Originally Posted by me
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.
Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
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.
Point One: Unions don't need to issue a notice to management for the "threat" of industrial action. It's an implied relationship. It's no authoritive generalisation of union's that is not made by union's themselves.
Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
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.
Totally wrong. The relationship may not be a -5% relationship, but it's a negative relationship. But I'll humour you, how exactly do you think companies decide on the number of staff they should employ? You argue it is not a relationship between the return on assets that an employee will return, instead you argue it is some kind or relationship between demand for transport by the pubic regardless of cost. A company will ALWAYS calculate how much hiring another employee will earn them vs other alternatives.
Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
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?
That is exactly the point. To use an example, the company wishes to pay the staff the minimum that the correctly qualified ex-RAAF pilot will work for. The price the company is willing to pay is the minimum is has to in order to secure the correctly qualified person. That is countered by the rate that an ex-RAAF pilot will work for - for that company based on his circumstances. That is the market rate. When your union forces the price (wage) above that, it reduces the number of people the company is willing to employ. It's an economic fact and has been for hundreds of years.
Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
"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 - it is an ABSOLUTE FACT.
The higher the price, the lower the demand. It is an undeniable fact.
I'm astounded you actually believe what you wrote. The demand of a good is inversely proportional to it's price. You've totally ignored the supply side of the equation. You seem to be under the incorrect belief that price vs demand is the only influencing factor, and that it's not a relevant factor at that! Amazing. You seem to be attempting to point towards the price elasticity of demand which is the factor that determines the slope of the demand line (how sensitive demand actually is to price), whilst you seem to indicate that it's horizontal or negative. The fact remains, a given amount of supply and a union = a higher price given a fixed demand level (that does not mean a constant demand, it means a fixed relationship between price and demand). A union pushing the price above the market rate (supply vs demand) results in a lower level of employment than would otherwise be the case. Whilst I understand you many not understand or agree, people who do say this have won Nobel Prizes in Economics.
Originally Posted by me
No EBA's aren't about give and take. They are about take.
Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
.... 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.
QANTAS seeks to pay you the minimum it has to. That is correct, and based on the number of qualified people available. You obviously assume there is an overqualified number of people earning your wage as a first officer otherwise you'd have no problem - if QF was having an issue finding people with your qualifications they would increase the wage.
Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
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.
Exactly. So why is it that many highly paid professions don't have to use unions. According to your logic, companies will pay the minimum wage - why do accountants and software developers get paid well without a union? Your logic is that they'd not earn a good wage without the union. That's not the case though is it. Why do we pilots need a union? Why don't accountants? So if the company wanted they should be able to make an individual agreement with an individual pilot right? Explain that one please.
Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
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.
Excellent, so if the company wishes it should be able to do this, why do you argue against this? It's their should be their choice! Since you believe numbers are an impediment to doing this there is no need for a union or federal legislation to prevent it. You are alluding that the cost prevents it. You are arguing that it's cheaper for a company to negotiate with a union - then you should also advocate no requirement for Industrial relations legislation compelling the company to do this. If unions are responsible for good wages then how are (let's pick one) accountants earning good wages. I'll tell you why. Supply vs Demand.
Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
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.
My posts are based on logic and not "sweeping" statements to prove a point. I'm yet to be convinced of a positive effect resulting from unionism. Unless you are a selfish individual. If you are selfish - join a union - that's what they are for. I chuckle every time a unionist says "capitalism" or "the free market" is at the expense of people.
I'll say it again -
Unions cause higher unemployment and cost those at the bottom of society.
and:
Dutch Roll:
You're previous posts show that you are an ex-RAAF C130 Captain. You exercised your freedom of choice when you joined QF. I support you in that choice. You signed up to QF employment T&C's and a given wage. You had your pilot training totally paid for. The fact that you now use a union to attempt to further your individual financial situation at the expense of others and yet still claim you would be hard done by without a union I personally find staggering. Don't you?