Originally Posted by DHAST
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.
But no one forced you to choose this lifestyle. We've been through this discussion on this forum before, ad nauseum. If you think your career choice offers a poor quality of life, then change it! To demand outsized compensation, above and beyond what the market will bear, and then to bitterly complain when the market won't bear that demand, is ludicrous, self-flagellating, and downright masochistic.
Originally Posted by DHAST
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.
...
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.
According the the US Census (
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...US-1&-_sse=on), you will note that 79% of all Americans live in urbanized areas and 80% live in metropolitan areas. The average salaries I cited earlier already account for the fact that 4 out of 5 Americans live in higher-cost urban centers. Besides, while MSP and DTW are likely more expensive than smaller towns in the Midwest, you certainly can't argue that they are more expensive than the entire Northeast and West coasts of the United States, where 112 million Americans work, pay taxes, and buy houses. Since you are from the DC area, you should know that the cost of living is higher there than it is in the Midwest: according to BestPlaces.net (
http://www.bestplaces.net/col/Default.aspx)
Washington DC is 20% more expensive than Detroit, and housing is 32% more expensive (vastly underextimated, because the data are from 2000, and since then home prices in DC have approximately doubled).
Still feeling all that sympathy for MSP and DTW based mechs 'scraping by' on 58,000 - or 70,000 according to the Detroit Free Press - living in cities which have costs of living only slightly higher than the national average?
Originally Posted by DHAST
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.
Perhaps it's time to ask what
you do for a living, and how much
you make, that you do lead such a seemingly jaded lifestyle. As I pointed out in the links above, you apparently have access to wonderful benefits - benefits that many Americans don't. Perhaps you are entitled to them; maybe you work very long hours; maybe your position has required an enormous amount of training and education; maybe you're just really smart, or really lucky, or both. That's neither here nor there. The point is, the majority of American workers have access to fewer benefits, and make substantially less money, than the mechs that we are talking about.
Originally Posted by DHAST
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.
You may or may not be right, but again, facts are facts. This is what most American couples do to survive. I make a very good living, but Mrs. Psychtobe works, too. So do the sig ots of most of my friends and colleagues. It is the American way, 21st century style. We can debate the pros and cons of that lifestyle, but I hope you're not advocating for striking NW mechanics to be the lone voice in the wilderness on this issue! I can just see the headlines now: "NW mechanics strike; claim US government enslaves its workers by forcing women to work; advocate for single earner families and return to 1950s!"
Originally Posted by DHAST
I'm not sure where you got that 1 in 12 figure, but again, I think we're being too general.
That figure is well-known and is sourced to the Department of Labor website.
Originally Posted by DHAST
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.
I do agree with you here. The mechs didn't have a good choice. When more than 50% of the voting base was guaranteed to lose their jobs, the strike was inevitable.
The outcome, however, is also inevitable. Mech wages and jobs will be cut, and by a significant amount. Global trade brings global competition and every American worker can feel it. Unless you are advocating for protectionist restrictions to international trade, the trend is unstoppable. Mechanics work can be done cheaper by someone else. Eventually it will be.