Ch. 12:
Because you drew a correlation to the Iraq war (several times) above, let me explain to you how your "anti-union" opinions are entirely consistent with the ideology that actually got us INTO that war.
Unlike the Bush administration, which openly and admittedly favors 'corporate' power over that of 'the people', labor unions are founded on the principle that MANY MANY heads think better than a few. Unions (at least the 'good ones') are controlled by democratic decision-making. Instead of a single "leader" calling the shots, the membership calls the shots. Whether in the analysis (polling) of issues or in the ratification (voting) of issues, THOUSANDS of heads make better decisions than ONE.
What is ironic about your condemnation against unions, is that if the Bush administration actually "worked more like a union", we may not have invaded Iraq in the first place. Bush and neoconservatives that he surrounds himself with suppressed good intelligence, put a chilling effect on 'free speech" and "dissenting opinions" and with the full funding and support of corporations (read; a handful of filthy rich white men from Texas who stood to gain billions in profit) pushed us into the biggest foreign policy fiasco in our history. So, the isolation of power (and decision-making) involved a small number of people (in government, as well as in corporations like Black water and Halliburton, to name a few) and that small handful, driving by PROFIT, impacted the lives and the wallets of MILLIONS. Who benefited - I might ask you? Did working people (with collective bargaining rights) benefit? Did working people with labor unions have a voice -- hell no. Gee, sounds a lot like what the men who run our airlines have also done (ie., personal wealth, while bankrupting our airlines and causing people to lose their pensions, wages and thousands are out of work today). Meanwhile, they isolate power and tell workers they are better off "trusting them" with their lives, discouraging them from having a legal voice and spending millions to KEEP them from organizing on the job.
So, what's the difference? It's all about money and power, isn't it? Have any of these airlines executives proven they can be trusted with our career (anymore than Bush has been trusted with telling us the truth or improving our economy or standing in the world?). Why do you blindly put your trust in corporate executives at an airline, while scorning the same power and profit tactics from the governement. Do you actually think there is much difference today between government and corporate power? They are practically one in the same. You should read this book;
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine
as it illustrates how the two work together to place fear in the minds of people in order to profit from tragedy. You can't blame one without the other. On the other hand, our warnings of outsourcing are sincere concerns for our "jobs", not for profit.
So, if you think we (AFA) are putting fear in people without merit, quite frankly you are barking up the wrong tree. Our concerns about airline executives are based on FACTS and based on THEIR SPECIFIC ACTIONS - they are not rooted in 'fear mongering' and pure 'speculation'. In fact, had people listen to 'reasonable' voices that WERE looking out for the 'people' (like Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism czar), perhaps the war you correlate above wouldn't have happened in the first place. A lesson you apparently are missing.