Which problems will get solved faster?

granlistillo

granlistillo

Well-Known Member
Which safety problems will be addressed sooner: Colgan 3407 with all the congressional debate, or striking train drivers in Belgium protesting lack of safety equipment and working conditions? Which is less socialistic? Which workers are more free, flying bus drivers or European rail? I vote the latter in all cases. Get the government out of labor negotiations in the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2010021...DeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2JlbGdpYW5yYWlsZA--
 
granlistillo said:
Which safety problems will be addressed sooner: Colgan 3407 with all the congressional debate, or striking train drivers in Belgium protesting lack of safety equipment and working conditions? Which is less socialistic? Which workers are more free, flying bus drivers or European rail? I vote the latter in all cases. Get the government out of labor negotiations in the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2010021...DeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2JlbGdpYW5yYWlsZA--
Click to expand...

Get the government out...ahh...you know without government protections labor wouldn't have any leverage eh?
 
Maybe just an effort to make Government's involvement legitimate and in good faith. Airline management knows that they can easily violate CBAs and tie up grievances for YEARS while they make money hand over fist. When the grievance is finally settled, employees generally get pennies on the dollars that they lost.


Whoever set the "fly, then grieve" precedent probably never envisioned how bad it has become. If the Government established the RLA for our protection and a grievance process to sustain commerce (no self help), they need to actually hold up the other end of the bargain.
 
jtrain609 said:
Get the government out...ahh...you know without government protections labor wouldn't have any leverage eh?
Click to expand...
ahh Einstein, They would have a lot more leverage without the "protections" of the RLA. Being able to strike when necessary, and the public would not blame them. I bet not one of those striking train drivers will lose their jobs, and probably get full pay.
 
granlistillo said:
ahh Einstein, They would have a lot more leverage without the "protections" of the RLA. Being able to strike when necessary, and the public would not blame them. I bet not one of those striking train drivers will lose their jobs, and probably get full pay.
Click to expand...

Einstein? You may want to think this one through before throwing out insults, because you're missing a few connections.

If airline pilots didn't have the RLA, and you removed all government intervention, then what would prevent employers from firing all striking workers? You would get rid of strikes altogether. Government protection is the only thing that makes strikes work.
 
jtrain609 said:
Government protection is the only thing that makes strikes work.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely incorrect. What makes a strike work is a strong unified profession that won't cut each others throat. Let them fire a whole pilot group and see how long they stay in business for.
 
jhugz said:
That is absolutely incorrect. What makes a strike work is a strong unified profession that won't cut each others throat. Let them fire a whole pilot group and see how long they stay in business for.
Click to expand...

Holy crap, are you serious? If airlines were able to fire striking workers at will, then the unions would disappear because they'd have no teeth. Airlines would petition the government to set up short courses for equipment and they'd have people replacing those fired workers in about a week.

It would be absolute chaos. There is no mechanism in the market that protects striking workers. If what you guys are advocating came to fruition, then there wouldn't be strikes, there would be mass firings.
 
jtrain609 said:
Holy crap, are you serious? If airlines were able to fire striking workers at will, then the unions would disappear because they'd have no teeth. Airlines would petition the government to set up short courses for equipment and they'd have people replacing those fired workers in about a week.
Click to expand...

Holy crap, I am serious. If the RLA wasn't in place and strikers were able to use their one and only bargaining power which is to strike at moments notice when it can hurt the company the most:

-Pinnacle would probably have a pretty damn good contract by now.

-Republic probably would straighten out their contract instead of probably heading to a delayed strike.

-GoJets may have never happened


I can go on and on.


If ALPA is as strong and unified as they say they are and market properly to flight schools that do accelerated programs then things would change very quickly in this industry IF there was no RLA.
 
jhugz said:
Holy crap, I am serious. If the RLA wasn't in place and strikers were able to use their one and only bargaining power which is to strike at moments notice when it can hurt the company the most:
Click to expand...

And, pray tell, will allow those workers to go back to their jobs when they get done sticking it to the man? Oh right, the employers will just let them go back to their jobs out of the goodness of their hearts.

-Pinnacle would probably have a pretty damn good contract by now.

-Republic probably would straighten out their contract instead of probably heading to a delayed strike.

-GoJets may have never happened


I can go on and on.


If ALPA is as strong and unified as they say they are and market properly to flight schools that do accelerated programs then things would change very quickly in this industry IF there was no RLA.
Click to expand...

The only way you're going to get this to happen is if you start breaking knee caps and causing people's cars to become exploded. You think the crap you took for supporting GoJets was bad? Imagine what would happen if somebody unleashed market forces on your car.

I don't know too much, but if there's one thing I'm realizing, it's that heros don't win. Heros become martyrs, and the kind of revolution you're discussing never works out for the people it needs to work out for the most.

If what you're saying was reality, we would all lose.
 
jtrain609 said:
Einstein? You may want to think this one through before throwing out insults, because you're missing a few connections.

If airline pilots didn't have the RLA, and you removed all government intervention, then what would prevent employers from firing all striking workers? You would get rid of strikes altogether. Government protection is the only thing that makes strikes work.
Click to expand...

It was sarcastic, not an insult... You should have picked up the difference with a semester of law school. Just not a fan of the RLA, and there will always be laws around as long as we have lawyers. The RLA has outlived its usefulness if the government will sacrifice the rights of few (pilots) to do their free will over the many (the public) allowing management to among other skullduggery risk peoples lives.
Today, Lufthansa voted for a 4 day strike as an attention getter. More labor freedom in Europe. BTW, I've owned a business with employees in Europe and most government interference is detrimental to the employee. But the RLA, ties one persons hands-doesnt seem like a fair fight to me.
Cya:)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100217...jA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNsdWZ0aGFuc2FwaWw-
 
granlistillo said:
It was sarcastic, not an insult... You should have picked up the difference with a semester of law school.
Click to expand...

sar·casm http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf (sär'kāz'əm)
n.
  1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.

in⋅sult

  /v. ɪnˈsʌlt; n. ˈɪn
thinsp.png
sʌlt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [v. in-suhlt; n. in-suhlt] 1. to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.

http://dictionary.reference.com/
Click to expand...

Seems an awful fine distinction to make without the precision of the human voice present, don't you think?
 
granlistillo said:
It was sarcastic, not an insult... You should have picked up the difference with a semester of law school. Just not a fan of the RLA, and there will always be laws around as long as we have lawyers. The RLA has outlived its usefulness if the government will sacrifice the rights of few (pilots) to do their free will over the many (the public) allowing management to among other skullduggery risk peoples lives.
Today, Lufthansa voted for a 4 day strike as an attention getter. More labor freedom in Europe. BTW, I've owned a business with employees in Europe and most government interference is detrimental to the employee. But the RLA, ties one persons hands-doesnt seem like a fair fight to me.
Cya:)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100217...jA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNsdWZ0aGFuc2FwaWw-
Click to expand...

There's one thing I've learned so far, which is to write what you mean:

Get the government out of labor negotiations in the US.
Click to expand...

That does not say that you are simply not a fan of the RLA.

It says don't want to provide any legal protections to strike.

The ability to have your job back when you come back from a strike is a legal protection, which is provided by the government.

Remove government, and you remove that protection.

You may consider reading up on this further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act
 
From what I have learned in currently pursuing my Masters studies with a focus on industrial realtions, I can tell you there is no doubt the NLRA currently favors management. The NLRA needs to be revamped to allow punitive damage to be assesed to companies that conduct actions that violate the NLRA. Revamp the NLRA, then move on to the RLA. Otherwise you are putting the cart before the horse.

But to say that we need to remove all government intervention in labor law is ludacris. The whole reason unions (and strike leverage) came to power was through government intervention. It was the government that made "yellow dog contracts" illegal, etc. Not only would unions have no power if the government didn't step in - they would be ILLEGAL as they were in the early 1900s before the gov't stepped in.
 
jtrain609 said:
There's one thing I've learned so far, which is to write what you mean:



That does not say that you are simply not a fan of the RLA.

It says don't want to provide any legal protections to strike.

The ability to have your job back when you come back from a strike is a legal protection, which is provided by the government.

Remove government, and you remove that protection.

You may consider reading up on this further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act
Click to expand...
don't have time to write a legal brief or position point paper. The RLA rarely allows strikes, and it needs reform. It is one sided intervention. The intent of the thread was to contrast the law with the applicable ones in Europe and asked a simple of question. It either went over your head or you wanted to change the subject as you are apt to do.

Maybe a better retort would have been "no schiesse sherlock".
Mr Train introduced me to heavy sarcasm the first week I posted here and I usually dont engage in discussions with him. Qgar I feel the same way about you. Sorry no rancor for anyone just asked a question. peace out.:)
 
I agree, the RLA needs reform.

But if you want to say that the RLA needs reform, then say that. That's not a legal brief in any way; it's saying what you intend to say. I can't read your mind, and I'm not changing the subject, just responding to what you wrote. I'm not sure what your problem is, but keep on keepin' on man.
 
jhugz said:
That is absolutely incorrect. What makes a strike work is a strong unified profession that won't cut each others throat. Let them fire a whole pilot group and see how long they stay in business for.
Click to expand...

Nope what makes a strike work is locking the doors. There is a notion of "struck work" and locked doors. If the RLA was reformed and the flying could be protected, or strike authorization be given more freely, you would have real contract negotiations taking place.

But I'm not a lawyer.
 
granlistillo said:
don't have time to write a legal brief or position point paper. The RLA rarely allows strikes, and it needs reform. It is one sided intervention. The intent of the thread was to contrast the law with the applicable ones in Europe and asked a simple of question. It either went over your head or you wanted to change the subject as you are apt to do.

Maybe a better retort would have been "no schiesse sherlock".
Mr Train introduced me to heavy sarcasm the first week I posted here and I usually dont engage in discussions with him. Qgar I feel the same way about you. Sorry no rancor for anyone just asked a question. peace out.:)
Click to expand...


Apparently, you didn't comprehend my post which was in reference to your sarcasm/insult comment. Oh well......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top