FDXLAG

More statistical hog wash. My point was the right to work states are growing the non rtw states are shrinking. In general the rtw states have lower unemployment the non rtw states. You will have to show me the governemnt aide stat make sure it doesnt include military spending because the rtw states have a much higher military presence then the non rtw states.

Pragmatic1

The Tax Foundation - Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures by State


I'm not sure why the existence of military installations makes the stats " hog wash." The military is funded by the same general tax fund as other government programs. Surely, you wouldn't suggest that the existence of military installations isn't a benefit to the local economies within the states they reside. They have a tremendous impact thus the reason state reps fight tooth and nail to keep bases open with their districts. Bottom line, federal tax dollars flow from higher income states to lower income states. This redistribution of wealth is fact, not hog wash and there's plenty data to support it. Some are quick to point out that wealthy Americans pay the larger amount of taxes than the poor. The same is true with respect to states and the right to work states are among the poorest. Facts matter.

Pragmatic1

You are correct that there is migration to rtw states and the unemployment rates are lower in these states. However, both are these things can partly be contributed to the fact that have a disproportionate number of military facilities as you eluded. Additionally, they provide a very good business environment largely because of the cheaper cost of labor. When you reduce wages companies are able to maintain a larger work force. 4A2B is a prime example of this fact. Many companies move factories to China and other countries for the same reason. These practices drive down wages which is very good for business but not very good for labor. I just happen to be on the labor side of this trend so in my opinion, it's not necessarily a good thing. Right to work only accelerates the "race to the bottom" for wages which is very evident in our profession. Even if we agree to the current TA our highest paid crew members will still make $30 an hour less than what the top industry salary was in 2000.... and that's with a union. There are thousands of guys out their willing to do our job for a fraction of the pay. The only thing standing between them and us is our ability to collective bargain

Pragmatic1

When you talk about the highest paid people in the country not belonging to a union, I assume you are not counting professional athletes, screen actors, television personalities, talk show and radio host (including Beck, Hannity. Limbaugh and O'reilly) or any of the top 5% income types you work with everyday.

olly

I have a pilot centric view on union & labor management and the fact is, Unions were put there for the simple purpose of creating a countervailing force to the massive Fiefdoms of Corporate America. It is a no holds barred battle and the Corporations, more often than labor, are the ones that go outside the boundary of the law as well as outspending unions 10:1 in political action/lobbying.

The era’s of Roosevelt & Truman did the most politically & legislatively to foster an environment that balanced the power of labor & management (union's days of balance of power). The resultant years (post WWII) the middle class grew significantly, and were some of the most prosperous years for the middle class.

Following the railroads' tin-plate millionaires, where railroad executives created holding companies, and looted them, Dem’s sponsored legislation to outlaw holding companies in the 1930’s. From 1938 until 1978, there were political and other procedures in place to limit airline corporate abuse, and many ALPA favorable rules & regs were created & enacted. (airline centric view here) Republican efforts in the 80’s to de-regulate them (airlines & holding companies) , enabled the fiascos of Lorenzo, Ichan etc.

The only thing that ever allowed the airline employees a fair shake was the political balance of power. It is no accident that most of the really bad things that have happened under the Republican's watch. Even with a Republican Congress, when Clinton was President, nothing really bad happened to the airlines. NWA was released & struck. The really bad stuff happened on the watch of both Bushes (Frontier, EAL, Pan Am) and with Andy Card at the helm at the White House (Bush II) and in DOT (Bush I). Bush II publically proclaimed “there will be no airline strikes on my watch”, at a presentation in Chicago in 2001/2002. Subsequently, when all the majors but AA went into BK, terminating pensions wholesale, the managements had no incentive to bargain in good faith, as they knew that the only pilot labor leverage was gone. I personally sat thru UAL BK hearings on R days in ORD in 2003, and witnessed Judge Wedoff, Republican appointee; grant ual heinous and incredibly unfair terms in restructuring labor issues, as well as many other corporate favorable decisions. The union was powerless under the political situation, and was forced into pay and working conditions of the early 1990's.

Lead BK attorney, Jamie Spaygreen, admitted in a public documentary (years after the fact) the intent to terminate pensions, was solidified by that political atmosphere. Andy Card told (during Bush II) told Andy Reid CEO of DAL, to just go into BK & terminate your pension plans- as a means of restructuring.

Dems (Miller-Rangel) produced legislation HR 2830, to provide relief for workers (at teh bequest of active unions) , but was blocked by R’s in a procedural process. Congressman Boehner (2005) shepparded the bill thru rewrite- removing language that would demonstrably help the worker, and eventually the bill passed without helping the worker-but unburdening the corporations.

A great book is "Plain Speakin" by Merle Miller. It is not particularly well written, but it is an oral biography of Harry Truman in Harry's own words. Truman’s statements in the venacular about transportation issues and Senate investigations is probably one of the most educational portions that every pilot should read. A number of speeches that Truman made in 1938 regarding the airlines and you can see all of history was repeated without the political support that was in place in the 1930's. If you go to the June 1938 Congressional Record and look up in the index the Truman references, you would not believe the similarities in the periods.

You might also want to read "Modern Corporations and Private Property", by Berle and Means, 1932 it explains how hired management and their incestual Board treat the employees and shareholders like dirt and get away with it while enriching themselves.

Efforts to neuter labor, directly lead to public & private policy that will maximize corporate profits, & cement political power to their side in order to perpetuate favorable policy. In a utopian world, a strong company would reward the owners of capital & labor in a harmonious enduring business. Of course we live in reality, where capital is king, and organized labor- gets in the way.

Which goes back to the precept that- , Unions were put there for the simple purpose of creating a countervailing force to the massive Fiefdoms of Corporate America.

Flaps50

Nice job! Olly.

jungle

You said a lot, but you still have not explained the brutal decline of unions over the last sixty years. This has happened despite any political alignment of those unions.

The promise is never delivered, but some of us see a positive when Goldman-Sachs props up our potential savior.

That has not proven to be the case over and over again.

The laws of demand and supply never yield to rhetoric.

The tale you have told is completely one-sided and perpetuates the myth that political alignment has helped us, the facts are that it has not.
Perpetuating the myth has done us far more harm than good, the truth is that neither party has been your friend.

They all talk a great game though.

olly

The decline of unions over the last 60 years is a function of many factors, the Taft- Hartley Act (written by Rs), globalization, migrating jobs, declining industries where unions were big (textiles, steel) moving from manufacturing to services, increasing number of right to work states, offshoring, deregulation and union-busting tactics.

I believe you need to study some history if you want the facts.

I'm not your history professor, but even a shallow google search will document the politics, legislation, and studies that show all the above true.

Not sure what you mean by "the promise"- if you're refering to a notion that a monolithic support for one party will bring nirvana, and change the balance of power to unions, we know that will never happen.

However it is well documented which party supports corporations over labor. It also is not monolithic, but easily categorized by the majority of legislation, or lack of enforcement.

The "tale" I have told is true. You can trace who crafted what legislation- sometimes they even use their names- such as the Taft Hartley act- google it read it, and note what it did and who wrote it. After a while you may even notice a trend....

As far as the "myth" of political alignment-helping or hindering our industry- there is a plethora of "facts" that show that for the, most part, one party helps, and for the most part, the other hinders.

Here are three Facts- that show alignment that were pro pilot during that era, take the 1948 Presidental election year and these issues. President Truman's Daughter's fiance was killed in a DC-6. He then created a Presidental Commission to study crewing which led to the Second Officer on all aircraft weighing more than 70,000 lbs.

Truman created another Presidental Commission that year to study the National Airlines strike and the the commission heavily favored labor with all of the striking pilots put back to work in seniority order. G. T. Baker told the President to go jump in the lake because he thought Dewey would win. After the election, Truman started the de-certification process for National Airline. Suddenly, Baker said Uncle. All the strikers went back to work immediately and Baker never had a strike again with scabs.

Then there was the TWA strike in 1948 where with another Presidental Commission on pay for added productivity (Gross Weight), again Truman loaded the Commission and we got Gross Weight pay in addition to speed pay.

I would like to hear your facts that "it does not". Can you list three facts of federal policy or legislation enacted by the R's that have directly and unequivocally affected us in the positive?

I guess it may be one sided in that fact that I actually watched Bush II state that "there will NO strikes on my watch". Perhaps it was one sided that I sat in the Chicago courtroom and watched the decimation of my livlelihood.

Perhaps you are unaware of who appoints members to the NMB.

There is no "promise" to be delivered, or saviour, only the solcitation for "influence" to enact or enforce policy that effects us in the positive. I do agree it is not monolithic, but in general- there has been very clear lines- the "facts" are there you just need to do some honest research.

FDXLAG

So why did steel, auto, textile, etc big union jobs move elsewhere is the question historians should be asking. I mean Norma Rae was only 30 years ago, what happened to the mill and do you think she is trying to organize her fellow greeters at Walmart?

jungle

The facts clearly do not support your argument. It is sad that you want to pretend they do.

I give you some credit for recognizing that fact.

No matter how much you talk, you can't hide the facts of our position.

If private sector unions had shown any growth at all in the last sixty years, I would be forced to agree with you. But they have not, under any political alignment and you cannot admit the fact.

Why try to hide the facts?

Please just put up a chart of private sector union growth over the last sixty years, this should not be much of a challenge to someone with your sense of history.


Please just show us the facts sir.
We are waiting.