Why not?
Like I said"I look for the day when working class people, both conservative and liberal realize that they have more in common than they realize and that neither party looks to serve their common interests but exploits their differences so they can exploit them economically."
So yea 90%-your figure, would be considerd working class.
OK, now I'm really confused. In previous posts when I was accused of "being against the working class," the implication was that I was not in "the working class." Now I am "working class"?
If airline workers had complete freedom to withhold their services we could most certainly get more than we are getting,
True. If individual airline workers would withhold their services in the airline industry by seeking employment elsewhere, the resulting shortage of workers would drive wages up. But airline workers aren't willing to do that; they mysteriously come to work every day by the thousands to work for wages they claim they cannot "survive" on. Makes no sense to me.
NWA is an example of where the court imposed concessions and prevented the flight attendants from striking.
I disagree with your overly-simplistic and misleading assessment of the NW court decision. The court did not say the F/As could never strike. It said the F/As could not strike
yet (at that point in time), because they had not exhausted the administrative process.
Obviously there is more to what is going on in this industry than your textbook definitions cover. . . . While your theory may be textbook its not reality because it attempts to oversimplify a very complex situation.
How so? My textbook explanation is that if there are lots of people willing to do the work for little money, wages will not be very high. Isn't that exactly what is going on? The big picture really is simple when you think about it.
Your application of the theory only applies to hiring and replacement through attrition of individual workers and ignores the reality of unions which make the workgroup effectively a single supplier of labor to the single employer.
Unions supply the labor? So no one can get a job without being a union member? That's odd, considering the closed shop has been illegal in this country for decades now.
Unions are just as fair in theory as corporations.
Agreed. In fact, I dislike seeing workers squander the power they have under labor laws. Most of them are to preoccupied with the "my union is less worse than yours" or "my union sucks and is corrupt" nonsense, and with criticizing those who do step forward to be union leaders, to realize how much power the could have if they would use their collective power wisely.
To say that its unfair for workers to act collectively when they have to "compete" in the contest to set wages and determine supply and demand with collectives of capital is pure hypocrisy.
When did I say that?
No "supply and demand" equilibrium there when the supplier is compulsed by the government to supply.
No one can "compulse" an individual employee to supply his or her labor. If you don't think you are getting enough return for your labor, go elsewhere. If enough people did that, the craft they are abandoning would be forced to pay more money for workers' labor. But again, airline employees are strangely wedded to the aura and mystique and supposed "glamor" of air travel, and have made it quite clear they are willing to work for low wages. Too bad for them.
The lame retort of "Oh well if the flight attendant doesnt like it they can quit as individuals" holds no water. The fact is the flight attendants have just as much right to act collectively as capital does.
That's true.
Now let me ask you, what happens if Jim Cramer on Mad Money tonight says, "Corporation XYZ is undervalued at $8/share and is a great investment opportunity! Buy buy buy!" and first thing at the opening bell tomorrow tens of thousands of individual investors rush in to buy at $8/share? Oops! The price just went up! They won't get as much bang for their buck as they were hoping! That old supply and demand thing. Just like workers won't get as much bang for their hour of labor if lots of them are willing to do it for a low wage.
The equivelent example would be if the court ordered Exxon to give fuel to NWA, because they were mismanaged, fuel at 50 cents a gallon. If the stockholders of Exxon didnt like it they could sell their stock but Exxon as an entity could not stop suppling fuel.Now if the courts did that you and your kind would be screaming about the injustice of such an act and the rights of private property.
First, "me and my kind"? I'm working class, remember? (See the top of the post.)
Second, you have posted this erroneous example at least dozens -- if not hundreds -- of times over the past year or so, and it has been refuted and shown to be inaccurate many times by me and others. I don't feel like repeating myself yet again.
Well how likely is it that the answer that 'you would have the right to either dispose of that property at a loss or hold onto it as it continues to diminish in value', like the Flight attendants of NWA are being told they are free to do with their careers, would be acceptable?
I would advise NWA F/As, and any other airline employee who feels they are being treated unfairly, to do just what I did at UA when I saw the value of my labor diminish. After concessions, I decided it was no longer worth it. I made some tough decisions, went back to school for several years, gained a marketable skill, and am now in a new profession where I am currently earning 3X as much as I ever did at UA on my A-scale salary there (and which is in an entry-level position in this field).
