Maybe the company was failing anyway. I'm not saying they shouldn't strike. Just that we don't seem to have clear numbers to tell if they should or not.
And money used to pay back loans wouldn’t be considered “profit” in any definitions I’m familiar with. If the “investment” takes some other form such that the investor expects to be paid back a lot more due to employees being paid much less than the value they’re delivering, then yeah, I’m fine with the employees organizing and saying that’s not going to happen.
This is even more ridiculous. Is YComb (since we're on HN) not entitled to a positive return from the companies it helped found, just because some random group of employees claims they aren't being paid according to the "value they're delivering"?
I didn't say that. I said that I don't have a problem with workers organizing to ask for more compensation so long as the company is earning profit. I didn't say anyone is "entitled" to anything and I didn't even predict whether or not the efforts would work.
> If the workers "regain" it all, there's nothing left for an investor/founder.
I addressed investors already. Money used to pay back a loan is not what I consider "profit," in the same way that money used to pay for office electricity is not what I consider "profit." Obviously companies have to pay their bills. As for founders, I assume they're functioning essentially as the manager/employer and thus are the party that is negotiating with the organized labor of their company. I'm not prescribing some amount of money they get to keep versus their employees—that's precisely what the negotiations will determine.
> Since this is the scenario you endorse (you've said so three times), your position is that investors and founders should not receive any return on their investment, nor any gains from establishing the company in the first place.
I have said that zero times and have now explicitly refuted it twice, lest there be any confusion about what I am claiming.
Your first comment clearly states that the value of labor is all the company's profit. ALL. You wrote it. "receiving ALL the company's profit" = "receiving the actual value of their labor". Which means, it's only possible for the airline to show a profit by underpaying labor, and therefore existence of profit = investors are exploiting labor for "surplus value." As long as you stand by the initial statement, everything that follows is crazy-talk, whether or not you're able to follow the logic of your own statements from a to b to c.
They are. That organisation is called a company and decides what they get paid, which varies by job and rank.
There's no such thing as a union in which every employee of a firm is represented - by the very nature of what unions do, they create a (largely imaginary) line between "labour" and "management" then pit the first against the second.
It also never argues that pilots are "delivering value" equal to the airline profits. Only that the pilots are in a position, due to regulation, to claim those profits, because they can shut the airline down (a power that flight attendants, mechanics, reservation agents, etc don't have).
I'm not sure if you subscribe to the notice that it's OK for the worker to max out their compensation while it's not OK for the owner to do so, but I think it's a pretty common stance. Admittedly, the reverse is also true (as I'm hoping to point out).
Ideally, I would hope that negotiations were conducted in a way that is mutually beneficially to both parties. I'd rather we didn't resort to getting as much as we can at the expense of the other party.
Of course in a dog-eat-dog world, what can we expect? All of those bastards on the other side are going to do it to us so let's do it to them first.
But is there an advantage to living in a world that isn't dog-eat-dog? Is it possible to encourage a society where neither side "does it" to the other and neither side thinks of the other as "bastards"? I really, really hope so.
(Possibly not related to your actual position -- your words just made me think of that)
Inherently any gain by one side is at the expense of the other, there is no avoiding that aspect. Either than $X is paid to the pilots or it goes elsewhere in the business. I'm not sure what a non-dog-eat-dog world would look like and how it would be able to persist without heavy incentives to take advantage.
Similar to what happens with expensive cities which don't expand. The prices keep raising and there will still be people who can afford to pay for a long time... until the larger environment either changes or collapses.
This article doesn't say what the pay / demand is. Another one (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/08/ba-pilots-t...) mentions BA proposing an increase that would bring "some" over £200k a year. I'm sure that's cherry-picked for PR and doesn't show the whole distribution, but it's at least one number.
There is no absolute number at which they are no longer underpaid, it is completely relative to how much demand there is and how much companies are willing to pay for that demand.
Flight benefits vary as well but they’re almost always space available and with load factors in the US creeping upwards the value in those benefits has slowly been eroding away. Hard to plan a vacation when you have almost no idea when you’ll get there.
That said, pilot pay goes up to about $400/hr at Delta as an example including profit share.