Is it time for economics to kick in at NWA? Supply and Demand rules and Scabs are leaving NWA at what I consider an alarming rate. They are headed for a contract in Connecticut working a strike for Sikorsky. Reports coming back say that there are a bunch of AMFA Boys there as well. Is this possible? AMFA Boys that refuse to cross their own picket line but will cross another unions picket line? Who is the union at Sikorsky and what is this strike over? Is NWA going to increase the pay rate for the mechanics or are they going to continue to lose mechanics to this contract? I know of three that have their paperwork in and are waiting for their security clearances. It has been awhile since we have lost some top-notch mechanics and just in the past week we have lost three. I really do hate to see these next three leave as well. The unemployment benefits for the AMFA Boys ran out this month for most here in Michigan, will this spur them to cross the line and return to NWA thus keep NWA from having to increase their pay rates to retain mechanics? The next few weeks should be interesting.
I think you've pretty much nailed the economics of this situation. When NWA determines what the true supply of mechanics is going to be (how many AMFA guys are willing to come back), then the going pay rates will be determined. If the supply is washed up, and NWA needs to retain all of the people they now have in order to sustain a maintenance operation, then naturally, wages will have to increase. If there is a large pool of AMFA guys that are willing to come back and backfill the replacements that leave for greener pastures, then wages will probably hold at current levels for a while.
The NWA bashers here will of course think that this is a crazy concept (supply and demand determining prices), but that is indeed how it works. Some of the very ill-informed seem to think that if unions didn't exist, everybody would be working for a $5 per hour and not have benefits. It's hard to imagine that anybody could be that ignorant of basic economics, but it seems to be a prevelant opinion here.
I believe 3M had some union and non-union plants, and the non-union plants all paid higher wages than their union counterparts. I think they ended up closing all of the union plants, because they were still less productive even with a lower wage rate burden.
Someone please explain to me what benefit a person of above average ability has in being a member of a union. It seems to me that with all of the money wasted on union dues and the lost income from being paid the same as a below average performer, that person would actually end up being much worse off in a union. I think that dynamic is the very reason unions are deteriorating. Anybody with any competitive drive to excel and make the most out of life would be stifled in a union environment where innovation and going the extra mile to get ahead are heavily discouraged. That just leaves the below average performers who would not get by on their own without being able to suck from the teet of the mother union.
I do feel badly for those employees who have no choice but to join a union to do a "closed shop" or other type of restriction. It is shameful that a person can't work in their desired field without having their pocket picked by a union representation that they don't want or need. Hopefully as the unions become even weaker this mandatory union representation will diminish and freedom will prevail.
