Re: Laura/Margaret/Greg: A conflict in core beliefs

[Margaret Tarbet <tarbet@swaa.com>]

Greg wrote:

>  More to the point, however, it is interesting to see you twist the 
>pilots' position into one that is "legal" and the court's position into one 
>that is "illegal." By what law? Certainly not by the law of contracts, 
>which contract the pilots willingly signed when they took the job with 
>American.

It's a federal law that pilots are not to fly unless they feel up to
par.  There is no requirement that this declaration be blessed by
anyone -- it's the individual pilot's responsibility.  That's the
law.  


>  Moreover, how can you legitimately argue that "capital [by that I assume 
>you mean the company] is left to do as they please." No, they are not. They 
>too must abide by the provisions of the contract with the pilots. 

No, they do not.  They got an injunction.   Moreover, the reason for
the sickout is AA's unwillingness to play fair with salaries...the
acquired pilots are being paid substantially less than AA scale. 

>Now, I 
>suppose you view me as "intellectually dishonest" because I believe that 
>contracts should be enforced by our judicial system.

I believe that contracts should be enforced too.  I also believe in
a genuinely level field.


>  I wonder if you believe me when I claim that I don't CARE who comes out 
>"ahead" in the struggle between the airline company and its pilots. 

I do indeed believe you!   But i think you _should_ care, because
there are important issues of fairness involved.   What i see you
doing is being doctrinaire in a simplistic way.   You tout some
abstract right-wing ideals and ignore the reality of pervasive
unfairness.

>I am 
>not "pro company" or "pro pilot." I am "pro market" and "pro enforcement of 
>contracts." If I were an AA pilot and I was seriously disgruntled with the 
>company, I would be quietly checking out my options with other airlines. 
>And I would not restrict my research to domestic carriers.

Ah, but you see the way the airlines have it arranged, it's all down
to seniority _within the airline_.   So pilots who quit essentially
give up their entire careers.  It's not like some corporate VP who
can quit Digital and go be a VP at Compaq.   If a pilot quits, he's
finished at major airlines unless he wants to start over at the
bottom of the flight engineers' list.


>  I suppose you would view me as "intellectually dishonest" if I claim that 
>the "value" or "worth" of an individual's labor is whatever that individual 
>can trade for in exchange for that labor (e.g. so many dollars per hour, 
>etc.). 

Consider the recent special hi-tech immigration bill.  It
artificially changed the 'value of labor' in a way that serves the
interests of Capital only, to the detriment of labor.  Is that fair
or appropriate?  I don't think so.


>But, with all intellectual honesty, do not know how else to set the 
>value of labor, or of goods. On what basis can we rationally assert that 
>they are NOT "worth" what the market will exchange for them? Does that not 
>extend from workers' wages to computers produced by Dell or Compaq to 
>hand-painted figurines produced by a New England craftsman?

Again, Greg, i offer the recent immigration bill as an example.  The
market value of programming labor is changed by that bill.  It is a
one-sided change.  Capital got government help in manipulating the
market price to their own advantage.

The market is not a level field.  That's what's wrong with it.  


>  That is why it's not that I don't AGREE with your "argument" above. It's 
>that in all honesty, Margaret, I really and truly do not UNDERSTAND it! If 
>it is not "legal" for the pilots to be held to a contract they willingly 
>signed, then what IS "legal"?

Greg, the _behavior_ of the pilots was legal!  The airline got a
judge to rule against the pilots based on presumptions about
motivation.  They got the judge to say, in effect, 'your reason for
calling in sick is bogus, so get back to work'.   But the judge
didn't then turn to the airline and say 'and your reason for not
integrating the pay scales is bogus, so quit stalling'.   It was
one-sided.   That's the problem.  It's always one-sided, and it's
always Capital that comes out on top.