Can you offer a counterpoint to help me (and others) understand how the RLA isn't inherently anti-labor? I fully confess that I'm extremely ignorant about the subject and have never been part of a union, but from an outside point of view (on the outside of the inside...) it appears from the evidence I see that unions have basically no power, and are slowly losing the war... but I imagine I'm only getting one side of the story.
The RLA actually works quite well when you have people on the NMB who want to administer it as it was designed (like we do now), instead of trying to push a political agenda (as we did under President Bush 43), and when the labor group works within its framework instead of trying to "go rogue." For the past six years, there has been a relatively pro-labor NMB. In cases where pilot groups have been stuck for extended periods of time, it isn't because the NMB is screwing them, but rather because those pilot groups haven't done their part to bargain in good faith.
But more importantly, the RLA provides labor with some pretty important protections. Because the RLA is federal labor law, it preempts state labor laws such as the so-called "right to work" laws. So even though I work in one of these anti-labor states with a "right to work" law, it never affected us. Get rid of the RLA, suddenly pilots are subject to the same draconian state labor laws that everyone else is. And there's a very good reason why you see labor go nuts when a "right to work" law is proposed in their state.
Suppose the RLA disappeared tomorrow and everyone was covered by the same laws as every other industry. How would that affect things? Well, first off, each domicile would be considered its own "shop." So instead of one union being elected to cover all pilots at Delta, you would instead have individual elections at Atlanta, Cincinnati, New York, Salt Lake, Detroit, and so on. Atlanta might be represented by ALPA, while Detroit was represented by the IBT, and Salt Lake by no one at all. So now management has the opportunity for an
internal whipsaw. "You ALPA guys in Atlanta are just demanding too much, while these guys out in Salt Lake are willing to do the work for much less. It's cheaper for us to give them the work and just have them do some overnights in Atlanta, so we're cutting back flying for the ATL domicile and furloughing 50% of you. You know, unless you're willing to take concessions to match the Salt Lake guys." Think the regional whipsaw is bad? You ain't seen nothing yet.
And then there's the self help that pilots are so eager to get to so quickly. Here's the thing: self-help goes both ways. Without the RLA, either party would be able to declare an impasse and resort to self-help without release. Yes, that means that you could strike without someone in government giving you the go ahead. But it also means that management could impose new terms unilaterally without getting released. Or that they could lock you out without pay. The RLA process protects both sides, not just management. Pilots just never think about the fact that management has options for self help, too.
The RLA is imperfect legislation, but it's far better than the alternative. The reality is that pilots cause most of their own problems in not getting released, and if pilots play the game right, things go much better for them. But pilots are usually too emotional, so they do stupid things and then wonder why the NMB isn't on their side.