Originally Posted by
Champeen07
Look, I’m a Yes vote on the SAV. And fully understand how the RLA works and that we need to do this to give us leverage in negotiations.
Buts it’s disappointing to see everyone cheering this move like it’s some great thing. What we are agreeing to if it goes full course is a stoppage of work and pay for people that have families they need to provide for. Nothing about this SAV is a good thing. It should be discussed with a somber tone as a necessary evil. Not an announcement of a big party. Way too many people excited.
I will vote yes on the SAV because I want a new contract asap and understand this needs to happen. I would decide to hold an SAV as well if I was in charge. Doesn’t mean I’m happy about it.
The chances of us going on strike - at some point down the road - are nearly nil, not because Congress, though it has the ability to after the RLA process plays out, will shut us down, but because the chances the company will allow our dispute to go all the way to a strike are close to zero before they will feel compelled to settle with us.
A successful strike authorization vote improves our leverage by communicating to the company and to the NMB that we are united around the intent to go as far as we need to go to in order to obtain our contractual demands.
The company would have to drag this thing all the way through a release from mediation, 30 days of cooling off, and likely, 60 days of a PEB, all while revenue is taking a serious beating in the form of passengers booking away in order for us to get to the point of a strike.
Don’t get me wrong: it wouldn’t surprise me if our management, like the railroad executives did last September, waited until day 60 of a PEB to agree to a contract favorable to us. But…
All of this would be against the backdrop of the Christmas Meltdown of 2022. The narrative of “WTF is up with Southwest Airlines?” has already begun to develop in the public as a result of the meltdown. It would become more and more entrenched the longer management persisted in making SWA look like even more of a clown show by holding out.
And SWA would be tagged as an “Official Total Disaster” by the public if management foolishly allowed a strike to actually occur. On top of that, our “family,” “culture,” “luv,” “coheart” brand would be even more thoroughly exposed to the public as a facade.
In the extremely unlikely event we actually did end up going on strike, though, how long do you think it would last before the company capitulated? Close to $70M per day lost revenue. Of the three mainline passenger airline strikes since 1997, they lasted, from longest to shortest: 14 days, 4 days, and 24 minutes. How long would one last here? How many guys here could not go two or three weeks (likely much shorter) without pay in order to secure a contract that would pay them and their families back in spades for their short-term sacrifice?
And, BTW, none of those strikes occurred in an environment where finding replacement workers would be as difficult as today. The threat of and use of replacement workers has historically been one of the most effective strike-breaking tools for management. In that respect, SWA management is essentially neutered today.
A SAV has almost nothing to do with actually going on strike. There are many more steps that would be required to get to a strike after a SAV. But it has a lot to do with communicating a message to the the company and to the NMB that we are united around the idea of presenting the credible threat of a legal strike. That is leverage.