guarantee that they never lose. If you go to the casino are you going
to issue a guarantee that you will not lose? Investing in a business
or choosing an employer is legal gambling; that's life.

> > The owners of the company choose the compensation package of their
> > executives and its the owners who have to pay it.
>
> When a company has a large number of anonymous and institutional shareholders,
> its owners have virtually no influence on how it is run.

Man, you also play simulated CEO! That is so far from any reality of
the business world its not funny. Just go to finance.yahoo.com and
look at how much of any public company is controlled by a few
institution or fund managers.

-Robert

On Nov 27, 11:06 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:01:19 -0800 (PST), Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > But HP didn't ask you to put one dime into her severancebucket. The
> > company took the risk and the company lost their money. I wouldn't
> > want to live in a world where I have to get permission from the gov't
> > to decide how I want to risk my own money.
>
> But you do. It's called tax laws. Permission and direction (by tax law) are
> ultimately, the end result of your investment choices, are the same thing.

Since most companies in the U.S. operate under the same tax law that
is not usually a major part of an investment decision. Some people may
look for tax efficient mutuals or tax exempt munis but usually come
with a lower rate of return.

-Robert

On 2007-11-27 21:48:35 -0800, "Morgans" > said:

>
> "C J Campbell" <> wrote
>
>> There are no new pilots without flight instructors. But airlines are
>> grabbing flight instructors before they have been working for two years,
>> so the pool of flight instructors is shrinking very rapidly. It has become
>> so bad that places like Embry-Riddle have been offering huge incentives
>> for instructors to stay beyond their 600 hour commitment. Those who are
>> willing to stay are given a salary of $42,000 a year plus a full benefits
>> package.
>
> Although this sounds like a big improvement, and it probably is, the sad
> thing is that 42 thou. is what they should have been making, in the first
> place.
>
> I know, supply demand, yada, yada, yada... All I am saying is that this
> amount of pay should be expected for a person doing a demanding, highly
> skilled job, and to have enough money to have a family and a nice house, and
> a decent standard of living. Even then, it sure is not going to be a
> luxurious standard of living, at that pay level.
>
> It all boils down to the fact that flying is such a cool job for so many
> people, that they are willing to work for lower pay, just to do the job.

Can't argue with you there. At least, people should be paying *me* a
lot more than they do. :-)
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Nov 27, 9:47 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article
> >> >,
> >> "F. Baum" > wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 27, 8:43 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> >>> > Many of us have a great successful career without every being a member
> >>> > of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members. In fact,
> >>> > the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think your point
> >>> > is countered.
>
> >>> Robert, you rascal ! I love your simplistic answers. Lets take a look
> >>> at things that didnt exist before organized labor; Child labor laws,
> >>> healt care benifits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance, paid vacation,
> >>> benifits packages, retirement, DC plans,overtime and the list goes
> >>> on................ If you had a great career with any of these benies
> >>> you can thank organized labor ;)
> >>> FB
>
> >> You are assuming that these "benies" exist because of organized
> >> labor.
>
> >> Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
> >> and what laws would go away?
>
> > And which would have evolved naturally with increased productivity and
> > increased expertise in management (that had been going on for a couple
> > hundred years). That's out of Baum's mental grasp, unfortunately.
> > --
>
> Funny thing is, you are all right. Everything mentioned here both pro and
> con has contributed to the wages paid in this country today for most every
> job. Child labor laws, health care benefits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance,
> paid vacation, benefits packages, retirement, overtime pay, minimum wage,
> etc, etc. It's all had a balancing effect on the wages we all draw every
> day. Without unions we would all be working for less, no matter what our
> profession.

None of my people are under a collective bargaining agreement. There
are business reasons to provide compensation packages that are
attractive to gain and retain employees. There are business reasons to
maintain productivity. However, there is not one person here would
believes his job would be subsidized if we no longer had customers. If
anyones (including my) position no longer makes business sense it will
be elimiated. That's what makes an economy efficient and maximizes
return to investors. If you don't like it you should work for the
gov't.

-Robert

Without a doubt there are some people 'on the street' who can be
trained as pilots, but the prudent move would be to choose candidates
from an enriched population. Of course it means there are some really
potentially good candidates who would therefore not get selected, but
the wise manager will do everything she can to choose well.
Interviewing a thousand off the street to find a 'keeper' is a lot
less efficient than choosing someone from a target rich environment.

This is not theory, but real life stuff.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:42:55 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> wrote:
>
>What is it that you like about it?
>

Lots! IN no particular order...

The beach, on the Atlantic Ocean, including the 4WD drivable portion
on Cape Cod
Tibetan food
Falafel
Awesome pizza on every street corner
Broadway & Times Square
The New York Rangers, playing in MSG.
Radio City Music and Carnegie Hall
Italian food near the real Old North Church
Killer Museums, EVERYWHERE!
Fenway Park
Yankee Stadium
The bicycling, on and off-road
Vermont and New Hampshire, especially Tuckerman's Ravine on Mt.
Washington
Block Island, Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, and Provincetown
Whale Watching
Kayaking the hundreds of lakes and rivers
Lincoln Center
Killer fine woodworking resources
Antiques, including entire homes and mansions
Greenwich Village @ 2 AM
The Pattagunks and NY's Southern Tier
The Adirondacks
Direct to most anywhere in Europe, Asia, or North America, from JFK
Newport Tall Ships
Boston Pops on July 4th
Tanglewood all summer
90F summer and 0F winter days
No earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanos, and weak hurricanes.
The Yale Art Gallery's non-public furniture collection
Toad's Place
CBGB (RIP!)
Bike New York
Our neighborhoods don't look like the rest of the country, no "pool
sized" back yards and concrete block walls
A "big" development has 25-35 homes. <G>

I'm tired of typing...

A $45/mo. tie down at a non-towered field with a nicely maintained,
5000x100 ft., 250 MSL runway, with a 3500ft. crosswind strip, and the
best app/dep controllers in the world @ BDL.

Any questions? <G>

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 27, 9:47 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> In article
>> >> >,
>> >> "F. Baum" > wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Nov 27, 8:43 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
>> >>> > Many of us have a great successful career without every being a
>> >>> > member
>> >>> > of a union. In fact, most Americans are not union members. In fact,
>> >>> > the top paying jobs in the U.S. are non-union. So I think your
>> >>> > point
>> >>> > is countered.
>>
>> >>> Robert, you rascal ! I love your simplistic answers. Lets take a look
>> >>> at things that didnt exist before organized labor; Child labor laws,
>> >>> healt care benifits, 40 Hour work weeks, severance, paid vacation,
>> >>> benifits packages, retirement, DC plans,overtime and the list goes
>> >>> on................ If you had a great career with any of these benies
>> >>> you can thank organized labor ;)
>> >>> FB
>>
>> >> You are assuming that these "benies" exist because of organized
>> >> labor.
>>
>> >> Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
>> >> and what laws would go away?
>>
>> > And which would have evolved naturally with increased productivity and
>> > increased expertise in management (that had been going on for a couple
>> > hundred years). That's out of Baum's mental grasp, unfortunately.
>> > --
>>
>> Funny thing is, you are all right. Everything mentioned here both pro and
>> con has contributed to the wages paid in this country today for most
>> every
>> job. Child labor laws, health care benefits, 40 Hour work weeks,
>> severance,
>> paid vacation, benefits packages, retirement, overtime pay, minimum wage,
>> etc, etc. It's all had a balancing effect on the wages we all draw every
>> day. Without unions we would all be working for less, no matter what our
>> profession.
>
> None of my people are under a collective bargaining agreement. There
> are business reasons to provide compensation packages that are
> attractive to gain and retain employees. There are business reasons to
> maintain productivity. However, there is not one person here would
> believes his job would be subsidized if we no longer had customers. If
> anyones (including my) position no longer makes business sense it will
> be elimiated. That's what makes an economy efficient and maximizes
> return to investors. If you don't like it you should work for the
> gov't.
>

I believe and agree with you Robert, 100%.

I do feel unions have been quite useful to all of us for "raising the bar"
globally across the US of the past 75 or whatever years. But I also believe
many of them have had a very negative impact as well, and should take
responsibility for many jobs leaving the country.

Over the years I have work as a member of both good and bad unions, and in
good and bad non union environments. While I can fully appreciate their
value, I have also seen situations where they were nothing but a parasite to
not only the companies they control, but their membership as well.

I also worked some 17 years in a non union environment, where without
warning I was singled out and terminated just two years short of my first
retirement step, effectively cutting the guts out of my retirement package,
with nothing but awards and letters of recommendations in my personal file.
So the door really does swing both ways.

On Nov 27, 9:58 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
>
That's out of Baum's mental grasp, unfortunately.

MXMatt !!! speaking of mental grasp, how are things at the funny
farm ? ;)
> --
> Matt Barrow
> Performance Homes, LLC.
> Cheyenne, WY- Hide quoted text -

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 27, 9:47 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
>> ...
>
>> >> Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
>> >> and what laws would go away?
>>
>> > And which would have evolved naturally with increased productivity and
>> > increased expertise in management (that had been going on for a couple
>> > hundred years). That's out of Baum's mental grasp, unfortunately.
>> > --
>>
>> Funny thing is, you are all right. Everything mentioned here both pro and
>> con has contributed to the wages paid in this country today for most
>> every
>> job. Child labor laws, health care benefits, 40 Hour work weeks,
>> severance,
>> paid vacation, benefits packages, retirement, overtime pay, minimum wage,
>> etc, etc. It's all had a balancing effect on the wages we all draw every
>> day. Without unions we would all be working for less, no matter what our
>> profession.

Without unions we'd all be working for more. Wages are, like any other
economic good, based on supply and demand. What unions do is shift the wages
from one industry to another. In that case, somethign has to give. The only
thing that can raise wages in improved productivity and union have been
instrumental in trashing productivity. In the long run, unions have
probably done more to depress wages and ruin their industries. As such I
haven't an ounce of sympathy for them and their thug cohorts.


>
> None of my people are under a collective bargaining agreement. There
> are business reasons to provide compensation packages that are
> attractive to gain and retain employees. There are business reasons to
> maintain productivity. However, there is not one person here would
> believes his job would be subsidized if we no longer had customers. If
> anyones (including my) position no longer makes business sense it will
> be elimiated. That's what makes an economy efficient and maximizes
> return to investors. If you don't like it you should work for the
> gov't.

Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not allow
unions and their employees are at the top in terms of production and
compensation and their futures look bright compared to GM, Ford and Chrysler
who are at death's door.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

> wrote in message
...
> Without a doubt there are some people 'on the street' who can be
> trained as pilots, but the prudent move would be to choose candidates
> from an enriched population. Of course it means there are some really
> potentially good candidates who would therefore not get selected, but
> the wise manager will do everything she can to choose well.
> Interviewing a thousand off the street to find a 'keeper' is a lot
> less efficient than choosing someone from a target rich environment.
>
> This is not theory, but real life stuff.

Actually, it's gibberish.

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:42:55 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> > wrote:
>>
>>What is it that you like about it?
>>
>
> Lots! IN no particular order...
>
> The beach, on the Atlantic Ocean, including the 4WD drivable portion
> on Cape Cod
> Tibetan food
> Falafel
> Awesome pizza on every street corner
> Broadway & Times Square
> The New York Rangers, playing in MSG.
> Radio City Music and Carnegie Hall
> Italian food near the real Old North Church
> Killer Museums, EVERYWHERE!
> Fenway Park
> Yankee Stadium
> The bicycling, on and off-road
> Vermont and New Hampshire, especially Tuckerman's Ravine on Mt.
> Washington
> Block Island, Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, and Provincetown
> Whale Watching
> Kayaking the hundreds of lakes and rivers
> Lincoln Center
> Killer fine woodworking resources
> Antiques, including entire homes and mansions
> Greenwich Village @ 2 AM
> The Pattagunks and NY's Southern Tier
> The Adirondacks
> Direct to most anywhere in Europe, Asia, or North America, from JFK
> Newport Tall Ships
> Boston Pops on July 4th
> Tanglewood all summer
> 90F summer and 0F winter days
> No earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanos, and weak hurricanes.
> The Yale Art Gallery's non-public furniture collection
> Toad's Place
> CBGB (RIP!)
> Bike New York
> Our neighborhoods don't look like the rest of the country, no "pool
> sized" back yards and concrete block walls
> A "big" development has 25-35 homes. <G>
>
> I'm tired of typing...
>
> A $45/mo. tie down at a non-towered field with a nicely maintained,
> 5000x100 ft., 250 MSL runway, with a 3500ft. crosswind strip, and the
> best app/dep controllers in the world @ BDL.
>

Other than specifics like Yankee Stadium, Fenway, Greenwich and whale
watching, we have most all that, (or better, such as the Rockies vs the
Adirondacks) here in Wyoming.

Of course, you can go to the Cheyenne public pools and see 300 lb gals in
spandex as a substitute for whale watching .
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Matt, you may not understand labor laws very well. The US branches of
Honda et al can work at keeping unions out, but they cannot by dictate
keep them out.

And if you choose to interview street picks instead of an enriched
pool of potential employees, you must be doing something else very
right because your HR folks are wasting time and resources..




On Nov 28, 10:23 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 9:47 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> >> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
> >> ...
>
> >> >> Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
> >> >> and what laws would go away?
>
> >> > And which would have evolved naturally with increased productivity and
> >> > increased expertise in management (that had been going on for a couple
> >> > hundred years). That's out of Baum's mental grasp, unfortunately.
> >> > --
>
> >> Funny thing is, you are all right. Everything mentioned here both pro and
> >> con has contributed to the wages paid in this country today for most
> >> every
> >> job. Child labor laws, health care benefits, 40 Hour work weeks,
> >> severance,
> >> paid vacation, benefits packages, retirement, overtime pay, minimum wage,
> >> etc, etc. It's all had a balancing effect on the wages we all draw every
> >> day. Without unions we would all be working for less, no matter what our
> >> profession.
>
> Without unions we'd all be working for more. Wages are, like any other
> economic good, based on supply and demand. What unions do is shift the wages
> from one industry to another. In that case, somethign has to give. The only
> thing that can raise wages in improved productivity and union have been
> instrumental in trashing productivity. In the long run, unions have
> probably done more to depress wages and ruin their industries. As such I
> haven't an ounce of sympathy for them and their thug cohorts.
>
>
>
> > None of my people are under a collective bargaining agreement. There
> > are business reasons to provide compensation packages that are
> > attractive to gain and retain employees. There are business reasons to
> > maintain productivity. However, there is not one person here would
> > believes his job would be subsidized if we no longer had customers. If
> > anyones (including my) position no longer makes business sense it will
> > be elimiated. That's what makes an economy efficient and maximizes
> > return to investors. If you don't like it you should work for the
> > gov't.
>
> Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not allow
> unions and their employees are at the top in terms of production and
> compensation and their futures look bright compared to GM, Ford and Chrysler
> who are at death's door.
>
> --
> Matt Barrow
> Performance Homes, LLC.
> Cheyenne, WY- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Tina" > wrote in message
...
> Matt, you may not understand labor laws very well.

Oh, I suppose having over 1,000 people worl for me last year, I guess I
understand them well enough.

> The US branches of
> Honda et al can work at keeping unions out, but they cannot by dictate
> keep them out.

They can refuse to recognize (or whatever the legal term is) them.


> And if you choose to interview street picks instead of an enriched
> pool of potential employees, you must be doing something else very
> right because your HR folks are wasting time and resources..

English your first language?


> On Nov 28, 10:23 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 27, 9:47 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> >> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
>> >> ...
>>
>> >> >> Question: what laws would continue to exist if unions went away
>> >> >> and what laws would go away?
>>
>> >> > And which would have evolved naturally with increased productivity
>> >> > and
>> >> > increased expertise in management (that had been going on for a
>> >> > couple
>> >> > hundred years). That's out of Baum's mental grasp, unfortunately.
>> >> > --
>>
>> >> Funny thing is, you are all right. Everything mentioned here both pro
>> >> and
>> >> con has contributed to the wages paid in this country today for most
>> >> every
>> >> job. Child labor laws, health care benefits, 40 Hour work weeks,
>> >> severance,
>> >> paid vacation, benefits packages, retirement, overtime pay, minimum
>> >> wage,
>> >> etc, etc. It's all had a balancing effect on the wages we all draw
>> >> every
>> >> day. Without unions we would all be working for less, no matter what
>> >> our
>> >> profession.
>>
>> Without unions we'd all be working for more. Wages are, like any other
>> economic good, based on supply and demand. What unions do is shift the
>> wages
>> from one industry to another. In that case, somethign has to give. The
>> only
>> thing that can raise wages in improved productivity and union have been
>> instrumental in trashing productivity. In the long run, unions have
>> probably done more to depress wages and ruin their industries. As such I
>> haven't an ounce of sympathy for them and their thug cohorts.
>>
>>
>>
>> > None of my people are under a collective bargaining agreement. There
>> > are business reasons to provide compensation packages that are
>> > attractive to gain and retain employees. There are business reasons to
>> > maintain productivity. However, there is not one person here would
>> > believes his job would be subsidized if we no longer had customers. If
>> > anyones (including my) position no longer makes business sense it will
>> > be elimiated. That's what makes an economy efficient and maximizes
>> > return to investors. If you don't like it you should work for the
>> > gov't.
>>
>> Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not allow
>> unions and their employees are at the top in terms of production and
>> compensation and their futures look bright compared to GM, Ford and
>> Chrysler
>> who are at death's door.
>>
>> --
>> Matt Barrow
>> Performance Homes, LLC.
>> Cheyenne, WY- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Then the employees should start their own company.

With what money? HP bankrupted them.

> Since all business
> involves risk, its not possible to ask someone to take risk but
> guarantee that they never lose.

Why should employees take risks if they don't receive the benefits?

> Man, you also play simulated CEO! That is so far from any reality of
> the business world its not funny. Just go to finance.yahoo.com and
> look at how much of any public company is controlled by a few
> institution or fund managers.

I already have.

writes:

> Without a doubt there are some people 'on the street' who can be
> trained as pilots, but the prudent move would be to choose candidates
> from an enriched population.

The idea is to be profitable, not prudent.

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Without unions we'd all be working for more. Wages are, like any other
> economic good, based on supply and demand. What unions do is shift the
> wages from one industry to another. In that case, somethign has to give.
> The only thing that can raise wages in improved productivity and union
> have been instrumental in trashing productivity. In the long run, unions
> have probably done more to depress wages and ruin their industries. As
> such I haven't an ounce of sympathy for them and their thug cohorts.
>
>
> Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not allow
> unions and their employees are at the top in terms of production and
> compensation and their futures look bright compared to GM, Ford and
> Chrysler who are at death's door.
>

Sorry Matt, thats all so clueless I wouldn't know where to begin.

How do you think unions shift wages from one industry to another?

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>
> Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not allow
> unions and their employees are at the top in terms of production and
> compensation and their futures look bright compared to GM, Ford and Chrysler
> who are at death's door.
>

Toyota deals with unions.

My Toyota Tacoma is built by UAW represented employees in California, in
the same plant as the Pontiac Vibe and some Corollas.

<http://www.nummi.com/>

The brand-new Tundra plant in Texas is also UAW.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>
> Of course, you can go to the Cheyenne public pools and see 300 lb gals in
> spandex as a substitute for whale watching .

I can see that everywhere!

The "belly" shirt is not for everyone... <G>

Spend time looking for a good candidate in a random group rather than
from a group that is otherwise prequalified would be likely be
neither prudent nor profitable.

That is not to say the occasional street urchin can't be a real gem,
but that's not the way to place your bet. And by the way, hiring
someone is always a bet, and at the professional levels, a big one. In
my business an underperforming post doc carries a significant out of
pocket cost, and the lost opportunity costs are even higher. In a
moderately high tech company like the one my husband owns, he figures
hiring a new engineer will cost him a three to five man-months of
labor, including support and supervisory time, before his technology
manager will be sure the new hire can really make significant
contributions.

Again, these are real world considerations, not theory.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:40:47 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> wrote in
>:

>Oh, I suppose having over 1,000 people worl for me last year, I guess I
>understand them well enough.
>

You actually employed over 1,000 people last year, paid their Social
Security benefits and other pay-check deduction to the government, and
reported their earnings to the IRS, or did you merely CONTRACT with
them?

>> The US branches of Honda et al can work at keeping unions out, but
>they cannot by dictate keep them out.
>
>They can refuse to recognize (or whatever the legal term is) them.

Honda may refuse to recognize their employees' labor union should
their employees decide to organize, but in the hypothetical event of a
walk-out, Honda would be forced to either negotiate with union
representatives, or hire a replacement workforce.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> Then the employees should start their own company.
>
> With what money? HP bankrupted them.
>
>> Since all business
>> involves risk, its not possible to ask someone to take risk but
>> guarantee that they never lose.
>
> Why should employees take risks if they don't receive the benefits?
>
>> Man, you also play simulated CEO! That is so far from any reality of
>> the business world its not funny. Just go to finance.yahoo.com and
>> look at how much of any public company is controlled by a few
>> institution or fund managers.
>
> I already have.

So what?


You're an idiot.

Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Without a doubt there are some people 'on the street' who can be
>> trained as pilots, but the prudent move would be to choose candidates
>> from an enriched population.
>
> The idea is to be profitable, not prudent.
>


You;re an idiot.


Bertie

Tina > wrote in news:338f3c9f-09e4-422c-a9f3-
:

> Spend time looking for a good candidate in a random group rather than
> from a group that is otherwise prequalified would be likely be
> neither prudent nor profitable.
>
> That is not to say the occasional street urchin can't be a real gem,
> but that's not the way to place your bet. And by the way, hiring
> someone is always a bet, and at the professional levels, a big one. In
> my business an underperforming post doc carries a significant out of
> pocket cost, and the lost opportunity costs are even higher. In a
> moderately high tech company like the one my husband owns, he figures
> hiring a new engineer will cost him a three to five man-months of
> labor, including support and supervisory time, before his technology
> manager will be sure the new hire can really make significant
> contributions.
>

Wow, I would imagine those guys could just walk right in and start
soldering. But we take about three months to become productive just
changing types, so I suppose it;s the same thng, really.


Bertie

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>> Of course, you can go to the Cheyenne public pools and see 300 lb gals in
>> spandex as a substitute for whale watching .
>
> I can see that everywhere!
>
> The "belly" shirt is not for everyone... <G>

"Belly shirts" are one place the minimalist approach is appropriate.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>> Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not allow
>> unions and their employees are at the top in terms of production and
>> compensation and their futures look bright compared to GM, Ford and
>> Chrysler who are at death's door.
>>
>
> Toyota deals with unions.
>
> My Toyota Tacoma is built by UAW represented employees in California, in
> the same plant as the Pontiac Vibe and some Corollas.
>
> <http://www.nummi.com/>
>
> The brand-new Tundra plant in Texas is also UAW.

Oh! I was thinking of the Camry shops in Kentucky. last I heard, those
plants employees voted to keep the unions out.

The truck divisions are, IIRC, a completely separate division. Since the
Toyota trucks command a significant price premium, it stands to reason that
they could afford a union, especially a local that's much more cooperative.

I can imagine that a TRUCK plant would be union. :~)

B A R R Y wrote:
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not
>> allow unions


It's not their decision to make.

Matt claims to employ a thousand people, but his knowledge of domestic
labor laws is questionable. He must be doing something else very right
to be successful.


On Nov 29, 6:21 pm, Newps > wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>
> > Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
> >> Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not
> >> allow unions
>
> It's not their decision to make.

Newps > wrote:
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not
>> allow unions
>
> It's not their decision to make.

I think he means that they employ legal means (such as paying union scale
wages) to reduce incentive of employees to unionize. They also locate
plants where the work population has few ties or historical interest in
unionizing. The results, such as they are, speak for themselves.

By the way, as a self-employed business-person I do not get _any_ benefits
that unions have allegedly fought for and "won".

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Newps > wrote:
>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>> Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not
>>> allow unions
>>
>> It's not their decision to make.
>
> I think he means that they employ legal means (such as paying union scale
> wages) to reduce incentive of employees to unionize. They also locate
> plants where the work population has few ties or historical interest in
> unionizing. The results, such as they are, speak for themselves.

Exactly. Furthermore, corporations CAN ignore and even, IIRC, "decertify" a
union. It hasn't been done in a LONGGG time, but it can be.

>
> By the way, as a self-employed business-person I do not get _any_ benefits
> that unions have allegedly fought for and "won".

Quite!

And when I do RFP's, those union shops that do respond better not have
idiotic work rules.

> To say one type of economy is better than another is largely
> philosophical issue.

This is the only thing in your post I don't think is right.

In my experience it was a very practical issue. The communist
countries I visited had completely fake economies on the surface --
nothing was available, nothing worked, and the lack of trust between
human beings led to medium grade, simmering, misantrhopy.

Okay, okay. Waaaay off topic.

Matt W. Barrow writes:

> They can refuse to recognize (or whatever the legal term is) them.

They don't have to "recognize" them. Once they are there, they are there,
"recognition" or not.

Newps wrote:
>
>
> B A R R Y wrote:
>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not
>>> allow unions
>
>
> It's not their decision to make.


_I_ didn't say that. <G>

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Matt W. Barrow writes:
>
>> They can refuse to recognize (or whatever the legal term is) them.
>
> They don't have to "recognize" them. Once they are there, they are
> there, "recognition" or not.
>

You're completely clueless, aren;t you?

Bertie

Jim Logajan wrote:

> Newps > wrote:
>
>>Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>
>>>Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not
>>>allow unions
>>
>>It's not their decision to make.
>
>
> I think he means that they employ legal means (such as paying union scale
> wages) to reduce incentive of employees to unionize. They also locate
> plants where the work population has few ties or historical interest in
> unionizing. The results, such as they are, speak for themselves.

Well sure that makes sense. My father accomplished the same thing at
the company he worked for. Every couple of years the union would come
in and make their pitch and get laughed out of the building.

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not
>>>> allow unions
>>
>>
>> It's not their decision to make.
>
>
> _I_ didn't say that. <G>

I did. And, yes, they do have decisions at their disposal...they just
haven't use them in some decades.

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> Newps > wrote:
>>
>>>Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>>>Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not
>>>>allow unions
>>>
>>>It's not their decision to make.
>>
>>
>> I think he means that they employ legal means (such as paying union scale
>> wages) to reduce incentive of employees to unionize. They also locate
>> plants where the work population has few ties or historical interest in
>> unionizing. The results, such as they are, speak for themselves.
>
> Well sure that makes sense. My father accomplished the same thing at the
> company he worked for. Every couple of years the union would come in and
> make their pitch and get laughed out of the building.

A very long time ago, I believe it was Coors Brewing "decertified" the union
at Coors after years of thug tactics by the union. This has to be a good 25
or 30 years ago. It really raised some dander, but it CAN happen.

A company, IIRC, can refuse to recognize a union, but the PR and other
side-effects don't lean to using that course of action. Today might be
different, but the MSM would raise holy hell regardless of what "pranks" the
union engaged in.

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Newps > wrote:
>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>> Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not
>>> allow unions
>>
>> It's not their decision to make.
>
> I think he means that they employ legal means (such as paying union scale
> wages) to reduce incentive of employees to unionize. They also locate
> plants where the work population has few ties or historical interest in
> unionizing. The results, such as they are, speak for themselves.

Sorta.

Do note that some of the highest paid professions are certainly not
unionized and never were.

Compensation is strictly a factor of supply and demand and unions cannot
fakeout that reality.

(as stated elsewhere) IIRC, a company does not have to recognize a union,
but given union thuggery, it would be injudicious to do so, given the cover
unions receive from government regardless of the legality of their actions.

Newps > wrote:


> Jim Logajan wrote:

> > Newps > wrote:
> >
> >>Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> >>
> >>>Interestingly, American based branches like Honda and Toyota do not
> >>>allow unions
> >>
> >>It's not their decision to make.
> >
> >
> > I think he means that they employ legal means (such as paying union scale
> > wages) to reduce incentive of employees to unionize. They also locate
> > plants where the work population has few ties or historical interest in
> > unionizing. The results, such as they are, speak for themselves.

> Well sure that makes sense. My father accomplished the same thing at
> the company he worked for. Every couple of years the union would come
> in and make their pitch and get laughed out of the building.

What usually works is for the company to provide a good benefit package
that would go to zero and have to be negotiated if the company were to
unionize.

If there is a good package to start with, most people won't take the
chance that they will wind up with less after unionization.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:


>
> A very long time ago, I believe it was Coors Brewing "decertified" the union
> at Coors after years of thug tactics by the union. This has to be a good 25
> or 30 years ago. It really raised some dander, but it CAN happen.

A company cannot decertify a union.

On Nov 30, 9:17 am, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:

> Do note that some of the highest paid professions are certainly not
> unionized and never were.
>
> Compensation is strictly a factor of supply and demand and unions cannot
> fakeout that reality.

But that is what unions do. The purpose of a union is to grain
compensation packages beyond what the free market would offer by
restricting what employees an employer can hire (i.e. you can't just
hire someone else when the union strikes to demonstrate that their
demands are in excess of the market). Unions avoid the free market by
dictating terms across the board. If employers got together and
decided what saleries to dictated to employees they would quickly be
in violation of anti-trust laws, but unions are explicitly excempt
from anti-trust (because they are, by their nature antitrust, thereby
avoiding freemarkets) The auto unions had this going on well for many
years, it was only when new companies joined the industry that were
not under their control (Toyota, etc) that they could no longer avoid
the affects of the free market. If the unions were able to organize
the employees in Japan and everywhere else in the world auto workers
would still have the same omnipower that they did in the 70s.
What people forget is that these excess wages (excess to what the
market would dictate) are paid by someone. Since companies don't print
money, it's always people that end up paying. In the 70's Americans
subsidized the wages of the auto industry with high prices for crappy
cars. I suppose the unions just thought automakers would just print
extra money in the basement in order to meet the union's salary
demands.

-Robert

On Nov 28, 8:40 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
> "Tina" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Matt, you may not understand labor laws very well.
>
> Oh, I suppose having over 1,000 people worl for me last year, I guess I
> understand them well enough.
>
> > The US branches of
> > Honda et al can work at keeping unions out, but they cannot by dictate
> > keep them out.
>
> They can refuse to recognize (or whatever the legal term is) them.

Throughout the previous century politicians have given more and more
power to unions. As a result an employer cannot ignore a collective
bargaining unit if it has been properly set up. This includes a vote
by employees. If an employer refuses to negotiate with the union (and
instead tries to go directly to employees) the union can seek a court
order to force the employer to comply. Every single labor law is
stacked in favor of the unions. Remember that the U.S. almost become a
socialist country in the early 1900's and we are still left with some
of those affects.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> But that is what unions do. The purpose of a union is to grain
> compensation packages beyond what the free market would offer by
> restricting what employees an employer can hire (i.e. you can't just
> hire someone else when the union strikes to demonstrate that their
> demands are in excess of the market).



You most certainly can hire someone else when the union is on strike.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

> A very long time ago, I believe it was Coors Brewing "decertified"
> the union at Coors after years of thug tactics by the union. This has
> to be a good 25 or 30 years ago. It really raised some dander, but it
> CAN happen.
> A company, IIRC, can refuse to recognize a union, but the PR and other
> side-effects don't lean to using that course of action. Today might be
> different, but the MSM would raise holy hell regardless of what
> "pranks" the union engaged in.


The company didn't de-certify the union the workers did. I've posted a wiki
article below.

That said there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about labor law in
this conversation. Which is understandable because it is a very complex set
of laws on both the federal and state level. But to simplify..

The federal law recognizes two different types of strikers. Economic
Strikers and Unfair Practice Strikers.

If the workers strike for raises the employer may replace and the workers
and there is no law requiring that the striking workers get their jobs back.

If the workers strike based on unfair labor practices and the employer is
found to have indeed carried out unfair labor practices the workers not only
get their jobs back but are also entitled to back pay.

Economic strikers have gained some additional protection over the years but
in a lot of cases they can still be replaced and not rehired.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coors_Brewing_Company


Labor Issues
In April 1977, the brewery workers union at Coors, representing 1,472
employees, went out on strike. The brewery kept operating with supervisors
and 250 to 300 union members, including one member of the union executive
board, who ignored the strike. Soon after, Coors announced that it would
hire replacements for the striking workers.[3] About 700 workers quit the
picket line to go back to work, and Coors replaced the remaining 500
workers, and kept making beer uninterrupted.[4] In December 1978, the
workers at Coors voted by greater than 2:1 to decertify the union, ending 44
years of union representation at Coors. Because the strike was by then more
than a year old, striking workers could not vote in the election.[5]

Labor unions organized a boycott to punish Coors for its labor practices.[6]
One tactic was to push for state laws to ban sales of unpasteurized canned
and bottled beer.[7] Because Coors was the only major brewer not
pasteurizing its canned and bottled beer, such laws would hurt only
Coors.[8] Sales of Coors suffered during the 10-year labor union boycott,
although Coors said the declining sales were also due to an industry-wide
downturn in beer sales, and to increased competition. To maintain
production, Coors expanded its sales area from the 18 western states to
which it had marketed for years, to nationwide distribution.[9]

The AFL-CIO ended its boycott of Coors in August 1987, after negotiations
with Pete Coors, head of brewery operations. The details were not divulged,
but were said to include an early union representation election in Colorado,
and use of union workers to build the new Coors brewery in Virginia.[10] In
1988, the Teamsters Union, which represented brewery workers at the top
three U.S. beer makers (Anheuser-Busch, Miller, and Stroh), gained enough
signatures to trigger a union representation election. Coors workers again
rejected union representation by more than 2:1.[11]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>> A very long time ago, I believe it was Coors Brewing "decertified"
>> the union at Coors after years of thug tactics by the union. This has
>> to be a good 25 or 30 years ago. It really raised some dander, but it
>> CAN happen.
>> A company, IIRC, can refuse to recognize a union, but the PR and other
>> side-effects don't lean to using that course of action. Today might be
>> different, but the MSM would raise holy hell regardless of what
>> "pranks" the union engaged in.
>
>
> The company didn't de-certify the union the workers did. I've posted a
> wiki article below.
>
> That said there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about labor law in
> this conversation. Which is understandable because it is a very complex
> set of laws on both the federal and state level. But to simplify..
>
> The federal law recognizes two different types of strikers. Economic
> Strikers and Unfair Practice Strikers.

Thanks, but the question regards how much a company is beholden to a union.
It has nothing to do with strikes.

Matt W. Barrow writes:

> A very long time ago, I believe it was Coors Brewing "decertified" the union
> at Coors after years of thug tactics by the union.

What is "decertification," exactly?

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Matt W. Barrow writes:
>
>> A very long time ago, I believe it was Coors Brewing "decertified"
>> the union at Coors after years of thug tactics by the union.
>
> What is "decertification," exactly?
>

You'll never know since you'll never be certified.

Well, not in that way, anyway, frootlooops.


Bertie

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>
>>> A very long time ago, I believe it was Coors Brewing "decertified"
>>> the union at Coors after years of thug tactics by the union. This
>>> has to be a good 25 or 30 years ago. It really raised some dander,
>>> but it CAN happen.
>>> A company, IIRC, can refuse to recognize a union, but the PR and
>>> other side-effects don't lean to using that course of action. Today
>>> might be different, but the MSM would raise holy hell regardless of
>>> what "pranks" the union engaged in.
>>
>>
>> The company didn't de-certify the union the workers did. I've posted
>> a wiki article below.
>>
>> That said there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about labor
>> law in this conversation. Which is understandable because it is a
>> very complex set of laws on both the federal and state level. But to
>> simplify.. The federal law recognizes two different types of strikers.
>> Economic
>> Strikers and Unfair Practice Strikers.
>
> Thanks, but the question regards how much a company is beholden to a
> union. It has nothing to do with strikes.

You are the one I beleive that brought up the Coors decertification. I
answered that and used it as a jumping off point to correct some
misinformation that had been in the thread.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>> That said there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about labor
>>> law in this conversation. Which is understandable because it is a
>>> very complex set of laws on both the federal and state level. But to
>>> simplify.. The federal law recognizes two different types of strikers.
>>> Economic
>>> Strikers and Unfair Practice Strikers.
>>
>> Thanks, but the question regards how much a company is beholden to a
>> union. It has nothing to do with strikes.
>
> You are the one I beleive that brought up the Coors decertification. I
> answered that and used it as a jumping off point to correct some
> misinformation that had been in the thread.

A union can be decertified at any time, not necessarily during a strike, but
the info you provided was helpful otherwise. It reminded me that I can
remember things from 30 years ago, but not from last week.

On Nov 30, 10:17 am, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
>
> Do note that some of the highest paid professions are certainly not
> unionized and never were.

How do you explain Airline pilots ? For glorified bus drivers they
dont do too bad. And why do unionized carriers have better working
conditions than the non unionized carriers ?
>
> Compensation is strictly a factor of supply and demand and unions cannot
> fakeout that reality.

How does Bertie do that laugh ?
>
> (as stated elsewhere) IIRC, a company does not have to recognize a union,
> but given union thuggery, it would be injudicious to do so, given the cover
> unions receive from government regardless of the legality of their actions.

MXMatt , not the old "Union Thugs " chesnut again ! Puhleezzzzzze.
Happy holidays Matt. How are things at the hospital.
FKB

"F. Baum" > wrote in
:

> On Nov 30, 10:17 am, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> wrote:
>>
>> Do note that some of the highest paid professions are certainly not
>> unionized and never were.
>
> How do you explain Airline pilots ? For glorified bus drivers they
> dont do too bad. And why do unionized carriers have better working
> conditions than the non unionized carriers ?
>>

How many bus drivers do you know who can recite the hydropaling speed of
their bus?

>> Compensation is strictly a factor of supply and demand and unions
>> cannot fakeout that reality.
>
> How does Bertie do that laugh ?


Bwawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahw!


If you use it there're royalties. You may place a couple of washers in
the nearest dogs for the blind can.
>>
>> (as stated elsewhere) IIRC, a company does not have to recognize a
>> union, but given union thuggery, it would be injudicious to do so,
>> given the cover unions receive from government regardless of the
>> legality of their actions.
>
> MXMatt , not the old "Union Thugs " chesnut again ! Puhleezzzzzze.
> Happy holidays Matt. How are things at the hospital.


I think the basic problem here is that there's a failure to understand
that while ALPA, amongst others, are very much like unions, there are
some fundamental differences. Thus the "association" tag..



Bertie

On Nov 30, 10:56 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Nov 30, 9:17 am, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> wrote:
>
> > Do note that some of the highest paid professions are certainly not
> > unionized and never were.
>
> > Compensation is strictly a factor of supply and demand and unions cannot
> > fakeout that reality.
>
> But that is what unions do. The purpose of a union is to grain
> compensation packages beyond what the free market would offer by
> restricting what employees an employer can hire (i.e. you can't just
> hire someone else when the union strikes to demonstrate that their
> demands are in excess of the market). Unions avoid the free market by
> dictating terms across the board. If employers got together and
> decided what saleries to dictated to employees they would quickly be
> in violation of anti-trust laws, but unions are explicitly excempt
> from anti-trust (because they are, by their nature antitrust, thereby
> avoiding freemarkets) The auto unions had this going on well for many
> years, it was only when new companies joined the industry that were
> not under their control (Toyota, etc) that they could no longer avoid
> the affects of the free market. If the unions were able to organize
> the employees in Japan and everywhere else in the world auto workers
> would still have the same omnipower that they did in the 70s.
> What people forget is that these excess wages (excess to what the
> market would dictate) are paid by someone. Since companies don't print
> money, it's always people that end up paying. In the 70's Americans
> subsidized the wages of the auto industry with high prices for crappy
> cars. I suppose the unions just thought automakers would just print
> extra money in the basement in order to meet the union's salary
> demands.
>
> -Robert

Robert, you bust me up something fierce !! We NEED to get together for
beers at Oshkosh. Once again your post is straight out of some
textbook with no real world value to it. Has it occured to you that
(By and large) most of these companies get the labor relations that
they deserve.
FB

On Nov 28, 9:42 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:

> > Since all business
> > involves risk, its not possible to ask someone to take risk but
> > guarantee that they never lose.
>
> Why should employees take risks if they don't receive the benefits?

Are you asking why any employee would want to work for the private
sector when they could work for the gov't??? By accepting a job in the
private sector you are accepting risk. Private sector == risk, nothing
hard to understand about that. I used to work for the state of
California, I left that safety for the private sector. Clearly there
are benefits to working in the private sector (i.e. taking risk) or no
one would leave gov't jobs.

-Robert

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:56:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote in >:

>I think the basic problem here is that there's a failure to understand
>that while ALPA, amongst others, are very much like unions, there are
>some fundamental differences.

The airline pilots union should be run like the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

The IBEW provides training through community college courses and in
their own facilities. Apprentices start work at half of journeyman's
scale, and bet an increase in wages every six months until their four
years are completed. They pass an examination, and that confers
journeyman status upon them, and they are able to accept or reject
signatory employers' requests for men. When the work assignment is
completed (the building construction is completed), the union member
returns to the hiring hall and signs the out-of-work book, and is
offered the jobs that those ahead of him/her on the book have
rejected. Journeymen are permitted to reject two jobs (three strikes
and you're out) before they have to resign the book.

This way, the union members are truly the members of a fraternal
brotherhood that truly has their interests at heart, unlike employers
who have the bottom-line at heart. The union, and the members'
benefits they manage, survive employer bankruptcies, and pension funds
are assured and health insurance is continuous.

When the union is seen as a ready reservoir of skilled labor that they
have trained and tested, and their burgeoning function is secondary.

When the airlines train their pilots, and employ them, I can see how
they might think they own them.

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:56:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote in >:
>
>>I think the basic problem here is that there's a failure to understand
>>that while ALPA, amongst others, are very much like unions, there are
>>some fundamental differences.
>
> The airline pilots union should be run like the International
> Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Hey, run for the chair..



> When the airlines train their pilots, and employ them, I can see how
> they might think they own them.

They can think what they like.


Bertie

Larry Dighera writes:

> When the union is seen as a ready reservoir of skilled labor that they
> have trained and tested, and their burgeoning function is secondary.

Unfortunately, the IBEW is not in that category, which is a problem for
employers, since they must take whoever is next in line, be he qualified or
not.

Starting a non-union shop fixes this.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> When the union is seen as a ready reservoir of skilled labor that
>> they have trained and tested, and their burgeoning function is
>> secondary.
>
> Unfortunately, the IBEW is not in that category, which is a problem
> for employers, since they must take whoever is next in line, be he
> qualified or not.
>
> Starting a non-union shop fixes this.
>

How woudl you know, unemployed boi?


Bertie

On Nov 30, 10:17 am, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:

>
> (as stated elsewhere) IIRC, a company does not have to recognize a union,
> but given union thuggery, it would be injudicious to do so, given the cover
> unions receive from government regardless of the legality of their actions.

MXMatt, if the Government allows Unions to operate illegaly, how do
we explain that APA settlement ? ;)

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:19:48 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:56:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>wrote in >:
>
>>I think the basic problem here is that there's a failure to understand
>>that while ALPA, amongst others, are very much like unions, there are
>>some fundamental differences.
>
>The airline pilots union should be run like the International
>Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Why, so they can not work? <G>

Most all of the construction in my area is non-union, save for the
occasional very large commercial job (think "casino" or the convention
center where AOPA expo was held in '07). I personally know people who
went through the exact IBEW electrician program you describe, and they
are *never* working. One guy worked via the IBEW maybe a month in 2+
years, of the biggest building boom in recent history, so he rings
people out @ Stop & Shop.

Pretty much the only IBEW members in my area that have a steady
paycheck are employed (and therefore trained) by the power companies
and railroads, or are not electricians, working for telcos or
governments. Oddly enough, most of the local privately owned power
plants are non-union, staffed by folks right out of the Navy, and the
power company uses non-union contractors to expand and change the
grid.

Same with the carpenter's, painter's, and insulator's unions...

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:19:48 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:56:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>>wrote in >:
>>
>>>I think the basic problem here is that there's a failure to
understand
>>>that while ALPA, amongst others, are very much like unions, there are
>>>some fundamental differences.
>>
>>The airline pilots union should be run like the International
>>Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
>
> Why, so they can not work? <G>
>
> Most all of the construction in my area is non-union, save for the
> occasional very large commercial job (think "casino" or the convention
> center where AOPA expo was held in '07). I personally know people who
> went through the exact IBEW electrician program you describe, and they
> are *never* working. One guy worked via the IBEW maybe a month in 2+
> years, of the biggest building boom in recent history, so he rings
> people out @ Stop & Shop.
>
> Pretty much the only IBEW members in my area that have a steady
> paycheck are employed (and therefore trained) by the power companies
> and railroads, or are not electricians, working for telcos or
> governments. Oddly enough, most of the local privately owned power
> plants are non-union, staffed by folks right out of the Navy, and the
> power company uses non-union contractors to expand and change the
> grid.
>
> Same with the carpenter's, painter's, and insulator's unions...

Which are only remotely related in reality to a pilot's association.



Bertie
>

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> When the union is seen as a ready reservoir of skilled labor that they
>> have trained and tested, and their burgeoning function is secondary.
>
> Unfortunately, the IBEW is not in that category, which is a problem for
> employers, since they must take whoever is next in line, be he qualified
> or
> not.
>
> Starting a non-union shop fixes this.

Is that the official position of the "International Brotherhood of French
Speaking English Teachers"?

Or are you still just another victim here?

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:28:15 GMT, B A R R Y
> wrote in
>:

>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:19:48 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:56:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>>wrote in >:
>>
>>>I think the basic problem here is that there's a failure to understand
>>>that while ALPA, amongst others, are very much like unions, there are
>>>some fundamental differences.
>>
>>The airline pilots union should be run like the International
>>Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
>
>Why, so they can not work? <G>
>
>Most all of the construction in my area is non-union, save for the
>occasional very large commercial job (think "casino" or the convention
>center where AOPA expo was held in '07). I personally know people who
>went through the exact IBEW electrician program you describe, and they
>are *never* working. One guy worked via the IBEW maybe a month in 2+
>years, of the biggest building boom in recent history, so he rings
>people out @ Stop & Shop.
>
>Pretty much the only IBEW members in my area that have a steady
>paycheck are employed (and therefore trained) by the power companies
>and railroads, or are not electricians, working for telcos or
>governments. Oddly enough, most of the local privately owned power
>plants are non-union, staffed by folks right out of the Navy, and the
>power company uses non-union contractors to expand and change the
>grid.
>
>Same with the carpenter's, painter's, and insulator's unions...

The issue you raise has more to do with the Reagan administration's
changes to labor laws and the influx of illegal immigrants than it
does with any flaws in the way the IBEW is structured. And it has
absolutely nothing to do with professional pilots.

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Larry Dighera writes:
>>
>>> When the union is seen as a ready reservoir of skilled labor that
>>> they have trained and tested, and their burgeoning function is
>>> secondary.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the IBEW is not in that category, which is a problem
>> for employers, since they must take whoever is next in line, be he
>> qualified or
>> not.
>>
>> Starting a non-union shop fixes this.
>
> Is that the official position of the "International Brotherhood of
> French Speaking English Teachers"?
>


You gotta admit that when they have a cause, everyone's on board



Bertie

Quick survey question: will every entrepreneure/excective/investor who
started a union shop in the United States please stand up?

I know a good number of such people, and an almost universal goal is
to keep their labor forces non-union. The MX school of management
seems to think it might be otherwise. I guess that school has the
same credentials as the MX flying school, the MX school of
medicine. . .

..


On Nov 30, 8:35 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Larry Dighera writes:
> > When the union is seen as a ready reservoir of skilled labor that they
> > have trained and tested, and their burgeoning function is secondary.
>
> Unfortunately, the IBEW is not in that category, which is a problem for
> employers, since they must take whoever is next in line, be he qualified or
> not.
>
> Starting a non-union shop fixes this.

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

>The issue you raise has more to do with the Reagan administration's
> changes to labor laws and the influx of illegal immigrants than it
> does with any flaws in the way the IBEW is structured. And it has
> absolutely nothing to do with professional pilots.

all part of that vast right-wing conspiracy!!!

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Tina > wrote in
:

> Quick survey question: will every entrepreneure/excective/investor who
> started a union shop in the United States please stand up?


I was union chair for two years, does that count?



Bertie

Bob Noel > wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>The issue you raise has more to do with the Reagan administration's
>> changes to labor laws and the influx of illegal immigrants than it
>> does with any flaws in the way the IBEW is structured. And it has
>> absolutely nothing to do with professional pilots.
>
> all part of that vast right-wing conspiracy!!!
>

Wow, reverse paranoia.


Kewl





Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 28, 8:40 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
> >
> wrote:
>> "Tina" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Matt, you may not understand labor laws very well.
>>
>> Oh, I suppose having over 1,000 people worl for me last
>> year, I guess I
>> understand them well enough.
>>
>> > The US branches of
>> > Honda et al can work at keeping unions out, but they
>> > cannot by dictate
>> > keep them out.
>>
>> They can refuse to recognize (or whatever the legal term
>> is) them.
>
> Throughout the previous century politicians have given
> more and more
> power to unions.

No. In his first year in office, Reagan gave corporations
the wink/nod that government was entering a period of
"malign neglect" that continues to this day. Most changes
in labor law and policy since then have eroded worker
rights. Even Clinton intervened to prevent American pilots
from striking.

> As a result an employer cannot ignore a collective
> bargaining unit if it has been properly set up. This
> includes a vote
> by employees. If an employer refuses to negotiate with the
> union (and
> instead tries to go directly to employees) the union can
> seek a court
> order to force the employer to comply. Every single labor
> law is
> stacked in favor of the unions.

Ignorant claptrap.

> Remember that the U.S. almost become a
> socialist country in the early 1900's and we are still
> left with some
> of those affects.

"Almost became a socialist country"? Another silly
overstatement. That's like saying that America almost
became a collective farm when hippies started living in
communes.

I think unions are in many cases a demonstration that inept management
was at work. A union chair, huh? What style chair were you-- shaker?
No, they were not union, so you wouldn't have been in the early
American, style, either.

Ah, French!

Or electric.

Yeah, electric, a style not known for subtlity. Bertie, the Electric
Chair. That has a nice ring to it.


On Dec 1, 11:43 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Tina > wrote :
>
> > Quick survey question: will every entrepreneure/excective/investor who
> > started a union shop in the United States please stand up?
>
> I was union chair for two years, does that count?
>
> Bertie

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:21:43 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:
>
>The issue you raise has more to do with the Reagan administration's
>changes to labor laws and the influx of illegal immigrants than it
>does with any flaws in the way the IBEW is structured. And it has
>absolutely nothing to do with professional pilots.

Of course it does, in the manner that you brought it up.

Individuals who obtain their own education and ratings (electrical
licenses) are free to work where they choose.

Those individuals who trained through the union can only work on union
jobs, of which there are fewer and fewer, so they _don't_ work very
much.

The same would go for pilots if the ALPA trained them.

Illegals have nothing to do with the lack of union electrical work, as
they can't get an electrical license with illegal status.

Tina > wrote in
:

> I think unions are in many cases a demonstration that inept management
> was at work.

Mmm, not really. There was a definite management style, though. I
suppose the union as started in the early days because of inept
management, though.

A union chair, huh? What style chair were you-- shaker?
> No, they were not union, so you wouldn't have been in the early
> American, style, either.
>
> Ah, French!
>
> Or electric.
>
> Yeah, electric, a style not known for subtlity. Bertie, the Electric
> Chair. That has a nice ring to it.
>

I wish. I was in opposition to one of the most infamous chief execs in
the industry. An electric chair would have been nice, actually.

The things I saw you would not believe. The second two most horrific
years of my life. Had to be done though, and I will definitely stand by
the statement I made earlier about safety most definitely being enhanced
by our membership.
There;s a world of difference between a bus drivers' union and a
pilot's, though. Most of what I was involved in was safety. Duty hours,
food availability, training expenditure. All airlines would like to
minimise their cost in these areas. How do you feel about having a pilot
that got that 5% less training or who's so tired he can't see straight?


Bertie



Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 30, 9:17 am, "Matt W. Barrow"
> >
> wrote:
>
>> Do note that some of the highest paid professions are
>> certainly not unionized and never were.

There are unions for doctors and lawyers. (None for Indian
chiefs that I know of, though.) They are a small minority
but they do exist. As a class, some of the highest paid
"professionals" (to use the term somewhat loosely, but it
still fits) are professional athletes, who are unionized in
the major "big ticket" sports.

>> Compensation is strictly a factor of supply and demand
>> and unions cannot
>> fakeout that reality.

True. The market disciplines workers who over-price their
services just as it disciplines corporations. Thanks for
proving that unions are not "omnipotent" and cannot
"dictate" terms.

> But that is what unions do. The purpose of a union is to
> grain
> compensation packages beyond what the free market

That depends on your definition of a free market - which,
strictly speaking, doesn't exist anyway except conceptually
as the laissez-faire theory. Every economic system imposes
constraints. And most of the direct benefits of the entire
system of such constraints go to the owners, not the
workers.

> would offer by
> restricting what employees an employer can hire (i.e. you
> can't just
> hire someone else when the union strikes

What do you think a scab is? As has been noted here,
workers can be replaced at will in an economic strike.

> to demonstrate that their
> demands are in excess of the market). Unions avoid the
> free market by
> dictating terms across the board.

Dictating? YGBSM. Absent a union, it is the employer who
dictates. As long as he doesn't break any other laws (such
as hiring discrimination), he may dictate terms in a way
that attracts and keeps skilled, productive workers (which
not coincidentally makes unionizing less attractive), or
that encourages turnover (perhaps even as a deliberate
policy) and attracts only those willing (or desperate)
enough to work on those terms.

Unions have to negotiate the sale of labor, just as
third-party suppliers have to negotiate the sale of their
products and services to the employer. That's why it's
called "bargaining".

> If employers got together and
> decided what saleries to dictated to employees they would
> quickly be
> in violation of anti-trust laws, but unions are explicitly
> excempt
> from anti-trust (because they are, by their nature
> antitrust, thereby
> avoiding freemarkets)

Unions don't "dictate" wages, benefits and working
conditions. If that were true, janitors would be making
six-figure incomes.

> The auto unions had this going on well for many
> years, it was only when new companies joined the industry
> that were
> not under their control (Toyota, etc) that they could no
> longer avoid
> the affects of the free market.

Every aspect of every job, unionized or not, is affected by
market conditions. Market conditions for the sale and
purchase of labor vary locally and change over time. So
does the market for cars - the manufacturers also have had
to adjust to the fact that nowadays it takes more than just
bigger fins and more chrome to attract buyers.

> If the unions were able to organize
> the employees in Japan and everywhere else in the world
> auto workers
> would still have the same omnipower

There you go again with ridiculous overstatements.

> that they did in the 70s.
> What people forget is that these excess wages (excess to
> what the
> market would dictate)

Again, which market? One where employers can dictate terms
and are constrained only by their own needs because no
individual can come close to matching the power of a
corporation, or one that attempts to balance this power by
allowing workers to exercise the power of numbers?

> are paid by someone. Since companies don't print
> money, it's always people that end up paying. In the 70's
> Americans
> subsidized the wages of the auto industry with high prices
> for crappy cars.

Management decided to produce those crappy cars, not the
workers. Imports made inroads into the domestic markets for
two reasons. Low-end models, where price competition is
most intense, were produced by cheap overseas labor (mostly
Asian). At the other end of the spectrum, European makers
started giving consumers the option to buy vehicles with
better engineering and features. Later, the Asian makers
learned to exploit that end of the market, too, because
cheap costs and pricing will only get you the bottom end of
the market. American car makers probably would still be
profitable today (even with union wages) if all they had to
concede was the market for small, cheap sedans, which don't
command premium prices.

> I suppose the unions just thought automakers would just
> print
> extra money in the basement in order to meet the union's
> salary demands.

No. All contract bargaining is predicated on both parties
acting rationally in the sense that neither side would
accept terms that are impossible to meet (both short- and
long-term). It's not the union's responsibility to
determine whether an employer can stay in business if it
meets a given proposal, any more than it's the employer's
responsibility to determine whether or how well its workers
can live on what the company is offering to pay. It's like
any other transaction: You put your offer on the table, the
other side considers the cost, benefits, *and consequences*
of the deal, and accepts or rejects it.

Maxwell writes:

> Is that the official position of the "International Brotherhood of French
> Speaking English Teachers"?

No, it is the unofficial position of electrical contractors, and has been for
decades.

Larry Dighera writes:

> The issue you raise has more to do with the Reagan administration's
> changes to labor laws and the influx of illegal immigrants than it
> does with any flaws in the way the IBEW is structured.

No, this was the situation long before Reagan came to office. The trend
started decades ago.

On Dec 2, 8:22 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Maxwell writes:
> > Is that the official position of the "International Brotherhood of French
> > Speaking English Teachers"?
>
> No, it is the unofficial position of electrical contractors, and has been for
> decades.

So this explains your shocking behaviour in the group ?

george writes:

> So this explains your shocking behaviour in the group ?

Why are people always giving me static?

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
>
>> So this explains your shocking behaviour in the group ?
>
> Why are people always giving me static?

It's your electric personality.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:

> > So this explains your shocking behaviour in the group ?

> Why are people always giving me static?

Other than you are a self-righteous, arrogant jerk who has to have the
last word on subjects where your total expertise consists of a quick
scan of wikipedia, no particular reason.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> george writes:
>>
>>> So this explains your shocking behaviour in the group ?
>>
>> Why are people always giving me static?
>
> It's your electric personality.

And this group is highly charged, and many have a positive outlook, but many
have negative attitudes.

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:08:48 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>And this group is highly charged, and many have a positive outlook, but many
>have negative attitudes.
>

I try to just go with the current.

"george" > wrote in message
...
>
> So this explains your shocking behaviour in the group ?

"You don't like your job, you don't strike; you just go in every day and do
it really half-assed! That's the AMERICAN way!" -- Homer Simpson

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:08:48 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>And this group is highly charged, and many have a positive outlook, but
>>many
>>have negative attitudes.
>>
>
> I try to just go with the current.

Do that --I'll go with the flow.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> george writes:
>
>> So this explains your shocking behaviour in the group ?
>
> Why are people always giving me static?

Because your polarity is reversed.

Matt W. Barrow writes:

> And this group is highly charged, and many have a positive outlook, but many
> have negative attitudes.

No wonder the sparks fly.

In classical electrostatic physics (Columbic attractions) opposite
polarities are drawn toward each other. Mx may be some different
charge state, one capable of being repulsed by anything holding a
charge, or even things that are uncharged. He's like an automatic
minus sign in front of any equation that describes attractive forces.







On Dec 1, 5:59 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Matt W. Barrow writes:
> > And this group is highly charged, and many have a positive outlook, but many
> > have negative attitudes.
>
> No wonder the sparks fly.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> The issue you raise has more to do with the Reagan administration's
>> changes to labor laws and the influx of illegal immigrants than it
>> does with any flaws in the way the IBEW is structured.
>
> No, this was the situation long before Reagan came to office. The trend
> started decades ago.
>

You;re an idiot and know nothing abotu aviation or anythign else, as far as
anyone can determine.


Bertie

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:21:43 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote:
>>
>>The issue you raise has more to do with the Reagan administration's
>>changes to labor laws and the influx of illegal immigrants than it
>>does with any flaws in the way the IBEW is structured. And it has
>>absolutely nothing to do with professional pilots.
>
> Of course it does, in the manner that you brought it up.
>
> Individuals who obtain their own education and ratings (electrical
> licenses) are free to work where they choose.
>
> Those individuals who trained through the union can only work on union
> jobs, of which there are fewer and fewer, so they _don't_ work very
> much.
>
> The same would go for pilots if the ALPA trained them.


They don't, and ALPA is different in the way it works.

It isn;t a trade union in the traditional sense.



Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Is that the official position of the "International Brotherhood of
>> French Speaking English Teachers"?
>
> No, it is the unofficial position of electrical contractors, and has
> been for decades.
>



So the electrical contractors are setting the wages for you when you put
your index car offering english lessons up at the super market?

Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> So this explains your shocking behaviour in the group ?
>
> Why are people always giving me static?
>

Because you're an asshole.



Bertie

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:21:30 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>The issue you raise has more to do with the Reagan administration's
>> changes to labor laws and the influx of illegal immigrants than it
>> does with any flaws in the way the IBEW is structured. And it has
>> absolutely nothing to do with professional pilots.
>
>all part of that vast right-wing conspiracy!!!

No. Just facts.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Matt W. Barrow writes:
>
>> And this group is highly charged, and many have a positive outlook,
>> but many have negative attitudes.
>
> No wonder the sparks fly.
>

Only in your tiny mind fjukkwit.

Bertie

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:00:43 GMT, B A R R Y
> wrote in
>:

>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:21:43 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>>
>>The issue you raise has more to do with the Reagan administration's
>>changes to labor laws and the influx of illegal immigrants than it
>>does with any flaws in the way the IBEW is structured. And it has
>>absolutely nothing to do with professional pilots.
>
>Of course it does, in the manner that you brought it up.
>
>Individuals who obtain their own education and ratings (electrical
>licenses) are free to work where they choose.
>
>Those individuals who trained through the union can only work on union
>jobs, of which there are fewer and fewer, so they _don't_ work very
>much.
>

Union and Non-union building trades work together on large jobs.

>The same would go for pilots if the ALPA trained them.
>
>Illegals have nothing to do with the lack of union electrical work, as
>they can't get an electrical license with illegal status.

In California, the state licence has only been a requirement for a
couple of years. Reagan removed the right of unions to require the
general contractor man his job solely with union labor as a contract
condition. That opened the door for non-union labor to undercut union
contractors, because they didn't have to pay employee benefits, and
who knows how many were paid cash....

Today, anyone able to swing a hammer is a carpenter. Anyone with a
paintbrush is a painter. Etc. Painters used to attend five years of
schooling, before they were journeymen. They knew how to do
EVERYTHING.... Today?

Times change. Craft guilds wane. The world is a poorer place without
knowledgeable craftsmen. But in today's world, economics is king.
Noble thought and sincerity are anachronisms. I'm happy I lived in
the age I have. I'm not so sure the future will be as nice a place,
but the exponential progress of technology is almost magical...

Larry Dighera wrote:

> Today, anyone able to swing a hammer is a carpenter. Anyone with a
> paintbrush is a painter. Etc. Painters used to attend five years of
> schooling, before they were journeymen. They knew how to do
> EVERYTHING.... Today?

They knew how to do everything that was traditional, but seldom the
newest technology.


> Times change. Craft guilds wane. The world is a poorer place without
> knowledgeable craftsmen. But in today's world, economics is king.
> Noble thought and sincerity are anachronisms. I'm happy I lived in
> the age I have. I'm not so sure the future will be as nice a place,
> but the exponential progress of technology is almost magical...

I'm a large fan of skilled craftsman also, but that is entirely
unrelated to unions as they exist in the USA. Unions often fought
technology and progress and that didn't help their cause.

Matt

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:56:29 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> Today, anyone able to swing a hammer is a carpenter. Anyone with a
>> paintbrush is a painter. Etc. Painters used to attend five years of
>> schooling, before they were journeymen. They knew how to do
>> EVERYTHING.... Today?
>
>They knew how to do everything that was traditional, but seldom the
>newest technology.

I can only speak of the IBEW. In Los Angeles, the IBEW has provided
classes on fiber-optic cable splicing and solar generation. I believe
those examples sufficiently refute your assertion.

>> Times change. Craft guilds wane. The world is a poorer place without
>> knowledgeable craftsmen. But in today's world, economics is king.
>> Noble thought and sincerity are anachronisms. I'm happy I lived in
>> the age I have. I'm not so sure the future will be as nice a place,
>> but the exponential progress of technology is almost magical...
>
>I'm a large fan of skilled craftsman also, but that is entirely
>unrelated to unions as they exist in the USA.

It may be unrelated to many unions, like the Retail Clerks, or
Teamsters, but I believe what I wrote is true of building trade
unions.

>Unions often fought technology and progress and that didn't help
>their cause.
>

Doubtless, there are a significant number of unions that use their
power to threaten rather than protect. That is disappointing.

In any event, I think there is merit in studying construction trade
unions as a model for airline pilots.

Larry Dighera writes:

> I can only speak of the IBEW. In Los Angeles, the IBEW has provided
> classes on fiber-optic cable splicing and solar generation. I believe
> those examples sufficiently refute your assertion.

There are substantial differences between locals and regions.