Originally Posted by
eaglefly
Please, spare us an opinion on abortion. That's as polarized an argument as anything and pointless on this forum. As far as scope, we should be back at the table shortly and we'll see where that goes. More larger RJ's are a certainty, but how many and how large is the question.
That wasn't an opinion on abortion. Not even close. Neither "side" was argued for or against and I didn't touch the morality of either side either. I was just discussing the corollary someone else brought up WRT RvW, AA's 1113c and judicial activisim/interpretative sophistry. While what's going on at AA has some similarities, there are also some profound differences with the how and why going forward.
Scope being unilaterally abrogated while allowing the company to engage in nuclear self help while at the same time holding labor hostage under an activist court's bizzare version of a newly created one sided, "one way status quo" RLA is certainlly possible. At least until its appealed, and hopefully successfully. But that is flat out legislating from the bench, and different than RvW because if you've read the decision in its entirety, it leaves enormous room for massive changes in the status quo by design, as part of the very decision itself. That is why we are still discussing it, and that is why it is entirely different from what we're seeing here.
That is not the case with the RLA and 1113c. To do what that activist judge did, if it stands, is flat out one man law making based on his personal feelings only. Not only that, but it single handedly eliminates the right of unionization and collective bargaining for private employees to the extent that the scope is judicially abrogated.