Slavery In Aviation [Archive]

Peter Duniho

November 10th 03, 07:05 AM

"Bob Dole" > wrote in message
news:y4Erb.158869$e01.564060@attbi_s02...
>
> If the place where I work is telling me to work hour's for free, what
> should I do ?

Depends on what you are being asked to do and what you agreed to do when you
took the job. There is ample precedent of the courts awarding back pay and
benefits to employees treated in a way other than the employer claimed they
would be treated, but you'd have to be able to show that disparity in
detail.

If you don't like the deal, your best bet is to just find a different
employer. Make sure the next job you get has a clear contract stipulating
what you will do and what you'll receive for that work. Court cases drag on
forever, and usually it's the lawyers who wind up getting the most money out
of them.

In any case, I don't see how you can call it "slavery". You are free to
leave, right?

> I am worried that working for free is illegal, immoral, unethical, and
> unprofessional,

Working for free is none of those things. Being *forced* to work for free
is probably all of those things, but it's not clear to me that that's what's
going on in your case. Are they threatening you or someone you know with
bodily harm? Extorting you? I'm guessing not.

> and I am also worried that it exposes me to the possibility
> of an IRS audit as I could be accused of getting paid "under the table"
> (tax evasion etc.).

For the IRS to prove tax evasion, they'd have to prove you received taxable
income you didn't report. Since you're not receiving taxable income for the
work you're not getting paid for, they wouldn't be able to do that.

Pete

Tom S.

November 10th 03, 10:35 AM

"Bob Dole" > wrote in message
news:y4Erb.158869$e01.564060@attbi_s02...
>
> If the place where I work is telling me to work hour's for free, what
> should I do ?
>

Quit bitching and go be "self-employed", that's what your should do. It's
the mature alternative.

Tom S.

November 10th 03, 10:37 AM

"Tony Roberts" > wrote in message
...
> > If the place where I work is telling me to work hour's for free, what
> > should I do ?
>
> Whatever you want to do.
>
> > I am worried that working for free is illegal,
> No it isn't
>
> immoral,
> No it isn't
>
> unethical,
> No it isn't
>
> > unprofessional,
> No it isn't
>
> >and I am also worried that it exposes me to the possibility
> > of an IRS audit as I could be accused of getting paid "under the table"
> But you're not earning anything. Why worry about an IRS audit?
>
> > I appreciate any replie's.
> You're welcome
>
> Perhaps you would care to be more specific? Then we may be able to give
> more helpful responses.
>
Maybe they're having him work on his writing skills.

[email protected]

November 10th 03, 11:51 AM

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 04:28:42 GMT, Bob Dole
> wrote:

>If the place where I work is telling me to work hour's for free, what
>should I do ?

Contact your state department of labor. Explain your situation.
Request documentation containing the pertinent labor laws. Read the
law, and decide to file a complaint or not.

Cecil E. Chapman

November 10th 03, 12:02 PM

"Bob Dole" > wrote in message
news:y4Erb.158869$e01.564060@attbi_s02...
>
> If the place where I work is telling me to work hour's for free, what
> should I do ?
>
> I am worried that working for free is illegal, immoral, unethical, and
> unprofessional, and I am also worried that it exposes me to the
possibility
> of an IRS audit as I could be accused of getting paid "under the table"
> (tax evasion etc.).
>
> I appreciate any reply's.

(the following is spoken with an 'Arabian Nights' theme playing in the
background)

"Why YES there must be aviation slaves,,, servant, bring on the dancing
girls!!!......"

('Arabian Nights' theme abruptly ends as wife walks in and banishes the
dancing girls :-/ )

Seriously though, it is unethical and (under California labor law), illegal
for an employer to compel an employee to perform services for a firm, for no
compensation.

Find somewhere else to go, is probably the best approach. (if in California
((can't speak for other states)) send a concise well thought-out letter to
the labor commissioner's office - they will find this practice MOST
interesting).... I'm not an attorney,,, just my two cents (which may be
really what this advice is worth,,,, YMMV)

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com

Ron Natalie

November 10th 03, 02:02 PM

"Bob Dole" > wrote in message news:y4Erb.158869$e01.564060@attbi_s02...

> I am worried that working for free is illegal, immoral, unethical, and
> unprofessional,

I'm not going to argue the latter three, but it's probably not illegal in
most cases.

> and I am also worried that it exposes me to the possibility
> of an IRS audit as I could be accused of getting paid "under the table"
> (tax evasion etc.).

Unlikely.

Snowbird

November 10th 03, 03:20 PM

Bob Dole > wrote in message news:<y4Erb.158869$e01.564060@attbi_s02>...
> If the place where I work is telling me to work hour's for free, what
> should I do ?

Depends.

> I am worried that working for free is illegal, immoral, unethical, and
> unprofessional, and I am also worried that it exposes me to the possibility
> of an IRS audit as I could be accused of getting paid "under the table"
> (tax evasion etc.).

You left out "fattening" *g*

1) why are you instructing? if your primary motivation is to
build a lot of hours while someone else is paying for the plane
and you're getting paid (something), are you fulfilling your
motivation? Could you do so better somewhere else?
2) what is your employer wanting you to do "for free" and when?
3) was this explained to you when you took the job?

Oh, and last but not least: are you free to walk out the door
and take another job, or aren't you? There are plenty of slaves
in the world today. Usually people who are stolen from their
homes at gunpoint or children who are sold by desperately impoverished
parents, and forced to work under threat of physical harm under
whatever living conditions and hours their "owner" cares to
impose with no choice practically available to them.

It's horrible.

And somehow I doubt it applies to you.

Cheers,
Sydney

C J Campbell

November 10th 03, 03:47 PM

You are better off checking with your state's labor board than with this
news group.

Most states have minimum wage laws and they insist that you be paid for time
spent instructing, attending mandatory meetings, manning the pilot shop or
desk, locking up at night, etc. They also insist that all such time be
included when calculating mandatory overtime.

Flight schools attempt to avoid these laws either by flagrantly ignoring
them or by insisting that their instructors are 'independent contractors,'
which they are not. Flight instructors are not management, either.

If you think you have a legitimate beef, file a complaint with your state's
labor board.

Flight instructors are grossly underpaid as it is. Just because unfair labor
practices are common does not make them right.

Gary Mishler

November 10th 03, 04:02 PM

"Bob Dole" > wrote in message
news:y4Erb.158869$e01.564060@attbi_s02...
>
> If the place where I work is telling me to work hour's for free, what
> should I do ?
>
> I am worried that working for free is illegal, immoral, unethical, and
> unprofessional, and I am also worried that it exposes me to the
possibility
> of an IRS audit as I could be accused of getting paid "under the table"
> (tax evasion etc.).
>
> I appreciate any replie's.

As others have said, you don't supply enough details for anyone here to
really comment much on.

Also, you have already been given replies that pretty much run the board. I
will add this: When I was flight instructing pretty much everyone of us was
expected to answer phones, straighten up the snack room, make coffee, help
put supplies away, inventory stock, etc., etc., etc. We shoveled snow off
the steps, cleaned airplanes, preheated planes in the winter - you get the
idea, lots of things that weren't flying or instructing. Heck, we even had
to spend a few evenings a year at a sports and vacation show booth answering
question about learning to fly. We even made calls to people who visited
the booth trying to drum up business. You know what? No one complained.
You know why? Because all of us wanted to progress in our career and that
was the way to start out doing it.

You call it Slavery, we called it Work Ethic.

My advice: Sure, you can call the Labor Commission, you can talk to a
lawyer, you could file a complaint. Then what? Then you are labeled a
trouble maker, a whiner, etc. and there goes your references for better
employment.

Do as others here have suggested - if it's that bad, get out. If not, grin
and bear it.

C J Campbell

November 10th 03, 04:29 PM

"Gary Mishler" > wrote in message
news:tEOrb.161931$Fm2.143657@attbi_s04...
|
| "Bob Dole" > wrote in message
| news:y4Erb.158869$e01.564060@attbi_s02...
| >
|
| You call it Slavery, we called it Work Ethic.
|
| My advice: Sure, you can call the Labor Commission, you can talk to a
| lawyer, you could file a complaint. Then what? Then you are labeled a
| trouble maker, a whiner, etc. and there goes your references for better
| employment.
|
| Do as others here have suggested - if it's that bad, get out. If not,
grin
| and bear it.

Hmmm. If you talked that way to a migrant worker, you would be clapped in
irons.

Jay Honeck

November 10th 03, 08:23 PM

> Hmmm. If you talked that way to a migrant worker, you would be clapped in
> irons.

Yeah, sure.

And if Warren Sapp were a flight instructor, he'd be complaining about being
"enslaved" for a lot less than the $5 million per year he's making now...

Sapp's a moron, and this whole thread is ridiculous.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

BTIZ

November 10th 03, 09:36 PM

after reading all the other posts..

the local Flight School pays a "base rate" on the hours spent at the
"office/airport/school" doing company business. Then plusses up the pay
based on flight hours.. with "graduations" in pay based on number of hours
flown. Base rate is determined by level of CFI, CFII, CFII-ME etc.. and the
plussed up rate is also based on the instructors qualifications..

encourages instructors to
1) "man the phones",
2) "support the front desk",
3) "be available for that walk-in demo ride or visitor who wants to fly the
area but needs a checkout or just a safety instructor.
4) get qualified on the schools fuel truck (they only refuel school
aircraft) their "turn on the truck" is covered with their "base pay"
5) move up in their instructor qualifications

Most instructors at this school are graduates of Embry Riddle or University
of North Dakota (they come south to escape the 4yrs up north) and are only
around about 12-18months before moving on to other career advancing
employment.

BT

"Bob Dole" > wrote in message
news:y4Erb.158869$e01.564060@attbi_s02...
>
> If the place where I work is telling me to work hour's for free, what
> should I do ?
>
> I am worried that working for free is illegal, immoral, unethical, and
> unprofessional, and I am also worried that it exposes me to the
possibility
> of an IRS audit as I could be accused of getting paid "under the table"
> (tax evasion etc.).
>
> I appreciate any replie's.

Bob Fry

November 11th 03, 01:27 AM

Bob Dole > writes:

> If the place where I work is telling me to work hour's for free, what
> should I do ?

Doctors, lawyers, engineers, managers....anybody with a job title that
is remotely "professional" sounding is paid a fixed salary, which if
you want means they work for "free" if they work beyond 40 hours.
Though I hear that even WalMart clerks are called "Associates" or
something and management tries to get unpaid work from them.

Greg Chapman

November 11th 03, 10:28 AM

----- Original Message -----
> Seriously though, it is unethical and (under California labor law),
illegal
> for an employer to compel an employee to perform services for a firm, for
no
> compensation.

Indeed. But it depends on one's definition of "compensation". If he gets
hours out of it, I'm curious how your IRS would account for that -- a
non-cash remuneration.

Frankly, I'd fly for free to just build hours, assuming I was insured by the
company while doing so.

Greg.

Larry Dighera

November 11th 03, 11:45 AM

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 07:47:01 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Just because unfair labor practices are common
>does not make them right.

Larry Dighera

November 11th 03, 01:59 PM

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:02:33 GMT, "Gary Mishler"
> wrote in Message-Id:
<tEOrb.161931$Fm2.143657@attbi_s04>:

>You call it Slavery, we called it Work Ethic.
>
>My advice: Sure, you can call the Labor Commission, you can talk to a
>lawyer, you could file a complaint. Then what?

If you seek information from the state labor board concerning the
labor laws, you are educating yourself. Wouldn't you agree that it is
prudent for an employee to understand the legal implications of his
employer's practices and acts? Head-in-the-sand thinking is for those
too weak to face the truth.

If the employee sees the employer's attempt to secure free labor for
the unjust robbery it truly is, it may cause the employee to
reevaluate his misguided dedication to an exploitative boss. We can
hope.

>Then you are labeled a trouble maker, a whiner, etc. and there
>goes your references for better employment.

I can appreciate your sentiment in providing labor to the FBO gratis,
because you want to see the firm prosper. Such an attitude is a
common tacit requirement for all employment. An employee who lacks
"team spirit" negatively impacts company morale. And your contention
that it is morally good to demonstrate industry will find little
argument.

However, consider how you've become inculcated into working without
compensation and accepting it as normal and right! As you state, one
of the reasons you provide labor without compensation is fear of
reprisal for demanding to be compensated for ALL your labor that
benefits the FBO. What justification does the employer offer for that
prejudicial judgement of an employee who demands payment for his
labor? How does an employee's being "labeled a trouble maker, a
whiner, etc." as a result of insisting on payment for his labor, not
reveal the employer's duplicitous intent to cheat his labor force from
their rightful due?

The reason there are labor laws today is because oppressed workers of
the past shed their blood and fought hard to see that just laws were
enacted. Business operators, necessarily concerned with profit,
develop an eye to cost cutting in all business related expenses. This
necessarily perpetuates a socioeconomic force directed against the
principles of justice and fairness embodied in the labor laws. It's a
natural result of free market capitalism. But it necessitates an
opposing attitude in the minds of the labor force to insure that the
principles contained within the labor laws are upheld in the
workplace. If not, those hard-won concessions to fairness, justice
and human decency will erode (as is currently occurring).

It is the collective responsibility of all people of employee status
to band together in a common effort to oppose that managerial force
that seeks to take "just a little more" of workers' rights from them.
Those employees who fail to adequately understand the labor v
management dynamics of the workplace, and through a misguided sense of
"duty to the company" and "work ethic," inadvertently undermine the
legal shield that separates employees from the inhumane, exploitative
labor practices of the past, know not the harm they cause their
fellows. Remind them of the fact, that if their fellow workers of the
past hadn't suffered to extract just treatment from their employers,
they'd be working 18 hour days for coolie wages.

So it's every employee's responsibility to choose how he interacts
with his employer. Does he give away the commodity he is selling, his
labor, or does he demand to be paid for it? It's really a matter of
professionalism, ideology, history, and personal self-worth. Don't
let it become a betrayal of those oppressed employees of the past who
fought hard for the 8 hour work day, 7 day work week. Think about it.

Snowbird

November 11th 03, 02:47 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...

> Hmmm. If you talked that way to a migrant worker, you would be clapped in
> irons.

Oh, really? Where would this occur, and by whom?

Sydney (who thinks migrants most places don't have a lot of options)

John Gaquin

November 11th 03, 02:57 PM

"Bob Dole" > wrote in message

Has anyone else noticed ? ------

While numerous responders shoot off in multiple directions, expounding on
everything from moral work ethic to the oppression of the proletariat, our
original troll, Mr. "Bob Dole" chooses only to sit back and watch the show.

Ron Natalie

November 11th 03, 05:51 PM

> Indeed. But it depends on one's definition of "compensation". If he gets
> hours out of it, I'm curious how your IRS would account for that -- a
> non-cash remuneration.

It's only the FAA that thinks that intangible job experiece is renumeration.

However, if you can put a dollar value on the compensation then it is generally
taxable. For example, if they let him rent the plane at no cost for his own use,
that's taxable, but the experience of doing his job (even though he is logging it)
isn't.

Tom S.

November 11th 03, 06:16 PM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> > Indeed. But it depends on one's definition of "compensation". If he gets
> > hours out of it, I'm curious how your IRS would account for that -- a
> > non-cash remuneration.
>
> It's only the FAA that thinks that intangible job experiece is
renumeration.

They got it from the IRS and their version of "Wages and Salaries" (not what
the 16th originally defined).

>
> However, if you can put a dollar value on the compensation then it is
generally
> taxable. For example, if they let him rent the plane at no cost for his
own use,
> that's taxable, but the experience of doing his job (even though he is
logging it)
> isn't.

C J Campbell

November 11th 03, 06:41 PM

"Greg Chapman" > wrote in message |
| Frankly, I'd fly for free to just build hours, assuming I was insured by
the
| company while doing so.
|

And that is really the problem, isn't it? There are too many knotheads
willing to fly for free, so instructors cannot have a decent wage or working
conditions.

Ron Natalie

November 11th 03, 06:57 PM

"Tom S." > wrote in message ...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > > Indeed. But it depends on one's definition of "compensation". If he gets
> > > hours out of it, I'm curious how your IRS would account for that -- a
> > > non-cash remuneration.
> >
> > It's only the FAA that thinks that intangible job experiece is
> renumeration.
>
> They got it from the IRS and their version of "Wages and Salaries" (not what
> the 16th originally defined).
>
Nope, the IRS doesn't hold that "job experience" is taxable.

C J Campbell

November 11th 03, 07:29 PM

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Bob Dole" > wrote in message
|
| Has anyone else noticed ? ------
|
| While numerous responders shoot off in multiple directions, expounding on
| everything from moral work ethic to the oppression of the proletariat, our
| original troll, Mr. "Bob Dole" chooses only to sit back and watch the
show.

However, the topic needs to be discussed. There appear to be a number of
deluded individuals that think being forced to work without pay is a good
thing. Personally, I think it is theft and, at bottom, an offense as serious
as murder.

One wonders: why all these people willing to put up with such conditions?
They think that if they just build enough hours or 'pay their dues' that
they will eventually get a decent paying job. So, when do you suppose they
will think they have built up enough hours or paid enough dues that they are
entitled to be paid for their labor? Or do you think that they will just
continue being willing to fly 747s on international routes for free just to
build up hours?

And when they do start demanding to be paid, does that mean that they have
lost their work ethic? When they refuse to shovel the walk to the air
terminal, does that mean they have no more team spirit?

Jeff Franks

November 11th 03, 07:34 PM

> Quit bitching and go be "self-employed", that's what your should do. It's
> the mature alternative.

NOT if he doesn't like working for free!!!!

Jeff Franks

November 11th 03, 07:49 PM

>
> However, the topic needs to be discussed. There appear to be a number of
> deluded individuals that think being forced to work without pay is a good
> thing. Personally, I think it is theft and, at bottom, an offense as
serious
> as murder.

As are the unaccounted for personal calls and 10-minute "unofficial" breaks
that everyone takes on the boss's dime. Asking an employee to work over
isn't theft. It's a request. Forcing an *hourly* employee to work off the
clock isn't a good thing. But if your wanting to show your "work ethic" and
your willingness to do whatever it takes to get the job done, then it can
endear you to the people who write your check (creating more opportunity for
advancement, etc). Become a clock watcher on me and I'll become one on you.
>
>

....stuff clipped here....

>
>When they refuse to shovel the walk to the air
> terminal, does that mean they have no more team spirit?

No, but it does show your priorities. I'm only interested in employees who
care about the company (and thereby their jobs). Refusing to do something
that is necessary for the company's survival makes no sense to me. Do it
and move on. Now, if that "something" becomes an everyday thing, then there
is a problem in the company. The occasional "free" hour helps everyone.

Not the way your union steward will see it, but then again.....screw the
union.

Gary Mishler

November 11th 03, 08:16 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

>I think it is theft and, at bottom, an offense as serious
as murder.<

<snip>

trolling deep today ......

Gary Mishler

November 11th 03, 08:20 PM

"Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
...

>>>When they refuse to shovel the walk to the air
> terminal, does that mean they have no more team spirit?

No, but it does show your priorities. I'm only interested in employees who
care about the company (and thereby their jobs). Refusing to do something
that is necessary for the company's survival makes no sense to me. <<

It's like you said, and it's also customer service. If my students can't
get into the building without getting their feet wet because the walks
aren't shoveled they may end up going somewhere else, which would also be my
loss.

Tom S.

November 11th 03, 08:51 PM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >
> > > > Indeed. But it depends on one's definition of "compensation". If he
gets
> > > > hours out of it, I'm curious how your IRS would account for that --
a
> > > > non-cash remuneration.
> > >
> > > It's only the FAA that thinks that intangible job experiece is
> > renumeration.
> >
> > They got it from the IRS and their version of "Wages and Salaries" (not
what
> > the 16th originally defined).
> >
> Nope, the IRS doesn't hold that "job experience" is taxable.
But evidently the FAA does :~)

Where'd they get that notion, huh?

Tom S.

November 11th 03, 08:52 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Gaquin" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Bob Dole" > wrote in message
> |
> | Has anyone else noticed ? ------
> |
> | While numerous responders shoot off in multiple directions, expounding
on
> | everything from moral work ethic to the oppression of the proletariat,
our
> | original troll, Mr. "Bob Dole" chooses only to sit back and watch the
> show.
>
> However, the topic needs to be discussed. There appear to be a number of
> deluded individuals that think being forced to work without pay is a good
> thing. Personally, I think it is theft and, at bottom, an offense as
serious
> as murder.

"Forced"? Someone is holding a gun on them? Holding their family hostage?

Larry Dighera

November 11th 03, 09:43 PM

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:52:39 -0700, "Tom S." > wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>
>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "John Gaquin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> |
>> | "Bob Dole" > wrote in message
>> |
>> | Has anyone else noticed ? ------
>> |
>> | While numerous responders shoot off in multiple directions, expounding
>on
>> | everything from moral work ethic to the oppression of the proletariat,
>our
>> | original troll, Mr. "Bob Dole" chooses only to sit back and watch the
>> show.
>>
>> However, the topic needs to be discussed. There appear to be a number of
>> deluded individuals that think being forced to work without pay is a good
>> thing. Personally, I think it is theft and, at bottom, an offense as
>serious
>> as murder.
>
>"Forced"? Someone is holding a gun on them? Holding their family hostage?
>

Is a women employee asked by her boss to perform sexual acts to keep
her job being coerced?

Snowbird

November 12th 03, 02:53 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...

> However, the topic needs to be discussed. There appear to be a number of
> deluded individuals that think being forced to work without pay is a good
> thing. Personally, I think it is theft and, at bottom, an offense as serious
> as murder.

You have GOT to be kidding.

Please get a grip, CJ, and develop a few more nuances in your sense
of perspective.

> One wonders: why all these people willing to put up with such conditions?
> They think that if they just build enough hours or 'pay their dues' that
> they will eventually get a decent paying job.

Precisely.

> And when they do start demanding to be paid, does that mean that they have
> lost their work ethic?

It means they have decided that their long-term goals are no longer
being served by their short-term deprivations.

If everyone in the profession pretty much feels the same way, things
will change. If there's a line of people with the same qualifications
out the door and around the block who are willing to deal with the
status quo working conditions, the polite employer's response will
be "good luck in your future endeavors, don't let the door hit you
on the way out"

It's called supply-and-demand in the free market, and while it's not
pretty sometimes I haven't heard of a better system yet.

Sydney

Snowbird

November 12th 03, 03:02 AM

"Gary Mishler" > wrote in message news:<Ewbsb.172027$HS4.1394008@attbi_s01>...

> "Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
> ...
> No, but it does show your priorities. I'm only interested in employees who
> care about the company (and thereby their jobs). Refusing to do something
> that is necessary for the company's survival makes no sense to me. <<

> It's like you said, and it's also customer service. If my students can't
> get into the building without getting their feet wet because the walks
> aren't shoveled they may end up going somewhere else, which would also be my
> loss.

True story.

It doesn't snow that much in St Louis, and when it does snow, it usually
only lasts a couple days before melting off. So people and businesses
don't make the same level of arrangements to cope as people in colder
climes must.

When I was a student pilot at a local flight school, we had a cold
snap following a reasonably substantial snow. A week after the snowfall,
snow was still on the ground.

I went out to the airport to fly. The planes were still covered with
snow. The ramps surrounding the planes were plowed, but snow had been
pushed up so that it formed a barrier to pulling each plane out.

A number of CFIs were sitting around a table inside, kvetching
about how they weren't flying and hence weren't earning money.

Now I guess snow removal wasn't in their job description. But if
they'd all pitched in and shoveled the snow off the planes, put
the first planes on the schedule inside the heated hangars to warm
up, called the airport authority to plow the cleared section of the
ramp clean then moved other planes and gotten the rest of the ramp
plowed, they could have been flying (and earning money) all week.
And honey, I'm from Western New York and I've shoveled snow in my
time. I coulda got that whole ramp clean by myself in 3 days with
only a shovel. Half a dozen strapping and healthy young fellows
and a tractor with a plow on it, 3 hrs max.

They lost. Their employer lost, and ultimately went out of business.

I guess sometimes it's better to avoid working for free sometimes than to
keep working at all.

Sydney

John Gaquin

November 12th 03, 04:04 AM

Quite a rant, CJ. Get a grip.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>
> ....I think it is theft and, at bottom, an offense as serious
> as murder.

One of the more patently ridiculous statements I've seen in a newsgroup.

>
> Or do you think that they will just
> continue being willing to fly 747s on international routes for free just
to
> build up hours?

CFIs already work harder than that. And what does international have to do
with it? People always throw that in, like its five times harder to cross a
boundary or something. Silly.

John Gaquin

November 12th 03, 04:04 AM

Gary Mishler

November 12th 03, 04:04 AM

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
m...

>> A number of CFIs were sitting around a table inside, kvetching
about how they weren't flying and hence weren't earning money...
Now I guess snow removal wasn't in their job description. But if
they'd all pitched in and shoveled the snow off the planes, put
the first planes on the schedule inside the heated hangars to warm
up, ... They lost. Their employer lost, and ultimately went out of
business.<<

Exactly.

Dave Stadt

November 12th 03, 04:56 AM

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
m...
> "Gary Mishler" > wrote in message
news:<Ewbsb.172027$HS4.1394008@attbi_s01>...
>
> > "Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > No, but it does show your priorities. I'm only interested in employees
who
> > care about the company (and thereby their jobs). Refusing to do
something
> > that is necessary for the company's survival makes no sense to me. <<
>
> > It's like you said, and it's also customer service. If my students
can't
> > get into the building without getting their feet wet because the walks
> > aren't shoveled they may end up going somewhere else, which would also
be my
> > loss.
>
> True story.
>
> It doesn't snow that much in St Louis, and when it does snow, it usually
> only lasts a couple days before melting off. So people and businesses
> don't make the same level of arrangements to cope as people in colder
> climes must.
>
> When I was a student pilot at a local flight school, we had a cold
> snap following a reasonably substantial snow. A week after the snowfall,
> snow was still on the ground.
>
> I went out to the airport to fly. The planes were still covered with
> snow. The ramps surrounding the planes were plowed, but snow had been
> pushed up so that it formed a barrier to pulling each plane out.
>
> A number of CFIs were sitting around a table inside, kvetching
> about how they weren't flying and hence weren't earning money.
>
> Now I guess snow removal wasn't in their job description. But if
> they'd all pitched in and shoveled the snow off the planes, put
> the first planes on the schedule inside the heated hangars to warm
> up, called the airport authority to plow the cleared section of the
> ramp clean then moved other planes and gotten the rest of the ramp
> plowed, they could have been flying (and earning money) all week.
> And honey, I'm from Western New York and I've shoveled snow in my
> time. I coulda got that whole ramp clean by myself in 3 days with
> only a shovel. Half a dozen strapping and healthy young fellows
> and a tractor with a plow on it, 3 hrs max.
>
> They lost. Their employer lost, and ultimately went out of business.
>
> I guess sometimes it's better to avoid working for free sometimes than to
> keep working at all.
>
> Sydney

You just gave CJ a heart attack.

C J Campbell

November 12th 03, 06:45 AM

"Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
...
| >
| > However, the topic needs to be discussed. There appear to be a number of
| > deluded individuals that think being forced to work without pay is a
good
| > thing. Personally, I think it is theft and, at bottom, an offense as
| serious
| > as murder.
|
| As are the unaccounted for personal calls and 10-minute "unofficial"
breaks
| that everyone takes on the boss's dime.

Baloney. A pilot gets paid for flight time only. What he does in between
flights is his own time. The boss sure isn't paying for it.

As for shoveling the walk to the terminal without pay -- at what point in
your career do you start refusing to do that? When you become a charter
pilot? Start flying for the regionals? Majors? Just wondering how long you
plan to keep your work ethic.

C J Campbell

November 12th 03, 06:47 AM

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
m...
|
| Now I guess snow removal wasn't in their job description. But if
| they'd all pitched in and shoveled the snow off the planes, put
| the first planes on the schedule inside the heated hangars to warm
| up, called the airport authority to plow the cleared section of the
| ramp clean then moved other planes and gotten the rest of the ramp
| plowed, they could have been flying (and earning money) all week.
| And honey, I'm from Western New York and I've shoveled snow in my
| time. I coulda got that whole ramp clean by myself in 3 days with
| only a shovel. Half a dozen strapping and healthy young fellows
| and a tractor with a plow on it, 3 hrs max.
|
| They lost. Their employer lost, and ultimately went out of business.
|

So what was the employer doing? Apparently he would rather go out of
business than pay his employees or do the work himself.

C J Campbell

November 12th 03, 06:49 AM

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
|
| >
| > However, the topic needs to be discussed. There appear to be a number of
| > deluded individuals that think being forced to work without pay is a
good
| > thing. Personally, I think it is theft and, at bottom, an offense as
| serious
| > as murder.
|
| "Forced"? Someone is holding a gun on them? Holding their family hostage?
|

Essentially, yes. Some employers tell their employees that they have to work
for free 'or else.' The 'or else' usually means your family suffers.

Dave Stadt

November 12th 03, 01:58 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | >
> | > However, the topic needs to be discussed. There appear to be a number
of
> | > deluded individuals that think being forced to work without pay is a
> good
> | > thing. Personally, I think it is theft and, at bottom, an offense as
> | serious
> | > as murder.
> |
> | "Forced"? Someone is holding a gun on them? Holding their family
hostage?
> |
>
> Essentially, yes. Some employers tell their employees that they have to
work
> for free 'or else.' The 'or else' usually means your family suffers.

So what, these employees are locked up or do they have leg irons to prevent
their escape? Or do you mean the employer comes in the dark of night and
makes off with the first born?

Captain Wubba

November 12th 03, 02:23 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | >
> | > However, the topic needs to be discussed. There appear to be a number of
> | > deluded individuals that think being forced to work without pay is a
> good
> | > thing. Personally, I think it is theft and, at bottom, an offense as
> serious
> | > as murder.
> |
> | "Forced"? Someone is holding a gun on them? Holding their family hostage?
> |
>
> Essentially, yes. Some employers tell their employees that they have to work
> for free 'or else.' The 'or else' usually means your family suffers.

What is the threat? What is the 'or else'? 'Or you will be fired'?
This is hardly slavery and *nothing* remotely similar to theft (and to
compare it to murder is absurd).

When I tell a store owner 'If you can't get your prices down, I'll
have to go elsewhere.' I'm giving him an 'or else'. And I am totally
within my rights. When my employer tells me I need to increase my
productivity, or he'll have to let me go, he's giving me an 'or else'.
And he's totally within his rights.

If my employer tells me I have do do XYZ job 'for free' or he'll let
me go, then it is my *choice* whether I'm going to do it or not.
Nobody elses. Period. Not theft, not slavery, but *choice*. I've quit
jobs before because I didn't want to comply with their demans, and
I've done things at jobs I didn't love to do, because I preferred
doing those things to the alternatives. In the end it is my choice.

If you think the threat of being fired is akin to blackmail or theft,
then you must also think that threatening to leave (as an employee)
for more money if the company won't give me a raise is the same,
right? I mean there is a 'threat' that if my demands are not met, then
I'll do something harmful to the company. Do I have the right to do
this? Obviously I do.

This is just silly. If your company wants you to do something you
don't want to, you have the option of quitting. Slaves don't have the
option of quitting. People being robbed don't have the option of not
being robbed. But as an employee, I certainly have the right to quit.
Might it hurt my family if I do? Sure. But I'm the one making that
choice. Find somebody who is a *real* victim of theft, and ask them
about the level of choice they had in the matter.

Cheers,

Cap

Snowbird

November 12th 03, 02:25 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...

> So what was the employer doing?

Managing his other businesses.

> Apparently he would rather go out of
> business than pay his employees or do the work himself.

Actually, this particular flight school was much sought after
amoung CFIs because they paid health insurance and some other
benefits, which are NOT cheap for a small business to provide.
Plus they were very busy and had Pt 135 Charter with twins, so
the CFIs got a lot of hours and a chance to move into multi
charter work.

So I would tend to believe he was already compensating his
employees to the max of what he could without running his
rental rates over the "market" at the time.

And essentially, you're right. The employer had other businesses
which were profitable and which took up his time, and he would
rather close an unprofitable business then make it still less
profitable, and turn his attention to other venues.

Makes sense to me.

Sydney

Larry Dighera

November 12th 03, 02:33 PM

On 12 Nov 2003 06:23:52 -0800, (Captain Wubba)
wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>If my employer tells me I have do do XYZ job 'for free' or he'll let
>me go, then it is my *choice* whether I'm going to do it or not.
>Nobody elses. Period. Not theft, not slavery, but *choice*.

If you are fired for failing to perform work without compensation,
your employer is in violation of your state labor laws; trust me.

C J Campbell

November 12th 03, 03:29 PM

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message |
| This is just silly. If your company wants you to do something you
| don't want to, you have the option of quitting. Slaves don't have the
| option of quitting.

Ah, I see. So if I demand that you give me all your money or I kill you,
then there is nothing wrong with that. It is simply a matter of your choice.
There is no coercion involved whatsoever.

I can see that I am dealing with people who are terminally silly here.
Enough of this thread.

Snowbird

November 12th 03, 04:52 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...

> | "Forced"? Someone is holding a gun on them? Holding their family hostage?

> Essentially, yes. Some employers tell their employees that they have to work
> for free 'or else.' The 'or else' usually means your family suffers.

Well, CJ, there are nuances of 'force' and nuances of "family suffering",
though somehow I don't think someone who analogizes unpaid work and
murder is gonna see 'em *g*

There are also nuances of "work for free or else".

There are situations where an hourly employee is instructed to clock
out, but then asked to remain on the premises to complete a task.
WalMart is notorious for this. Employees who complain or refuse
may be fired or evaluated poorly. Since Walmart is sometimes the
major employer in small rural towns, the employee's family suffers.
Agreed. And the situation is usually not laid-out when the person
is hired: they are not told "you'll be expected to clock-out at
9 pm but remain until 10 pm stocking your area."

Then there are situations like that of many CFIs, where better-paid
work is available, but the person chooses to work as a CFI in order
to pursue career goals. He is paid per flight hour, but his employer
may require him to be on the premises at certain hours in order to
talk to people who call or walk-in about flight training and be
available to take them on Discovery flights. To me this is a far
"grayer" situation since the CFI himself has a lot of control over
how much of his time is unpaid. If he markets himself aggressively
and brings in new students, he'll spend more of that time flying and
being paid. If he's a good ambassador for flying and for the school,
he'll persuade more walk-ins to fly with him. And, usually, the
situation is explained to the CFI up-front before he is hired. It's
not as though he is (typically) greeted after the last flight of a
10 hr day and told "OK, clock out, now wash these three planes
before you go home"

Now maybe "Bob Dole" had something else in mind, if he's more than
just a troll. But the situation is, I think, not that different
from a number of other jobs (car salesmen come to mind) where the
employee is paid on commission, based upon the money he brings in
to the company. My grandfather bought a house and raised a family
and sent a daughter to college on commissions from insurance sales.
He wasn't paid for the hours he spent driving around between prospects
or clients. He wasn't paid for the hours he spent with prospects
who didn't close a sale. He wasn't paid for tallying his sales
at the end of the day or for attending meetings. Those were *necessary
adjuncts to the job he did*, which was to sell insurance and get paid
according to how much he sold. Through the heart of the Great Depression.
He considered himself lucky.

The mind boggles at the concept of "be paid according to your value
to your employer" as "slavery" or "force".

One of the things which ticks me off about young time builder CFIs
is that they're so sheltered and generally from such privledged backgrounds
that they think they're uniquely suffering and abused. Not surprisingly,
the ones I got along with best were those who had made a living at another
job for a while so that they had a sense of perspective (I don't mean
tending bar or waiting tables at night for extra money while living at
home and driving the car Mommy bought them, I mean actually supported
themselves for a while at another job).

Jay Honeck, are you watching this? I hope you appreciate it because
I imagine our views on these points aren't too different, as opposed
to if we were discussing Al Franken's terrifically righteous and
amusing book "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them" (No, no, Jay,
NOT HERE! NOT HERE!)

Cheers,
Sydney

Sunil

November 12th 03, 05:34 PM

John Harper

November 12th 03, 05:46 PM

"Sunil" > wrote in message
om...
> I thought the "or else" was as in "or else work for some else where
> you don't have to 'work' to sustain the business". Lots of big
> businesses have gone bankrupt, eg. world famous Digital Equipment
> Corporation, the employees sucked them dry...
>

Off topic, but I can't resist this one. You don't know what you're talking
about.
First, DEC didn't go bankrupt. They were acquired by Compaq whilst still
solvent. Secondly, they failed because the market for their product (the
VAX)
dried up and they never found a replacement. And in the last few years they
had disastrous management which thrashed around and destroyed the
remaining value in the company.

I don't understand your comment about the employees. DEC paid average
salaries for their field. They did have excellent employee benefits,
entirely due
to the views of the founder (Ken Olsen), but if they had nickel and dimed
the
employees on benefits as most US companies seem to, it would not have
changed
the way the end played out. If they had in fact lingered on into bankruptcy,
maybe
it would have delayed it by a month - although thereagain maybe they
wouldn't
have attracted the high quality employees (who incidentally worked harder
than
in most companies, in my experience) and wouldn't have been so successful at
\
their height.

Incidentally Ken Olsen is still an active pilot (at least according to the
FAA),
although there's no evidence that he reads these groups.

John

Captain Wubba

November 12th 03, 06:22 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Captain Wubba" > wrote in message |
> | This is just silly. If your company wants you to do something you
> | don't want to, you have the option of quitting. Slaves don't have the
> | option of quitting.
>
> Ah, I see. So if I demand that you give me all your money or I kill you,
> then there is nothing wrong with that. It is simply a matter of your choice.
> There is no coercion involved whatsoever.
>
> I can see that I am dealing with people who are terminally silly here.
> Enough of this thread.

If I have the *absolute* freedom to walk away from it, I certainly am
not being 'coerced'. Talk about 'silly people' here. There are
differences between being robbed at gunpoint and being asked to do
something you don't like doing at work, under penalty of termination
if you don't do it. Grownups understand those differences.

Snowbird

November 12th 03, 08:21 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...

> I can see that I am dealing with people who are terminally silly here.

My irony meter just pegged.

Sydney

Snowbird

November 13th 03, 12:04 AM

(Sunil) wrote in message >...

> I thought the "or else" was as in "or else work for some else where
> you don't have to 'work' to sustain the business". Lots of big
> businesses have gone bankrupt, eg. world famous Digital Equipment
> Corporation, the employees sucked them dry...

Um, Sunil, I think it's a mite simplistic to attribute
the demise of DEC to their employees. There were plenty
of other factors which arguably had much greater prominance.
And there are plenty of businesses whose employees had even
cushier deals who are still alive and well.

I feel a little sheepish about pointing this out, because
it's simplistic in a different universe than equating slavery
murder armed robbery and theft with unpaid work or unfair
employment practices.

Nevertheless.

Sydney

C J Campbell

November 13th 03, 01:34 AM

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message |
| If I have the *absolute* freedom to walk away from it, I certainly am
| not being 'coerced'. Talk about 'silly people' here. There are
| differences between being robbed at gunpoint and being asked to do
| something you don't like doing at work, under penalty of termination
| if you don't do it. Grownups understand those differences.

Grownups understand the difference between being asked to do something you
do not like to do, but which is part of your job, and being told that they
must work for no pay or they will be blacklisted from an entire industry.
The first is reasonable, the second is not.

I said nothing about guns. However, the difference between the threats is
only in degree, not in kind.

Grownups do not misrepresent others' arguments.

C J Campbell

November 13th 03, 01:37 AM

"Sunil" > wrote in message
om...
..
|
| I thought the "or else" was as in "or else work for some else where
| you don't have to 'work' to sustain the business".

The question was never whether you should work. The question was whether you
should be paid for work. A capitalist would say yes. Communists are
notorious for not paying their workers.

The "or else" in the question was whether a business could ask you to work
without pay -- and if you refused, they would attempt to get you
blacklisted. I doubt that even you think that is reasonable. Then again,
maybe you are a communist.

Larry Fransson

November 13th 03, 04:44 AM

On 2003-11-11 02:28:06 -0800, "Greg Chapman" > said

> Frankly, I'd fly for free to just build hours, assuming I was insured by th
> company while doing so

Uh huh. And I suppose the bank would let you live in your house for free just to build lending experience, and the electric company would provide free electricity just to build electrical exeperience

Larry Fransson

November 13th 03, 04:47 AM

On 2003-11-11 06:47:45 -0800, (Snowbird) said

> Sydney (who thinks migrants most places don't have a lot of options

The state of Washington, for one

A couple of years ago, there was some significant wailing and gnashing of teeth about the conditions that migrant workers live in, and it was decided that the state should pay for the building of housing for migrant workers

C J Campbell

November 13th 03, 05:25 AM

"Bob Dole" > wrote in message
news:y4Erb.158869$e01.564060@attbi_s02...
|
| If the place where I work is telling me to work hour's for free, what
| should I do ?
|

It is wrong to take things without paying for them. It is wrong to do that,
no matter who you are. It is wrong if you are an employee, an employer, or
king of the earth.

It is wrong whether the things you take are as small as a single penny, or
as great as a man's reputation. It is wrong to steal labor.

It is wrong no matter how you try to rationalize it.

There are a considerable number, it appears, that have forgotten that.

Tom S.

November 13th 03, 07:57 PM

Tom S.

November 13th 03, 07:59 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Captain Wubba" > wrote in message |
> | This is just silly. If your company wants you to do something you
> | don't want to, you have the option of quitting. Slaves don't have the
> | option of quitting.
>
> Ah, I see. So if I demand that you give me all your money or I kill you,
> then there is nothing wrong with that. It is simply a matter of your
choice.
> There is no coercion involved whatsoever.
>
> I can see that I am dealing with people who are terminally silly here.
> Enough of this thread.

The only silly one here is you, CJ. You use loaded words that don't fit
legal OR enytomolical definitions and you blow context all to hell.

Tom S.

November 13th 03, 08:01 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Captain Wubba" > wrote in message |
> | If I have the *absolute* freedom to walk away from it, I certainly am
> | not being 'coerced'. Talk about 'silly people' here. There are
> | differences between being robbed at gunpoint and being asked to do
> | something you don't like doing at work, under penalty of termination
> | if you don't do it. Grownups understand those differences.
>
> Grownups understand the difference between being asked to do something you
> do not like to do, but which is part of your job, and being told that they
> must work for no pay or they will be blacklisted from an entire industry.
> The first is reasonable, the second is not.

Being blacklisted is still not "force" in any form of proper definition.
What's more, where the hell did you get the "blacklisted" crap from?

> I said nothing about guns. However, the difference between the threats is
> only in degree, not in kind.

Bull.

> Grownups do not misrepresent others' arguments.

Grownups don't put their foot in their mouth and then try to make dumb
excuses.

Sunil

November 13th 03, 09:18 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Sunil" > wrote in message
> om...
> .
> |
> | I thought the "or else" was as in "or else work for some else where
> | you don't have to 'work' to sustain the business".
>
> The question was never whether you should work. The question was whether you
> should be paid for work. A capitalist would say yes. Communists are
> notorious for not paying their workers.
>
> The "or else" in the question was whether a business could ask you to work
> without pay -- and if you refused, they would attempt to get you
> blacklisted. I doubt that even you think that is reasonable. Then again,
> maybe you are a communist.

The question is not weather you should be paid for work but weather
you could be asked to go an extra mile to support the business from
which you are benefiting. It is assumed that the employee is on
regular payroll and is compensated for the basic duties. The
entrepreneur also has the right to be compensated fairly (i.e. profit)
from the enterprise not least because he/she works countless hours and
even the minimum wage law is not applicable to him/her. The same
entrepreneur, in this case, when can't shovel snow to all the
aircrafts, should have the right to ask his fellow (employee, partner,
member of the board, chairperson, CEO, whoever is a direct beneficiary
from the enterprise) to help.

I was once lectured because I moved my computer and desk which was a
union job. Thanks to free economy, I moved on to other companies where
work environment was of my taste. Needless to say the former company
literally went out of business during the best days of the digital
revolution. Perhaps the chopper fleet to shuttle employees to plants
and offices within a small state was a waste and personal hobby of the
CEO. Such things eventually lead to laid back employee attitude and
company folded. On the other hand, most, if not all, Silicon Valley
startup employees routinely work 60 to 80 hours and, in most cases,
are compensated handsomely.

The line between fair profit and grid is clearly defined.

The alternate is to create and enforce all those stupid laws that will
choke the spirit of the free market economy.

Oh, the commies are still coming, don't panic; let's get those B-52s
with nuke airborne…

C J Campbell

November 13th 03, 10:04 PM

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
| >
| > Essentially, yes. Some employers tell their employees that they have to
| work
| > for free 'or else.' The 'or else' usually means your family suffers.
|
| Look up the legal definition of "force".

Let us say 'required' then. Or whatever term you want. The effect is the
same. Your attempts to evade the issue on the basis of semantics are
fundamentally dishonest. Which should not be surprising coming from one
willing to defend the practice of demanding, requiring, forcing, (or
whatever), people to work without just compensation.

Dave Stadt

November 13th 03, 10:14 PM

Tom S.

November 14th 03, 03:07 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> | >
> | > Essentially, yes. Some employers tell their employees that they have
to
> | work
> | > for free 'or else.' The 'or else' usually means your family suffers.
> |
> | Look up the legal definition of "force".
>
> Let us say 'required' then. Or whatever term you want. The effect is the
> same.

Not hardly. You;re using justifiable homicide and 1st degree murder
interchangably.

> comparing
>Your attempts to evade the issue on the basis of semantics are
> fundamentally dishonest.

Bull ****.

>Which should not be surprising coming from one
> willing to defend the practice of demanding, requiring, forcing, (or
> whatever), people to work without just compensation.

Bull**** and go to hell until you learn to used proper terms (odd, coming
from someone such as yourself who likes to play spelling/grammar cop.

Adults work in "trading" relationships. That means trading work for
compensation. No one FORCED them to do it or to stay in the "relationship".

Face it, you shot your "mouth" off and now are trying to rationalize your
mistake. It makes you come off as incredibly juvenile.

Dylan Smith

November 14th 03, 03:19 PM

In article <1068659285.761534@sj-nntpcache-3>, John Harper wrote:
> Off topic, but I can't resist this one. You don't know what you're talking
> about.
> First, DEC didn't go bankrupt. They were acquired by Compaq whilst still
> solvent. Secondly, they failed because the market for their product (the
> VAX)
> dried up and they never found a replacement.

Wandering off topic even more, what about the DEC Alpha and the Alpha
station? Sure - the mighty Wintel hegemony would dent them, but then
again Apple are doing well despite that. (A small market share in
an enormous market is still in absolute terms big).

I think loss of direction and management thrashing around was by far
the biggest factor - the Alpha based kit was a great product.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

C J Campbell

November 14th 03, 03:52 PM

|
| Face it, you shot your "mouth" off and now are trying to rationalize your
| mistake. It makes you come off as incredibly juvenile.

No matter how you slice it, you are attempting to rationalize taking
someone's labor without paying for it.

If you were my little boy, I would wash your mouth out with soap.

John Gaquin

November 14th 03, 04:55 PM

CJ, I think you're making a hard-edged issue where none exists. If you
really feel this strongly about the abuse of labor, and of flight
instructors particularly, I suggest you embark on the organization of all
CFIs into a good, strong union. Comfortable wages, comprehensive benefits,
improved working conditions; the whole package. We'll check back in, say,
five or ten years and see just how much you've improved their lot.

JG

C J Campbell

November 14th 03, 05:28 PM

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
|
| CJ, I think you're making a hard-edged issue where none exists. If you
| really feel this strongly about the abuse of labor, and of flight
| instructors particularly, I suggest you embark on the organization of all
| CFIs into a good, strong union.

I am too old and tired for that, and I would not know the first thing of how
to go about it. It would be well outside my area of competence. I would like
to see the current professional organizations, such as NAFI, become stronger
advocacy groups, but that is probably a prejudice of my background as a CPA.
Unions seem to me to be far too vulnerable to corruption. The instructors at
Embry did unionize, but I don't know how that affected them.

I strongly believe that flight instructors are their own worst enemies. Most
flight instructors have college educations, since the airlines want their
pilots to be college graduates. Then they spend two or more years and tens
of thousands of dollars getting their ratings, just so they can get a job
that pays less than a burger flipper. No wonder people are not beating down
our doors asking for training as flight instructors! If the job paid
commensurate with the training and experience that it requires, with decent
working conditions and benefits I think we would have more business than we
can handle.

Until then, I am afraid that flight instructors will be either be people who
are retired and who can afford it, like me, or those who simply live lives
of quiet desperation.

C J Campbell

November 14th 03, 05:42 PM

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
| Quite a rant, CJ. Get a grip.
|
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| >
| > ....I think it is theft and, at bottom, an offense as serious
| > as murder.
|
| One of the more patently ridiculous statements I've seen in a newsgroup.
|

It is a personal opinion. I allow others to be free to differ. I am not
alone in holding this view. Writers from Ayn Rand to Robert Ringer have
offered similar views at one time or another.

In a sense, theft is murder, only instead of destroying an entire life, you
only destroy part of it. But even if you take only a few hours or even a few
seconds wrongfully, you have to do so knowing that you are taking more than
the entire lifespan of many people.

The same goes for destroying reputation, stealing a loved one, etc. In a
sense, the ten commandments are really nothing more than injunctions against
the various methods of killing people (or God).

You may find my views extreme or even ridiculous, but I think it is even
more ridiculous to pretend that wealth and power, such as that pertaining to
an employer or the government, give you the right to steal. Yet that is the
basis of the argument for most of those disagreeing with me. I am not
surprised that my views offend such people. Indeed, I would be disappointed
if they did not. I would not be happy being popular with those who are
unable to rule their tongues or their passions, or who cannot control their
lust for things that are not theirs to take.

Tony Cox

November 14th 03, 06:51 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> In a sense, theft is murder, only instead of destroying an entire life,
you
> only destroy part of it. But even if you take only a few hours or even a
few
> seconds wrongfully, you have to do so knowing that you are taking more
than
> the entire lifespan of many people.
>

Or to paraphrase Frank Herbert, "Between depriving a
man of his life and depriving a man of an hour of his life,
there exists only a matter of degree".

There's a lot of good philosophy in "Dune", even if it
comes from the mouths of mutated humans. But what
has all this to do with flying?

--
Dr. Tony Cox
Citrus Controls Inc.
e-mail:
http://CitrusControls.com/

C J Campbell

November 14th 03, 07:24 PM

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
k.net...
| >
|
|
| Or to paraphrase Frank Herbert, "Between depriving a
| man of his life and depriving a man of an hour of his life,
| there exists only a matter of degree".
|
| There's a lot of good philosophy in "Dune", even if it
| comes from the mouths of mutated humans. But what
| has all this to do with flying?
|

It has to do with the fact that some people think that flight instructors
should not be paid for non-flying duties they are required to perform by
their employers.

It has been a long time since I read "Dune." I don't recall that particular
quote at all, but I like it.

Dylan Smith

November 14th 03, 07:47 PM

In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
> Until then, I am afraid that flight instructors will be either be people who
> are retired and who can afford it, like me, or those who simply live lives
> of quiet desperation.

Unfortunately, I think you're right.

I have considered flight instructing, but because of issues like having
to work for free, and the poor pay, I'd never do it at a flight
school. I'd only do it freelance.

On the 'working for free' issue, I don't see it in quite as extreme
light as you. I did do unpaid overtime for $EMPLOYER[$current-2] without
complaint. Why? Well, the relationship I had with my employer was good
- we respected each other. There was a bit of give and take - they
didn't mind me doing reasonable web surfing and Usenet posting during
work hours, so I didn't mind doing the odd bit of unpaid overtime. They
gave me full pay when my mother died in a foreign country, and I needed
a whole month off work. I worked some weekends when we had a crunch. It
was a mutual thing - they cut me slack, I cut them slack. They also paid
me a damned good salary.

However, at flight schools, I don't see this. Many of the flight schools
I've seen, employee turnover is high and conditions are bad - the pay is
bad, the instructors are expected to work for free: but the employer
doesn't do squat to make up for it on the other end of the deal. They
are acting immorally, in my opionion, and I wouldn't work for an outfit
like that.

It's got to be a two way street with mutual respect to work. If I were
at a flight school in which that mutual respect was present - I dare say
I would do things for my employer for free to help them out. A workplace
where this mutual respect exists is a joy to work at, and I have no
problem going the extra mile for an employer who goes the extra mile for
the employee. Funny how there's a correlation between businesses that do
well having an employee relationship which is based on mutual respect.

If an employer expects it to be a one way street and demands my respect
without giving me respect, well they can just go fsck off and die.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Rick Durden

November 14th 03, 08:10 PM

"Bob",

Call the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor (it's in
the phone book under U.S. government), outline the situation. If it
sounds as if what the company is doing is in violation of the law, the
department will investigate, can make things more than a little
miserable for the employer and will keep your identity confidential.

You did not say what the situation was, however, companies demanding
that workers work without compensation seems to be on the rise
recently. In general, it is illegal, however, the companies seem to
feel that the employees are too intimidated to object. Often the
companies are correct.

All the best,
Rick

Bob Dole > wrote in message news:<y4Erb.158869$e01.564060@attbi_s02>...
> If the place where I work is telling me to work hour's for free, what
> should I do ?
>
> I am worried that working for free is illegal, immoral, unethical, and
> unprofessional, and I am also worried that it exposes me to the possibility
> of an IRS audit as I could be accused of getting paid "under the table"
> (tax evasion etc.).
>
> I appreciate any replie's.

Snowbird

November 14th 03, 10:10 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...

> No matter how you slice it, you are attempting to rationalize taking
> someone's labor without paying for it.

Maybe.

Frankly we can't tell. This thread started with what was probably a
troll, inappropriately analogizing flight instruction and slavery.
I feel certain Sudanese and Cote d'Ivoire who actually have been
slaves would be happy to explain the difference and the ridiculous
nature of the analogy.

Your posts are rife with equally egregious exaggerations analogizing
unpaid work with murder, theft, and force. Should you ever encounter
any of the three, the ridiculous nature of your analogies will also
become clear to you.

Most people I see responding on this thread are objecting to these
exaggerations. Flight instruction is never the only job available
in a community. A flight instructor who doesn't like his terms of
employment can probably keep himself and his family afloat with one of
a number of different jobs which pay better for fewer hours while he
looks for a better aviation position. He is not being forced or
coerced by any rational definition of force or coersion.

I, and others, might agree with you that it's unfair to "take someone's
labor without paying for it", but you'd need to define exactly what you
mean by that.

Be specific, CJ, as the original poster was not. Just what practices
are you objecting to as unfair or describing as unpaid labor?
(to Tom S.)
> If you were my little boy, I would wash your mouth out with soap.

I sympathize with this sentiment, but it doesn't obviate the
absurdity of some of the stuff you've posted on this topic.

Cheers,
Sydney

Tom S.

November 14th 03, 10:33 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> |
> | Face it, you shot your "mouth" off and now are trying to rationalize
your
> | mistake. It makes you come off as incredibly juvenile.
>
> No matter how you slice it, you are attempting to rationalize taking
> someone's labor without paying for it.

Man, you really need to hone your reading/comprehension skills.

Just where did I JUSTIFY ANYTHING!

Again, you're naking childish excuses.

> If you were my little boy, I would wash your mouth out with soap.

First, you'd need to grow up yourself.

Tom S.

November 14th 03, 10:35 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
> > Until then, I am afraid that flight instructors will be either be people
who
> > are retired and who can afford it, like me, or those who simply live
lives
> > of quiet desperation.
>
> Unfortunately, I think you're right.
>
> I have considered flight instructing, but because of issues like having
> to work for free, and the poor pay, I'd never do it at a flight
> school. I'd only do it freelance.

And right there is a main issue: If you want to work for someone else, don't
bellyache, go be self-employed.

Tom S.

November 14th 03, 10:38 PM

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > No matter how you slice it, you are attempting to rationalize taking
> > someone's labor without paying for it.
>
> Maybe.

Actually, NO!

I'm did not attempt to JUSTIFY anything.

Sydney, since you like to lecture people, how about lecturing people that
don't bother to comprehend what was said and what was even REMOTELY
inferred.

>
> Frankly we can't tell.

Yes, you can. You can go back and read IN CONTEXT what was written.

Don't lecture me, and I won't lecture you.

Tom S.

November 14th 03, 10:41 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Gaquin" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Quite a rant, CJ. Get a grip.
> |
> | "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> | >
> | > ....I think it is theft and, at bottom, an offense as serious
> | > as murder.
> |
> | One of the more patently ridiculous statements I've seen in a newsgroup.
> |
>
> It is a personal opinion. I allow others to be free to differ. I am not
> alone in holding this view. Writers from Ayn Rand to Robert Ringer have
> offered similar views at one time or another.

Well then you better go back and read what Rand said about context and that
of private transactions as opposed to government force and coercion. Same
thing with Ringer.

In essence, you just blew it big time. Inverted 180 degrees. You might go
back and read why she detested the libertarians (which if I recall, is how
you once identified yourself).

Snowbird

November 14th 03, 11:34 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...

> I strongly believe that flight instructors are their own worst enemies.

I would tend to agree there, but probably for different reasons
than you think...

> Most
> flight instructors have college educations, since the airlines want their
> pilots to be college graduates. Then they spend two or more years and tens
> of thousands of dollars getting their ratings, just so they can get a job
> that pays less than a burger flipper.

You do realize that I could rewrite this paragraph to read "most
physicians" or "most scientists" (except it would be hundreds of thous
on medical school instead of tens)?

All you're saying here is that becoming a pilot for the major airlines
(the goal of most CFIs) is like many other professions: after one's formal
education is complete, a lengthy apprenticeship of long hours and poor
pay is required before one qualifies to compete for a professional position.

Airline pilots have traditionally been compensated at the level of
successful specialist physicians, without the malpractice premiums and
long hours in the OR or office which the latter require. It's a very
plummy goal.

If young CFIs perceive it as worthwhile to put up with a couple years
of crap pay and crap hours for that kind of payoff rather than spending
life as an elementary school teacher earning ave. $40K a year for 30
years, that's their choice.

It's not slavery, murder, theft, or force. It's choice.

Frankly, being a full-time CFI seems to me analogous to a sales
position where the employee is paid on commission, but expected to
attend the showroom for fixed hours, field telephone questions from
potential buyers, and attend sales meetings all for minimal or no pay.

Just like a successful salesman, a CFI who markets himself well
and aggressively spends more time flying, earns more, and builds
more hours more quickly while spending less time sitting around the
FBO where he might be asked to mop a floor or fuel a plane.

> No wonder people are not beating down
> our doors asking for training as flight instructors!

Well, someone must be beating down some doors somewhere, because
if there were a true flight instructor shortage wouldn't you expect
working conditions and flight instructor pay to improve?

> Until then, I am afraid that flight instructors will be either be people who
> are retired and who can afford it, like me, or those who simply live lives
> of quiet desperation.

The people who are leading lives of quiet desperation, CJ, are the
single moms who are working 60 hrs a week at WalMart and McDonalds
because they lack qualification for other jobs, and barely scraping
by while praying that the car doesn't break down and no one gets
sick or ruins his shoes. Loads of responsibility, little choice,
and little prospect of change in the future.

Most CFIs I've met are from reasonably well-to-do families. They
bitch about their hours and their pay, but meanwhile they started
out with clothes and a car and are either living at home or had
help putting down a deposit on their apartment. They know very well
that if they want to earn more money, they could get a job at a bank
or as a waiter or customer service rep or the like tomorrow. Most
don't market themselves either; they sit, and wait for their employer
to draw students in the door. And when the student does come in the
door, they might not exert themselves with enthusiasm to 'sell' flight
training to the student. They might not make follow-up phone calls;
they might not follow-up disappearing students to see why they've
stopped training.

Please note that I'm not trying to argue that CFIs never get a bum
deal from their employer, because many of them do. No question.
Nor am I saying it's fair, or that it's right.

But again: it's not theft, it's not murder, it's not force, it's
not even "quiet desperation", it's a *means to a desireable end*
that they have chosen to pursue.

Cheers,
Sydney

Snowbird

November 14th 03, 11:43 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...

> You may find my views extreme or even ridiculous, but I think it is even
> more ridiculous to pretend that wealth and power, such as that pertaining to
> an employer or the government, give you the right to steal. Yet that is the
> basis of the argument for most of those disagreeing with me.

Not so far as I can see.

Either your reading comprehension or your understanding would appear
to be somewhat deficient.

The basis of the argument of those who disagree with you appears to
me to be that you can not steal what I choose to give you. Most CFIs
appear to have reasonable choices and alternatives available for more
lucrative employment, and to *choose* to work as CFIs in pursuit of
long term personal goals.

If Ayn Rand is the source of your viewpoint equating unpaid work,
theft, and murder, you would appear to be reading her rather selectively.

> I am not
> surprised that my views offend such people. Indeed, I would be disappointed
> if they did not. I would not be happy being popular with those who are
> unable to rule their tongues or their passions, or who cannot control their
> lust for things that are not theirs to take.

If your implication is that those who disagree with you in this
thread are unable to rule their tongues or passions, or that they
"cannot control their lust for things that are not theirs to take",
you have to take the crown as not only making some of the silliest
analogies I've ever seen, but as crowning them with some of the
most ridiculous ad hominems to emerge from a USENET dispute.

Sorry, CJ, but disagreeing with you that unpaid work equates to
theft or that theft equates to murder does not indicate lack of
control on the part of those who disagree (like myself).

Implying that it does, simply makes you look ridiculous. Again.

Sydney

Robert Perkins

November 15th 03, 04:07 AM

On 14 Nov 2003 15:43:42 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

>If Ayn Rand is the source of your viewpoint equating unpaid work,
>theft, and murder, you would appear to be reading her rather selectively.

I don't suppose it would help at all to point out that Rand is, at
root, not correct?

Neither are her polar opposites, but there you are.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Tom S.

November 15th 03, 05:46 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
> I strongly believe that flight instructors are their own worst enemies.

That's true of people in general (OWE), so FI's would fit in.

All the people that bitch about their job/employer/boss make some really
nauseating excuses when it's suggested they go the self-employment route.

It's a lot easier running someone else's company, than to run your own. :~)

Dylan Smith

November 15th 03, 08:38 AM

In article >, Tom S. wrote:
>
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
>> > Until then, I am afraid that flight instructors will be either be people
> who
>> > are retired and who can afford it, like me, or those who simply live
> lives
>> > of quiet desperation.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I think you're right.
>>
>> I have considered flight instructing, but because of issues like having
>> to work for free, and the poor pay, I'd never do it at a flight
>> school. I'd only do it freelance.
>
> And right there is a main issue: If you want to work for someone else, don't
> bellyache, go be self-employed.

In an ideal world we could all do that. At the airport I learned to fly
at, we had a flying club (http://www.bayareaaeroclub.org) which did
instruction. But the instructors didn't work for the club - they were
just approved to instruct in club planes. They made the arrangements for
payment with their students, and were freelance, having club resources
to use. In that arrangement, you can actually make a living and support
yourself on flight instruction. My instructor took home two and a half
times more than those at the flight school next door - and he charged
the same as the flight school (and he charged for groundschool - which
IMHO is perfectly fair).

However, that doesn't exist at the vast majority of airports. The planes
are owned by the flight school, and your typical 18-23 year old
instructor isn't going to be able to afford their own plane to give
instruction in (unless Daddy's rich). They don't have the experience yet
to seriously go freelance either (virtually all the freelancers I've met
had at least 600-700 hours of real world flying before starting
instructing, and hence had something to bring to the student over and
above the neophyte instructors the flight school had.

I now have over 1000 hours, and I'd be happy to instruct - I consider
that I have a reasonably broad experience of real world GA flying.
Indeed, I'm going to aim at instructing in gliders on Sundays - not
for money, just for the glider club.
Unfortunately, the island I live on is a dark and forbidding place in
the winter, where the sea crashes over the sea walls and rain goes
horizontally, or Mannannan lays his cloak to protect us from the Scots,
so flight instructing for a living just ain't gonna work!
(I say this as of course Mannanan proves me wrong and the morning sun
breaks over Bradda Head)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Tom S.

November 15th 03, 02:36 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom S. wrote:
> >
> > And right there is a main issue: If you want to work for someone else,
don't
> > bellyache, go be self-employed.
>
> In an ideal world we could all do that.

We can do it even in a less-than-ideal world.

> At the airport I learned to fly
> at, we had a flying club (http://www.bayareaaeroclub.org) which did
> instruction. But the instructors didn't work for the club - they were
> just approved to instruct in club planes. They made the arrangements for
> payment with their students, and were freelance, having club resources
> to use. In that arrangement, you can actually make a living and support
> yourself on flight instruction. My instructor took home two and a half
> times more than those at the flight school next door - and he charged
> the same as the flight school (and he charged for groundschool - which
> IMHO is perfectly fair).

So....
>
> However, that doesn't exist at the vast majority of airports. The planes
> are owned by the flight school, and your typical 18-23 year old
> instructor isn't going to be able to afford their own plane to give
> instruction in (unless Daddy's rich). They don't have the experience yet
> to seriously go freelance either (virtually all the freelancers I've met
> had at least 600-700 hours of real world flying before starting
> instructing, and hence had something to bring to the student over and
> above the neophyte instructors the flight school had.

Why does this pseudo-instructor feel he needs to work at THAT particular
airport?

Show me your entraprenurial spirit and tell me how YOU would solve that
dilema!

> I now have over 1000 hours, and I'd be happy to instruct - I consider
> that I have a reasonably broad experience of real world GA flying.
> Indeed, I'm going to aim at instructing in gliders on Sundays - not
> for money, just for the glider club.
> Unfortunately, the island I live on is a dark and forbidding place in
> the winter, where the sea crashes over the sea walls and rain goes
> horizontally, or Mannannan lays his cloak to protect us from the Scots,
> so flight instructing for a living just ain't gonna work!

So MOVE!

> (I say this as of course Mannanan proves me wrong and the morning sun
> breaks over Bradda Head)

As I said about excuses, here is more of it.

And they wonder why so many thinks the world (or XYZ Company) owes them a
living.

If you're not willing to make the effort or take the risks, then one has
noting to complain about. The entrapreneuralial spirit is alive in many, but
the "spirit" of dependence.

Tom S.

November 15th 03, 02:37 PM

"Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> On 14 Nov 2003 15:43:42 -0800, (Snowbird)
> wrote:
>
> >If Ayn Rand is the source of your viewpoint equating unpaid work,
> >theft, and murder, you would appear to be reading her rather selectively.
>
> I don't suppose it would help at all to point out that Rand is, at
> root, not correct?

Could you substantiate your claim?

> Neither are her polar opposites, but there you are.

And neither are you.

Tom S.

November 15th 03, 02:42 PM

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
> Sorry, CJ, but disagreeing with you that unpaid work equates to
> theft or that theft equates to murder does not indicate lack of
> control on the part of those who disagree (like myself).

Quite correct.

Slavery is a non-voluntary situation. It encompasses _force_ (in the proper
context that Rand applied).

Theft also requires force (or a correlary, fraud). Likewise murder.

> Implying that it does, simply makes you look ridiculous. Again.
>
Sadly true -- even worse when using someone (Rand) as a reference for a
point of view that is quite opposite to that persons conclusion.

Larry Dighera

November 15th 03, 02:59 PM

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:28:59 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Unions seem to me to be far too vulnerable to corruption.

No more so than management, IMO.

Snowbird

November 15th 03, 03:45 PM

Robert Perkins > wrote in message >...
> On 14 Nov 2003 15:43:42 -0800, (Snowbird)
> wrote:
> >If Ayn Rand is the source of your viewpoint equating unpaid work,
> >theft, and murder, you would appear to be reading her rather selectively.

> I don't suppose it would help at all to point out that Rand is, at
> root, not correct?

Hee! Hee! Well, I was trying to leave my personal opinion of
Ayn Rand out of this, as being even more off topic than usual!

Let's just say that as a biochemist, I have no trouble at all
perceiving distinct differences which are not merely of degree
between taking an hour of someone's life, vs. taking someone's
life. Most ethical systems also perceive differences.

Sydney (trying to resist the temptation to say more)

Snowbird

November 15th 03, 04:08 PM

Dylan Smith > wrote in message >...

> In article >, Tom S. wrote:
> > And right there is a main issue: If you want to work for someone else, don't
> > bellyache, go be self-employed. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> In an ideal world we could all do that.

Huh? Looks like a fundamental contradiction to me. If you want
to work for someone else, you can't be self-employed :)

I know what you both mean, though. Given some of Tom's posts
elsewhere lashing people for making spelling or grammar mistakes,
I just couldn't resist. My bad.

The root of the problem is that in most places, flight instruction
is a minor-league apprenticeship for a career as a professional pilot,
not a way to make a living. And realistic alternatives aren't always
available, just as they aren't available to most physicians who would like
to practice medicine without going through the high-stress, high-hours
low-pay grinder which is internship and residency.

But it's still not slavery, theft, or murder in either case. It's
a choice -- hopefully an informed choice -- the apprentices have
made in order to pursue career goals which they value.

Clearly there *is* a market niche for CFIs of experience who wish
to make a living. Things like the PIC 10 day instrument courses,
the sort of recurrent training Paul Sanchez specializes in, CFIs
who specialize in proficiency training or aerobatics.

I've been kinda waiting to hear from our mutual friend Michael on
this one. I think what he'd say is, the fact that most young
inexperienced CFIs can't make a living at flight instruction is
fundamentally the market voting on what they're actually worth
at that level of training and aviation experience. But that's just
my SWAG, I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth and it's neither
here nor there.

In my opinion, the real solution is to change the FAA rules so
that there's a realistic way for wanna-be professional pilots to
build the hours they need without flight instruction. Then we
can hear bellyaching about 'slavery in aviation' flying night
cargo or pipeline patrol or what-have-you.

But I think it would be a dramatic improvement for student pilots.
They could be taught by people who want to instruct, and since
there'd presumably be fewer CFIs FBOs which wished to retain them
would have to treat them rather better.

Cheers,
Sydney

Tom S.

November 15th 03, 04:34 PM

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> Dylan Smith > wrote in message
>...
>
> > In article >, Tom S. wrote:
> > > And right there is a main issue: If you want to work for someone else,
don't
> > > bellyache, go be self-employed. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > In an ideal world we could all do that.
>
> Huh? Looks like a fundamental contradiction to me. If you want
> to work for someone else, you can't be self-employed :)
>
> I know what you both mean, though. Given some of Tom's posts
> elsewhere lashing people for making spelling or grammar mistakes,
> I just couldn't resist. My bad.

Ummm...I make too many errors (even with a spelling checker) to play
"teacher" (unless it's someone hopelessly illiterate), I leave the
grammar-cop stuff to CJ and George.

If you want to ding someone, please stay away from hyperbole. If you're so
adept at point out my vulgarity toward some punk, then don't set yourself up
at the same time.

> The root of the problem is that in most places, flight instruction
> is a minor-league apprenticeship for a career as a professional pilot,
> not a way to make a living.

And the companies one works for is NOT a monoply...probably not even in the
local area.

> And realistic alternatives aren't always
> available,

Sure they are; it's finding those alternatives that make someone an
entrepreneaur.

> just as they aren't available to most physicians who would like
> to practice medicine without going through the high-stress, high-hours
> low-pay grinder which is internship and residency.

Well, that's a PROFESSION that is regulated by a private body (AMA) under
the guise of a government body. (Actually, it's more a guild.)

> But it's still not slavery, theft, or murder in either case.

Correct.

> It's
> a choice -- hopefully an informed choice -- the apprentices have
> made in order to pursue career goals which they value.

Damn...what did folks do 40-50 years ago, before "Flight Schools".

[snip]
>
> I've been kinda waiting to hear from our mutual friend Michael on
> this one. I think what he'd say is, the fact that most young
> inexperienced CFIs can't make a living at flight instruction is
> fundamentally the market voting on what they're actually worth
> at that level of training and aviation experience. But that's just
> my SWAG, I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth and it's neither
> here nor there.

The fact there's a glut of both pilots and instructors right now certainly
doesn't help, but I'm sure you also agree that someone has a right to a
particular career, but not necessarily to make money at it (see: Hollyweird)

>
> In my opinion, the real solution is to change the FAA rules so
> that there's a realistic way for wanna-be professional pilots to
> build the hours they need without flight instruction. Then we
> can hear bellyaching about 'slavery in aviation' flying night
> cargo or pipeline patrol or what-have-you.

I know a few professional pilots and only two have EVER been instuctors.

> But I think it would be a dramatic improvement for student pilots.
> They could be taught by people who want to instruct, and since
> there'd presumably be fewer CFIs FBOs which wished to retain them
> would have to treat them rather better.

I guess hanging out at the airport and washing planes is passé anymore :~)

Dylan Smith

November 16th 03, 06:33 PM

In article >, Tom S. wrote:
>> However, that doesn't exist at the vast majority of airports. The planes
>> are owned by the flight school, and your typical 18-23 year old
>> instructor isn't going to be able to afford their own plane to give
>> instruction in (unless Daddy's rich). They don't have the experience yet
>> to seriously go freelance either (virtually all the freelancers I've met
>> had at least 600-700 hours of real world flying before starting
>> instructing, and hence had something to bring to the student over and
>> above the neophyte instructors the flight school had.
>
> Why does this pseudo-instructor feel he needs to work at THAT particular
> airport?

Once again, it's the means. It's all very well yelling "So MOVE!", but
as you undoubtedly know, unless you can be bankrolled by someone
who will take the risk, opening your own flight school from the
position of the vast majority of flight instructors is not possible -
they simply don't have the resources. They probably don't have the
resources to even move away from home!

So the position they are in: either flight instruct for poor pay at
a flight school that doesn't respect its employees, or not flight
instruct at all.

> Show me your entraprenurial spirit and tell me how YOU would solve that
> dilema!

We are not talking about me. (For the record, I am a self-employed
software consultant making enough money to overhaul a very old house,
that has so far cost me more than overhauling both engines on a Baron,
so I *think* i might just be managing there). We are talking about the
typical young CFI who doesn't have the resources behind them. If I
wanted to start a flight school, I could have done so. However, I'd
rather fly for fun quite frankly, and do something else as the day job.

> So MOVE!

No. I happen to like the Isle of Man.

> And they wonder why so many thinks the world (or XYZ Company) owes them a
> living.

No, nobody's saying that. What I am trying to explain (but obviously
failing) is that a good employee-employer relationship is built on
mutual trust. Exploitation of young, often life-inexperienced CFIs who
don't yet have access to any significant resources is just not on.
Saying that they aren't entrepenurial doesn't make it any more
acceptable. Many flight schools would do much, much better if the owners
showed not only respect, but more entreprenurial spirit than they are
now! Why do so many people not realise that mutual trust and respect
between employees and employers is often a very important part of a
successful business?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Tom S.

November 16th 03, 09:29 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom S. wrote:
> >> However, that doesn't exist at the vast majority of airports. The
planes
> >> are owned by the flight school, and your typical 18-23 year old
> >> instructor isn't going to be able to afford their own plane to give
> >> instruction in (unless Daddy's rich). They don't have the experience
yet
> >> to seriously go freelance either (virtually all the freelancers I've
met
> >> had at least 600-700 hours of real world flying before starting
> >> instructing, and hence had something to bring to the student over and
> >> above the neophyte instructors the flight school had.
> >
> > Why does this pseudo-instructor feel he needs to work at THAT particular
> > airport?
>
> Once again, it's the means. It's all very well yelling "So MOVE!", but
> as you undoubtedly know, unless you can be bankrolled by someone
> who will take the risk, opening your own flight school from the
> position of the vast majority of flight instructors is not possible -
> they simply don't have the resources. They probably don't have the
> resources to even move away from home!

So someone else has to provide the means AND can't set the rules under which
that ASSOCIATION constines to exist?

>
> So the position they are in: either flight instruct for poor pay at
> a flight school that doesn't respect its employees, or not flight
> instruct at all.
>
> > Show me your entraprenurial spirit and tell me how YOU would solve that
> > dilema!
>
> We are not talking about me. (For the record, I am a self-employed
> software consultant making enough money to overhaul a very old house,
> that has so far cost me more than overhauling both engines on a Baron,
> so I *think* i might just be managing there). We are talking about the
> typical young CFI who doesn't have the resources behind them. If I
> wanted to start a flight school, I could have done so. However, I'd
> rather fly for fun quite frankly, and do something else as the day job.
>
> > So MOVE!
>
> No. I happen to like the Isle of Man.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.'

> > And they wonder why so many thinks the world (or XYZ Company) owes them
a
> > living.
>
> No, nobody's saying that.

Not directly, no. They're a bit more sophisticate than that.

> What I am trying to explain (but obviously
> failing) is that a good employee-employer relationship is built on
> mutual trust. Exploitation of young, often life-inexperienced CFIs who
> don't yet have access to any significant resources is just not on.

That's all true but it's a whole different issue. We're talking about
purported "slavery" in a voluntary association. That would be mutaully
exclusive.

> Saying that they aren't entrepenurial doesn't make it any more
> acceptable. Many flight schools would do much, much better if the owners
> showed not only respect, but more entreprenurial spirit than they are
> now! Why do so many people not realise that mutual trust and respect
> between employees and employers is often a very important part of a
> successful business?

Again, that's a whole different issue (people management skills).

So try again and stick to the point, please, instead of going off on
tangents.

A company is run for the OWNERS, not for the EMPLOYEES. Having good
relations with employees is a good idea, but NOT having good relations IS
NOT slavery.

Dylan Smith

November 16th 03, 11:23 PM

In article >, Tom S. wrote:
> So someone else has to provide the means AND can't set the rules under which
> that ASSOCIATION constines to exist?

They can set some of the rules, yes - but not ALL of the rules. Labour
laws say that they cannot set all of the rules - some are set by
legislation. If you don't like the labour laws, then MOVE! :-)

> You can't have your cake and eat it, too.'

Sure you can.

> A company is run for the OWNERS, not for the EMPLOYEES. Having good
> relations with employees is a good idea, but NOT having good relations IS
> NOT slavery.

Oh, I never disagreed with that point. I just contend that running a
company in such a way that there isn't a mutual employer-employee
respect and trust is grossly stupid.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Larry Dighera

November 17th 03, 01:13 AM

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:29:19 -0700, "Tom S." > wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>So someone else has to provide the means AND can't set the rules under which
>that ASSOCIATION constines to exist?

Not of the rules she sets violate the prevailing law. There's a
technical term for such an individual: criminal.

[...]

>A company is run for the OWNERS, not for the EMPLOYEES. Having good
>relations with employees is a good idea, but NOT having good relations IS
>NOT slavery.

And failing to pay employees for their labor is actionable in most
states.

Snowbird

November 17th 03, 02:34 PM

Dylan Smith > wrote in message >...

> Once again, it's the means. It's all very well yelling "So MOVE!", but
> as you undoubtedly know, unless you can be bankrolled by someone
> who will take the risk, opening your own flight school from the
> position of the vast majority of flight instructors is not possible -
> they simply don't have the resources. They probably don't have the
> resources to even move away from home!

> So the position they are in: either flight instruct for poor pay at
> a flight school that doesn't respect its employees, or not flight
> instruct at all.

With respect, Dylan, and with some ignorance of the job market in
UK, it does seem as though there must be other alternatives.

For example, seems to me the flight instructor could work at another
job for a bit, save money, pool his resources to share apartments
and such, and work for a better flight school somewhere else.

I do agree completely with (what I take to be) your point that
not everyone has the enterpreneurial spirit, nor should it be
required as an alternative to being treated like spit.

OTOH harkening back to the start of this thread, I'm pretty sure
you don't disagree that being treated poorly or unfairly
on a job is no wise equivalent to slavery, theft, or murder.

> No, nobody's saying that. What I am trying to explain (but obviously
> failing) is that a good employee-employer relationship is built on
> mutual trust. Exploitation of young, often life-inexperienced CFIs who
> don't yet have access to any significant resources is just not on.
> Saying that they aren't entrepenurial doesn't make it any more
> acceptable. Many flight schools would do much, much better if the owners
> showed not only respect, but more entreprenurial spirit than they are
> now! Why do so many people not realise that mutual trust and respect
> between employees and employers is often a very important part of a
> successful business?

Very well put!

Sydney

xyzzy

November 17th 03, 02:49 PM

Tom S. wrote:
>
> Damn...what did folks do 40-50 years ago, before "Flight Schools".
>

The military?

Snowbird

November 17th 03, 07:54 PM

xyzzy > wrote in message >...
> Tom S. wrote:
> > Damn...what did folks do 40-50 years ago, before "Flight Schools".

> The military?

Correct. Previously, the overwhelming majority of professional
pilots had a military background. Today the opposite is true,
overwhelmingly so if one looks at relatively recent hires.

Cheers,
Sydney

Tom S.

November 17th 03, 09:31 PM

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Tom S. wrote:
> >
> > Damn...what did folks do 40-50 years ago, before "Flight Schools".
> >
>
> The military?

Some yes, most, NO. IWG, that other than during wartime, very FEW pilots
came out of the military. Yet, for the airlines, that was their primary
source for pilots up until the 90's, I believe. Now the ratio (use to be
3:1) is reversed, isn't it?

Tom S.

November 17th 03, 09:35 PM

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> Dylan Smith > wrote in message
>...
> > No, nobody's saying that. What I am trying to explain (but obviously
> > failing) is that a good employee-employer relationship is built on
> > mutual trust. Exploitation of young, often life-inexperienced CFIs who
> > don't yet have access to any significant resources is just not on.
> > Saying that they aren't entrepenurial doesn't make it any more
> > acceptable.

I don't think anyone here said is was "ACCEPTIBLE"!

> > Many flight schools would do much, much better if the owners
> > showed not only respect, but more entreprenurial spirit than they are
> > now! Why do so many people not realise that mutual trust and respect
> > between employees and employers is often a very important part of a
> > successful business?

And towards customers as well. Yet we have the new phrase of "Customer
(NO)Service".

Must be missing from that new "fix-all", the MBA schools. :~)

>
> Very well put!

Yup...and irrelevant to the thread (as you pointed out).

Michael

November 18th 03, 01:08 AM

(Snowbird) wrote
> In my opinion, the real solution is to change the FAA rules so
> that there's a realistic way for wanna-be professional pilots to
> build the hours they need without flight instruction. Then we
> can hear bellyaching about 'slavery in aviation' flying night
> cargo or pipeline patrol or what-have-you.

The issue is not FAA rules. According to the FAA, you can fly
pipeline, drop jumpers, tow gliders, fly aerial photo missions and
sightseeing flights, crop dust, tow banners, or even fly passengers
and cargo for a company (assuming it's business is not the transport
of passengers or cargo) as soon you get a commercial, and in some
cases sooner. You can be PIC in a Part-135 charter at 500 hours, and
SIC (required for passenger-carrying IFR unless there is an autopilot
AND the PIC has 100 hours in make and model) with no hour minimums at
all. The FAA rules are NOT the culprit here - they are actually quite
liberal.

The issue is this - the vast majority of CFI's at the vast majority of
flight schools are simply not qualified to do those jobs - in reality
rather than on paper. In some cases, where the aircraft are insured,
the insurance companies set the experience and training requirements.
In other cases, the owner of the aircraft will do it. Either way,
someone with a solid understanding of what is necessary to maintain an
adequate level of safety WHILE GETTING THE JOB DONE is doing the
hiring.

I've towed for an operation where the insurance minimums are well
above FAA minimums, and the owner still rejects quite a few pilots as
unsuitable. At least half the tow pilots have run the planes out of
gas. When a full load of fuel is just over 30 minutes at full
throttle, when all flying except the descent is done at full throttle,
when the minimum reserves are only 8 minutes at full throttle, and
when pilots are flying 4+ hours including 20+ taildragger landings
(often downwind) on a hot summer day that's going to happen - there's
simply too little margin for error, and by the end of the day the
pilots are always tired, often hungry, and sometimes dehydrated.
There has never been an accident or an insurance claim at this
operation due to fuel exhaustion - every one of the pilots involved
dead sticked the airplane back into the field without damage. This
goes all the way up the food chain in such operations - I know a jump
pilot who had to dead stick a King Air for the same reason. You can
bet his job isn't going to some kid with 50 hours of multi time in a
Seminole and a high performance rating - even if he does have a
college degree and a clean record (the pilot in question has neither).

You can talk about judgment and being a safe pilot until you're blue
in the face - the owner knows the reality. Small GA operations are
always on the edge of profitability (often the wrong edge) and the
safety margins often have to be reduced to get the job done. When
that happens, mistakes are going to be made. Unless you want to lose
your aircraft or your insurance coverage, you want a pilot with the
skills to recover from the mistakes he will inevitably make. The
average low time pilot lacks these skills, and adding ratings does
NOTHING to rectify this shortcoming.

You also want a pilot who won't make too many mistakes - because
nobody is good enough to pull it out 100% of the time, especially not
the guy who thinks he is. That means you want a pilot who knows how
to tell the difference between an operation where the safety margins
are reduced (perhaps illegally) but still acceptable and an operation
where the safety pargins are simply too small (or non-existent). A
pilot who 'just says no' any time the flight is uncomfortable is
useless to you, but so it a pilot who will simply take any flight, no
matter what. The former won't get the job done, and the latter will
crash sooner rather than later. You're looking, in other words, for a
pilot with good judgment. The average low time pilot lacks such
judgment, and adding ratings does NOTHING to rectify this shortcoming.

The reason unskilled low time pilots can't get flying jobs other than
instruction has nothing to do with the FAA - the reason is simply that
they are low time and unskilled.

Being a CFI is the ONLY flying job I can think of where you can
usually get in the seat just by meeting the FAA requirements.
Therefore, the pilots who can't pass muster for any other flying job
instruct - until they can get some other flying job.

So what makes being a CFI so different from other flying jobs? Why
are insurance requirements so lax? Mainly it's because there's no job
to be done. The only real job the CFI has is to keep the hobbs meter
running and the student coming back for more without bending the
aircraft. If the student happens to actually learn something in the
process, great - and if he learns enough to pass a checkride,
wonderful.

> But I think it would be a dramatic improvement for student pilots.
> They could be taught by people who want to instruct, and since
> there'd presumably be fewer CFIs FBOs which wished to retain them
> would have to treat them rather better.

Well, that's all true - but since we probably don't want airplanes
falling out of the sky because they're being flown by unqualified low
time pilots, some other solution is necessary.

The logical one is to effectively separate career track instruction
and recreational instruction. Here's how I would do it:

For Part 61 instruction, require 250 hours of PIC/NI
(non-instructional) time. That means dual given doesn't count, dual
received doesn't count, any solo flights used to satisfy the
requirements of a certificate or rating you hold don't count, and any
hood time and safety pilot time don't count. Eliminate the
stand-alone private under Part-141 - make the initial rating
private/instrument (some schools already do this). In other words,
make the program unattractive to non-career students. Career students
would not be affected, since they all go straight to the instrument
anyway.

The idea is this - the graduate of your average flight academy
(diploma mill) CFI/CFII/MEI has about 250-300 hours total time, of
which AT MOST 100 hours is PIC/NI. At this point, if he can either
shell out the money and buy 150+ hours (unlikely) or get a non-CFI
flying job and build 150 hours+ (even less likely) he can instruct
under Part 61. Otherwise, he can instruct for a Part 141 school,
teaching exclusively professional students - and none of the time he
logs in the process will get him any closer to being able to instruct
under Part 61.

Michael

G.R. Patterson III

November 18th 03, 01:46 AM

"Tom S." wrote:
>
> Some yes, most, NO. IWG, that other than during wartime, very FEW pilots
> came out of the military.

Well, he said 40-50 years ago. That's wartime. In fact, just about any time
seems to have been wartime.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

Martin

November 18th 03, 03:34 AM

I didnt get a chance to read all replies so I dont know if its been
mentioned.

Working for free... illegal? Not quite, but it opens them up to a
whole world of trouble. If you are an hourly employee, you should be
paid for your hours. Ive been involved in college internships, and the
companies who take on college students in an un-paid arrangement are
hypersensitive about verifing that the students are actually recieving
credit, otherwise they are getting nothing for their time, and can
sue. There is a solid legal argument for you to demand payment for the
hours you have worked.

The fact that management would put themselves in a position where they
would have to convince a judge or mediator why they werent paying you
is risky and down right stupid.

My advice is this (if you dont want to do it)... refuse to do it, and
if they fire you for it, that would be solid grounds for a wrongful
termination lawsuit.

studentpilot

November 18th 03, 07:11 AM

A bad day for an International Airline Captain.
Had to do three trips to Paris in 30 days, there is an algal bloom in
the Med. and the lobsters are off. The big worry is whether to buy a
castle in the south of France or that penthouse in Monarco as an
investmennt property.

A bad day for a GA pilot.

It's 7pm on a Saturday, just knocking off after doing 60 hours so far
in the week. Have to go in at 6 in the morning to wash 3 aircraft, none
of which he has flown in the previous week. The young female instructor
(who has flown all 3 aircraft the previous week) can't help you washing
the aircraft because she has flown the 6 days previously and has to
have a day off. Your wages from the week are gone already and the
grocery list is a choice between some brown rice or a pumkin, and the
boss wants you to contribute $100 for a surprise birthday party for the
young female instructor. You also have an attitude problem because you
suggested maybe 9am might be a better time to start on Sunday morning.

You blokes want to get on with life and stop wingeing, just like the
International Airline Pilots.:D

--
studentpilot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

Dave Stadt

November 19th 03, 10:54 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:49:55 -0600, "Jeff Franks"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >...screw the union.
>
> Ah! The true voice of management rears its ugly head. Booo.
>
> I find a policy of an employer "screwing" his employees out of their
> just wages so repugnant, that it smacks of despotism. It also forces
> other FBOs to perpetrate the same indecent demands on the flight
> instructors in their employ to remain competitive. It's a bad
> practice, and it takes a dignified professional to stand up and
> express his disdain for it. It's a form of blackmail, not unlike the
> legal definition of sexual abuse, pure and simple.
>
> Perhaps the time has arrived for flight instructors unite and form a
> labor union.

Then we can all go to Mexico, China, India, etc., etc., etc for our flight
training. Long as we are there we could pick out our new cars.

Larry Dighera

November 20th 03, 12:24 AM

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:54:50 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:49:55 -0600, "Jeff Franks"
>> > wrote in Message-Id:
>> >:
>>
>> >...screw the union.
>>
>> Ah! The true voice of management rears its ugly head. Booo.
>>
>> I find a policy of an employer "screwing" his employees out of their
>> just wages so repugnant, that it smacks of despotism. It also forces
>> other FBOs to perpetrate the same indecent demands on the flight
>> instructors in their employ to remain competitive. It's a bad
>> practice, and it takes a dignified professional to stand up and
>> express his disdain for it. It's a form of blackmail, not unlike the
>> legal definition of sexual abuse, pure and simple.
>>
>> Perhaps the time has arrived for flight instructors unite and form a
>> labor union.
>
>Then we can all go to Mexico, China, India, etc., etc., etc for our flight
>training.

Why would we do that?

Dave Stadt

November 20th 03, 04:56 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:54:50 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:49:55 -0600, "Jeff Franks"
> >> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >> >:
> >>
> >> >...screw the union.
> >>
> >> Ah! The true voice of management rears its ugly head. Booo.
> >>
> >> I find a policy of an employer "screwing" his employees out of their
> >> just wages so repugnant, that it smacks of despotism. It also forces
> >> other FBOs to perpetrate the same indecent demands on the flight
> >> instructors in their employ to remain competitive. It's a bad
> >> practice, and it takes a dignified professional to stand up and
> >> express his disdain for it. It's a form of blackmail, not unlike the
> >> legal definition of sexual abuse, pure and simple.
> >>
> >> Perhaps the time has arrived for flight instructors unite and form a
> >> labor union.
> >
> >Then we can all go to Mexico, China, India, etc., etc., etc for our
flight
> >training.
>
> Why would we do that?

How many millions of jobs have been moved out of the country because of
unions?

Tom S.

November 20th 03, 08:27 AM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:54:50 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> > >:
> >
> > >
> > >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:49:55 -0600, "Jeff Franks"
> > >> > wrote in Message-Id:
> > >> >:
> > >>
> > >> >...screw the union.
> > >>
> > >> Ah! The true voice of management rears its ugly head. Booo.
> > >>
> > >> I find a policy of an employer "screwing" his employees out of their
> > >> just wages so repugnant, that it smacks of despotism. It also forces
> > >> other FBOs to perpetrate the same indecent demands on the flight
> > >> instructors in their employ to remain competitive. It's a bad
> > >> practice, and it takes a dignified professional to stand up and
> > >> express his disdain for it. It's a form of blackmail, not unlike the
> > >> legal definition of sexual abuse, pure and simple.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps the time has arrived for flight instructors unite and form a
> > >> labor union.
> > >
> > >Then we can all go to Mexico, China, India, etc., etc., etc for our
> flight
> > >training.
> >
> > Why would we do that?
>
> How many millions of jobs have been moved out of the country because of
> unions?
>
And how many have moved because foreign workers are more literate and better
versed in English (reading & writing) than their American counterparts?

There's a lot of factors in the present "brain drain":

* Labor costs (particularly for the unskilled and those with marginal
skills) and labor laws (some okay, most political game playing)
* The alphabet soup of Federal and state agencies
* Tax Rates, and more importantly, TAX POLICY.
* Environmental regs
* Marginally literate workers
* Poor work habits/ethic
And on and on...

Americans, for the past few generations, have voted for a pristine,
risk-free, comfortable world, with no worries, no hassles, everything
guaranteed...cradle-to-grave.

What they are getting is exactly what they DEMANDED, it's just not what they
expected.

Tom S.

November 20th 03, 08:38 AM

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
> > > >> >...screw the union.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ah! The true voice of management rears its ugly head. Booo.
> > > >>
> > > >> I find a policy of an employer "screwing" his employees out of
their
> > > >> just wages so repugnant, that it smacks of despotism. It also
forces
> > > >> other FBOs to perpetrate the same indecent demands on the flight
> > > >> instructors in their employ to remain competitive. It's a bad
> > > >> practice, and it takes a dignified professional to stand up and
> > > >> express his disdain for it. It's a form of blackmail, not unlike
the
> > > >> legal definition of sexual abuse, pure and simple.
> > > >>
> > > >> Perhaps the time has arrived for flight instructors unite and form
a
> > > >> labor union.
> > > >
> > > >Then we can all go to Mexico, China, India, etc., etc., etc for our
> > flight
> > > >training.
> > >
> > > Why would we do that?
> >
> > How many millions of jobs have been moved out of the country because of
> > unions?
> >
> And how many have moved because foreign workers are more literate and
better
> versed in English (reading & writing) than their American counterparts?
>
> There's a lot of factors in the present "brain drain":
>
> * Labor costs (particularly for the unskilled and those with marginal
> skills) and labor laws (some okay, most political game playing)
> * The alphabet soup of Federal and state agencies
> * Tax Rates, and more importantly, TAX POLICY.
> * Environmental regs
> * Marginally literate workers
> * Poor work habits/ethic
> And on and on...
>
> Americans, for the past few generations, have voted for a pristine,
> risk-free, comfortable world, with no worries, no hassles, everything
> guaranteed...cradle-to-grave.
>
> What they are getting is exactly what they DEMANDED, it's just not what
they
> expected.
>
Oh, I almost forgot!!

Our idiotic tort system (so how is John Edwards doing in his presidential
bid?).

Greg Goodknight

November 22nd 03, 10:39 PM

one more post in a thread that should have died...
"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > However, the topic needs to be discussed. There appear to be a number of
> > deluded individuals that think being forced to work without pay is a
good
> > thing. Personally, I think it is theft and, at bottom, an offense as
serious
> > as murder.
>
> You have GOT to be kidding.
>
> Please get a grip, CJ, and develop a few more nuances in your sense
> of perspective.
>
> > One wonders: why all these people willing to put up with such
conditions?
> > They think that if they just build enough hours or 'pay their dues' that
> > they will eventually get a decent paying job.
>
> Precisely.
>
> > And when they do start demanding to be paid, does that mean that they
have
> > lost their work ethic?
>
> It means they have decided that their long-term goals are no longer
> being served by their short-term deprivations.

I'm an engineer, a widowed 40-something single dad. A year ago I gave up a
good geek job in a struggling business unit (telecom not much of a growth
industry since 2000) of a great company when the choice seemed between being
a good engineer or a good dad. Not yet looking for a job, was planning that
for the springtime, but a chance connection with an old friend who is now
the CEO with a startup has led to the possibility of doing some fun work.
The senior people are all working only for equity right now. If I join them,
I'll be in the same boat until the springtime and then the salaries will
still not be what I had, but still lots of equity.

That equity might never be worth something. It might be worth a lot. It
probably (if it is the average startup) will never equal the cushy job with
great retirement that captains for the major carriers have managed to pry
out of the system (at least from carriers that aren't threatened with
bankruptcy).

>
> If everyone in the profession pretty much feels the same way, things
> will change. If there's a line of people with the same qualifications
> out the door and around the block who are willing to deal with the
> status quo working conditions, the polite employer's response will
> be "good luck in your future endeavors, don't let the door hit you
> on the way out"
>
> It's called supply-and-demand in the free market, and while it's not
> pretty sometimes I haven't heard of a better system yet.
>
> Sydney

In general, flying is a lot more fun than engineering, it requires much less
education and more people have the requisite talent. No surprise the
beginning wages are paltry. And before anyone wants to start in on the cost
to self train to fly, my alma mater is now charging over $20K a year and
degrees still take four years.

-Greg

Larry Dighera

November 23rd 03, 02:53 AM

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 04:56:06 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:54:50 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>> wrote in Message-Id:
>> >:
>>
>> >
>> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:49:55 -0600, "Jeff Franks"
>> >> > wrote in Message-Id:
>> >> >:
>> >>
>> >> >...screw the union.
>> >>
>> >> Ah! The true voice of management rears its ugly head. Booo.
>> >>
>> >> I find a policy of an employer "screwing" his employees out of their
>> >> just wages so repugnant, that it smacks of despotism. It also forces
>> >> other FBOs to perpetrate the same indecent demands on the flight
>> >> instructors in their employ to remain competitive. It's a bad
>> >> practice, and it takes a dignified professional to stand up and
>> >> express his disdain for it. It's a form of blackmail, not unlike the
>> >> legal definition of sexual abuse, pure and simple.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps the time has arrived for flight instructors unite and form a
>> >> labor union.
>> >
>> >Then we can all go to Mexico, China, India, etc., etc., etc for our
>flight
>> >training.
>>
>> Why would we do that?
>
>How many millions of jobs have been moved out of the country because of
>unions?

How many jobs have been moved out of the US by greedy big business?

How would you like to work under the conditions that those who fill
those jobs do?

Dave Stadt

November 23rd 03, 05:13 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 04:56:06 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:54:50 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> >> wrote in Message-Id:
> >> >:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:49:55 -0600, "Jeff Franks"
> >> >> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >> >> >:
> >> >>
> >> >> >...screw the union.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ah! The true voice of management rears its ugly head. Booo.
> >> >>
> >> >> I find a policy of an employer "screwing" his employees out of their
> >> >> just wages so repugnant, that it smacks of despotism. It also
forces
> >> >> other FBOs to perpetrate the same indecent demands on the flight
> >> >> instructors in their employ to remain competitive. It's a bad
> >> >> practice, and it takes a dignified professional to stand up and
> >> >> express his disdain for it. It's a form of blackmail, not unlike
the
> >> >> legal definition of sexual abuse, pure and simple.
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps the time has arrived for flight instructors unite and form a
> >> >> labor union.
> >> >
> >> >Then we can all go to Mexico, China, India, etc., etc., etc for our
> >flight
> >> >training.
> >>
> >> Why would we do that?
> >
> >How many millions of jobs have been moved out of the country because of
> >unions?
>
> How many jobs have been moved out of the US by greedy big business?

Not nearly as many as have been forced out of the country by greedy unions.

> How would you like to work under the conditions that those who fill
> those jobs do?

In many cases those conditions are as good if not better then the conditions
here. Don't believe the exceptions blasted all over the news are the norm.

Larry Dighera

November 23rd 03, 10:06 AM

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 05:13:20 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>> How many jobs have been moved out of the US by greedy big business?
>
>Not nearly as many as have been forced out of the country by greedy unions.
>
>> How would you like to work under the conditions that those who fill
>> those jobs do?
>
>In many cases those conditions are as good if not better then the conditions
>here. Don't believe the exceptions blasted all over the news are the norm.
>

We disagree.

Larry Dighera

November 26th 03, 06:05 PM

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:06:51 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 05:13:20 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>wrote in Message-Id:
>:
>
>>> How many jobs have been moved out of the US by greedy big business?
>>
>>Not nearly as many as have been forced out of the country by greedy unions.
>>
>>> How would you like to work under the conditions that those who fill
>>> those jobs do?
>>
>>In many cases those conditions are as good if not better then the conditions
>>here. Don't believe the exceptions blasted all over the news are the norm.
>>
>
>We disagree.

Perhaps you'd be willing to reside in Mexico instead of the US:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Business AVflash Volume 1, Issue 2 — November 26, 2003

-------------------------------------------------------------------

RAYTHEON MIGRATING WORK TO MEXICO
The growing trend to outsource American jobs is also gaining
popularity in the aerospace market. On Nov. 7, 350 Raytheon
Aircraft Co workers in Wichita learned their jobs were heading
south of the border to Mexico. Officials at Raytheon's wire
harness division in east Wichita announced it would transfer the
wiring work to Labinal Inc.' s division in Pryor, Okla. However,
most of the work will be done at Aerotec de Mexico, Labinal's
subsidiary in Chihuahua, Mexico.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/171-full.html#186142

Dave Stadt

November 26th 03, 08:33 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:06:51 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote in Message-Id: >:
>
> >On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 05:13:20 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> >wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
> >
> >>> How many jobs have been moved out of the US by greedy big business?
> >>
> >>Not nearly as many as have been forced out of the country by greedy
unions.
> >>
> >>> How would you like to work under the conditions that those who fill
> >>> those jobs do?
> >>
> >>In many cases those conditions are as good if not better then the
conditions
> >>here. Don't believe the exceptions blasted all over the news are the
norm.
> >>
> >
> >We disagree.
>
> Perhaps you'd be willing to reside in Mexico instead of the US:
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Business AVflash Volume 1, Issue 2 - November 26, 2003
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> RAYTHEON MIGRATING WORK TO MEXICO
> The growing trend to outsource American jobs is also gaining
> popularity in the aerospace market. On Nov. 7, 350 Raytheon
> Aircraft Co workers in Wichita learned their jobs were heading
> south of the border to Mexico. Officials at Raytheon's wire
> harness division in east Wichita announced it would transfer the
> wiring work to Labinal Inc.' s division in Pryor, Okla. However,
> most of the work will be done at Aerotec de Mexico, Labinal's
> subsidiary in Chihuahua, Mexico.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/171-full.html#186142

Actually it is a pretty good place to retire to and quite a few folks do
just that. The above avweb article has nothing to do with working
conditions so what's your point? I'll betcha a dime to a dollar those 350
jobs are union jobs.