Who's Defending Unionism?

[mweiss]

I wonder how long that can last, though.

Certainly it's likely to continue as long as the primary competition is withering legacies, but what happens once that's no longer the case?

 

[MrAeroMan]

The best realized utility among the Union Class are those Union Members working at Southwest Airlines.

SWA acknowledges the product produced by ranking their Employees above their Customers: while compensating them WELL ABOVE Legacy Carriers.

[post="235336"][/post]​

Right now they are compensated well above legacy carriers and they are MORE PRODUCTIVE than their counterparts at the legacy carriers. Now we'll see as time goes by if the unions allow them to remain that productive.

 

[diogenes]

Though, interestingly, the best example of an employee class that has reason to be unionized is the Wal-Mart front line employee. It's hard to offshore them...

[post="235333"][/post]​

True, and Wal-Mart, being the all-American company they are, have no problem with their employees excercising 'freedom of assembly' rights, right? 😉

 

[Bob Owens]

Right now they are compensated well above legacy carriers and they are MORE PRODUCTIVE than their counterparts at the legacy carriers. Now we'll see as time goes by if the unions allow them to remain that productive.

[post="235406"][/post]​

Why wouldnt they?

Management is responsible for productivity not the union. SWA has proven to be a well managed company, they have the same unions on the property as other airlines such as the IBT and TWU, along with a couple of Independant unions. The difference is in the management, not the unions.

 

[MrAeroMan]

Why wouldnt they?

Management is responsible for productivity not the union. SWA has proven to be a well managed company, they have the same unions on the property as other airlines such as the IBT and TWU, along with a couple of Independant unions. The difference is in the management, not the unions.

[post="235560"][/post]​

Why wouldn't they?? Come on!! For the same reason they put all the stupid silly work rules in the contracts that all the legacy carriers have now. It's the same old song and dance. It's the managements fault, it's the managements fault. Facts are facts and the blame for all the mess with unions and management can be equally split 50/50.

 

[mweiss]

True, and Wal-Mart, being the all-American company they are, have no problem with their employees excercising 'freedom of assembly' rights, right? 😉

[post="235555"][/post]​

Well, now, let's be clear about something. The right to free assembly, as granted in the Constitution, prevents the government from restricting such assembly on public land. Wal-Mart can restrict whatever they like on their own land, provided it doesn't break existing law (e.g., they cannot prevent people from entering their store based on race).

Having said that, I am irritated at Wal-Mart's continuing activities preventing unionization of their workforce. It's illegal and should be stopped.

 

[diogenes]

I have no issue with a property owner controlling the goings-on on his property.

However, if Wal-Mart employees choose to meet at a site NOT belonging to Wal-Mart, for whatever reason, that would be the employees' business, yes? 😉

and, in my view, the courts are bound to protect peaceful assembly.

 

[mweiss]

However, if Wal-Mart employees choose to meet at a site NOT belonging to Wal-Mart, for whatever reason, that would be the employees' business, yes? 😉

[post="236005"][/post]​

Yes.