Racing to the bottom.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The truth about unions.
knew passed a frod wouldn't answer my Question,
I tried to avoid the economics lesson. Here it is in laymans terms (taking it to extremes for illustration)
If a flight crew cost $1 an hour, how many routes would be profitable. The demand for pilots at that rate would me immense.
If a flight crew cost $500,000 an hour, how many routes would be possible. Not many, because pilots don't produce $500,000 in income per hour.
Here's the economics (in short) (trying to keep it simple)
Inclusive or Industrial Unionism
Inclusive or industrial unions try to unionize every worker in a certain union so they have the power to impose a higher wage than the employer would otherwise pay. Note that employers will hire fewer workers than they would if the workers were free to accept a lower wage
Your truck driving example highlights exactly what I'm saying. You are getting the employees that you pay for. Eventually if the industry continually lowers wages, the pool of skilled aircrew will decline. Once they can't get the numbers required the pay and conditions will pick back up. Once it's attained equilibrium. Forcing QANTAS or any other company to accept higher wages reduces the number of people they will hire.
HIALS:
If we embrace the modern 'market economy' (p.s. which is demand side driven)
the number of jobs demanded in an industry is a response to consumer demand.
the CAI and other employer organisations reduce the number of jobs in an industry".
In fact, neither is true. They both have their rightful place in the modern labour market. It is a process of negotiation and compromise
Neither are reflected in your ignorant and biased views
only have an incy-bitcy, tincy-wincy bit of knowledge
Last edited by Pass-A-Frozo; 5th Mar 2005 at 01:07.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pass a Frozo
There is theory and there is the real commercial world.
Unfortunately, your industry experience is rather limited to say the least isn't it. Considering you have had your Degree and every single hour of your flying training funded by the Taxpayers, it is rather naive and narrow minded to say if you don't like it just leave. If you ever do decide to leave the RAAF and continue to enjoy a flying career with an airline, you may one day need the assistance to your welfare a "Union" can offer you. Assistance with your medical, loss of licence insurance, scheduling problems, leave issues or indeed loss of licence on medical grounds ( from eating too many frozo's say!).
When you have worked in the Commercial world you may be better placed to comment with some credibility.
There is theory and there is the real commercial world.
Unfortunately, your industry experience is rather limited to say the least isn't it. Considering you have had your Degree and every single hour of your flying training funded by the Taxpayers, it is rather naive and narrow minded to say if you don't like it just leave. If you ever do decide to leave the RAAF and continue to enjoy a flying career with an airline, you may one day need the assistance to your welfare a "Union" can offer you. Assistance with your medical, loss of licence insurance, scheduling problems, leave issues or indeed loss of licence on medical grounds ( from eating too many frozo's say!).
When you have worked in the Commercial world you may be better placed to comment with some credibility.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that we have discovered NEXT GENERATION's new nickname - PASS-A-FROZO.
Guys, you will never get PAF to change his mind, you will just inspire him to new levels of BS.
My profile of him is:
Must be very young - probably just out of university with a management degree (or similar) and absolutely convinced of his own infallibility in every regard.
Must be single - therefore enough time on his hands to keep the management degree BS fresh in his mind, and can afford to live (maybe just barely) on whatever pittance his employer deigns to gives him.
Must not work for an airline as a pilot - or he would not be arguing the abolition of unions since he would have already been exposed to enough corporate greed to make him renounce his management degree BS forever.
OTOH, if my profile is wrong and he is content to be paid whatever his employer deems appropriate, is prepared to negotiate his own payrises with Uncle Wayne (or similar) and is happy to represent himself at any hearing arising out of a flying incident/accident then he deserves our pity, not our animosity. His employers will salute his ideals and smile benevolently upon him as they slowly destroy his and his family's livelihood.
PAF, you said that there are plenty of starry-eyed flying graduates happy to take our jobs. That may well be true at the moment, but if all of us were like you, that would soon stop, becuase nobody would seriously consider flying as a career - they would all be managers and fly for fun on the weekend.
Guys, you will never get PAF to change his mind, you will just inspire him to new levels of BS.
My profile of him is:
Must be very young - probably just out of university with a management degree (or similar) and absolutely convinced of his own infallibility in every regard.
Must be single - therefore enough time on his hands to keep the management degree BS fresh in his mind, and can afford to live (maybe just barely) on whatever pittance his employer deigns to gives him.
Must not work for an airline as a pilot - or he would not be arguing the abolition of unions since he would have already been exposed to enough corporate greed to make him renounce his management degree BS forever.
OTOH, if my profile is wrong and he is content to be paid whatever his employer deems appropriate, is prepared to negotiate his own payrises with Uncle Wayne (or similar) and is happy to represent himself at any hearing arising out of a flying incident/accident then he deserves our pity, not our animosity. His employers will salute his ideals and smile benevolently upon him as they slowly destroy his and his family's livelihood.
PAF, you said that there are plenty of starry-eyed flying graduates happy to take our jobs. That may well be true at the moment, but if all of us were like you, that would soon stop, becuase nobody would seriously consider flying as a career - they would all be managers and fly for fun on the weekend.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:In fact, neither is true. They both have their rightful place in the modern labour market. It is a process of negotiation and compromise
mr PAF.
No.. they are only required because of militant unionism.
mr passed a frodo, Please explain your theories behind this statement, im quite interested to hear how you came to this conclusion.....................
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ex Hong Kong
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pass-A-Frodo, I have to take my hat off to you. While I think it's creditable that you don't spend Friday night glued to PPRuNe - I'm suspicious of your statement, because of the obvious effort involved in dragging down that text book, finding the supply and demand curve, and somehow importing it into this thread. Well done. But it does smack of too much effort.
Unfortunately, it further supports my contention. You are supply side obsessed. Your chart shows the effect of an isolated increase in wages, acting through constant supply/demand equations. It does not deal with changes in the curves themselves. You are clutching at fancy straws.
I have long held the view that unions exist because they need to. Or, in other words, Companies that deserve unions get them.
Unfortunately, it further supports my contention. You are supply side obsessed. Your chart shows the effect of an isolated increase in wages, acting through constant supply/demand equations. It does not deal with changes in the curves themselves. You are clutching at fancy straws.
I have long held the view that unions exist because they need to. Or, in other words, Companies that deserve unions get them.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well gents, you are free to assume what you will about my current employment situation etc. I'm all for free speech , in case you hadn't noticed.
As for putting to much effort in etc. Trust me it's not hard, it's all over the net, and yes in text books. I'm surprised you don't agree with text books.
The example was a more simplistic ceterus parabus situations, as most things in economics must be to analyse them in isolation. I'll not post chapters on the topic (well, anymore than I already have). The number of employees (yes, assuming a non shifting demand curve) is based on supply / marginal productivity of labour. No company employs more employees if they don't make any more money to do so (assuming they are operating to maximise profits). You are correct in that unions can cause the demand curve to shift... a contraction of demand when people don't consider air transport reliable after strikes. Naturally the final outcome would be based on the price elasticity of demand for air transport.
Well let me explain.. If you knew my circumstances and education I've attained you'd know that I've set myself up so that I'm not limited in career options. If you are so limited you are "stuck" in your present job and you can't "not accept" whatever pay you are offered, why blame others for that lack of forsight? You may well end up putting yourself in the structurally unemployed ranks during tough times.
As for young people not coming through the ranks etc. etc., that will result in a shortage of qualified pilots, which leads to companies having to pay more / improve conditions in an attempt to gain qualified labour.
No, I won't go to a union if I "eat too many frozo's and lose my job", I'll endevour to fix the problem myself. Too many people in society these days expect others to pick up the slack for them
and I'll just add I have worked in the commercial field in several jobs - I think you are making too many assumptions on who I am , or what you know about me.
As for putting to much effort in etc. Trust me it's not hard, it's all over the net, and yes in text books. I'm surprised you don't agree with text books.
The example was a more simplistic ceterus parabus situations, as most things in economics must be to analyse them in isolation. I'll not post chapters on the topic (well, anymore than I already have). The number of employees (yes, assuming a non shifting demand curve) is based on supply / marginal productivity of labour. No company employs more employees if they don't make any more money to do so (assuming they are operating to maximise profits). You are correct in that unions can cause the demand curve to shift... a contraction of demand when people don't consider air transport reliable after strikes. Naturally the final outcome would be based on the price elasticity of demand for air transport.
narrow minded to say if you don't like it just leave. If you ever do decide to leave the RAAF and continue to enjoy a flying career with an airline, you may one day need the assistance to your welfare a "Union" can offer you.
As for young people not coming through the ranks etc. etc., that will result in a shortage of qualified pilots, which leads to companies having to pay more / improve conditions in an attempt to gain qualified labour.
No, I won't go to a union if I "eat too many frozo's and lose my job", I'll endevour to fix the problem myself. Too many people in society these days expect others to pick up the slack for them
and I'll just add I have worked in the commercial field in several jobs - I think you are making too many assumptions on who I am , or what you know about me.
Frozo
Really, why? Do you think that because someone has their thoughts and opinions published in a text book it makes them infallible and their theories somehow become accepted fact? If you really think that then that explains your very theoretical take on industrial dynamics.
There are many accepted economic theories, they cannot all be correct. They are usually theories constructed to answer a specific question or address an observation and most fall apart when put to the complexity of a real world test.
I'm surprised you don't agree with text books.
There are many accepted economic theories, they cannot all be correct. They are usually theories constructed to answer a specific question or address an observation and most fall apart when put to the complexity of a real world test.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
From P-A-F, "Note that employers will hire fewer (unionised) workers than they would if the workers were free to accept a lower wage."
Rubbish! They will hire fewer NON-unionised workers, and schedule them to the point of excessive fatigue, then should any of them step down for SAFETY reasons (fatigued), they will be summarily dismissed for being unable to perform to the level required by the company. THAT is the REAL WORLD!
Your comment wrt the above shows a measure of inexperience in REAL WORLD dealings, P-A-F. Employees' salaries, in general, don't determine the viability (or otherwise) of products - the market price is set by (i) the DEMAND for the product, (ii) the existing (if any) current price, (iii) the available supply, (iv) the ABILITY of the consumer to pay.
As an example, it is possible to purchase a seat between 2 major cities in Oz for as low as (say) $100 on a B737, however, there is also a limited market for VIP's who will charter a B737 for their sole use, hence paying well above the market average.
Your example of a pilot's salary being based on $500,000 per hour is ridiculous to the extreme - however, let's assume that a pilot is paid $500,000 per YEAR
Let's assume that this pilot flies 850 hours per annum (a realistic target) - that works out at $588.24 per hour.
On a 150 seat B737, flying a 1 hour leg (say, BNE-SYD) that works out at a cost of $3.92 per passenger!!
Assuming the F/O is on 70% of the ($500k p.a.) Capt's salary, that adds another $2.75 to the ticket...a total of $6.67 per passenger ticket!!
Rubbish! They will hire fewer NON-unionised workers, and schedule them to the point of excessive fatigue, then should any of them step down for SAFETY reasons (fatigued), they will be summarily dismissed for being unable to perform to the level required by the company. THAT is the REAL WORLD!
If a flight crew cost $500,000 an hour, how many routes would be possible. Not many, because pilots don't produce $500,000 in income per hour.
As an example, it is possible to purchase a seat between 2 major cities in Oz for as low as (say) $100 on a B737, however, there is also a limited market for VIP's who will charter a B737 for their sole use, hence paying well above the market average.
Your example of a pilot's salary being based on $500,000 per hour is ridiculous to the extreme - however, let's assume that a pilot is paid $500,000 per YEAR
Let's assume that this pilot flies 850 hours per annum (a realistic target) - that works out at $588.24 per hour.
On a 150 seat B737, flying a 1 hour leg (say, BNE-SYD) that works out at a cost of $3.92 per passenger!!
Assuming the F/O is on 70% of the ($500k p.a.) Capt's salary, that adds another $2.75 to the ticket...a total of $6.67 per passenger ticket!!
Last edited by Kaptin M; 6th Mar 2005 at 08:38.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I won't go to a union if I "eat too many frozo's and lose my job", I'll endevour to fix the problem myself. Too many people in society these days expect others to pick up the slack for them
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised you don't agree with text books
Frozo, If you're going to pass off others' ideas as your own at least change a couple of words so that a random cut and paste into Google doesn't give away your source on the first page. You are beneath contempt.
http://www.theshortrun.com/classroom...icro/wage.html
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ease up Binos,
It's not really plagiarism!
He did refer to 'textbooks'. That's a citation of sorts.........................not exactly as per Harvard though..................
'and I'll just add I have worked in the commercial field in several jobs'
.......... ahhh, let me think.... 'Would you like fries with that?' (and my congratulations for working part-time to subsidise your degree, more people should do it)
I tend to agree with Three Bars' evaluation.
:-)
It's not really plagiarism!
He did refer to 'textbooks'. That's a citation of sorts.........................not exactly as per Harvard though..................
'and I'll just add I have worked in the commercial field in several jobs'
.......... ahhh, let me think.... 'Would you like fries with that?' (and my congratulations for working part-time to subsidise your degree, more people should do it)
I tend to agree with Three Bars' evaluation.
:-)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry folks I wasn't aware Pprune had the harvard referencing system in use. I never claimed those words to be mine. If I was endevouring to "plage" I would not have included the link to the graphic.
As for the "that's just academics, the real world doesn't work that way". I would disagree. Those theories have been developed over hundreds of years, rather than your 10, 20 or 30 years experience when viewed from the pilots perspective. In fact that is entirely a new topic (Education vs. "school of life")
I stand by my claim that the number of employees a company hires is based on the cost of that employee (using a given demand) and the productivity that employee creates.
Let's turn your arguement around. You truely believe the wage that employer is forced to pay (using a union example) has no outcome on the number of employees??
What's my real problem with unionism ? Well, I think it comes down to ethical decision making. I believe in deontological ethics - where you should base your decisions on what is the right thing to do - not base on the final outcome (utilitarian ethics). I still think it is "greedy" ("for lack of a better term" - Wall Street) to hold a gun to a companies head to force them to pay above market wage. While the old saying "if you want a second opinion ask the same economist" is true. I think you'll find that other than truely leftist economist, they believe in the statement i referenced on unions.
As for the "that's just academics, the real world doesn't work that way". I would disagree. Those theories have been developed over hundreds of years, rather than your 10, 20 or 30 years experience when viewed from the pilots perspective. In fact that is entirely a new topic (Education vs. "school of life")
I stand by my claim that the number of employees a company hires is based on the cost of that employee (using a given demand) and the productivity that employee creates.
Let's turn your arguement around. You truely believe the wage that employer is forced to pay (using a union example) has no outcome on the number of employees??
What's my real problem with unionism ? Well, I think it comes down to ethical decision making. I believe in deontological ethics - where you should base your decisions on what is the right thing to do - not base on the final outcome (utilitarian ethics). I still think it is "greedy" ("for lack of a better term" - Wall Street) to hold a gun to a companies head to force them to pay above market wage. While the old saying "if you want a second opinion ask the same economist" is true. I think you'll find that other than truely leftist economist, they believe in the statement i referenced on unions.
Last edited by Pass-A-Frozo; 6th Mar 2005 at 22:31.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pass A F^*kwit,
I seriously doubt you or your ideas exist in a rational, life experienced adult. Are you Mr Qantas but with a different handle, passing him off by spelling badly?
Here goes;
Why do you think unions came into existence? Is it because 12 and 13 year old boys were forced to work in coal mines 12 to 14 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is it because when they became injured in the mines in the course of their employment they were then useless to the company and discarded without any sort of help with their medical/living expenses etc?
I think you will find that Ultralight's drivers belong to a union for all of the benefits not just a payrise every now and again. Things such as legal assistance should they be involved in an incident. They are smart enough to know that justice is bought when they are up against people who have the views that your identity pass off here (You don't exist, if you did your work mates would have given you a good slapping).
Other things like union shopper - have you seen what prices they can source for you on ANYTHING! (I recommend membership for this alone!)
If you did exist, when you did your university education your lecturers would have advised you on quoting material found on the internet, especially sourced through google (not knocking it, invaluable tool but any crackpot can pass off BS as fact on it).
Why have you spent so much time qualifying for other work in case you decide to walk out on your employer? Not only are you blocking up the education system from someone who may use it, shouldn't you be putting in 12 to 14 hour days, 7 days a week for your all caring employer? Were you a full fee paying student? If you weren't I want the difference refunded to the taxpayers you duped by not using the education that we paid for. Woops! Sounds like you benefitted from a form of collectiveism by having your education subsidised by the many?
If the views passed off by your identity are those of a professional pilot, please let me know your roster. I don't fly often but I don't want to be flown by a selfish, self-centred, egomaniac who can't function as part of a team.
Unions aren't perfect but one day pilots will get their act together and realise the need for a SINGLE body that represents every pilot not the elite few. That has plusses and minuses because it means that turkeys like you wil get the pay and conditions regardless of whether they are members of the union.
In a perfect world unions wouldn't be required, but it's not a perfect world is it. ENRON, HIH, WORLDCOM, ONETEL were any of these destroyed by the worker? When your organisations behave responsibly and treat people morally and ethically then I will forgo my union membership, in the mean time enjoy the fruits of my labour you stooge.
Cheers.
I seriously doubt you or your ideas exist in a rational, life experienced adult. Are you Mr Qantas but with a different handle, passing him off by spelling badly?
Here goes;
Why do you think unions came into existence? Is it because 12 and 13 year old boys were forced to work in coal mines 12 to 14 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is it because when they became injured in the mines in the course of their employment they were then useless to the company and discarded without any sort of help with their medical/living expenses etc?
I think you will find that Ultralight's drivers belong to a union for all of the benefits not just a payrise every now and again. Things such as legal assistance should they be involved in an incident. They are smart enough to know that justice is bought when they are up against people who have the views that your identity pass off here (You don't exist, if you did your work mates would have given you a good slapping).
Other things like union shopper - have you seen what prices they can source for you on ANYTHING! (I recommend membership for this alone!)
If you did exist, when you did your university education your lecturers would have advised you on quoting material found on the internet, especially sourced through google (not knocking it, invaluable tool but any crackpot can pass off BS as fact on it).
Why have you spent so much time qualifying for other work in case you decide to walk out on your employer? Not only are you blocking up the education system from someone who may use it, shouldn't you be putting in 12 to 14 hour days, 7 days a week for your all caring employer? Were you a full fee paying student? If you weren't I want the difference refunded to the taxpayers you duped by not using the education that we paid for. Woops! Sounds like you benefitted from a form of collectiveism by having your education subsidised by the many?
If the views passed off by your identity are those of a professional pilot, please let me know your roster. I don't fly often but I don't want to be flown by a selfish, self-centred, egomaniac who can't function as part of a team.
Unions aren't perfect but one day pilots will get their act together and realise the need for a SINGLE body that represents every pilot not the elite few. That has plusses and minuses because it means that turkeys like you wil get the pay and conditions regardless of whether they are members of the union.
In a perfect world unions wouldn't be required, but it's not a perfect world is it. ENRON, HIH, WORLDCOM, ONETEL were any of these destroyed by the worker? When your organisations behave responsibly and treat people morally and ethically then I will forgo my union membership, in the mean time enjoy the fruits of my labour you stooge.
Cheers.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comrade Matco,
.
Perhaps I should be striving for your level of maturity.
Actually as I've said before, that example can be found in all manners of economic texts.
Well, if you read a previous post you would see my comment that the children are out of the mines and continue to be.
Why "overeducate"? Simply because I don't wish to be in the situation you clearly are. I think your "anger" over the issue illustrates this best. You are in your present position because of decisions you made. The value of peoples "labour" continually changes, it's something you should accept.
Yes you did subsidise the cost of my education, as I subsidise the cost of others right now. That again is another issue totally. However you may wish to consider the social benefits to society of educating people. Yes, even people like me who you clearly despise simply because I disagree with you. User pays!
You may believe in the "workers of the world unite" speech , but I don't. End of story. I believe in a system where you are presented with choices , and you make your own choices.
As for the show me your roster so I don't fly with you:
Good to see you're ready to accept others have different opinions to those of yours.
Enjoy your cheap shopping card, have a cool drink and settle down a little.
"If you're not a communist by age 20, you don't have a heart.
If you're not a capitalist by age 40, you don't have a brain."
Pass A F^*kwit,
I seriously doubt you or your ideas exist in a rational, life experienced adult
I seriously doubt you or your ideas exist in a rational, life experienced adult
Perhaps I should be striving for your level of maturity.
If you did exist, when you did your university education your lecturers would have advised you on quoting material found on the internet
Why do you think unions came into existence?
Why have you spent so much time qualifying for other work in case you decide to walk out on your employer? Not only are you blocking up the education system from someone who may use it
Yes you did subsidise the cost of my education, as I subsidise the cost of others right now. That again is another issue totally. However you may wish to consider the social benefits to society of educating people. Yes, even people like me who you clearly despise simply because I disagree with you. User pays!
You may believe in the "workers of the world unite" speech , but I don't. End of story. I believe in a system where you are presented with choices , and you make your own choices.
As for the show me your roster so I don't fly with you:
Good to see you're ready to accept others have different opinions to those of yours.
Enjoy your cheap shopping card, have a cool drink and settle down a little.
"If you're not a communist by age 20, you don't have a heart.
If you're not a capitalist by age 40, you don't have a brain."
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
P-A-F, with every post, it becomes more evident that you are still very "green" (inexperienced) in matters concerning the workplace,
Statements such as, "you should base your decisions on what is the right thing to do", and, "I still think it is "greedy" ("for lack of a better term" - Wall Street) to hold a gun to a companies head to force them to pay above market wage.", have only further re-inforced this opinion.
Precisely what "guns" are you referring to?
I have had the "experience" of working for a company, without union representation, for the past 6 years, and I can assure you that BECAUSE there is no union to keep these people in check, they do WHATEVER they feel like doing, regardless of what the mutually agreed-upon contract states.
But unions can also be BENEFICIAL for companies, from the point of view of collective bargaining, and representation, as well as being a cohesive for the employees that lets them know they have at least the possibility of maintaining/improving their conditions, thereby creating a more stable workforce.
Of the original 2 dozen pilots who started here where I am now, over 50% have left BECAUSE of the treatment we have been dished out - in spite of our individual objections.
With the prospect of several more leaving, the company is now asking what can be done to to prevent losing any more.
Anyway, as you have a "problem" with unions, it is your prerogative whether or not you decide to join one when you grow up. I, also, was "anti-union" during my formative years - probably mainly because of the bias the media showed - the same media controlled by BIG businesses, and BIG, anti-union businessmen who owned them, in those times the Murdochs and the Packers.
It wasn't until I realised that almost all work conditions are NEGOTIATED and agreed upon by employers, and the employees' representatives - the unions - that I realised that workers have just as much right to expect the NEGOTIATED conditions to be fulfilled, as did the employer!
By the way, I suggest you learn to spell, before you start applying for jobs, otherwise prospective employers might think you're a little unedumacated!!
Statements such as, "you should base your decisions on what is the right thing to do", and, "I still think it is "greedy" ("for lack of a better term" - Wall Street) to hold a gun to a companies head to force them to pay above market wage.", have only further re-inforced this opinion.
Precisely what "guns" are you referring to?
I have had the "experience" of working for a company, without union representation, for the past 6 years, and I can assure you that BECAUSE there is no union to keep these people in check, they do WHATEVER they feel like doing, regardless of what the mutually agreed-upon contract states.
But unions can also be BENEFICIAL for companies, from the point of view of collective bargaining, and representation, as well as being a cohesive for the employees that lets them know they have at least the possibility of maintaining/improving their conditions, thereby creating a more stable workforce.
Of the original 2 dozen pilots who started here where I am now, over 50% have left BECAUSE of the treatment we have been dished out - in spite of our individual objections.
With the prospect of several more leaving, the company is now asking what can be done to to prevent losing any more.
Anyway, as you have a "problem" with unions, it is your prerogative whether or not you decide to join one when you grow up. I, also, was "anti-union" during my formative years - probably mainly because of the bias the media showed - the same media controlled by BIG businesses, and BIG, anti-union businessmen who owned them, in those times the Murdochs and the Packers.
It wasn't until I realised that almost all work conditions are NEGOTIATED and agreed upon by employers, and the employees' representatives - the unions - that I realised that workers have just as much right to expect the NEGOTIATED conditions to be fulfilled, as did the employer!
By the way, I suggest you learn to spell, before you start applying for jobs, otherwise prospective employers might think you're a little unedumacated!!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a place and sometimes a need for unions. I feel that there is one service that unions could provide which would endear them to employees and employers. That is to provide a list of available jobs within their profession.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry couldnt help myself.
how can anyone possibly be Overeducated?????????
hmmm a little contradictory. but hey, i like to know more stuff.! you never stop learning right!
over educated?, or over qualified. the difference between a student and someone with experience in life.
A lesson for all you students out there! the first thing you learn on entering the workforce? is that everything you learnt in school doesnt mean Jack!!!!! sure i have a lovely folder at home full of my academic achievments in school/UNI/Boeing/! not once has it been opened apon graduating! at every interview all those years ago, it sat there, on the desk, totally ignored by my would be employer.
If you ever gain employment in anengineering field, you will also quickly learn, the text books make good paper weights! otherwise there wouldnt be engineers! dont forget your wheetbix before your next lesson PAF!
Why "overeducate"? Simply because I don't wish to be in the situation you clearly are.
you may wish to consider the social benefits to society of educating people.
hmmm a little contradictory. but hey, i like to know more stuff.! you never stop learning right!
over educated?, or over qualified. the difference between a student and someone with experience in life.
A lesson for all you students out there! the first thing you learn on entering the workforce? is that everything you learnt in school doesnt mean Jack!!!!! sure i have a lovely folder at home full of my academic achievments in school/UNI/Boeing/! not once has it been opened apon graduating! at every interview all those years ago, it sat there, on the desk, totally ignored by my would be employer.
If you ever gain employment in anengineering field, you will also quickly learn, the text books make good paper weights! otherwise there wouldnt be engineers! dont forget your wheetbix before your next lesson PAF!
Last edited by Ultralights; 7th Mar 2005 at 09:53.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ex Hong Kong
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to come back to P.A.F.'s leading contention - that unions decrease the number of jobs available. I really will try to be civil, because though I might disagree, I certainly support anothers right to their different opinion.
I hope we can all agree that individuals are seen as choosing between two things which give (pardon economic parlance) utility : leisure and goods.
As goods can only be acquired through work and as, in this regard, time spent not at leisure is spent at work, it is clear that by analysing individuals' choices we will discover how many hours of work they wish to supply. Individuals will supply hours of labour up to the point where their marginal rates of substitution between leisure and goods are equal to their wage rate. The income and substitution effect of a wage-rate change make it impossible, a priori, to say which will be stronger. Therefore, we can say nothing about the effect on hours of work of a change in the wage rate. The Neoclassical Theory
The demand for labour is derived from the value of the goods and services it produces. An employer who is aiming to maximise profits will employ labour as long as the value of the goods produced by additional units of labour is greater than, or at the margin equal to, the cost of labour.
How does the profit maximising firm choose between the various alternative combinations of capital and labour which can produce any given output? It does so on the basis of the relative costs of labour and capital services.
In isolation - the demand for labour decreases as the wage rises and vice versa. However, labour markets do not operate in isolation. To assume that the price of capital services remain constant while wages change is rarely the case.
Conclusion - It can be seen that, on its own terms, marginal productivity theory provides a precise explanation of the demand for labour. It does not, however, purport to explain wages because for that we need to include supply factors as well.
All of this has been partially para-phrased and sometimes directly quoted from The Economics of Australian Labour Markets by Keith Norris
So back to you P.A.F. Do you still insist on your simplistic assertions?
I hope we can all agree that individuals are seen as choosing between two things which give (pardon economic parlance) utility : leisure and goods.
As goods can only be acquired through work and as, in this regard, time spent not at leisure is spent at work, it is clear that by analysing individuals' choices we will discover how many hours of work they wish to supply. Individuals will supply hours of labour up to the point where their marginal rates of substitution between leisure and goods are equal to their wage rate. The income and substitution effect of a wage-rate change make it impossible, a priori, to say which will be stronger. Therefore, we can say nothing about the effect on hours of work of a change in the wage rate. The Neoclassical Theory
The demand for labour is derived from the value of the goods and services it produces. An employer who is aiming to maximise profits will employ labour as long as the value of the goods produced by additional units of labour is greater than, or at the margin equal to, the cost of labour.
How does the profit maximising firm choose between the various alternative combinations of capital and labour which can produce any given output? It does so on the basis of the relative costs of labour and capital services.
In isolation - the demand for labour decreases as the wage rises and vice versa. However, labour markets do not operate in isolation. To assume that the price of capital services remain constant while wages change is rarely the case.
Conclusion - It can be seen that, on its own terms, marginal productivity theory provides a precise explanation of the demand for labour. It does not, however, purport to explain wages because for that we need to include supply factors as well.
All of this has been partially para-phrased and sometimes directly quoted from The Economics of Australian Labour Markets by Keith Norris
So back to you P.A.F. Do you still insist on your simplistic assertions?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HIALS:
Thanks for keeping it civil
I'm glad you posted that extract from a text. It explains precisely what I have been explaining.
That an increase in wages (whether union forced or not) has an negative impact on levels of employment. The end of the text simply states that while this relationship is true, it is not the only factor relating to supply. I've never claimed it was, however the relationship between wage levels and employment still remains true.
Particularly say if the market was at equilibrium when a wage shock hits the system (say from a union "bargaining" for a 28% wage rise and using threats such as go slow / strike action).
Ahh.. true.. we all have our weaknesses.
Thanks for keeping it civil
I'm glad you posted that extract from a text. It explains precisely what I have been explaining.
That an increase in wages (whether union forced or not) has an negative impact on levels of employment. The end of the text simply states that while this relationship is true, it is not the only factor relating to supply. I've never claimed it was, however the relationship between wage levels and employment still remains true.
Particularly say if the market was at equilibrium when a wage shock hits the system (say from a union "bargaining" for a 28% wage rise and using threats such as go slow / strike action).
By the way, I suggest you learn to spell, before you start applying for jobs,