"We are just interested in dealing with the people we're paying every day. We know federal law allows them to vote in a union at anytime, but we think we can resist that by talking to our own people and giving them enough upside"
About this Quote
David Neeleman speaks from the vantage point of a founder trying to preserve a direct, flexible relationship with employees in a heavily unionized industry. The emphasis on dealing with the people we are paying every day is a rejection of intermediaries and a statement of managerial philosophy: reduce layers, keep communication face-to-face, and maintain agility by building trust internally rather than negotiating through a third party. He acknowledges the legal right to unionize, framing it not as a moral battle but as a strategic challenge to be met with persuasion and incentives.
The promise to give employees enough upside reveals the underlying wager. If workers receive competitive pay, ownership stakes, profit-sharing, and a credible voice inside the company, the perceived benefits of collective bargaining may diminish. For a low-cost airline like JetBlue in its early years, staying nonunion supported a model of rapid decision-making, cross-utilization of staff, and tight cost control, all pitched as a win-win: higher upside for employees, more flexibility for the company, and lower fares for customers.
Yet the language of resist also exposes the power asymmetry. Management decides what counts as enough upside and when to offer it. That can sound paternalistic, implying that worker voice is welcome so long as it conforms to a management-defined channel. Advocates for unions would argue that protections, due process, and enforceable standards cannot rest on goodwill alone, especially when economic cycles turn and cost pressures intensify.
The broader context is the perennial tension in American labor relations between direct engagement and collective bargaining. Neeleman stakes out a pragmatic, market-based approach that treats unionization as a symptom of unmet needs rather than an inevitability. History suggests the limits of that approach: as companies mature and conditions change, some employee groups may still seek the security and leverage of a union. The quote captures both the entrepreneurial optimism of building culture through incentives and the contested terrain of worker power in a deregulated industry.
The promise to give employees enough upside reveals the underlying wager. If workers receive competitive pay, ownership stakes, profit-sharing, and a credible voice inside the company, the perceived benefits of collective bargaining may diminish. For a low-cost airline like JetBlue in its early years, staying nonunion supported a model of rapid decision-making, cross-utilization of staff, and tight cost control, all pitched as a win-win: higher upside for employees, more flexibility for the company, and lower fares for customers.
Yet the language of resist also exposes the power asymmetry. Management decides what counts as enough upside and when to offer it. That can sound paternalistic, implying that worker voice is welcome so long as it conforms to a management-defined channel. Advocates for unions would argue that protections, due process, and enforceable standards cannot rest on goodwill alone, especially when economic cycles turn and cost pressures intensify.
The broader context is the perennial tension in American labor relations between direct engagement and collective bargaining. Neeleman stakes out a pragmatic, market-based approach that treats unionization as a symptom of unmet needs rather than an inevitability. History suggests the limits of that approach: as companies mature and conditions change, some employee groups may still seek the security and leverage of a union. The quote captures both the entrepreneurial optimism of building culture through incentives and the contested terrain of worker power in a deregulated industry.
Quote Details
| Topic | Management |
|---|
More Quotes by David
Add to List
