Originally Posted by
tonsterboy5
The company can argue that all day long, what stops individuals that stop picking up from arguing they no longer need the money. If I have picked up every month for the last 5 years maybe I just finished paying off my new boat and don’t need the extra time. The company has no way of knowing why people pick up time or stop picking up time. Maybe my best friend got furloughed and I would rather spend time on my boat with him/her instead of picking up open time. Easiest way to get me back is to pay my friend to head back to work so that I have no one to go onto my boat with. The company doesn’t know and had no reason to know why people pickup/don’t pick up.
That's all good.
But as we (hopefully) leaned last time, unfortunately that means jack in front of the Judge due to current law, including the RLA.
All the company has to produce is aggregate evidence that shows an overall change in behavior and it's a slam dunk.
As far as the Judge is concerned they are dealing with two children and an injunction is simply telling them both to go back and play by the rules they agreed to (i.e. the contract.) Even if the Judge is indifferent to which "side" is more correct when issuing an injunction, they are especially not indifferent if they feel their order is being ignored.
It's one more reason why it would be great to have additional sections in the UPA that are
automatically applied (or suspended, depending) when certain events occur, like furloughs.