Militant Labor Question

ATN_Pilot said:
Sorry, Mike, but it is partisan. President Clinton only ordered the APA pilots back to work after his chief counsel spoke to the APA president and was told "we wouldn't be at all upset if the president instituted a PEB." The Bush administration wouldn't even talk to labor leaders.
Click to expand...

C'mon now. Im no GOP cheerleader, but to be fair, had Bush hypothetically been in office in 1997 and the same exact thing happened in the same exact way you describe above, the GOP would be getting hell over it, not a pass.
 
BS, Mike. I'd be cheering President Bush along if he was a Republican that actually had the balls and integrity to call a union leader and consult with him about a strike. But President Bush refused to even speak to labor during peace time, let alone during a strike. By contrast, President Clinton invited ALPA leaders into the Oval Office to discuss impending job actions. Under the Bush administration, the White House wouldn't even take our calls.

This isn't partisanship, this is reality. Sometimes pilots just don't want to face reality that their favorite political party is radically opposed to their own employment well being.
 
MikeD said:
And why would the APA have agreed to a PEB anyway? For some future gain?
Click to expand...

The APA leadership didn't really want a strike. They had gotten themselves painted into a corner because they didn't properly manage their members' expectations about a new CBA, so the membership's expectations were way out of whack with reality. It was impossible to achieve what the membership expected, even with a protracted strike. By the President implementing a PEB, the APA pilots were forced back to work, and the PEB (staffed with pro-labor appointees of a pro-labor President) issued its recommendations of what the APA and management should accept. With the weight of the PEB behind the recommendations, the membership faced reality and accepted a deal based on the recommendations. Strike averted, and greatly improved CBA ratified. Good outcome for everyone.
 
MikeD said:
That's indeed interesting. As an LEO, if I were a local/county LEO for example, and I were instructed to return someone to their private employer, by force if necessary, in order for force them to go to work.....I think I'd have a serious issue with that. It just doesn't sound like something law enforcement should be getting involved in, for the civil matter it should be. Im not saying you're wrong in that a judge could do this; Im questioning the wisdom of a judge doing this course of action at all. Having the police dragging someone off to work and delivering them to their private employer, kicking and screaming, in order to work would be a severe can of worms being opened......the 3rd world banana republic kind of can of worms.
Click to expand...
I believe this was what went down during the great railroad strike of 1887. That strike is what lead to the RLA. They used the national guard to get people to go back to work. It has happened but it was a long time ago.
 
if i was a pilot and quit my job and meant it and some Fn judge ordered me back to work..................well the first thing i would do would be to eat the nastiest mexican/indian meal i could find and i mean i would totally overeat. then i would go to work sit down in the cockpit and take a big swig of ipecac. after a few minutes of that brewing in my belly id projectile vomit all over the cockpit, the overhead panel ,front panel, the whole center console hoping to save enough to stagger out of the cockpit and puke all over the entry way and maybe as a bonus get a few pax too. then after i was done contaminating the aircraft and maybe causing a pukeathon in the pax cabin, id wipe the barf off my chin grab my bag and take a week of sick leave. oh yea im that big of an ass.
 
To be honest forced work by gunpoint of threaten of jail should be met with the same. I don't think a judge, the president or any elected body has this power.

Mike is right. Very banana republic.
 
MikeD said:
That's indeed interesting. As an LEO, if I were a local/county LEO for example, and I were instructed to return someone to their private employer, by force if necessary, in order for force them to go to work.....I think I'd have a serious issue with that. It just doesn't sound like something law enforcement should be getting involved in, for the civil matter it should be. Im not saying you're wrong in that a judge could do this; Im questioning the wisdom of a judge doing this course of action at all. Having the police dragging someone off to work and delivering them to their private employer, kicking and screaming, in order to work would be a severe can of worms being opened......the 3rd world banana republic kind of can of worms.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that it is possible. Just a little nitpick... You wouldn't be returning them to their private employer though, you would be arresting them and throwing them into the klink for contempt of court. The judge would let them out if they then agreed to go back to work. If they reneged all it takes is another quick jot of the pen to get them in contempt again. The nuance is totally different.

People have been judged in contempt of court in this country for a wide variety of weird things. For example, journalists have been held in contempt of court for failure to disclose sources. A man was famously held in contempt of court and held in jail for 14 years for failure to surrender moneys that the court felt he had hidden overseas in order to keep them from his wife in a divorce dispute. It was held that there is no rules of proportionality and you can be held in jail indefinitely.

Like ATN said, this isn't likely -- what they usually do is make an example of a few people, normally the union leaders but it could also be who the judge felt was organizing the wildcat strike.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
It's interesting that it is possible. Just a little nitpick... You wouldn't be returning them to their private employer though, you would be arresting them and throwing them into the klink for contempt of court. The judge would let them out if they then agreed to go back to work. If they reneged all it takes is another quick jot of the pen to get them in contempt again..
Click to expand...

...which is nuts, because it would be like the court working for the private business, and using law enforcement as it's enforcer. That would be 3rd world indeed! wow.
 
MikeD said:
...which is nuts, because it would be like the court working for the private business, and using law enforcement as it's enforcer. That would be 3rd world indeed! wow.
Click to expand...
This already happens, as can be seen by the man who spent 14 years in prison because he didn't want to pay his wife half his money, or deadbeat dads who are held in contempt until they start paying child support, etc etc. Most people would consider the deadbeat dad example to be fine and good. It isn't widely known that anyone in a civil matter can be held in contempt of court like this... All you have to do is be ordered to do something by the court, be ABLE to do it, and refuse to do it. The burden of proof is only a preponderance of evidence and although there is due process it isn't the same as criminal due process.

The RLA gives the court the ability to order a person back to work, the court just needs to see that a pilot: knows he has been ordered back to work, is able to go back to work, and doesn't do it and wham bam thank you ma'am, fines or jailtime.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
This already happens, as can be seen by the man who spent 14 years in prison because he didn't want to pay his wife half his money, or deadbeat dads who are held in contempt until they start paying child support, etc etc. Most people would consider the deadbeat dad example to be fine and good. It isn't widely known that anyone in a civil matter can be held in contempt of court like this... All you have to do is be ordered to do something by the court, be ABLE to do it, and refuse to do it. The burden of proof is only a preponderance of evidence and although there is due process it isn't the same as criminal due process.

The RLA gives the court the ability to order a person back to work, the court just needs to see that a pilot: knows he has been ordered back to work, is able to go back to work, and doesn't do it and wham bam thank you ma'am, fines or jailtime.
Click to expand...

This is a moral and ethical problem in a free society. I for one do not welcome our judicial overlords.
 
So a judge can force me to work for a private company and force me to pass my medical if i feel unfit to fly, force me to pass training, force me to be in a job responsible for many peoples lives after I turn into a raging lunatic alcoholic from all the stress and then he can fine me or throw me in jail if I don't comply? I don't think so. This isn't North Korea, this will NEVER happen here, especially in this line of work when you consider all the responsibility and safety issues.
 
Obviously forcing someone to work is stupid. However illegally walking off the job should void any union protection for the people involved. That is where the lines should be drawn.
 
Maurus said:
Obviously forcing someone to work is stupid. However illegally walking off the job should void any union protection for the people involved. That is where the lines should be drawn.
Click to expand...
Well what is considered illegally walking off the job, IMO is just quitting. That means you're not entitled to any protection whatsoever. Seniority number resigned, no unemployment, etc. If all the employees decide to do that of their own free will because the company has made the job that terrible, well that's the companies problem. There's a pretty good chance they wouldn't go back to work there again under any circumstances at that point.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Don't like draconian labor laws? Vote for pro-labor politicians. You know which party they come from, and it doesn't start with an "R."
Click to expand...
I really never understood how so many pilots can vote for Republicans and then whine about how their union can't get anything done. At least in recent history, despite his treatment of the air traffic controllers Reagan at least let the NMB do its job.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
I really never understood how so many pilots can vote for Republicans and then whine about how their union can't get anything done. At least in recent history, despite his treatment of the air traffic controllers Reagan at least let the NMB do its job.
Click to expand...
One could also make the argument that having a pro business Republican in the White House gives their employer a somewhat better chance of succeeding and growth.

In the end if politicians of either stripe continue to spend money they don't have it'll all be a moot point anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top