Originally Posted by psychtobe
DHAST, you make some interesting points. It's true, for instance, that 58k isn't "a lot" of money; it's also true that living in LAX is likely to be more expensive than living in, say, LIT or IAH or any number of other American cities.
Perhaps I'm jaded, but I spent six years living in Washington, DC and the outlying suburubs before I lived in LA. Since perception is reality, all I've seen since my 19th birthday is astronomical real estate prices and costs of living. I've also worked for the airlines for a couple of years and still work in aviation to this day. I'll probably retire in this industry in some way shape or form. What that means is that I'm a little more sensitive to labor issues in this industry. Oh, just so we're clear:
I have never had union representation. One other thing... when I finally start my career job, there's only 20 places in the country that I stand a reasonable chance of getting assigned, and those are in some of the highest costs of living areas in the country, because, by nature of the job, they are located in some of the largest cities.
I guess we're discussing whether or not mechanics were voting down a "good" contract or a "bad" contract. Or maybe not. Either way, I am categorically against using any sort of broad average examples (really, anything larger a county average) when discussing anything to do with wages. Why? It's just too broad, and the concentration of airline workers are in large cities, where your cost of living is greater than the cost of living in smaller towns. If we were discussing the cost of living in the counties surrounding NW's hub airports, then maybe we could get a better grip and have a more meaningful discussion about salaries vs. cost of living.
2.
You state that "Living in L.A. on one income, $58k is nothing." It's true that single-income households make less than dual-income households. However, I am unaware of any rule, any regulation, or any data that says that mechanics must be the only working member of a household.
I look at is as a quality of life issue. Dual wage earner households are making it more difficult for single wage earner households to make a decent living and have a decent quality of life. Not to mention having to put the kids in day care all day because mom "has" to work.
3.
Combining these two data points leads to a surprising conclusion: the mechanic salary cited by
StSebastian is 33% higher than the median
household income in the United States, according to the US Census (
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...statemhi.html), and 5% higher than the median
household income in New Jersey, the state with the highest household income in the country, even though by a 2 to 1 margin, most US married-couple households are dual income.
Again, statewide averages are too broad to have any real meaningful discussion. Look at the average household income in Minneapolis/St. Paul and the surrounding areas vs. the avereage household income in the rest of the state. I'll bet you that there's a significant difference. Likewise, look at the average annual income of Wayne County, MI and the surrounding counties vs. the rest of MI. Again, I'm sure you'll see a large disparity. Northern MN and the U.P. of MI are not exactly expensive places to live in, and likwise, the average incomes are lower. NW doesn't have too many mechanics in Hibbing/Chisolm MN nor Marquette, MI. They have lots in Minneapolis and Detroit.
4.
As for benefits, you claim that "Most people in non union jobs have those benefits as well." I perhaps did not choose the best examples to make my point; according to the Department of labor [snip]...
I think you're being way to general again. The BS college co-ops, internships, and beer-money jobs aside, I have never had a job that did not have those benefits, and I have never belonged to a union. I have also never even looked at a job that did not have those benefits. I can't tell where those stastics came from or what they encompass, but you have to realize that certain economies (farming, tourism among others) are typically not union nor do they provide benefits. Again, any job I've looked at within a large corporation, without union representation, provides those benefits. My point is, throwing around the word "union" is just too general. In aviation, if you want to compare union jobs vs. non union jobs, I suspect you will find the benefit packages to be very similar.
No one is "blaming the mechanics." Facts is facts. Only 1 in 12 American private sector workers is unionized; the other 11, on average, have access to lesser benefits than that 1 union worker. Unions are out of touch with reality, and the mechanics are going to learn that the hard way, I'm afraid. The public support just isn't there.
I'm not sure where you got that 1 in 12 figure, but again, I think we're being too general. I do agree with you that unions are out of touch with reality (hey, at least the pilots and flight attendants aren't on a sympathy strike, so they have some clue) but in this case, I don't think AMFA cut their nose to spit their face. What were they supposed to do, sign a contract eliminating 53% of their jobs and giving significant paycuts to those left over? Making what I make, if I ever had to voluntarily give up one dime, I wouldn't do it willingly or without a fight.