Seggy
Well-Known Member
You are correct. They aren't.
Repealing the RLA
- Thread starter fender_jag
- Start date
You are correct. They aren't.
fender_jag
Well-Known Member
I totally misunderstood your original point and fully agree with what you wrote. Sorry about that!
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Quoted from nrtw.org
If you work primarily in a Right to Work state, except on certain federal property, you not only have the right to refrain from becoming a union member, you cannot be required to pay dues or an agency fee to the union unless you choose to join the union. Employees who work on federal property may or may not be protected by their state's Right to Work law, depending on specific circumstances.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Supremacy Clause.
Also, agency shop is a permissive area of bargaining; if it's in, why would a union EVER give it up? The company can't force a lockout over the issue, and thus they have almost no leverage to get rid of it. Every airline is an agency shop already.
Also, you're reading a website that focuses on the NLRA, and attempting to apply those rules to the RLA. While there is generally a large amount of overlap between the two, it does not mean that this will AWLAYS be the case.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
The NRTW Defense Fund has been linked to the Koch brothers pretty much since it's inception.
And @fender_jag I just wanted to make sure you understood the problems base specific seniority lists. I believe you are at JetBlue? Either way, Best I know there is a JFK, BOS, MCO and LGB 320 base there. Right now everybody is on the same payscale. Without the RLA protections the company could go to the BOS guys and say "hey, take a 5% cut and we'll move 30 lines of flying from JFK over here". The bottom 30 guys at JFK would get furloughed and there would be 30 upgrades and 30 new hires in BOS. When @kellwolf wanted to base transfer from JFK to MCO, he'd have to start on the bottom of the MCO seniority list once he moved down there, even if you was hired before some of the guys on the bottom of the list currently.
The RLA certainly has problems but as has been said, they are mostly related to how it has been administered for the past 20 years.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
I assumed it was them. Why am I not surprised???
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
I'm no lawyer, but this is an excerpt from the SC right to work statute. I don't expect you, or even JTrain to be well versed in each state's laws, but it has always been my understanding that agency shop is illegal in SC (my home state).
Obviously I defer to JTrain on this, and if my interpretation is incorrect, please let me know how.
Section 41-7-50 below prevents contracts that require agency shop (or any other violation of SC's right to work laws).
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/query.p...id=6808051&result_pos=0&keyval=793&numrows=10
SECTION 41-7-30. Labor organization membership as condition of employment. [SC ST SEC 41-7-30]
(A) It is unlawful for an employer to require an employee, as a condition of employment, or of continuance of employment to:
(1) be or become or remain a member or affiliate of a labor organization or agency;
(2) abstain or refrain from membership in a labor organization; or
(3) pay any fees, dues, assessments, or other charges or sums of money to a person or organization.
SECTION 41-7-50. Labor organization contract violating right to work provisions. [SC ST SEC 41-7-50]
It shall be unlawful for any labor organization to enter into or seek to effect any agreement, contract or arrangement with any employer declared to be unlawful by §§ 41-7-20 or 41-7-30.
HISTORY: 1962 Code § 40-46.4; 1954 (48) 1692.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Are you out of your mind?
amorris311
Well-Known Member
@PhilosopherPilot are you ok with negotiating your own working conditions and pay? Let me be more specific. Say there is a union on property that negotiates working conditions and pay for its members. Would it be ok in your mind for someone who is not part of the union to reap those benefits or should they negotiate their own?
Right to work is a union busting law and I'm sure you know I'm not in favor of it. I just don't think it is fair for people who choose not to be members get the benefits that others worked hard for.
Right to work is a union busting law and I'm sure you know I'm not in favor of it. I just don't think it is fair for people who choose not to be members get the benefits that others worked hard for.
fender_jag
Well-Known Member
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Ok.
1. I didn't say that repealing the RLA was a good idea. I was just pointing out there may be negative consequences if it is repealed. Read my first post again. I made no claim supporting or not supporting repealing the act.
2. What behavior would you expect from a 15 year old? Was that directed at me? I asked a legit question, though I suppose not explicitly. How is it that the SC law would not be in effect if the RLA were repealed?
The one guy said he wanted to repeal the RLA. I said that might be a bad idea due to things like right to work states. Seggy said I was wrong, so I copied parts from the SC code of laws, and essentially asked you (JTrain) for explanation.
3. I'm not being a smartass here. I'm just asking a question. I'll make it explicit:
If the RLA were repealed, why wouldn't the SC law be in force for anyone based in SC (or for a company based in SC)? Doesn't it appear that it prohibits agency shop, including requiring payment of contact maintenance fees?
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying I'm in favor or against right to work. I just brought it up because someone mentioned repealing the RLA, and it's my understanding that the RLA is what makes agency shop and other things legal in states like Georgia and SC, which are right to work states. It may very well be an incorrect understanding, and I'm asking for a cogent explanation of why that is an incorrect understanding.
Apparently I'm just going to be attacked instead.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
@PhilosopherPilot, you are right, but only if the RLA was repealed and not replaced with something else. It would require a straight repeal of the whole thing with no substitution in order for state law to take effect. And that's obviously not realistic. Every time some right-wing nut has started pushing to repeal the RLA, it's always come along with something like McCain's proposal to replace it with baseball style arbitration. Under that legislation, so-called "right to work" laws at the state level would still be overruled by the new federal replacement for the RLA.
Make no mistake about it, folks, getting rid of the RLA while the Republicans control the House is the worst thing that could ever happen to your career. You would long for the days of 5-year negotiation timelines.
Make no mistake about it, folks, getting rid of the RLA while the Republicans control the House is the worst thing that could ever happen to your career. You would long for the days of 5-year negotiation timelines.
HVYMETALDRVR
Well-Known Member
It seems to be that "fly now, grieve later" would be a better rule to overturn, this essentially lets my company to almost whatever they want.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
I never suggested it was a good idea. The first post said "Repeal the RLA." So I merely said that there would be some possible negative consequences. I'm not sure why that was so controversial.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
That rule is essential, and would never disappear, no matter what you replace the RLA with. How exactly do you think it's possible to resolve disputes over contract interpretations without grieving it and allowing a neutral third party to decide?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I don't know either. I agree with you. I was talking to the people who think this is the best idea ever. Usually the same people who cling to that idiotic "Stop the Whipsaw" Facebook page.