With no NMB release, is it considered a legal strike?
ABX is on STRIKE
- Thread starter Polar742
- Start date
With no NMB release, is it considered a legal strike?
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Great question for a Judge to answer.
But from what I have read, the odds that it is legal are at least better than zero. Given that there isn't an injunction yet, probably 60/40 that it is.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Time (and the Judiciary) will tell.
It ISN'T a legal strike under the Section 6 process of the RLA. It could be legal under a different section of law though.
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
I'm surprised this hasn't shown up yet:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...d-hurt-amazon-s-air-operation-during-holidays
I think it's an illegal strike and the IBT local will end up paying dearly later, but I'm really an arm-chair observer.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...d-hurt-amazon-s-air-operation-during-holidays
I think it's an illegal strike and the IBT local will end up paying dearly later, but I'm really an arm-chair observer.
Dan208B
Well-Known Member
That's not correct, a status quo violation opens a loophole for a legal strike within the RLA. They're well within their rights.
thanks for your support Dan.
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. I looked in Freight and General. Silly me.
I believe the status-quo requirements have been so eroded that a carrier can get away with significant actions (to include most everything claimed by IBT 1224) where labor cannot.
http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1636&context=clevstlrev
I don't agree with the current state of the law, but I think IBT 1224 will end up getting forced back to work.
@jtrain609 needs to run for Congress.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I'm not entirely sure that a discussion of this issue is complete without mention of National Airlines vs. IAM. The cite is:
NATIONAL AIRLINES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACEWORKERS et al., Defendants-Appellants, 416 F.2d 998 (5th Cir. 1969).
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Would not be surprised if there is some entirely new, and equally ambiguous decision after this...
But if you ever want to see the original National Airlines building, come by St Pete. I'll be flying out of it tomorrow.
DE727UPS
Well-Known Member
"as of now, ATI (ALPA) is considering this an informational picket only as there was no release by the NMB and the strike is about perceived status quo violations and as such is operating flights out of those ramps. No idea how long that viewpoint will last."
I guess ATI didn't honor the strike. There is certainly a lot at play none of us will see or know about. I saw a lot of Amazon volume on my SDF-LAS flight today. Did they truck it from CVG? I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know.
I guess ATI didn't honor the strike. There is certainly a lot at play none of us will see or know about. I saw a lot of Amazon volume on my SDF-LAS flight today. Did they truck it from CVG? I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
That's a new twist on how court works....
z987k
Well-Known Member
If there was, that's fine. No one is striking Amazon. The ABX customers are free to get their freight moved by other companies outside of CVG and ILN.
ATI on the other hand are a bunch of scabs. Literally crossing picket lines. I understand that the IBT and ALPA are talking about this and the release today was only from the ATI MEC, which from what I've seen has said on multiple occasions that they'd scab any ABX strike, which they are doing. So no surprise there.
Last edited:
Curiously, how so, if their own union doesn't consider the strike to be a strike?
What should the individual pilots do if their own union doesn't consider the strike a strike? If they try to honor a picket line that isn't considered a strike by their own union (and by extension, not considered a strike by the company's view), wouldn't their own company be able to take administrative action against them for refusing to work for no valid reason? And if so, how would their own union defend that?
Honest question. From the cheap seats, it seems like a catch-22. In the sense that is this a unique situation, that of a union not considering a fellow union's strike to be valid and therefore not recognizing it as such (ie- the line not being a strike line, and hence the work not being struck work)?
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
This really seems like a literal no-win for those pilots. Fly the work and be a scab, or don't and face the penalties with no union protection.
E_Dawg
Moderator
Thank you for clearing that up. My previous statement was far too broad but for these ramps it is black and white, you do not cross the line to go to work. What I don't get is how ALPA can call it informational picketing when there are pilots on strike.
That's how it comes across to me, since ALPA hasn't recognized a formal strike, regardless of how the IBT looks at it.
Seems like it would be a :
"Why aren't you here at work Mr pilot?"
"Because there's a strike in progress."
"Not according to your union there isn't. Its informational picketing that the other union is doing, your reps have told us. So again, why are you not here at work?"
Another question: if ALPA, their union, doesn't consider this a strike by the IBT, and these ALPA pilots are working, then obviously ALPA doesn't consider them scabs? I mean, it'd be pretty crappy to have your guys do work that the union doesn't consider struck work, then have them later considered to be scabs. Or for the IBT to consider them scabs, when they are following their own union's direction on the matter in telling their own people it isn't a strike and therefore there is no formal strike line.
Last edited:
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Take a look at the decision @jtrain609 posted. Somewhat relevant to that scenario, a union not being in control of its members. I suspect the union's first priority is protecting itself in court.
Autothrust Blue
”…trusting ze process…”
Last I looked, there's a hearing on this at noon Eastern time today.