Imminent Strike at G4

BobDDuck said:
Not at the airline level. North American didn't actually have a contract when they went through this kind of thing.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, as I understand the current arrangement at Allegiant, it is much like what jetBlue has now - there is an 'agreement' of sorts that was, well, it was ratified by the Company, and now that IBT have shown up, they are altering the "deal." (Pray that they do not alter it further.)

This is interesting.
 
BobDDuck said:
Not at the airline level. North American didn't actually have a contract when they went through this kind of thing.
Click to expand...

The big question here (because I do not know the answer) is, were there agreements made between G4 and IBT after collective bargaining? In other words, were there agreements reached on these issues AFTER collective bargaining took place? If not, then prior case law won't help their case in that the Supreme Courts ruling is there can be no status quo if there were no agreements reached after collective bargaining. And, in fact, the company CAN make unilateral alterations if there has never been any collective bargaining between entities.
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
Has there ever been a "status quo" strike before?
Click to expand...

The attorney I spoke to earlier said that there's no such thing. Completely made up. He said that there is some case law that suggests that some judges may allow self help for a violation of the status quo requirement if the parties aren't in the middle of contract negotiations, but he'd be shocked if a judge allows it during negotiations.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
He said that there is some case law that suggests that some judges may allow self help for a violation of the status quo requirement if the parties aren't in the middle of contract negotiations, but he'd be shocked if a judge allows it during negotiations.
Click to expand...

Well supposedly there's been a meeting today, so I guess we'll find out.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The attorney I spoke to earlier said that there's no such thing. Completely made up. He said that there is some case law that suggests that some judges may allow self help for a violation of the status quo requirement if the parties aren't in the middle of contract negotiations, but he'd be shocked if a judge allows it during negotiations.
Click to expand...
Read what jtrain posted. It references such cases.
United Industrial Workers of Seafarers v. Board of Trustees and National Airlines v. International Association of Machinists both seem applicable.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The attorney I spoke to earlier said that there's no such thing. Completely made up. He said that there is some case law that suggests that some judges may allow self help for a violation of the status quo requirement if the parties aren't in the middle of contract negotiations, but he'd be shocked if a judge allows it during negotiations.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe your right. I just received this via text.

4-01-2015

Fellow Allegiant Pilots,

Unfortunately, the federal judge assigned has issued a temporary restraining order forcing us to temporarily postpone the strike. This is only a setback in our goal of restoring the status quo, and one of the possible outcomes of our calling a strike. The good news is that Judge Gordon will be assigned to the case on 10 April. Judge Gordon has ample experience with our plight from the court hearing last summer so this will certainly weigh in our favor. Again, don’t be discouraged, this is only a temporary setback.

More to follow, stay tuned.

EXCO and SPC

Although, its worth pointing out we still got our message out. The management spin of "all is well in Camelot," won't hold well with the shareholders after this. We'll see what the judge says on April 10th. To be continued...
 
HVYMETALDRVR said:
Well, maybe your right.
Click to expand...

I know. :)

Although, its worth pointing out we still got our message out.
Click to expand...

See, here's the problem. The message isn't your goal. Your goal is to achieve a fair contract and to have it adhered to. In every thing that you do, you should ask the question "will this help us accomplish our primary goal(s)?" If the answer isn't yes, then don't do it. It doesn't matter how good it makes you feel if it works against your objectives.

You've now infuriated the NMB. Does that help you achieve your goals?
 
BobDDuck said:
The downside though is that the EXCO burned pretty much any goodwill they may have had with the NMB.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. It'll be interesting to see what the judge says about this on the merits on April 10th.

This is a test case, no different than when the ACLU forwards an issue to a court in order to tease out the edges of a civil liberties issue.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
In every thing that you do, you should ask the question "will this help us accomplish our primary goal(s)?" If the answer isn't yes, then don't do it. It doesn't matter how good it makes you feel if it works against your objectives.
Click to expand...

good_for_company_10.jpg


p9xGEBLXZ8WXTcd2Ov00wy6r2tYs9N6YVkKf1mnHMqp3rfnhBvWOC2-Pd-RMFabWyaUf45HMdNQyMKtBwBUOAa9-fDSjmusTAD9SNNQ6VQtvYZ78gQ
 
tbstanto said:
Without people pushing the envelope and moving forward, there would be no advancement in any industry. New laws are made every day, and laws are interpreted differently every day. All it takes is one judge to see things differently.

Court cases are USUALLY based on precedent, but not always. It is sad when people fail to realize that and say that we must do it this way because it is how we have always done it. A good lawyer and a sympathetic judge can change decades of case law.

Good for you guys for trying to move forward. I wish you luck.
Click to expand...

What you fail to understand is that the RLA isn't a bad law. The case law that has come along over the decades is what is bad, and that case law only exists because people agreed with your philosophy of "pushing the envelope." Had the envelope not been pushed recklessly, the RLA would not be the anti-labor mess that it is today. The case law is filled with rulings that were the result of reckless unions doing things that experienced RLA attorneys told them not to do.
 
Questions:
1) Which came first, the company's change to the status quo or the IBT? If the IBT, could the company argue that action was the first change to the status quo?
2) WRT "struck work," it seems that if it's an illegal strike then technically it wouldn't be, but it would be in spirit. Is that enough for a :( next to one's name?

Speaking of Spirit, wasn't there a question about an FO who flew a flight? I can't even recall the operator, but I think it was in an MD.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
You've now infuriated the NMB. Does that help you achieve your goals?
Click to expand...

Have we? We pushed the envelope, but didn't break the law. The area of the RLA we explored is grey at best and our actions do hold legal basis, it was not just a knee jerk angry reaction concocted up last week. It was months in planning and everyone was made aware it was coming including the associated parties of the Federal government who did absolutely nothing to discourage us until 10 hours prior. So yes, I think this helps establish our primary goal.

I guess on April 10th we find out. We meet with the NMB the last week of April to continue negotiating a CBA. Again, you don't break the law til you break it. The IBT complied with the injunction as required.

On a personal note I've never heard or used the word injunction myself so often in a single day. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top