Seriph: that report was informative, and Peepsmover echoed my basic impressions.
I certainly agree that unions must try to limit militancy and must comprehend their present economic climate and company financial/political situations (Who is on your Board of Directors? Does another very abrasive 'tail wag their dog'?) when they first consider any drastic actions. How about the fact that, for example, American Airlines is based in a very anti-labor state? We can't overload the golden goose so much that it drowns in red ink, and the situation at each airline is different. But even though we are not 'white-collar' employees by some definitions, the pilot profession has very little similarity to driving a truck, repairing electrical cables, building a car or ship.
Over here in the US, the steel companies were supposedly up against imported steel which could be 'dumped' at a loss, sort of like Airbus producing civilian airframes with govt subsidies (versus Boeing's civilian sector, since the early 60's or so, receiving no government money) and its alleged strategy to gain market share in some places. Industries in Britain are quite different than those here, and it is hard to imagine that mgmt-union relations are also not different, not to mention the tax laws, socialized medicine and other factors in many countries, along with different cultural attitudes about work and leisure. How much of one's pension comes from the govt? Canadians' retirements are supposedly very different than in the US.
Heck, until the early 90's, US airline pensions could be partly stolen by the "corporate cannibals" maybe evaporate completely after secured creditors etc got the first huge bites from airline assets, until laws were tightened against this predatory behavior. The US has no 'unemployment insurance' that I'm aware of, as some European countries have, i.e. 'Arbeitslosigkeit Versicherung' in West Germany years ago.
Do most of these differences not exist anymore?
Last edited by Ignition Override; 26th Jun 2002 at 05:28.