said by TLS2000:
You specifically mentioned "perhaps if the pilot wasn't in the union".
not as a slight against the union, but said in a way that he would have been 100% responsible for his own retirement savings, rather than rely on a promise, which has since dissolved.
There was absolutely nothing stopping that pilot from saving his own nest egg.
true, but if you have been told the past 30 years there is this nice retirement package waiting for you after your decades of service, you are likely counting on that as your retirement income.
There was absolutely nothing stopping the company from saying "Hey guys, we can't afford to give you defined benefits. You'll have to have defined contribution instead."
many companies have said that, and continue to do...many unions have found that to be a sticking point, and often refuse it (at least on existing members).
Both parties are at fault, but the company should ultimately be the one that says no.
they have, and long strikes have been the result...those long strikes benefit no one...the company often loses money during the strike and the employees lose pay while being on strike (i don't count strike pay, as it is marginal).
Unions are powerful, but only because the companies they work for have allowed them to become that powerful.
well, after being held hostage, correct...however, that isn't a very equitable situation.
Unions and corporations really need to start working together to improve all parties involved.
i have said that all along...look at the unions in Germany...the auto companies there have workers who make really good money, but the unions foster a more co-operative environment rather than the "us versus them" mentality that is often the case here...that said, i have been seeing some unions working together better.--
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
- George Orwell