Bush Intervenes in Port Lockout

Associated Press via Yahoo ^ | October 7, 2002 | SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

[discostu]

Southwest has a rep for being the lowest paying of the airlines with the worst service. They're getting what they paid for. Given that they're the lowest paying I have serious doubts they are the most unionized.

As for "sharpshooting" the contracts that's another fine example of what's wrong with unions. These companies are loosing money which, if it isn't turned around, will eventually result in ALL of the employees being on the street, and yet the union is obsesses with a couple of percentage points on automatic raises and any attempt by the company to stop the bleeding is considered underhanded and evil. Unions constantly ignore the big picture and go on strike for cheaper snack in the break room.

I got to see it up close and in person in the late 70s with the Phelps Dodge strikes down here. PD opened the books, invited the union to bring ANYBODY they wanted to analyze, gave the union the most lucrative offer they could possibly afford and stay in business, told the union that if their people could prove the company could afford more they'd get it. The union analyzed the books, agreed the offer was the most PD could afford... and went on strike ANYWAY. The strike turned into layoffs and most of those guys never worked for PD again, thanks to significantly lowered labor costs (what with 80% of the total workforce on strike, and upper management took HUGE paycuts) and plenty of ore reserves this actually spring boarded PD into low end profitability which lasted until some significant improvements in technology saved the copper industry. Not that the strikers got to see any of those benefits, because they decided they wanted that pay raise even if it would bankrupt the company. That's when I decided unions just don't think straight.

Unions are epitimized by stupid thinking that forces bad management decisions and maintains a constant adversarial relationship between labor and management. Again all you have to do is look at sports. The constant stories you see every year in the MLB NBA and NHL are: attendance down, ratings down, labor dispute brewing. In the NFL, generally accepted as having the least powerful of the 4 unions it's exactly the opposite: attendance up, ratings up, CBA extended long before expiration with no noticable disputes. The league with the weakest union is doing the best, you do the math.

There's not much secret about which party worships the unions. There's nothing statist about thinking a monopoly organization keeping labor costs immune to the free market is bad. That's just a matter of having open eyes. Drop the CBAs, end strikes, let employees negotiate their pay as individuals the way the free market was designed to.

[discostu]

Yeah gee whiz, what if workers are so vital to the survival of this nation that we dare not let them strike. Yeah, I'm supposed to be sympathetic that the adversarial relationship THEY created with management has resulted in them feeling screwed. To hell with them, get to freaking work and do the job.

Slowdown, sick outs and all that crap are being pussies. At least leftists are willing to go to jail for their beliefs. Staging fake strikes so you can cripple your employer but not risk violating the law is just being a bunch of cowards. If your position is right you should be willing to go to jail for it. But no, you're only willing to risk the lives of the people you're sworn to protect, that's real nice stuff.

You present EXACTLY why striking is bad. Because whether the union is right or wrong the minute you guys walk off the job the employer HAS TO cave. That's BS. There's no bargaining. Everybody with unionized employees gets two choices:
give the unions everything they want
go under
The fact that unions worship these strong arm tactics shows just how sick they are. All the rhetoric is about "defending the worker" but that's BS, strikes are about telling management who's really boss. Unions have never accomplished one drop of good in this country, everything they take credit for was done by congress.

This isn't statism, it's wanting the free market to be allowed to do what it does best. Everytime you accuse me of being a statist for hating labor monopolies you damage what little point you never had in the first place. Try using fact instead of slurs. Problem of course is that there are NO FACTS that show unions to be good in ANY POSSIBLE WAY. Calling people statist and using the rhetoric of Marx isn't going to win you any friends here, try it at DU that crap flies good there.

[Orion]

Several points...

First, unless you are familiar with the airline industry, your assertion on the relative unionization of a particular company is rather shakey. I am in the industry, and am very familiar with union acitivity in the industry. Southwest is the most unionized airline in the USA. The fact you imply otherwise, based entirely upon wages, demonstrates that you are operating from the standard anti-union template so common at FR.

So, unless we strike, we are pussies? OK, staging a fake strike (whatever that is) is against the law. Striking is entirely legal, so your point was?

Please tell me, whose lives have I sworn to protect? How do I risk them by staying at home? How do I jeopardize my passengers without killing myself? Honestly, do you even think about what you are saying?

Yes, striking is bad for the corporation. Yes, that is quite a bit of leverage the union holds. So, given that reality, and legal entitlement, why not have the corporation replace us? I will tell you why not - United 1985. Ferris tried to break the union - no luck. He ran his airline into the ground, and they are still paying for it. That is the reality. There is plenty of competition, as if we raise the bar too high, our company, and our seniority and our careers are done. With a 30 year career being worth $10M, we do not take that lightly. Starting over at another airline would cost each pilot over $5M. Again, think before you post.

There is no bargaining? The last contract that American Airlines signed with their pilots was negotiated for almost 4 years, and what did the pilots do? A 20 minute strike in the middle of the night. Most of America slept through it. When was the last time AA was on strike? 1959. Yes, that is one strike every 40 years - a real national crisis if I have ever seen one.

You actually believe that the present working conditions of union and non-union workers was achieved by Congress? If so, is that good? You didn't like when I refered to statists, even though I never called you a statist, but with that statement, what conclusions could I possibly draw?

Unions do nothing good? No possible way? Tell me, the biggest news story of the past 13 months have been 4 hijackings and 3000 dead Americans. Your POTUS proposed a massive gov't buerocracy to deal with the problems. My union proposed arming pilots. POTUS, FAA, DOT, ATA, and airline management all opposed the idea. It was the union representing the pilots of American Airlines that first proposed arming pilots. ALPA, the union that represents all other airlines than Southwest, FedEX, and UPS had its leadership come out against arming pilots. That was Duane Worth, the chairman of ALPA reacting to his friends in Washington. Once the APA (AA's union) proposed this, the rank-and-file of the ALPA just about ripped Worth's head off and he changed his mind. It was the APA that lobbied Congress for arming of pilots against the wishes of the FAA, corporations, and the POTUS. That pressure caused Congress to pass the legeslation by better than 2/3 in both houses. GWB, saw the changing wind, moistened his finger and came out in favor of such an idea.

If we were doing what the gov't, corporations, and the early Congress wanted, there would be no defense against another hijacking. The union, and only the union, changed all that.

Guess who wants pilots on duty for 24 continuous hours? That's right the corporations. Guess who wants a hard 16 hour day? - the unions. Guess who has proposed every major safety innovation in the airline industry in the past 50 years? Not management, that is too costly. It was the unions. Believe it or not, the management of each airline works closely with, and in partnership with the unions on most issues that face the airline. Dealing with one voice is easier than 14000 voices. Obviously, the compensation package is adversarial, but many of the structures of the union are welcomed by management. Both AMR and APA want a strong American Airlines. AMR would like to do gut the pilot contract for a temporary gian, and the pilots do not want that.

Keep in mind that strong employees are good for America. I've been in an environment where management was supreme and the worker bees did what they were told or thrown in prison. When your boss tells you to violate the FAA regs, common sense, and endanger yourself and your crew, just so he looks good for his boss, it should not be difficult to see where a subordinate should be able to be protected from such incompetance.

stat'ism, n. Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized state government.

stat'ist, n. OF, pert. to, or advocating statism.

I am not the one advocating the gov't take control of the situation and imposing working conditions and pay. The ILWU contract has expired. This is just as much management's fault as if they allowed the contracts for electricity to expire, or allowed their dock licenses to expire. The fact the ILWU is trying to get another contract should not be shocking. If they don't want to pay the ILWU, get other workers. There are 1,000,000 mestizos that would love those jobs. No excuses.

[Orion]

As for "sharpshooting" the contracts that's another fine example of what's wrong with unions. These companies are loosing money which, if it isn't turned around, will eventually result in ALL of the employees being on the street

The instances to my reference was when the companies were each making between $1B and $2B per year. Tell me, is it OK to violate a contract when you are losing money? Are contracts only contracts when it is convenient?

What if I am about to miss a mortgage payment? Should I be able to put the aircraft in a holding pattern, go back to the passenger compartment, explain that La Guardia is experiencing 1/4 mile visibility, poor braking action, and a bitch of a crosswind. Given the congestion of the airspace and the short runways, I think I need more money for the effort. How about a $50 from each of you for the effort, after all, I am losing money?

No, I think all would be best served if I lived up to the agreements I signed. Unfortunately, some think this does not apply to government and corporations when unions are involved.

It's the bias:Unions are bad, therefore unions are bad.

We had better start paying protection money to the Pubbies, or be out of a job.

[Orion]

There's not much secret about which party worships the unions.

That's the rub, isn't it? We don't pay Pubbie protection money, whereas the corporations do.

There's nothing statist about thinking a monopoly organization keeping labor costs immune to the free market is bad. That's just a matter of having open eyes. Drop the CBAs, end strikes, let employees negotiate their pay as individuals the way the free market was designed to.

How about the individual owners come out from behind the corporate veil and negotiate directly with individual pilots? I would take that in a heartbeat. My pay and working conditions would skyrocket. They would not have a professional management team, and would not be able to spread pain out across other owners - they would be at the mercy of the handful of pilots that flew their individual aircraft on the individual routes. My economic leverage would be unlimited, and I could retire by 37.

Go for it! Eliminate unions and corporations. No strikes, no lockouts, and a true competitive field at last.

[BikerNYC]

Everybody with unionized employees gets two choices:
give the unions everything they want
go under

With such a track record, how do you explain why union membership is at historic lows? If they have that much power to get workers what they want, I'd think that everyone would want to join one.

[discostu]

Here's what I know about Southwest: everybody I know that flies HATES the company and their service is generally considered worst in the industry. Most of the folks in the industry I've talked to (I'm a chatty fellow when hanging around killing time, especially with the new security regs, figure being friendly with the people just might keep the rubber gloves away from my behind, so far so good) had their first airline job at Southwest and couldn't wait to get out and actually earn some money. In every other industry I've looked at the company that pays least is unionized least, I've seen no evidence saying the airline industry is immune from that standard. If you've got the evidence present it, if you're just going to insist you're right because you said so don't waste our time.

The fact is blue flus and slowdowns ARE strikes, they're just strikes done with a quibling over the definition of the word "is" so the strikers can say they're not breaking the law. Strike or don't strike, don't pussyfoot around with creative definitions of ways to deliberately and en mas not do your job but not really strike.

OK you're a pilot, recall this conversation first started talking about cops and firefighters, who have sworn to protect the common citizens. Pilots just have the job of keeping America moving, which is important too. And frankly pilots make some pretty good bank and if you dig travel have a pretty cool job (I hate to travel, another reason I try to be friendly with staffers, don't want them thinking my grumbling is aimed at them). The no negotiation mandatory retirement kind of sucks, but golly gee no union has tried to do anything about that.

See, since there's plenty of competition you don't NEED a union. That's what free market capitalism isall about: the individual negotiates his compensation with the employer and if the employer won't pay the employee what he thinks he's worth the employee can go someplace that respects talent. Everybody but Southwest is in the toilet so the problems at United aren't necessarily caused by union busting.

Maybe you should think before YOU post. Why would switching airlines cost the pilot money? Because the CBA sets the payscale based largely on seniority with the airline. If you could negotiate your own salary based on skill and experience, and get raises based on merit rather than tenure, switching airlines would NOT defacto lose you money. Once again the union not only hurts the employer but the employee. Thanks to that CBA you're stuck with your current airline.

Good, the airline unions are almost sane. But here's the question: what did that 20 minute strike, and all the stress leading up to it, actually get YOU? And what has it done for American Airlines? Did they really sign onto a deal you guys couldn't have gotten without striking, and was that deal actually good for the company? And remember before answering those questions that American is one of the airlines burning money and dangerously close to death and paying a little less for labor just might have helped them out.

Who outlawed child labor? Who set the 40 hour work week? Who sets standard safety conditions in the workplace? All Congress. Sure labor leaders lobbied Congress and that helped, but there didn't have to be unions to have people lobbying Congress on behalf of labor.

Hey look at that, Southwest came out against the thing your union is for, so much for "most unionized". Other than that, nice story, we'll see what actually happens. Having a bunch of armed out of work pilots who managed to force companies that no longer exist to let them be armed is a hollow victory. No matter how you slice it you still have the problem of unions pricing labor beyond profitability. As for the other things on your list, again you could have a lobbying organization without a union. All the "good things" in the world don't mean jack if the companies can't survive.

Sorry, from what I've seen strong employees are HORRID for America. They've priced most of the non- and semi-skilled jobs to the point that companies flee the country in droves. They drive up our cost of living. And any side by side comparison of the products of American union shops to the products of foreign non-union shops shows our stuff is inferior with lower durability and higher continuing cost of ownership.

I'm not advocating the government take things over. I'm advocating that employees negotiate their compensation individually with employers. The fact that the union has pushed this situation to the point that if the government doesn't intervene we'll be starting the 2nd Great Depression by the end of the year isn't my fault. If they would behave in a reasonable manner, not demand insane wages and not block technological improvement to the workplace none of this would be happening. The union made this situation. It is directly affecting both interstate and international commerce, both of which are clearly under the pervue of the federal government according to the Constitution. Nobody forced these guys to hold the entire American economy hostage for more coffee breaks.

Oh that's so cute, after all that garbage you posted about what happend to United "because" they tried to break the union you then say the docking companies should go ahead and break the union. Which one of your statements do you actually believe, they can't both be true. Of course again I've sen what happens when people try to cross the picket line. These mestizos might love these jobs if they had a reasonable chance to get to work and back without being beaten by picketers, but they don't. I've seen the riots, I've seen the beating, I've seen the sudden "rash" of DPS officers killed during traffic stops. You don't just hire replacements to break a union. And of course once the companies and the union sign the new CBA the company will no longer be legally allowed to hire non-union employees until the CBA expires. The union defends it's position through the courts (statist behavior) and through violence. Maybe you've never seen that because your union is basically suit and tie guys, but these are physical laborers and I know what kind of stuff "magically" appears when somebody tries to cross picket lines run by physical laborers. If people try to cross this line people will be killed, mark my words.

[discostu]

Making or profiting, big difference.

Tell me the exact situation you're talking about. I'm not going to argue some points just to have you introduce new stuff. Lay it out on the table so I can have the whole picture.

As for your hypothetical... win effect that's what a union does EVERY TIME they threaten or go on strike. These dockworkers are saying they don't want computerized tracking on the docks that would make their work more efficient and result in less overtime and therefore lower cost of goods sold and a lower cost of living, and they're willing to kill the American economy to make their point. It's not right for the workers to hold the business and the customers hostage.

Now I think the situation you're alluding to is one where in the company can no longer afford to live up to the CBA. This is very different than your hypothetical. It's one thing to deliberately withhold payment, it's another entirely to simply not have the money to pay. What is a company supposed to do when they simply cannot pay the employees? The government owns all the important printing presses, the company can't just create money to meet the conditions of the CBA with.

No bias, all the evidence points to unions being bad. There is no evidence they are anything but bad. I've been paying protection money to the unions in one form or another all my life, and the thanks I get is that their holding the entire economy hostage. As you've pointed out in this post: a deal is a deal. The union should honor the protection money I've been paying them and learn to operate those little scanner guns, they're pretty fun toys actually.

[discostu]

No you payb the democrats protection money. You decided who to sleep with, don't get mad at me because you woke up with flees.

But the individual owners CAN'T negotiate with you guys individually. You're hiding behind the union. The CBA specifically forbid individual negotiation, their hands are tied. Of course most of these companies are publicly owned, so basically you're just being a rude dick at this point.

[discostu]

Four words:
right
to
work
state

There's been a lot of expansion in industries that weren't unionized (like mine) in states where only a moron would try to unionize (like mine).

Also remember that I've pointed out many times that in the long run unions are generally bad for the workers. They sell down tomorrow for victories today, going on strike for more wages from companies they know can't afford it. So in the short term the workers get everything they want, but eventually the company does massive reductions or maybe even goes under and the workers takes it in the butt. The bill started coming due for unions in the late 70s, this is just another bump in that road.

[BikerNYC]

When companies are doing the kinds of things we see them do nowadays and going under because of them, I see no reason why workers should have any faith that they will be here in the near future. Better to take what you can now than wait and let the management trolls take it all.

[discostu]

I see no problem with that theory either, that's the basis of free market capitalism, basically one giant game of Hungry Hungry Hippos with a seemingly (and usually) endless supply of marbles. What I have a problem with is the way CBAs are negotiated, the way they specifically cripple both employer and employee, and the way unions have repeatedly and knowingly negotiated for compensation the company couldn't possibly afford. Unions actually COULD be a good thing, if they weren't susceptible to certain foibles in human character. Unfortunately they are very closely tied to some really bad characteristics of human character (the two that screw unions up the most are the need for enemies and the need for victory; those meanthat no matter what the bosses give the union the union will always want more so that they can "vanquish" the "enemy").

[BikerNYC]

...and the way unions have repeatedly and knowingly negotiated for compensation the company couldn't possibly afford.

All management has to do is say no. There are plenty of examples of strikes over wages that haven't succeeded. Moreover, it is difficult to say that companies cannot afford union wages when they are paying out millions upon millions of dollars in stock options and other perks that, one can argue, they can not afford either. Whether or not a company can afford it depends on what the company is doing with the rest of its money.

[discostu]

Already addressed that. It's not simply a matter of saying no. You say no and all the workers walk out, no more productivity. You try to hire new people and they get beat up (see Phelps Dodge coalmine strikes in Southern AZ in the late 70s and early 80s) and sometimes killed. Even if they safely make it past the picket lines you've still got to train them in how to do the job (because if they knew how to do it they're almost definitely a member of the union, and won't cross the line), that's made a little harder since all the people that know the job well enough to train are on the line.

The companies that get beat up by the unions aren't the ones handing out stock options (though remember, stock options don't actually cost a company money until they're excercised, so the charge itself is a little disingeneous). Again, Phelps Dodge, the union got total access to the books, analyzed them with their own accountants, agree the company couldn't possibly afford the union's demands, no amount of cost cutting elsewhere would supply the money, and the still went on strike. In their desperation to stay in business uppper management took a 75% cut in pay, fortunately they had big stockpiles of copper so they didn't really too many actual workers, unfortunately the bottom had dropped out of the copper market so they didn't make much money on the sales. Eventually, years later, after having fired all the strikers (which, BTW didn't get them off the picket line, they stuck around for a long time) some new technologies breathed life back into copper (actually not directly into copper, copper is now a by-product, the money is in phosphates they get during the refining process). Unfortunately for the workers they had all been replaced, PD has by and large managed to avoid re-unionizing, though it's hard since they have branches all over. In the end it's the workers that lost, and the DPS officers that got killed (DPS was sent in to break up the almost daily riots and somebody decided to get revenge on them after things calmed down and DPS returned to more normal duty), they lost big time.

You see I've had a nearly front row seat to everything that's sick and wrong with the unions. I saw the PD strike unfold every day on my TV. During that same time the teacher's union here went on strike and I got to watch my teacher throw rotten vegetables at the picket crossers then tell me she was doing this all for me (the end result of that strike was that the teachers got a 5% raise, 2 more days off and the school year was shortened by a week... all done for my benefit of course). All this talk about "evening the playing field" and "giving the workers a fair shake" is just that, talk. It's BS. There's no truth to it. It's about flexing muscles and demonstrating power.

I've seen the real face of unions. It's guys getting beat up for wanting to earn some money for their family. It's a company making an offer that represents every penny it can afford and the workers strike anyway. It's a teacher lieing to her student. It's a DPS officer getting killed for not letting the strikers beat our first example to death. That's unions. I'll hate them til the day I die, I'll never join one, and I'll route against them in every labor dispute. Because there's nothing good about them.

[McGavin999]

Well, guess we could just leave them on strike. I understand that Mexican dockworkers are making a small fortune now. We can just transfer all those dockwork jobs to Mexico hmmmmmm?

Good grief, if you haven't figured out that the reason all the jobs are leaving this country is because of the unions greed then what's it going to take for you to figure it out? $80 to $120 grand a year not enough for unskilled labor?

[UnBlinkingEye]

Well, guess we could just leave them on strike. I understand that Mexican dockworkers are making a small fortune now. We can just transfer all those dockwork jobs to Mexico hmmmmmm?

Good grief, if you haven't figured out that the reason all the jobs are leaving this country is because of the unions greed then what's it going to take for you to figure it out? $80 to $120 grand a year not enough for unskilled labor?

Could it be possible that CEO's taking salaries one thousand times these levels may be the reason the economy is in the tank?

[McGavin999]

Could it be possible that CEO's taking salaries one thousand times these levels may be the reason the economy is in the tank?

Are you aware that the average CEO salary in this country is about $100,000 a year. Do you realize that is LESS than what a dockworker makes? Those multi-million dollar salaries that you see probably affect maybe 500 to 1,000 corporations.

Are you aware that by striking like they are, they are putting thousands of people out of work? Are you aware of how many farmers could lose everything because their crops are rotting on the wharfs? Oh well, what do you care, the little guy will go under and the big corporate farms will be the only ones left. If shipping becomes too expensive, then what industry is left in this country will move to where they don't have to worry about shipping strikes.

The only thing that surprises me more then the greed of the labor unions is the total stupidity of those who belong to unions. Talk about paying through the nose to get scr#wed.

[UnBlinkingEye]

Are you aware that the average CEO salary in this country is about $100,000 a year.

Where did you get this figure, does it include all compensation?

[McGavin999]

I do the accounting for about 25 companies that average between $10 and $15 million a year. None of the CEOs make more than $100,000. Most of them employ 35 to 50 employees who make almost as much as the owners. Talking to other accountants, that's been their experience also. When people talk about corporations they think of the multi-billion dollar firms and don't realize that 99% of the corporations in this country do NOT fall anywhere near them, but that doesn't stop them. That's all they think about.

Most of these corporations are headed by people who mortgage their homes in order to meet payrolls. THESE are the people that the unions are putting out of business. THESE are the people who will lose everything while the union stiffs are quibbling about jobs being replaced. THESE are the people who's lives are wrapped up in those shipping cartons that are stacking up on the pier and waiting on the ships out in the bay.

Oh, it's great to picture the big rich corporate executive who pays $6,000 for a shower curtain, but ignore the fact that maybe 10,000 business are in the supply line who DON'T live like that. I'm sick of everyone painting corporate America like a bunch of theives. I've sat up all night with some of these guys trying to figure out how they can keep guys on the payroll. I've watched them sell their accumulated assets, the work of a lifetime, in order to make sure their people can feed their kids.

Unions single out the one or two greedy execs and try to portray all executives like that and it isn't true, it isn't real, and it's unfair and ungrateful.

BTW, I'm currently working with one executive who hasn't received a paycheck all year but has managed not to lay off a single person. None of them know that he's going without a paycheck and it sickens me when I hear them talk about him in the breakroom.

[UnBlinkingEye]

I just did a check on salary.com for median (half make more, half make less) compensation of CEOs in three west coast port cities, these figures represent base pay, plus bonus and benefits but do not include stock options:

Seattle

$950,397

San Francisco

$1,040,040

San Diego

$936,472