Militant Labor Question

[ppragman]

Ok, question here. From what I've read, it seems like the RLA screws pilots over. It seems like the only reason that pilots get screwed over on a regular basis by airline management is that basically, the management has so much time between when the union airs its grievances and when it is possible to strike that most of the time management can essentially dictate ridiculous, unrealistic terms, and by the time arbitration, negotiations and mandatory cooling off periods take place, the ridiculousness has been whittled down to what they wanted in the first place but didn't ask for, no one strikes, because "hey, we're not getting totally screwed," and management wins, and many of the people involved are already gone. Scope is more or less gone, workrules at the regionals essentially suck, and regional flying has eclipsed mainline flying. Pay at the regionals is abysmal from day one, and while it does get better, a US Airways EMB-190 captain is doing much better than a Republic EMB-190 captain. My thesis is that basically, the only reason that the regionals suck, is because you guys can't walk off the job at a moments notice, and management knows it.

So...why do you guys abide by the RLA? I mean, frankly, it seems like an unjust law that basically forces people to work for less than they deserve or get out. I mean, I'd imagine that labor costs would go up for companies if they were constantly an hour away - the time it'd take to rally the troops and vote from iPhone - from a work stoppage. If Pinnacle could have been shut down at a moments notice by its pilots saying, "BURN THIS MOFO TO THE GROUND!!!! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!" do you think they would have bid the Delta flying so low? It seems to me that telling management to "piss up a rope, we're walking" and have none of this mediation would give labor immense power over the system. From my external perspective, it seems like the Railway Labor Act basically guarantees that management will have a labor force, and considering that these companies are only looking contract to contract, quarterly report to quarterly report, they can dictate unreasonable terms. Is a bit of "civil disobedience" to make the airline career a good one again?

 

[z987k]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. When it came down to it, if you wanted to "burn this mofo down", who actually cares about the RLA. Everyone via twitter or what have you just agrees to all walk at once. Arab spring style. Burn an effigy of the CEO on the way out. What are the repercussions of violating the RLA anyways? A fine? So form a union that has essentially no money, strike without following the law, get what you want, then when the fine comes down, have the union declare bankruptcy. LOL.
You could probably even start a group that is informal, but organized enough within itself to cause major harm. Get only 1/4 of the pilots on board and the disruption to business would be significant enough they'd have to recognize the threat.
Management would go cry foul, but there's no law against quitting your job. If a significant amount of pilots decided to walk out/quit, there's nothing anyone can do. It'd ruin the airline and they can't possibly train replacements fast enough to keep from shutting the doors. It is not unskilled labor even though it's treated as such.

I think it has more to do with the vast majority of pilots wouldn't have the balls to be honest.
If this kind of crap happened in the 20's there'd be a lynch mob outside. Not that's appropriate, but maybe we've come too far in the other direction.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Your union can't do much good for you if it is bankrupt and the union leaders are in jail, and US judges have indicated that is exactly what would happen if they had a wildcat strike.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

And now that I am on a device with a keyboard -- the RLA may be bad but it is a known quantity. The parts where it is bad are known, and can be worked around. Any attempt to reform the RLA when there isn't a Democratic majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a Democratic president to sign it will likely result in the same sort of "reform" that our corporate masters have planned for many other very popular government programs.

I'm not any kind of expert on the RLA, there are lawyers who specialize in only this type of law, but I do know that there are places where you could just change a few words, or make a seemingly innocuous change (unless you were one of these specialists) to the RLA and it would screw us over but good.

"The devil we know" is not a great argument, but in this case I think it is true... unless you want baseball style arbitration.

Also, most of us are looking through the RLA through the prism of the last decade when the Bush administration had a policy of obstructing any kind of labor action at the NMB, regardless of how warranted.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Ok, question here. From what I've read, it seems like the RLA screws pilots over.

The RLA does not "screw pilots over." It is the failure of certain presidents to enforce the Act as it is written and intended that screws pilots over, and it is the miss-application of the Act by certain anti-labor judges that have perverted it into something that was never intended that screws pilots over. The Act itself was a compromise crafted by both labor and management, and worked flawlessly for a very long time until conservative judges and lawmakers started to systematically dismantle it. Right now, it is working pretty well, because we have a mostly pro-labor president who has appointed a mostly pro-labor NMB.

It seems like the only reason that pilots get screwed over on a regular basis by airline management is that basically, the management has so much time between when the union airs its grievances and when it is possible to strike that most of the time management can essentially dictate ridiculous, unrealistic terms, and by the time arbitration, negotiations and mandatory cooling off periods take place, the ridiculousness has been whittled down to what they wanted in the first place but didn't ask for, no one strikes, because "hey, we're not getting totally screwed," and management wins, and many of the people involved are already gone.

Not true at all. While it's certainly true that management sometimes tries to stonewall negotiations, it is also true that labor sometimes tries to stonewall negotiations. Both sides attempt to force the pace of negotiations into a timeline that works well for them. The side that understands the Act the best, and knows how to get the NMB on their side, is the party that will prevail, assuming that an anti-labor NMB is not in place.

Part of the problem with your perspective is that your experience with the Act has been in the post-9/11 era. But look back prior to 9/11, and you can see that the Act not only didn't "screw us over," it helped us to achieve radically improved contracts, including the most expensive pilot contract in history, DAL Contract 2001. The Act has worked well for pilots historically. It was only during the Bush administration that the Act was forced off the rails (no pun intended). Give it time, and you'll see that the Act can be quite effective. It already has been at AirTran, Hawaiian, Alaska, and Spirit.

Scope is more or less gone, workrules at the regionals essentially suck, and regional flying has eclipsed mainline flying. Pay at the regionals is abysmal from day one, and while it does get better, a US Airways EMB-190 captain is doing much better than a Republic EMB-190 captain. My thesis is that basically, the only reason that the regionals suck, is because you guys can't walk off the job at a moments notice, and management knows it.

Your theory is faulty. First, all of those things you mention are the result of bankruptcy, not of the RLA. No one gave up those concessions under traditional RLA bargaining. In fact, the NMB wasn't even involved in the concessionary bargaining that took place during the bankruptcy era. You should be pointing your finger at faulty bankruptcy law, not the RLA.

Second, not being able to walk off the job at a moment's notice is not a problem in the system. Because you see, if we had that right, then management would also have the opposite and equal right: to lock us out at a moment's notice. Some of the biggest and most bloody strikes in history weren't strikes at all; they were lockouts by management. The strategy is an easy one. Management waits for a bad economic climate when they know that labor is desperate for good jobs, they demand draconian concessions, and when the union doesn't immediately accept the terms, management imposes a lock out and tells the workers that nobody gets paid until the union caves and agrees to their terms. The members panic, realizing that they have no ability to secure decent employment in such a job environment, and they demand that the union accept the company's terms. You see, when labor can use its big stick with wildcat strikes, that means that management can also use its big stick of wildcat lockouts. The result is a crazy yo-yo of contract terms and a destabilized industry. Not good for anyone.

So...why do you guys abide by the RLA?

Why do you obey any law? I would assume that you're not a lawbreaker. Right? If you don't break other laws, why would you advocate breaking this one?

But putting philosophy aside, let's look at this pragmatically. What happens if the union (or even just the employees, without union endorsement) decide to ignore the law and wildcat strike? First, management has the right to hire permanent replacements. That means SCABs that can take your job, and management is not required to give you your job back if you come crawling back begging. Second, management will go to court and get an emergency injunction ordering you back to work. If you refuse, then the union leaders will be thrown in jail. Yes, even if they didn't incite it. The courts have determined that unions have an "affirmative obligation" to stop illegal job actions, not just to not incite them. Then, the courts will impose draconian fines on the union. Fines that no union could ever possibly afford. The union will be bankrupt. There's no such thing as insurance for breaking the law. So, you're now without a job, some SCAB is sitting in your cockpit seat, your former union leaders are in jail, and your union no longer exists.

Do you think you've won? Management is laughing their asses off, conservative lawmakers can't believe that you made it so easy for them to eliminate your union while also turning the public against you in one fell swoop, and you no longer have a job. Congratulations! Quite a "victory," huh?

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

I don't know of any group of Management at any airline that wouldn't trade a temporary disruption of service is worth breaking the back of their pilot union. They'd take that deal every day and twice on Sunday.

 

[BobDDuck]

I don't know of any group of Management at any airline that wouldn't trade a temporary disruption of service is worth breaking the back of their pilot union. They'd take that deal every day and twice on Sunday.

Well, maybe Saturday. Reduction of service and all.

 

[ppragman]

I don't know of any group of Management at any airline that wouldn't trade a temporary disruption of service is worth breaking the back of their pilot union. They'd take that deal every day and twice on Sunday.

But my question is - how long could they go for? I mean, if guys just walked off the job and didn't come back...the airline is gone.

Also, ATN_Pilot - that was incredibly informative. Thank you.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

But my question is - how long could they go for? I mean, if guys just walked off the job and didn't come back...the airline is gone.

Well, keep in mind that management isn't tied to the company as we are. Their qualifications are portable, ours are not. When we're out of a job, we have to go somewhere else and start all over again. A mainline captain making $200k will start over at the bottom of someone else's list (if a job is even available somewhere) at $40k. By contrast, the airline manager is now a hero to his management buddies at other companies for "teaching those union guys a lesson," and he has plenty of connections for other jobs, possibly even making more money. Take a look at all of the guys who worked for Texas Air Corporation, which was the holding company that owned Texas International, Continental, and Eastern under Frank Lorenzo. Did all of those managers have any trouble finding work after they destroyed Eastern? Not at all. In fact, most of them are still in the industry. Until recently, I worked for some of them and sat across the bargaining table from them on a regular basis.

So, their motivation to keep the airline going is not the same as ours. If they feel that there is a good chance of breaking the union, then they're likely to take the risk because they view the reward as being so great, while there is very little personal risk to them. The real risk is born by the other stakeholders, not by the managers.

 

[RPM]

What happens if the union (or even just the employees, without union endorsement) decide to ignore the law and wildcat strike? First, management has the right to hire permanent replacements. That means SCABs that can take your job, and management is not required to give you your job back if you come crawling back begging.

How long is it going to take to get everyone trained and replaced? Airline will be long dead by then with the entire fleet shut down for weeks to months. So that plan won't work.

Second, management will go to court and get an emergency injunction ordering you back to work.

They can't order me to do anything, this isn't the military, I can walk out any time I want.

If you refuse, then the union leaders will be thrown in jail.

My union leaders probably deserve to be thrown in jail for the crap they have been pulling lately anyway. So I certainly won't lose any sleep over that.

Then, the courts will impose draconian fines on the union. Fines that no union could ever possibly afford. The union will be bankrupt.

Not my problem, don't care.

So, you're now without a job, some SCAB is sitting in your cockpit seat, your former union leaders are in jail, and your union no longer exists.

So what? Now I'm out a 35K a year job that was just going to get EVEN worse with our new horrid contract imposed on us anyway.. I'll survive. Don't care anymore.. At all. F-em.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

How long is it going to take to get everyone trained and replaced? Airline will be long dead by then with the entire fleet shut down for weeks to months. So that plan won't work.

I can think of a lot of pilots at Continental Airlines in 1983 who thought the same thing. Guess what? They were wrong. Good 'ole Frank found enough current CAL pilots to cross the lines to keep about a third of his operation going in the short term, and then he kicked into high gear hiring anyone else who would come scab. A rapid fire training program got them on the line in record time. Then he started making personal phone calls to the homes of striking pilots. He'd hang up if the pilot answered, but if the wife answered, he'd launch into a prepared speech about how her husband was risking the family's future and their security, and how he wouldn't have a job if he didn't come back right away. He turned wives against husbands, and more pilots crawled back under the pressure. As the crawl backs happened, more and more pilots got scared, and they too crawled back. Before you knew it, Frank had 2,002 scabs happily flying for his supposedly struck airline. In the end, Frank won. ALPA called off the strike, Frank decertified ALPA thanks to a legal technicality, and the strikers were allowed to come back at drastically reduced pay, benefits, and work rules. CAL has never truly recovered. Yes, they eventually got a new independent union, and then joined ALPA again about a decade ago, but their contract has never recovered the damage.

And you know what? That was a legal strike. How much luck do you think you'll have with an illegal strike? The number of pilots willing to risk it all for a strike that they know is illegal, and isn't even endorsed by their union, will be tiny. And justifiably so. Bad plan.

They can't order me to do anything, this isn't the military, I can walk out any time I want.

Sure, you can always quit. But you give up your right to your seniority number when you do, unlike with a legal strike. Your choice.

My union leaders probably deserve to be thrown in jail for the crap they have been pulling lately anyway. So I certainly won't lose any sleep over that.

So what? Now I'm out a 35K a year job that was just going to get EVEN worse with our new horrid contract imposed on us anyway.. I'll survive. Don't care anymore.. At all. F-em.

I'm not telling you to take the concessions. Hell, I've said that I wouldn't vote for them. But fight it legally, not illegally.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

But my question is - how long could they go for? I mean, if guys just walked off the job and didn't come back...the airline is gone.

Also, ATN_Pilot - that was incredibly informative. Thank you.

You're not going to have complete walkout on a wildcat strike... because that takes organizing and if you organize it too well its going to known that it is going to happen, and the company will find out and stamp it out with an injunction before it even happens, especially one not really organized by the union. There will be enough people who stay on that the most profitable routes of the airline will be able to be staffed. The airline won't have trouble hiring replacement workers because whether or not they would even be considered scabs is debatable since there would be no definition of struck work by the union, and you have to know that the type of people who would be on the fence about scabbing anyway (• in other words) would jump all over an 'opportunity' like that. Additionally a rapid training program can be established to hire replacement workers who already have type ratings (SIC or PIC) in the aircraft the airline flies, and people out of work with a CRJ type rating aren't exactly hard to find right now.

All while this is going on you're racking up fines every day, and perhaps worse of all you're going to have talking heads on Faux News crying about how there needs to be new legislation to protect companies against these unlawful union thugs, I mean airline pilots of all people have the gall to break the law to strike -- everyone knows they are rich and only work 10 or 12 days a month as it is. Legislation would be introduced which the public would emphatically support, and it might even have a good chance of passing, and even if it doesn't 2 years from now the Congress people who voted to save your career would be bludgeoned with attack ads paid for by unaccountable Super PACS: 'Rep. Smith voted to side with the union fat cats to protect them from accountability in their ILLEGAL STRIKE! Rep. Smith, Bad for Business, Bad For Jobs. This Message Paid For by Douchebags For America.'

Someone said that there isn't a law against quitting -- that isn't exactly true. If a judge determines your 'quitting' was a job action then yes, they can by force of arms (the police) make you go back to work even if your intention really was to quit and never return to that job. It works like this, the judge sees a bunch of people quitting at once, orders it an illegal job action and orders the people to return to work. If you don't you're in contempt of court and can be thrown in jail. Normally only a small percentage would be made example of in order to induce the others to return to work.

 

[Roger Roger]

'

Someone said that there isn't a law against quitting -- that isn't exactly true. If a judge determines your 'quitting' was a job action then yes, they can by force of arms (the police) make you go back to work even if your intention really was to quit and never return to that job.

maybe that's pinnacle's plan for staying properly staffed after the judge reveals his bankruptcy contract, which is when the mass exodus will REALLY begin.

 

[z987k]

Someone said that there isn't a law against quitting -- that isn't exactly true. If a judge determines your 'quitting' was a job action then yes, they can by force of arms (the police) make you go back to work even if your intention really was to quit and never return to that job. It works like this, the judge sees a bunch of people quitting at once, orders it an illegal job action and orders the people to return to work. If you don't you're in contempt of court and can be thrown in jail. Normally only a small percentage would be made example of in order to induce the others to return to work.

Has that ever been tested in higher court? I can't imagine a sane judge ordering anyone to work. What country is this? Slavery ended a bit ago.

I've got a question for ATN... or anyone I guess.

Suppose you're a non-union shop. Does the RLA even apply then?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Suppose you're a non-union shop. Does the RLA even apply then?

Yep.

 

[MikeD]

Someone said that there isn't a law against quitting -- that isn't exactly true. If a judge determines your 'quitting' was a job action then yes, they can by force of arms (the police) make you go back to work even if your intention really was to quit and never return to that job. It works like this, the judge sees a bunch of people quitting at once, orders it an illegal job action and orders the people to return to work. If you don't you're in contempt of court and can be thrown in jail. Normally only a small percentage would be made example of in order to induce the others to return to work.

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.

 

[MikeD]

Also, most of us are looking through the RLA through the prism of the last decade when the Bush administration had a policy of obstructing any kind of labor action at the NMB, regardless of how warranted.

Bush administration? Try the negotiation precedent set in the decade earlier, where the Clinton administration ordered the American pilots back to work in 1997. Don't make this partisan.......

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Read his post again. He's not saying that they're going to return you to work at gunpoint. He's saying that they'll throw you in jail if you refuse to return.

Now, how likely is it that a judge would do that? Not very. In fact, very unlikely. But what he is very likely to do is order you back to work and impose a daily fine on you if you refuse. The workers in the illegal New York transit strike are still having a portion of their pay checks garnished to pay off their individual fines.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Bush administration? Try the negotiation precedent set in the decade earlier, where the Clinton administration ordered the American pilots back to work in 1997. Don't make this partisan.......

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.

 

[MikeD]

Read his post again. He's not saying that they're going to return you to work at gunpoint. He's saying that they'll throw you in jail if you refuse to return.

I did. He wrote "they can by force of arms (the police) make you go back to work even if your intention really was to quit and never return to that job."

Im not saying he's wrong; Im saying a judge would be crazy to do that; and in my opinion, just as crazy to throw you in jail for not going to work to your private employer. Even govt employer....Reagan fired the PATCO controllers, not throw them in jail (I don't know the specific legality of it he could, or not).

Now, how likely is it that a judge would do that? Not very. In fact, very unlikely. But what he is very likely to do is order you back to work and impose a daily fine on you if you refuse. The workers in the illegal New York transit strike are still having a portion of their pay checks garnished to pay off their individual fines.

With a govt worker, I could see there being fines. But would that even work or be otherwise legit in a strike against a private employer? It just seems rather draconian.