Originally Posted by
FloridaGator
Hey guys, quick question.
I didn't understand that we were allowed to strike at any time. My understanding was that the judge ruled in our favor on the status quo lawsuit and gave the company a time period to comply with status quo. That time period has lapsed, and now we (the pilot group) are going back to the judge to get his verdict on weather the company has complied or not. Allegiant is obviously claiming that they are in compliance. So, it is in the judges hands at this point. He can 1) say the company has come into compliance and nullify our status quo strike. 2) he can side with our pilot group and THEN we are legally allowed to strike... and 3) he could actually give the company more time to comply.
I don't think we are allowed to just walk off at a time of our choosing.
My next question is in regards to having to what a status quo strike is allowed to accomplish. Does a status quo strike ONLY give us the power to bring status quo back?
I can't tell from any of the communications what the procedure on this thing is. If it only allows us to bring the company back to status quo.... who determines when that is accomplished? Are we allowed to go on a status quo strike and have an intense bargaining session to hash out our first contract?
Are we allowed to hold our "right to strike" and continue negotiating and have the strike as an immediate threat if there is still no progress?
Does anyone know if ANY airline has EVER done a status quo strike before? I have a feeling that our management and F&H are the only ones to ever just simply not comply with the status quo.
Thanks guys...
Looking at this week's Q and A letter, the union is NOT going back to the judge to determine the verdict. The verdict was determined last summer. What the IBT HAS done is file a motion for civil and criminal charges for the company's continued violation of the judges order.
Allegiant can claim they are in compliance but we all know they are not. They lied in court and are still lying. They have appealed, but an appeal does not vacate the lower court ruling and it stands until overturned. Since last summer, the company has failed twice to get relief and the unions legal council believes the 9th circuit will also uphold the district courts ruling. If the 9th Circuit overturns the finding, the current "law of the land" changes and we go back to work.
Why are we the first airline to ever face a status quo strike? I don't know, maybe other airlines didn't think they were "different" and thought it might be wise to follow a judges order. According to legal, status quo violations carry criminal and civil penalties and are clearly defined. After the 90 day deadline the company was still in violation, as they are today.
To your other question, the Q and A letter stated the purpose of this strike is to return us to status quo. Period. Negotiation side is still pending proffer approval from the NMB. That may or may not happen so this might be our only shot at a wake up call to management and investors. They will not listen to anything but the deafening silence of jet engines sitting idle.