Airlines Cut Minimum Pilot Experience to 500 hours and Below

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

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

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

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


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

English your first language?


On Nov 28, 10:23 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
...





On Nov 27, 9:47 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
...

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

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

Funny thing is, you are all right. Everything mentioned here both pro
and
con has contributed to the wages paid in this country today for most
every
job. Child labor laws, health care benefits, 40 Hour work weeks,
severance,
paid vacation, benefits packages, retirement, overtime pay, minimum
wage,
etc, etc. It's all had a balancing effect on the wages we all draw
every
day. Without unions we would all be working for less, no matter what
our
profession.

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



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

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

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Robert M. Gary writes:

Then the employees should start their own company.

With what money? HP bankrupted them.

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

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

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

I already have.

writes:

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

The idea is to be profitable, not prudent.

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in message
news

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


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


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

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

Matt W. Barrow wrote:


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


Toyota deals with unions.

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

http://www.nummi.com/

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

Matt W. Barrow wrote:


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

I can see that everywhere!

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

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

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

Again, these are real world considerations, not theory.

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

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


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

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

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

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Robert M. Gary writes:

Then the employees should start their own company.

With what money? HP bankrupted them.

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

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

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

I already have.

So what?


You're an idiot.

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

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

The idea is to be profitable, not prudent.



You;re an idiot.


Bertie