Quote:
Originally Posted by deltajuliet
I'm not arguing one way or another about new hires, but I think your Railroad Labor Act information is erroneous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act
It was enacted in 1926 and adjusted in the 30's. Airline employees are almost always denied the right to strike, even after the conditions of the Railway Labor Act have been satisfied to do so. Illegal job actions have also cost unions money in the past, including one at American where it was discovered there had been an organized sick out. The union was fined tens of million (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/prof...ot-sickout.pdf). Pilots knowledgable about the RLA absolutely hate it because it's an archaic POS piece of legislation that doesn't have any place in the 2016 airline industry, and yet it still neuters our unions and stops us from getting anything done.
Allegiant tried to strike just last year. Told they couldn't: Federal judge ruling bars Allegiant Air pilots from going on strike | Fox News
Thanks Delta. In the 1860s, the Railroad Act was enacted with one of its foremost intentions to circumvent railroads from cessation of certain operations which were key to the government and country as a whole. The act was only formulated with the actions of the companies in mind since, in those days, strikes were basically unheard of. People were so happy to just have a job that supplied a meal a day and a roof over their head that they would never think of striking because the alternative meant living on the street. So, during a limited number of circumstances that the act was enforced, it was only with respect to forcing continued operations by the railroad and, the gov could force even unprofitable operations to be sustained even if it meant bankrupting the railroad in the process. In that regard, it was a very powerful piece of legislation.
A perceived shortcoming of that act became apparent in the early part of the next century when labor began to organize in several large industries. The gov acted preemptively when it saw that, while it could prevent the management of a company from ceasing critical operations, it could do nothing to inhibit its employees from doing the same. Therefore, the Railroad Labor Act was passed in the 1920s as, essentially, an enjoinder to the Railroad Act. Now all bases were covered in that the gov could prohibit both management AND employees from ceasing critical operations.
This is why I asked whoever it was in here to show me one example in the last 80 years. While there are examples of the companies themselves being hammered, there are none that I'm aware of where a single employee was forced to make one penny of restitution either to the company or the gov nor serve one day in jail ... even AFTER the passage of the RLA. While the RLA definitely has some really big teeth, to date, nobody that I can find has been bitten and the reason is this (copied, in fact, directly from the link you provided)---
"The RLA specifies both (1) the negotiation and mediation procedures that unions and employers must exhaust before they may change the status quo, and (2) the methods for resolving "minor" disputes over the interpretation or application of collective bargaining agreements. The RLA permits strikes over major disputes only after the union has exhausted the RLA's negotiation and mediation procedures, while barring almost all strikes over minor disputes. The RLA also authorizes the courts to enjoin strikes if the union has not exhausted those procedures.
On the other hand, the RLA imposes fewer restrictions on the tactics that unions may use when they do have the right to strike."
In short, what this means is that, even in situations where transportation critical operations fall within the act, there ARE conditions under which employees can strike. Those conditions can be met if its demonstrated that they are severe enough and that all other attempts to resolve things have been tried by the union and have failed.
At $22/hr we're being paid at a poverty level which is one half of what the rest of the industry makes. I would say that a pretty good argument exists for satisfying that first condition. However, the second condition ...? Ah, that's another story. Has ALPA exhausted all other avenues of mediation? OK, have they tried at least one? Have they done ANYTHING at all?
I don't consider telling us there's nothing they can do as having done something. And, this is the point that I and others have been trying to make to those in this forum who are at least smart enough to listen.