unionisation discussions...
So, I was just reading the Ryanair strike thread and it seems to me that there's an awful lot of talk about BALPA being the panacea and a lot of counter talk of BALPA being impotent to do anything about it.
One of the key 'for BALPA' points on the Ryanair thread was the distinction that BALPA (or indeed any other union - IALPA, REPA etc) isn't an autonomous organisation that fights the good fight as they see it needs to be fought, but more an organisation to support the needs of the pilots in the organisation under question (in this case, Ryanair).
One of the key "against BALPA" points is that there isn't visibility on their successes/campaigns and so on. I would personally suggest that trumpeting your victories and showing how useful the union can be makes it a considerably easier sell.
However, there seems to be - through a large number of threads, a kind of "bullying" of people to join the organisation. A lot of "if you don't join [even though you don't understand what benefit you get] you have no say". It strikes me - admittedly from a deeply uninformed position - of the 70s car industries, albeit without the strikes!
So, rather than getting lost in the mire of a thread ostensibly about something else, I thought it might be nice to have a thread dedicated to why pilots of any airline should - or should not - be a member of a union.
From my perspective, I can see the point that BALPA does what's it's members want it to do within the respective organisations, but surely there are common goals that need fighting for? I'm only recently qualified and not flying professionally yet - but I see no pressure from BALPA to cap the costs of training (as they spiral upwards towards £100k for the basic CPL/ME/IR), I see no pressure to raise entry requirements (even to just 5 * GCSE A-C), I see no pressure to prevent line training, or even SSTR.
Surely a lot of the ills that affect all pilots from those with the freshest of blue books to the most ancient of green books can be addressed by BALPA pressuring the CAA for the good of the industry - for example [and purely as a discussion point] how about regs that you can only undertake a TR for commercial purposes if you have a job offer on that type ('ending' speculative TR courses). How about regs stating that "only employees of the company, paid a commensurate wage can operate commercial flights.....line training can be offered, but must at all times be accompanied by two training captains"....which would make it virtually commercially unviable to sell line training hours. Can these things not be lobbied for on behalf of the industry as a whole by the body that's supposed to represent the industry?
Sure - airline specifics rely on the employees to air their gripes and what they want changed, but surely there are wider implications on the industry that HAVE to be fought for by a common body across ALL in the industry - otherwise we become a group of employees that work as individuals, across many different companies.....division and conquering becomes incredibly easy then....
Surely some visible fighting of the common ills would help to get people signing up....
discuss...[waiting to get crucified....]