More striking

[BlancoNino]

CHICAGO ? Mechanics at bankrupt Northwest Airlines rejected a settlement proposal that would have ended a strike that began in August, the workers' union said Friday.

The Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association reported on its Web site http://www.amfa33.org that 56.59 percent of its voting members rejected the deal that would have granted them 26 weeks of unemployment benefits, four weeks of layoff pay, and payment of accrued vacation time.

The No. 4 U.S. carrier, which filed for bankruptcy in September, has continued flying since the strike began by using replacement labor. The striking workers walked off the job in August after failing to reach a labor contract with Northwest.

AMFA said this month that the settlement proposal was the "worst contract in the history of airline labor."

"Our striking members refused to bow down to Northwest's arrogant, self-enriching management and will continue the strike against this renegade, union-busting airline," said AMFA National Director O.V. Delle-Femine in a statement Friday.

AMFA represents about 4,400 mechanics and related employees at Northwest, but only 2,223 voted, the union said. Workers have been picketing at airports used by Northwest, although some have gotten new jobs or crossed the picket line.

With these strikes and then ones in London can we really say that unions are great for the country?

 

[conjur]

Let's make unions illegal and we'll all rely upon the warmth and compassion of corporate execs.


:roll:

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: conjur
Let's make unions illegal and we'll all rely upon the warmth and compassion of corporate execs.


:roll:

You can make that argument. But can we also rely on the warmth and compassion of Union officials?

 

[conjur]

Unions are still a necessary evil, if you'd prefer that terminology.


Just look at how WalMart treats its employees. A union wouldn't put up with that crap. But, what's WalMart do when a union is about to form? They close the store down.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: conjur
Unions are still a necessary evil, if you'd prefer that terminology.


Just look at how WalMart treats its employees. A union wouldn't put up with that crap. But, what's WalMart do when a union is about to form? They close the store down.

But a lot of what WalMart has done is downright illegal and shouldn't even need a union to recognize that. Harassing employees, not giving legally entitled breaks, etc.

 

[conjur]

And look how long it took the issue of no breaks to be settled. Plenty other issues left unsettled.

 

[BlancoNino]

How long does it take for Union issues to be settled? What about when Unions strike for more than the employees are worth and it hurts the company? Alcoa here almost shut down, the UAW are getting paid ridiculous amounts and are bankrupting Ford and GM.

Look I highly agree with workers rights and more power to enforce the laws and rights that workers have, but just read the article above. That company is facing a much bigger problem than some employees not getting a lunch break.

 

[zendari]

That's what unions do; drive up the price of wages beyond their market value. The airlines are taking huge hits but unions keep asking for more and more.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: zendari
That's what unions do; drive up the price of wages beyond their market value. The airlines are taking huge hits but unions keep asking for more and more.

Can you blame Walmart for taking every measure possible to prevent unions from forming?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: zendari
That's what unions do; drive up the price of wages beyond their market value. The airlines are taking huge hits but unions keep asking for more and more.

Can you blame Walmart for taking every measure possible to prevent unions from forming?

Absolutely not; with the given history of unions almost every company should be doing so in the interest of maximizing profits.

 

[BlancoNino]

Absolutely not; with the given history of unions almost every company should be doing so in the interest of maximizing profits.

Ooo profits...that's a dirty word. :roll:

But lets make sure that everyone understands that Unions and workers' legal rights are two separate issues and that neither I nor zendari agree with breaking those rights (at least I assume he doesn't).

 

[db]

"With these strikes and then ones in London can we really say that unions are great for the country?"
What is your point? Obviously you are against unions. In the case of AMFA, their leader (OV Del Femine) totally blew it.
What does that prove about unions? Nothing. A leader blew it.
Supply and demand. If you think one side is saintly and the other is the devil, you are extremely naive.

 

[db]

We now have a perfect storm for companies to totally screw employees: politically, economically, and an oversupply of workers. It's only just the beginning for reductions of retirements, health care benefits, wages, work rules, etc. Companies are not taking what they need--they are taking everything the can get. Money is their god and capitalism is our unofficial state religion.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Absolutely not; with the given history of unions almost every company should be doing so in the interest of maximizing profits.

Ooo profits...that's a dirty word. :roll:

But lets make sure that everyone understands that Unions and workers' legal rights are two separate issues and that neither I nor zendari agree with breaking those rights (at least I assume he doesn't).

It seems you do not - I have never seen any evidence that Zendari believes that workers even have rights.

Unions dragged corporations kicking and screaming out of industrial-revolution slave-holding. Some industries now have problems with particularly militant unions, and in some cases the simple possiblity of a union forming has been enough to ensure good working conditions (e.g. Japanese car companies with factories in North America).

There's actually no difference between unions holding corporations hostage, and the price charged by monopolist companies like cable-providers (i.e. in areas without real competition). Both are inefficient, but neither will actually bankrupt a company or a person; they simply usurp benefits that in a free market would accrue to the other party (profits for a corporation, consumer surplus above the competitive cost of consumption, for customers of monopolies).

 

[conjur]

If Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum are what our high schools are producing now, I weep for the future of America.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
Let's make unions illegal and we'll all rely upon the warmth and compassion of corporate execs.


:roll:

Well you might have a point if the 4000 striking workers had not been replaced by about 1000 new workers. It seems this union had managed to really pad the number of people it took to get the job done.

 

[MicroChrome]

Originally posted by: zendari
That's what unions do; drive up the price of wages beyond their market value. The airlines are taking huge hits but unions keep asking for more and more.

Damn, dunno what type of job you have...

But with skyrocking health care.... I wish I had a union at my side fighting for health befits and pension plans.

You need a really good plan or you will never be able to afford to go to the doctor. I almost think it's not even worth it to hold down a job anymore.

EDIT: Back to work slaves....

 

[Thump553]

I don't blame the union members for rejecting that deal-it stinks to high heaven. They would get the 26 weeks of unemployment comp under current law anyway. They are entitled to their accrued time under the current contract as well-the only question being how the company will treat that claim (which has a high priority under bankruptcy law) in their proposed reorganization plan. So it seems the only thing the company is offering is four weeks severance-no matter how long you've been there.

This offer is nothing more to a little sop to people the company is going to lay off anyway. They have no incentive to accept this offer unless the additional four weeks pay is a huge deal to them.

If the company truly wants to recover, and have a cooperative and enthusiastic workforce, then perhaps they should offer more than a slap in the face. That's merely good business practice, regardless of whether or not the workers are organized. It's pretty easy for me to see why these workers are organized with that sort of BS offer being made.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: db
We now have a perfect storm for companies to totally screw employees: politically, economically, and an oversupply of workers. It's only just the beginning for reductions of retirements, health care benefits, wages, work rules, etc. Companies are not taking what they need--they are taking everything the can get. Money is their god and capitalism is our unofficial state religion.

You fail to address why employees should be paid more than they are worth.

 

[BlancoNino]

But with skyrocking health care.... I wish I had a union at my side fighting for health befits and pension plans.

You need a really good plan or you will never be able to afford to go to the doctor. I almost think it's not even worth it to hold down a job anymore.

Employee demand for health benefits drives up the cost of care resulting in an endless cycle.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

But with skyrocking health care.... I wish I had a union at my side fighting for health befits and pension plans.

You need a really good plan or you will never be able to afford to go to the doctor. I almost think it's not even worth it to hold down a job anymore.

Employee demand for health benefits drives up the cost of care resulting in an endless cycle.

Once again, nationalized health insurance FTW. Spread the costs across the economy instead of screwwing responsible employers while giving the deadbeats a free ride.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Blanco Nino-

"Employee demand for health benefits drives up the cost of care resulting in an endless cycle. "

Much the same could be said for executive salaries, too...

There is a point of saturation with healthcare, though, and apparently none wrt executive compensation...

The sad truth is that other companies show profits and grow with union labor. If NW and United can't, that's because of the ineptitude of their leadership rather than the labor force... and the willingness of that leadership to inflict their failures on the workers.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sentient machines will end the need for human labor of any kind at all. Management will be out of a job, replaced by cheeper, vastly superior executive capacity.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
There's actually no difference between unions holding corporations hostage, and the price charged by monopolist companies like cable-providers (i.e. in areas without real competition). Both are inefficient, but neither will actually bankrupt a company or a person; they simply usurp benefits that in a free market would accrue to the other party (profits for a corporation, consumer surplus above the competitive cost of consumption, for customers of monopolies).

1 is regulated. 1 is not. That's all the difference in the world.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
There's actually no difference between unions holding corporations hostage, and the price charged by monopolist companies like cable-providers (i.e. in areas without real competition). Both are inefficient, but neither will actually bankrupt a company or a person; they simply usurp benefits that in a free market would accrue to the other party (profits for a corporation, consumer surplus above the competitive cost of consumption, for customers of monopolies).

1 is regulated. 1 is not. That's all the difference in the world.

Cable companies were deregulated years ago. Price has been going through the roof since then.