Strike shows Northwest's true colors

"Steven L. Robinson" wrote in message
...
Strike shows Northwest's true colors

By Michael Kuchta, St. Paul Union Advocate editor - August 24, 2005


http://www.workdayminnesota.org/view...13a34031fadcdc
ffde4bec2f0cedc51

BLOOMINGTON - The strike by mechanics at Northwest Airlines demonstrates
how
far airline executives are willing to go to cut costs,

Because if they DON'T cut costs, they AND the workers will be out of jobs.
You obviously know nothing about how much economic trouble the airline
industry was in before the recent jump in fuel prices - you think it's in
any better shape to just hand out raises left and right?

Okay, Mr. Genius, if you had read the article you would have seen that the
workers are willing to take pay cuts. They are just not willing to vote
themselves out of jobs... which is what the proposed contract from the
bosses would do. But of course, who needs unions. You can always get a job
as greeter at Wal-Mart, make minimum wage, get food stamps and medicaid.
Isn't the free enterprise great or what... SR



Because if they DON'T cut costs, they AND the workers will be out of jobs.
You obviously know nothing about how much economic trouble the airline
industry was in before the recent jump in fuel prices - you think it's in
any better shape to just hand out raises left and right?

Steven L. Robinson wrote:
Okay, Mr. Genius, if you had read the article you would have seen that the
workers are willing to take pay cuts. They are just not willing to vote
themselves out of jobs... which is what the proposed contract from the
bosses would do. But of course, who needs unions. You can always get a job
as greeter at Wal-Mart, make minimum wage, get food stamps and medicaid.
Isn't the free enterprise great or what... SR

I'm a 14 year union man. One of the most stupid things a union can do
is to get stubborn and force a company into bankruptcy.

As soon as a company files for bankruptcy it can continue to operate
but ignore the union contracts.

If the union continues to push and the company goes out of business the
union members are all unemployed.

Who needs unions? We do. Who needs stupid unions? Nobody.

Tchiowa wrote:
Steven L. Robinson wrote:
Okay, Mr. Genius, if you had read the article you would have seen that the
workers are willing to take pay cuts. They are just not willing to vote
themselves out of jobs... which is what the proposed contract from the
bosses would do. But of course, who needs unions. You can always get a job
as greeter at Wal-Mart, make minimum wage, get food stamps and medicaid.
Isn't the free enterprise great or what... SR

I'm a 14 year union man. One of the most stupid things a union can do
is to get stubborn and force a company into bankruptcy.

As soon as a company files for bankruptcy it can continue to operate
but ignore the union contracts.

If the union continues to push and the company goes out of business the
union members are all unemployed.

Who needs unions? We do. Who needs stupid unions? Nobody.

It is a difficult decision, and I suspect is rarely made logically.
But for a trade union, it can be important not to allow one company
to drive down wages for all the other companies. Occasionally, for
the larger membership/trade it might be necessary to "allow" a
company to go belly up to preserve wages. In the airline industry
right now, you could probably make that case. In order to preserve
or defend wages for the industry at large, some airlines might have
to fail.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Tchiowa wrote:
Steven L. Robinson wrote:
Okay, Mr. Genius, if you had read the article you would have seen that
the
workers are willing to take pay cuts. They are just not willing to
vote
themselves out of jobs... which is what the proposed contract from the
bosses would do. But of course, who needs unions. You can always get a
job
as greeter at Wal-Mart, make minimum wage, get food stamps and
medicaid.
Isn't the free enterprise great or what... SR

I'm a 14 year union man. One of the most stupid things a union can do
is to get stubborn and force a company into bankruptcy.

As soon as a company files for bankruptcy it can continue to operate
but ignore the union contracts.

If the union continues to push and the company goes out of business the
union members are all unemployed.

Who needs unions? We do. Who needs stupid unions? Nobody.

It is a difficult decision, and I suspect is rarely made logically.
But for a trade union, it can be important not to allow one company
to drive down wages for all the other companies. Occasionally, for
the larger membership/trade it might be necessary to "allow" a
company to go belly up to preserve wages. In the airline industry
right now, you could probably make that case. In order to preserve
or defend wages for the industry at large, some airlines might have
to fail.

Except that there would then be even more unemployed union members, and
wages would be further driven downward.

" wrote:

It is a difficult decision, and I suspect is rarely made logically.
But for a trade union, it can be important not to allow one company
to drive down wages for all the other companies. Occasionally, for
the larger membership/trade it might be necessary to "allow" a
company to go belly up to preserve wages. In the airline industry
right now, you could probably make that case. In order to preserve
or defend wages for the industry at large, some airlines might have
to fail.

Considering trade unions now represent only about 8 percent of the workers
in non-government jobs, they don't have the clout they did at one time to
force companies to hold the line on wages. A non-union company will simply
blow them away.

Jeff Hacker wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
[snip]
It is a difficult decision, and I suspect is rarely made logically.
But for a trade union, it can be important not to allow one company
to drive down wages for all the other companies. Occasionally, for
the larger membership/trade it might be necessary to "allow" a
company to go belly up to preserve wages. In the airline industry
right now, you could probably make that case. In order to preserve
or defend wages for the industry at large, some airlines might have
to fail.

Except that there would then be even more unemployed union members, and
wages would be further driven downward.

Only under certain conditions. Where workers are represented by
unions, even if it is not the same union, the union will hold
the line on wages despite large unemployment. In some fields,
where currency can be required (pilot for example) the longer
someone becomes employed, the longer it takes for them to
be recertified (and that cost someone money). So at some
point afterwards, there are just plain fewer qualified folks.

James Robinson wrote:
" wrote:

It is a difficult decision, and I suspect is rarely made logically.
But for a trade union, it can be important not to allow one company
to drive down wages for all the other companies. Occasionally, for
the larger membership/trade it might be necessary to "allow" a
company to go belly up to preserve wages. In the airline industry
right now, you could probably make that case. In order to preserve
or defend wages for the industry at large, some airlines might have
to fail.

Considering trade unions now represent only about 8 percent of the workers
in non-government jobs, they don't have the clout they did at one time to
force companies to hold the line on wages. A non-union company will simply
blow them away.

However, in certain trades, they represent a significant number of
certain skills. Airline pilots have one of the stronger unions
there is. In a trade where certain specific certifications are
required, and must be maintained over time, unemployed workers
tend to lose their certifications and leave the immediate market.

wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Considering trade unions now represent only about 8 percent of the
workers in non-government jobs, they don't have the clout they did at
one time to force companies to hold the line on wages. A non-union
company will simply blow them away.

However, in certain trades, they represent a significant number of
certain skills. Airline pilots have one of the stronger unions
there is. In a trade where certain specific certifications are
required, and must be maintained over time, unemployed workers
tend to lose their certifications and leave the immediate market.

The unions at Bethlehem Steel thought the same thing, until mini-mills plus
foreign competition changed the way things had been for many years.

Even the airline pilots can be subject to such things as splitting the
union over differences in negotiation strategies, like once happened when
the Allied Pilots Assn. was formed from ALPA.

An in-house union like at Southwest can vary from national negotiation
norms and put significant pressure on the unions at the other carriers.
Different wage scales and fewer benefits can give the smaller carriers an
advantage over the traditional carriers, just like what is happening today.
You can bet that the ex-Eastern pilots at airlines like ValuJet didn't make
anywhere near the wages and benefits that they enjoyed at their former
employer.