You have issues that quite frankly a pay decrease didn't cause.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that after deregulation no one in the airline business makes as much money.
Wrong , airline profits have soared since deregulation, so have losses. The fact is that all of the industy's most profitable years occured after deregulation. The intent of deregulation was to increase profits.
Bear96
If labor market forces have nothing to do with wages, then if no one was applying for these jobs, and there were vacancies everywhere, and flights were cancelling because airlinrs simply can't find workers for those positions, wages wouldn't go up for those positions? If that is what you are saying, I completely disagree.
One of the problems with your so called "market rate" theory on wages is that it looks at individual workers and ignores the existance of unions. The fact is unions exist, and they should exist, just like corporations exist, and they should.
No one can deny that power is increased when individuals or units act collectively when compared to individually.
Corporations, banks etc are often examples of collective capital just as unions are examples of collective labor.
If workers can not act in a collective manner than neither should capital be afforded the same opportunity. If labor is confined to act as individuals then capital should also be prohibited from acting collectively, let each individual buy, or build his own airplane and start his own business with his own resources only, no collective collaboration allowed, after all collectivization is a form of conspiracy. Outlaw usary and close the Banks too, because most of them are collectives also.
Then we would have a more balanced playing field where many employers seek workers and potential employees have many employers to choose from, a true free market. Fair is fair right?
Obviously that would not work. The inefficiencies would be too great and the costs would be too great of a barrier for individuals to provide the needs and expectations of modern society.We would have a level playing field, but we would also be back in the stone age.
So if you abolish unions because they are collectives then you must abolish corporations also, because they are collectives of capital. To do otherwise would give those with capital and unfair advantage over those who only have labor.If you abolish one with out abolishing the other you have tyranny. A tyranny of capital. Tyranny is bad, and we must destroy tyranny right? Clearly collectives are a part of modern society because after all society itself is a collective.
The fact is that corporations do provide benifits for society in that it allows for efficiencies of production and elevated standards of living as well as profits for its owners that would not be possible otherwise. Corporations exist with the consent of the peoples government. Lets not forget that incorporation was something that the founding fathers were wary of and for good reason. Those who wished to incorporate had to apply for permission and often they had a termination date where once the goal was accomplished the corporation was dissolved.The great risk of incorporation is that it eliminates individual accountability and our whole concept of Democracy is built upon accountability, to undermine accountability is to undermine Democracy.
Over the last two-hundred years corporations have exceeded their original intent, they used the 14th amendment, which was put in place to give African Americans rights of citizenship, to gain rights the founding fathers never fathomed. While not being able to actually cast a vote they have been granted undue influence in government by expressing their wishes through campaign funding. Whereas individual citizens can only vote for those who supposedly represent them, collective capital has the resources to influence representatives all over the political spectrum. Whereas a citizen can only vote for one candidate for each position capital can fund all candidates. Clearly funding provides for more political influence than voting and its not limited to citizenship. Corporate funds are the primary source of all campaign funding, either directly from corporations or through front groups set up by corporations.The founding fathers would be horrified if they saw how the democracy they founded has been bartered and sold.
For better or worse Corporation are here to stay. The fact that they have pretty much neutralized our ability to act collectively and gain accountability within the politcal process is something we can change, however if they eliminate our ability to act collectively in the economic arena through the use of our labor then all will be lost.
So corporations for better or worse must exist, but so must unions, otherwise we have tryanny.
Unions(should) provide a balance for the supply side of labor, (workers),to balance the downward pressure that the consumer side of labor(collective capital)wishes to exert.Clearly collective capital would desire that all the supply side was broken up into individual units(workers) and acted as such. Clearly thats not in the workers interests.
Unions are a part of the labor market as well as individuals. Clearly this already gives combined capital an advantage from the start.
The relationship between unions and individual non-union workers is similar to how a corporation can be in the same market as a Mom and Pop store. Just as the larger corporations have more of an impact on "market rates" on any particular product than small Mom and Pop stores, unions have more of an impact on labor rates than individual nonunion workers.
The ability to hire is not the sole determination of "Market Rate" for labor, retention and replacement is also a factor, and is often cited as the excuse for the excessive compensation that we see with executives.
Clearly if workers thought that the starting rate was the final rate airlines would have run out of applicants years ago, workers agree to low start rates with the assumption that rates improve significantly.
Replacement and retention is where your market theory on wage rates fall apart. While companies can usually replace workers lost through attrition unless their rates are way, way below market rates, they have a much harder time replacing an entire group of workers.
Unions,collective labor, are blocked from utilizing market forces. Unions are blocked either through court injunction or governmental delay from taking advantage of market opportunities. Supposedly Executives use retention and replacement levergage as their bargaining chips but collective labor is denied this ability.This is what keeps wages artificially low, lower than that they would be without such government interference, interference that is often without legislative guidance.
A recent example of this was where the NWA Flight Attendants were blocked from striking. Why? Because NWA claimed that there was not enough available FAs on the market to replace them, and the FAs were ordered to continue to work under court orders under conditions that they collectivly rejected. Market provided opportunity to simply protect themselves from paycuts was denied to the collective group of flight attendants. Basically the court says that labor can not act collectively in thier best interests as executives and capital can, despite the fact that legislation says that labor can. Capital is free to act in its best interests but labor is not.Too unjust to put into law but not too unjust for a crooked judge to put into effect.
How can we illustrate how unfair this is? Lets contruct a situation where the court treats capital like they are treating labor, for the same reason-the "third party", the flying public.
Lets say a consumer declared he could not afford to fly and that was a denial of his court proclaimed "right to travel from here to there". Lets say the government then asked the customer what he would like to pay based upon his resources and what he felt he could afford to pay and then set rates at that level even if that level was below what it cost NWA to provide the service. Is that free market? Surely if the investor in NWA felt his money could be better used elsewhere he is free to divest so where is the injustice? After all if the unlegislated rights of this "third party" trump legislated rights of collective labor then they also trump the rights of collective capital, doesnt the free market theory profess that both parties in a business exchange come together on an equal and fair basis or at least of their own free will?
Just as people with your frame of mind claim that govermental interference in collective labor is justified because the individual worker can quit cant the individual investor divest? If the ability to deny exploiting market forces are denied to collective labor then why should collective capital retain such rights?
My wife and I were both die-hard airline people when we met. If the two of us can get over AA, anyone can.
The fact that you are here means you havent gotten over it completely yet.
