I believe it was AA that won in court against their pilot group based on historic open time pickup prior to negotiations.

It shouldn't have to be said with regard to helping the company out during negotiations but with the lack of unity within this pilot group apparently it does. Everyone has their justifications. At the end of the days the *****s will ***** and the lazy will be lazy. And the company will laugh and laugh, all the way to the bank as the pilot group fights each other.

 

If the RLA didn’t exist, would the company be able to get an injunction and have the union sanctioned for this kind of speech? What I mean, is this issue a non-governmental matter? It was Congress and the president that made the RLA law. So isn’t it the government that is forbidding otherwise free speech? Has this question ever been answered by the scotus?

 

The speech would be used as evidence that members engaged or advocated for an illegal job action.

You wouldn’t directly get in trouble for the speech, though the company could discipline you possibly.

 

What I’m saying is that the government made that speech an illegal job action. Before the RLA existed, it wasn’t illegal to say these certain things. So I don’t think it’s correct to say the first amendment doesn’t apply.

But I do concede that if the RLA didn’t exist, could theoretically fall under company rules that you could be disciplined. That would be the company punishing you, not the government. But the company would then not have a basis to get a judge’s order to subpoena social media, emails, texts, etc. in order to find those culpable of breaking their rules.

 

You can say "don't do XYZ" all you want and the government isn't going to come and arrest you. You can say that your boss is a #&!)* all you want, and the government isn't going to arrest you. That is freedom of speech. It doesn't mean that that speech can't have consequences such as your boss firing you if he/she hears it or the company suing the union or firing you if they think that you are the cause of an illegal job action because of your speech. Don't confuse freedom of speech with speech without consequences, they are not the same.

As far as the RLA goes, I don't think there is a list of forbidden speech in the text. It does forbid illegal job actions.

 

I think you are confusing two things I’ve said in regards to legality versus consequences. First, I’m talking about a theoretical first amendment right in the context of someone telling their fellow pilots to commit an illegal job action. Rick said it’s not because that only applies to government. My point is that it’s the government who has passed, enforced, and interpreted the RLA so you can’t write things online because they violate the RLA. So is it not a first amendment issue at that point?

My second point is a hypothetical wherein the RLA doesn’t exist. You would be free to tell pilots to go on wildcat strikes. But like you said, you may still run afoul of your company rules and be punished. And lastly, that in this scenario, the company wouldn’t have grounds to ask a judge to subpoena APC in order to find out who the person is.

To be clear, I’m not referring to consequences. I’m solely speaking to legality. It’s government that has made certain speech in this context illegal. Like I said earlier, before the RLA, you could legally encourage wildcat strikes. And again, what the company does with that is up to the company rules at the time.

 

I think we are confusing a couple points. The speech of advocating isn’t against the law, I can’t find text of the law that says you can’t talk about a job action.

The job action or perceived job action is what is actually against the RLA.

The speech, posts, Fb comments are what the company will be used to prove that there is a job actions. They’d argue that there was a concerted effort by the pilots posting such words to organize a job action.

It is illegal to use speech that could cause immenent lawless action. So advocating to break the RLA could be construed as such possibly but that is most likely a stretch in all but the most extreme instances. As there is a time element that is required.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/advo...illegal_action

 

No, I'm not confusing what you said. How has the government enforced the suppression of speech when it relates to a job action? Have they arrested anyone? Have they made anyone pay a fine to the government? No, companies have sought relief from the courts for an illegal job action and those that organized it through either a verbal or written campaign. The courts have had the unions pay a fine to those companies. If you are sure that you are correct and that this type of speech is protected, there is one way to prove your theory, just don't take the rest of us down with you.

 

https://www.courthousenews.com/union...ight-stoppage/

Spirit had established a status quo with their habitual OT pickups in large amounts. When folks stopped picking up OT at that same level the operation experienced a meltdown. With extended negotiations they were less motivated to bail out managements poor staffing model and then came the TRO.

 

I think I understand what you guys are saying now. I’m saying is that speech has been used to prove the RLA has been violated. If there were no RLA, there would be no basis for subpoenaing speech to prove it. And you are saying that it’s not the speech, per se, that violates the RLA, it’s the actions of what people do after that speech is made. And the other point about government enforcement of the RLA, I understand it to be a civil case so it wouldn’t be an arrest for violating it. It would be a fine. Who the fine is paid to I believe may be irrelevant to the first amendment as the law was created by government. Not to dissimilar to the current controversy in the Texas civil law against abortions. Just because the law is a civil case, doesn’t mean the constitution cannot be violated in a colateral way.