WHY A PILOT’S UNION IS NEEDED IN THE EMS INDUSTRY

From a fellow pilot:
I often read posts lambasting the concept of pilot union organizing and using irrelevant examples of their logic, such as the fiscal difficulties that exist in the airline industry. I call them “irrelevant” because they bear no relationship to one another, other than the fact that both helicopters and airplanes travel through the air by way of the efforts and expertise of licensed pilots.

The reasons for those fiscal difficulties also rarely relate to our industry. Management actions and practices, conversely, are fairly generic functions. Whereas numbers of passengers carried or miles flown by Lockheed products have no more relationship to helicopter passengers/miles (especially in EMS operations) than the altitudes at which the different classes of aircraft operate; sound, responsible and professional management practices tend to produce successful companies just as unsound, illegal, unethical management practices tend to have the opposite effect.

The efforts of labor unions are simply another aspect of personnel issues that have to be managed. If they are managed ethically and proficiently, they rarely cause any problems that are even capable of interfering with the overall success of the well-managed company. In poorly managed or unethically run companies, even where there are no labor unions, the company will likely experience considerable personnel difficulties. Sometimes those difficulties were part of the failure of the company overall, but more often than not they will be the result of the failure of the company.

The rank-and-file employees, in most cases, tend to be fiercely loyal and supportive of their companies and work very hard to ensure its success. This is true even in the poorly managed companies IF the employees aren’t aware of the poor management practices. If the employees ARE aware that the executives in the company are enriching themselves at the expense of the employees AND the solvency of the company, they tend to be more concerned about there own self interests since they know they are powerless to prevent executive “raiders” from ruining an otherwise successful company.

Sometimes that atmosphere degrades to a sort of “armed camp” relationship. The employees think to themselves “they’re getting theirs and completely ignoring us; we’ll have to get ours ourselves”. Usually, they also begin to notice that management is blatantly lying to them. That’s usually the point at which they become quite vigorous in their efforts at self-protection.

As you know, the employee-employer relationship is ALWAYS weighed in favor of the employer. When the employer behaves honorably and honestly toward his employees, there is rarely a problem. The problem occurs when the employer does not. For example, if an employee falsifies his work hours to attempt to be paid for work he hasn’t performed (greed), he will almost always be fired, and rightly so. However, if the employer willfully underpays an employee, whether through intentionally mis-classifying the employee pay entitlement, or simply reneging on previously agreed to compensation, the employee is simply out of luck. Especially if he’s employed at will. And the employer pockets the money. There are almost never any adverse consequences for the employer.

This example ONLY refers to money issues. It doesn’t even begin to address workplace safety, a mutually courteous and respectful employee-employer relationship, workplace policies, or any of the rest.
Somehow, employers come to hold the belief that they are doing the employee a favor by providing them a place to work. They completely forget about the benefits they are enjoying as a direct result of their employees’ efforts. They come to look upon their employees as a sort or “chattel” that exists solely for the enrichment of the employer.

I suppose I can understand some degree of such an attitude in a small company where the employer has built it from nothing with his “bare hands”. But I can’t see any angle from which it could be viewed as such when the company is a conglomeration of partial owners (stockholders), run by hired executives. The stockholders are only interested in the return (profit) on their investment. Often they don’t even have the most basic understanding of the work their employees do to produce that profit. And the executive’s sense of loyalty to the company goes no further than their own compensation packages. If they have an ironclad CONTRACT of their own, with a suitably attractive “golden parachute” they don’t even need to care if they mismanage the company right out of existence.

That leaves ONLY the employee with a position of any real loyalty at all to the enduring success of the company. THEY are the only real losers if the company fails. But at the same time, they know that only THEY themselves have any sense of responsibility to the well being of their own families as well. So they seek some form of self-protection. The only legal form of self-protection available to the employee is a legally binding CONTRACT. The only legal way they can obtain one that is equitable is through collective bargaining.

So make no mistake, if you find yourself in a position that makes you feel that the ONLY means of self-protection for yourself and the well being of your families available to you is through forming a labor organization to bargain for fair and equitable treatment and distribution of the fruits of YOUR LABOR, don’t allow anyone to accuse you of being disloyal to your company or bringing the company to the brink of ruin by your efforts to protect your own investment.

If it is a fair and equitable contract that you pursue, it is categorically impossible for YOUR labor organizing efforts to cause ruin to the company. And you can BET that the executives that will accuse you of it, or HIRE someone to accuse you of it, are already guaranteed financial security (those “golden parachutes”, stock options, healthcare packages that you can only dream of, etc.), EVEN if they miserably fail to manage the company well.