The answer is pretty simple really (and it applies to the Bush-era Republicans the same way): they who run these corporations do not in any way identify with their employees (the little people). They do not consider the corporation ALL of it’s employees, just the very few at the top of the corporate letterhead and everyone and everything else is just capital they want to utilize at the lowest cost. They are blood-sucking vampires.

There is clearly a cancer in the American-devised economic system and the vast majority of the world’s citizens are nothing to those sociopaths but brick & mortar capital. That’s not healthy and it easily explains why the vast majority of us aren’t reaping the huge rewards of our great productivity while those sociopaths soak up all the profits for themselves.

You may have an immediate reaction of how this is to be corrected. I can tell you there are three major possibilities: one is Liberal government regulation to the max; another is laissez faire government which lets them run amok until they over-extend and the house of cards collapses (think 1929 and the following Great Depression) and the third is some other (as yet unknown) evolution in our thinking about how the economic system should work and can work better than what we have now. The last will creep upon us slowly until we simply accept it the way we do debit cards rather than credit cards or cash. While we wait people are occasionally being crushed.

But this post – while the JetBlue situation was an outrage – doesn’t make sense to me. How is the prevention of labor unions related to the company’s recent problems? I just can’t see that connection.

I don’t fly JetBlue because the majority of their aircraft maintenance is done in South America without FAA supervision and inspection. This saves the airline a lot of money but it evades control and safety commonly believed will prevent accidents and it moves American jobs off-shore while exploiting a less developed country. However, that didn’t contribute to the recent meltdown the airline had as far as I know.

This is my point of view: if you do not approve of a practice or policy of a company, don’t patronize them. Period. Simple. Let them know why. I don’t shop at Walmart because I don’t approve of their labor practices or how they deal with vendors, a matter I’m acquainted with from my professional career. I tell my friends and family what I think about Walmart and I drive 25 miles to patronize a Target store.

Each of us can and should be an activist about the issues which concern us. But to try to co-relate the wrong causes and effects just makes the argument presented sound loony.

We don’t want a third party who may or may not have our best interests in mind or our crew members’ best interests in mind because they may be serving a union of one of our competitors.

What does he say to “third parties” who buy stock and hold it for a day or a week, then turn around and sell it – at a profit or loss. Doesn’t he think that that stockholder “may not have [their] best interests in mind”?

Why is it okay when the third party has a wad of money to “invest” in his company (for god knows how few days) on behalf of management, but it isn’t okay when the third party is working on behalf of the employees?

There is the double standard and the truth of it:

[not a quote…]
U.S. corporate management does not (at least not enough) see employees as part of the company. What benefits employees is not nearly as important as what benefits management.

Management is seen as “us”, while employees are seen as necessary evils, who must be kept in a weakened and disempowered status, for all intents and purposes, in order to keep them “under control”.

Unions have always been seen as employees out of control. And that is true: union members are not as much under the control of the management. And that, in this day and age, simply cannot be tolerated. Who in their right mind would want to give MORE power to a necessary evil?

The fact that the most prosperous period in American history was the 1950s and 1960s, EXACTLY the period when unions were at their strongest. ***

The real truth of it is that BOTH parties are necessary in any company, but management doesn’t want to believe that. How they think they can get the income producing product out the door with just management is beyond me.

Bottom line: Management doesn’t want to give up control, the power or the high incomes. Everything else is misdirection, dissembling and obfuscation.

*** SteveG’s First Rule of Prosperity: The only enduring prosperity is widespread prosperity.

Corollary: If prosperity is withdrawn, to any extent, from the widest possible populace, overall prosperity declines in direct proportion and to a similar degree.

The mechanism? Fewer hands spreading money throughout the overall economy.

This is why trickle down does not work. Bush’s tax cuts for the top 1% were exactly the wrong thing to do. The Clinton era prosperity was widespread, thus lending more supporting evidence for the First Law of Prosperity.

Egalitarian democracies and republics invariably are more prosperous – and less trouble for the wealthy! – than similar sized nations that intentionally focus wealth in the hands of the few.

Beyond that, PJ:

“Neeleman doesn’t seem to see that his employees are part of what brings customers: the attitudes they have and the services they provide will have the biggest influence. Customers don’t (generally!) know who the CEO is, and they don’t (generally) care; they see the lower-level people as the face of the business.”

Yes. The attitudes of the employees, in general, are directly reflective of the top management. That, I would argue, is what caused this CEO to fall on his sword (full disclosure: I have never flown jet blue and own no stock). His motivation, I would guess, is to protect or build the corporate culture…and he has a lot to lose (or gain) by doing so.

In addition, Bonkers:

Yes, every CEO would say no to the idea of a union conceptually. It is hard enough to turn a profit without negotiating inside the company as well (most CEOs are promoted sales types who are used to negotiating externally). How does this apply in this situation? Beyond this situation, imagine negotiating with your car mechanic who also fixes all the automobiles for everyone on the street on which you live. One of your neighbors hasn’t paid his bill. You get the idea.

GOOD grief– he’s conflating poor, illegal immigration and immigrants with all evil and terrorists ad nauseum on the House floor now. I think he likes the gulags Boosh built.

Just because the JetBlue CEO says they don’t need a union doesn’t mean that’s true. I’d be curious to see what kind of compensation JetBlue employees get, and get a sense if most are happy there before I’d jump to applauding the CEO. Wouldn’t EVERY CEO in the world say that a union isn’t necessary at their shop? Your and Neeleman’s argument seems like a pretty slippery slope to me, and has probably helped in deteriorating the strength of unions in America, which has hurt our economy overall IMO.

Unions have really taken a beating in public opinion ever since the media has become just a giant propaganda tool for mega-business, and this wasn’t an accident. Sure, there can be problems in specific cases here and there, but overall the positives of having unions really outweigh the negatives. In fact, many times when a company can show that they are really in trouble, the unions have shown that they really are team players, and that they all grow together by agreeing to pay and benefit cuts to get the company back on track (sorry, no time to find links, but they’re out there…). Just my 2 cents, or more like .75 cents since wages haven’t kept up with inflation…

Should there be a separate union for each employer? I can see separate locals – still wasteful, if the businesses are small, but doable.

Neeleman doesn’t seem to see that his employees are part of what brings customers: the attitudes they have and the services they provide will have the biggest influence. Customers don’t (generally!) know who the CEO is, and they don’t (generally) care; they see the lower-level people as the face of the business.