Originally Posted by
80ktsClamp
wait... PCL 128 (and replace his name for any high ranking ALPA rep) has a poor interpretation of labor law and cases????
hmmm.. who would have thought.
(PCL, next time we run into each other, beers are on me... but good grief please step back from the ALPAcentric view and learn how to read.)
and yes, he has no clue what he's talking about. just because you're in a high ranking position doesn't mean you've got it right. (another round there...)
Following on the heels of our RAH surrender, its a disturbing trend we have going here when the ALPA guys are so ready to capitulate on scope issues and claim there's nothing we can legally do about outsourcing and subcontracting.
The notion that we can't force management to bargain about scope and job security because its a "permissive" topic and we can never strike over those issues is just plain dangerous. Its even more loony than saying that Republic Air is not an air carrier.
Here's the Supreme Court on the issue:
The type of "contracting out" involved in this case -- the replacement of employees in the existing bargaining unit with those of an independent contractor to do the same work under similar conditions of employment -- is a statutory subject of collective bargaining under § 8(d) of the Act.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that, on the facts of this case, the "contracting out" of the work previously performed by members of an existing bargaining unit is a subject about which the National Labor Relations Act requires employers and the representatives of their employees to bargain collectively.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/379/203/case.html