Originally Posted by ElPerro
Your union argues and through the threat of industrial action gains a 5% higher wage rate than would otherwise have been the case. This causes the airline to hire less workers in that field (if any good costs more then the amount sold is less than would otherwise be the case). As a result there are workers who would otherwise have been employed by the airline.
Over-simplistic, misleading, and illogical in itself (which you accuse others of being), like several of your arguments. Your comments are too long for me to dissect them all here, but I'll start with that little bit.
Firstly I note you prefaced it with "let me explain what unions do" - a clear attempt to authoritatively generalise the argument which doesn't seem justified. Not all unions threaten industrial action in all negotiations. In fact compared to the sheer number of negotiations, industrial action or the threat thereof is
relatively uncommon these days.
Secondly you assert both a result and causation which are not necessarily related. A company paying 5% more than what they wanted to may or may not hire more or less staff. Who is to say what the company's financial position is? What the company
wants to pay staff, and what it can
afford to pay staff are two totally different things, and are highly subjective. Do you seriously believe a company goes to an EBA negotiation offering its very last penny to its workers?
"If any good costs more then the amount sold is less....". No, that's not necessarily true. It depends on the
demand for that good. You're making unjustified assumptions that a union
always reaches a point where it asks so much in salary that the company simply must employ less workers than it needs.
No EBA's aren't about give and take. They are about take.
Absolute piffle. EBAs result in demands and concessions from both sides. If Qantas conceded to pay me, as a pilot, $1 million a year that'd be great. If I conceded to work for 95 cents an hour, they would think it was great. The probability is that neither of those outcomes would be healthy for either of us for various reasons, but somewhere in the middle there is a point where both of us will be content, despite our desires. Even individuals who are on private contracts do this sort of negotiation. EBAs are where a representative body does it on an individual's behalf. Of course, if the company preferred, it can have 2,500 pilots book appointments for individual contract discussions a few weeks before its next expiry date.
Hey, unions are not all angels and they're not always sensible. No-one denies that. However you simply can't make sweeping anti-union generalisations (though I know you want to) and expect to be taken seriously. They are littered throughout several of your posts.