Posted on 04/26/2003 8:21:15 PM PDT by Archangelsk
This is what they pay airline financial analysts to do, think of ways to reduce the non-revenue weight of the airplane to use less fuel. It's the primary reason SWA is so successful (that and the fact that they only fly one type of equipment). It's also the reason why in-flight meals are now as scarce as hen's teeth now on everything except long cross country flight.
Unions solve problems, but once the original labor problems are fixed, the unions ultimately become the problem.
The same syndrome occurs in all socialist situations; the seeds of corruption, disaster and death are present when any socialist organization gains power
What happens first, the creation of a business or the appearance of a union representing that business's employees?
The creation of a business is capitalism -- virtue -- in action; and the appearance of a union is socialism -- evil -- in action.
Once a union is empowered, the continuance of that business becomes an ever shifting compromise/accomodation scenario leading toward pure socialism -- it is a one-way road to hell with corruption of corporate management being part of the process.
"Compromise and accomodation are both forms of moral dishonesty." -- Source unknown
In your view all was virtue in the economic realm prior to 1935, when unions were legalized? There were no corporate criminals and we lived in the best of all possible worlds?
And you might be interested in reading a related post here.
If you believe workers should have rights, that they're more than slaves, then unions follow...because collective bargaining is the only way for workers to secure those rights.
Unions, in turn, bring other problems - as we all know - because union members, like everyone else, try to get as much as they can, often without regard to the consequences.
With or without unions, corporations, or any other modern social structures, people are people, subject to all the failings listed in the Bible and even earlier moral tracts. Trying to blame these failings on unions is silly.
Returning to American Airlines, it's officers chose greed and at least one of them has paid the price.
Your premise ("worker's rights") is false, employment is a two way street where justice means employment is an arms length relationship.
An employer has the responsibility to provide workers with what they are worth, and the workers have the responsibility to look elsewhere if they're not satisfied.
Any deviation from freedom has a name -- pick one from socialism, fascism, communism, or slavery -- they are all variants of socialsim.
Work at an airline, expecting merit raises and benefits without representation? Careerism is being killed by greedy executives with poor business skills. Remember: SWA has TEN unions on the property, ~ along with a better business plan.
The socialist creed of need -- talks of greed.
Ditto your definition of justice. Justice is what a society says it is - not what you say it is. If the market system provides a decent life for a large percentage of those who live under it they'll stay with it. Otherwise they'll toss it - and have no trouble finding "just" reasons for doing so.
Those who have capital have power. They're in a different weight class than those who don't. In most competitions that's recognized. You don't want to, so - presumablyyou'll forbid workers from organizing to increase their weight while allowing employers to do so to make the competition even more uneven.
And how do people get capital? In the ideal market model they do so by possessing talents and doing work that others are willing to pay for. There are certainly plenty of people who fit the model. But there are others - Enron types and perhaps the AA execs - who are little more than criminals. I have yet to see you condemn them or even admit that they're responsible for their actions.
Your ideas don't take sufficient account of inherited differences - of wealth, of ability - and of the implications of technological advance. In any competition there are winners and losers. Shall the losers just lie down in the gutter and starve because no one with money is willing to pay them a living wage? If that doesn't happen in America its not because of laissez-faire economics. It's because of "hated" socialistic modifications to the system which redistribute wealth through taxation and social programs and insist that employers provide workers with certain conditions.
You can make a good argument for saying the process has gone toofar. It's encouraging sloth and discouraging innovation and enterprise. But you'll never convince people that we should return to "good old" laissez-faire and the age of robber barons.
A nice digression...but there's still the issue of the behavior of the AA execs...which was my reason for posting.
The tribal chief/witch doctor combination worked well in enslaving entire tribes, feudal serfs were the "property" of land owning feudal lords, and outright slavery defined the old South in America -- all of which being Biblical acceptable (Exodus 20-10) socialist enslavement situations.
Justice is what a society says it is
Seems to me like justice is a matter of individual ethics that is seldom agreeable to all. Does the collective Third Reich justice system under Hitler qualify as a "justice system" in your mind? Is there such a thing as a collective mind? Can there be such a thing as a "rational ethics"? (Answer to the last one is "yes.")
presumably you'll forbid workrs from organizing
Wrong! You've ignored my original post.
But there are others - Enron types and perhaps the AA execs
I'm not saying corporate execs are clean, I'm saying that the rot inherent in unions ends up corrupting what started out as successful -- probably ethical -- corporations.
Shall the losers just lie down in the gutter and starve because no one with money is willing to pay them a living wage?
I agree with Ronald Reagan in saying that ... "We must care for the truly needy." As for the rest, they bear personal responsibility for themselves.
I'm sorry if it seemed I ignored it. I didn't. I just wasn't sure how to respond. It now seems that we do not disagree as much as I thought and our differences are harder to pinpoint.
As I said in an earlier post, I agree that once they gain power unions do become a problem. They're certainly not exempt from Lord Acton's famous quip. But I see unions as one more group competing for power - not as a source of original evil. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" applies to each group within a society as well as to competing societies.
I'm saying that the rot inherent in unions ends up corrupting what started out as successful -- probably ethical -- corporations
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." I see that as applying to all individuals and groups - corporations as well as unions. The latter, more often than not, starts out ethically with the intent to provide decent conditions to its members. But with power comes nepotism, an expensive life-style, and the joy of lording it over others. Tempting to all human beings. With corporations as soon as power devolves from the founder to others you have the same weaknesses appearing.
Seems to me like justice is a matter of individual ethics that is seldom agreeable to all
Ethics is certainly an individual matter. But justice is a collective concept by definition. It's what the laws, the courts, and the police define it to be by their statements and actions.
I agree with Ronald Reagan in saying that ... "We must care for the truly needy."
It's a question of how society can best handle differences of inherited ability, wealth, social class, and luck. Shall we allow employers to work employees to death in unsafe conditions and only take care of the wretches if they become too sick to work - or shall we forbid unsafe conditions of employment? There are lots of questions like that. I suspect you and I would answer differently to most of them - but maybe not.
...socialist enslavement situations.
Socialist usually means communal ownership of the means of production and production to meet need rather than for profit. I don't think any of that applies to the ancient or medievil world or the old South. If you really believe socialism leads to the enslavement of most citizens then you can say that socialism is a form of slavery. You cannot say the reverse.
Wrong. This has affected millions of non-union employees across the country, and their career decisions. You treat people like crap ~ and yourself CREATE the unions.
Your choice of words ... reveals your values.
Go ahead, strike it shut; create another vacant "victory."
Justice, as a collective concept, found O.J. Simpson not guilty of murder.
From whom do authorities receive their mandate and what is the purpose of law?
American pioneers had to take care of things by themselves until the day came that their community hired a sheriff and picked a judge -- all for the protection of individual rights. My point being that justice is served and deserved at the local, individual level.
Some other word should be used for that described as collective justice; anti-trust is best described as a fascist action, uisng the term action instead of justice because socialist actions should not be dignifed with a mantle of justice.
It's a question of how society can best handle differences of inherited ability, wealth, social class, and luck.
Replace the word "society" with "the gang" and your message becomes clearer. But please ... tell me that you weren't thinking when you wrote that it is possible to handle differences in ability and luck, that you weren't stealing those concepts to justify the redistribution of wealth.
I don't think
You wrote it, so ... think about it.
All your fears about the possible abuse of collective justice are real and reasonable. But they can also be applied to individuals (individual ideas of justice and ethics) with equal validity.
From whom do authorities receive their mandate and what is the purpose of law?
From those who hold the power to give it - for the purpose of maintaining an orderly society which functions according to the vision and wishes of those same people.
That's disturbing and unstable but it's also reality.
In order to create a functioning society, its individual members must give up certain rights. Hopefully, they gain more in return than they lose. Often that's not the case. Far too often.
Replace the word "society" with "the gang" and your message becomes clearer. But please ... tell me that you weren't thinking when you wrote that it is possible to handle differences in ability and luck, that you weren't stealing those concepts to justify the redistribution of wealth.
I was thinking. I am thinking.
I'll replace society with gang if I don't like what my society is making me do, the opportunities it provides, the life I lead. Obviously, one's opinion depends upon one's success, one's position in society.
You seem to think that one should be allowed to amass whatever power and wealth one can in a market system...but at the same time you recognize that collective bargaining is often legitimate. A contradiction.
The trick is to allow individuals as much freedom as possible while at the same time maintaining some minimum standards of decent living for most. For me, that's a pragmatic endeavor. There are no good ideological guides.
Your take on most everything is tainted with false or misleading pragmatic/socialistic cliches that sound good.
One excellent guide is Common Sense, an ideological guide I'd associate with freedom, individual rights, and capitalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.