Well, you could argue anything, the question is how much sense would it make? The price a product sells for does not determine the market wage for the worker that produces it, it determines whether the product will be made at all or not. The market wage for the worker is that wage which attracts a sufficient number of qualified workers.



I never said that he should ask what part of his job he could cut back on to compensate for his benefit cut. I said that he should ask what in his (past) performance of his job deserved a pay cut. See post #21. Basically, he should ask what he has done to deserve a pay cut. That's a lot different than asking what he doesn't have to do in the future because of the pay cut.

Fair enough, that one word really clarifies your intended meaning. The irony is that airline employees can ask the same question, and the answer is quite simply "nothing, market forces have changed." Earlier, you said that it took 20 years for the reality to catch up with the unions. Twenty years ago, I'm not sure we had a bunch of unemployed mechanics willing to cross a picket line. Twenty years ago, airlines got a huge number of pilots from the military. It's no longer the case. I don't know that it took 20 years for "reality" to catch up with the airlines, I believe that it took 20 years for reality to actually change. Or perhaps it just took the airlines 20 years to figure out how to get around the big powerful unions. We have to face it: Steenland's legacy at NW will not be the death of free pretzels, but that he broke AMFA union.

Sure, and the guy that I was responding to may get the same answer. The world does move on. But again, he was asking for negotiating points. If his negotiating position is terrible, he can't really do much about that. Having made at least 25 transatlantic trips on the company dime, and every one in coach, I can't get too excited about it. :rolleyes: