AA May Have an AIP
10-24-2022, 03:00 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,672
We’ll have to wait and see if the rumors regarding the AA AIP are true, but if they are and this thing turns out to be as bad as it sounds, then it should be even more clear to everyone than it was before that the idea of a pilot shortage at the major airline level as massive leverage bringing us all to the promised land is not something to pin our hopes on. IMO, it never was.
There’s a great post right now on the “Conscience” thread OTOF pointing out that it’s becoming apparent that airline management is willing to pull a lot of other levers with respect to solving their pilot manning issues that do not include paying us or agreeing to significant improvements in our contracts.
We have to get very comfortable with the idea of actually acting like organized labor if we want to apply real leverage against the corporation. To many pilots, though, “organized labor” and “unionism” seem to be synonymous with “socialism,” and “anti-Americanism.” That is a mental hurdle that must be cleared by our pilot group if we are ever going to get our act together and secure the compensation, retirement, work rules, medical benefits, and lifestyle for ourselves, our families, and our profession that is commensurate with the liability and responsibility we assume every time we walk down a jetway.
If we can’t make that leap and be willing to employ the credible threat of and, if necessary, actually use the strongest economic weapon available to us, then we can expect the company to continue to walk all over us and reward us with far less than we deserve.
Right now, unfortunately, our act is not together. In the latest RP’s RLA educational section, there are several errors. Think about that: our own union, who would be the people, if we decide to go that route, to shepherd us along the bold and, for us, new path of attempting to employ the RLA to maximum effect doesn’t even itself fully understand the RLA and/or can’t be bothered to proofread their own RLA education articles.
First, the article says that the NMB, because it’s an election year, would be unlikely to release us until next year when the new president takes office. This article was published in October 2022.
This NMB has already proven that they were willing to release a major dispute (the railroad unions in June 2022) with a potentially enormous impact on interstate commerce in this election year. While it’s very likely true that we will not get released this year due to the fact that there are only a couple of months left in the year, it’s not because the currently seated NMB would be unwilling to release a union with the ability to significantly affect interstate commerce in an election year.
Beyond that, we are more than two years away from a potentially new president taking office. Whoever the next president is will not be sworn in until January 2025 as opposed to the article stating that a new president will take office next year. Whether we get released or not this year has nothing to do with a new president taking office next year because, barring the death or resignation of the President or a coup, there will not be a new president in 2023.
Second, the article says that after a PEB convenes, the board has 30 days to report its findings to the president. That is true. But then, the article says that, at the president’s direction, that thirty day deadline can be extended. That is incorrect.
The president does not have the authority to extend the thirty day deadline for the board to issue its report. As Deputy Asst AG John McGinnis reported to President Bush in a 1990 report entitled Presidential Authority to Extend Deadline for Submission of an Emergency Board Report Under the Railway Labor Act, “The President may require an Emergency Board under the Railway Labor Act to submit its report before the statutory deadline, but he may not extend that thirty day deadline unless the parties involved have entered into a side agreement extending the status quo period during which they refrain from self-help.” Read the full DOJ legal opinion for yourself at the highlighted link.
This point is absolutely critical to understand. The President CANNOT extend a PEB nor create a second follow-on PEB to further delay the onset of self help. Many people within our pilot group, including within SWAPA, have claimed that the President does, in fact, have that power. They are wrong.
In my experience, these people have typically made these claims in conjunction with the assertion that attempting to leverage the RLA is therefore pointless because the President can prevent us from threatening to strike by simply indefinitely extending a PEB or creating endless follow-on PEB’s.
This is kind of a minor point, but the way SWAPA explains it is not really the way the PEB is intended to work. Yes, the parties could both accept the PEB’s recommendation upon issuance of the board’s report or any time during the thirty days afterward and end the dispute. That’s true.
But it’s not technically the rejection of the PEB’s recommendations that triggers the thirty day status quo period following the issuance of the PEB report. That thirty day status quo period is mandated by law. The RLA stipulates, “After the creation of such board and for thirty days after such board has made its report to the President, no change, except by agreement, shall be made by the parties to the controversy in the conditions out of which the dispute arose.”
The thirty day status quo period automatically begins after the board issues its recommendations. It’s not triggered by the rejection by either side of those recommendations.
The NMB adds some clarification on their web site, “After the emergency board reports to the President, the parties to the dispute have another 30 day cooling off period to consider the recommendations of the emergency board and to reach an agreement. If no agreement is reached at the end of the cooling off period, then the parties may engage in self-help, including strikes, lockouts and unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment.”
If we are going to finally end our fifty year long exodus wandering around in the desert of lagging contracts, we are going to have to learn how to apply real pressure on the company. If our own union doesn’t fully understand in intricate detail the law that governs our ability to do that, we are likely to end up wandering for quite a few more years.
There’s a great post right now on the “Conscience” thread OTOF pointing out that it’s becoming apparent that airline management is willing to pull a lot of other levers with respect to solving their pilot manning issues that do not include paying us or agreeing to significant improvements in our contracts.
We have to get very comfortable with the idea of actually acting like organized labor if we want to apply real leverage against the corporation. To many pilots, though, “organized labor” and “unionism” seem to be synonymous with “socialism,” and “anti-Americanism.” That is a mental hurdle that must be cleared by our pilot group if we are ever going to get our act together and secure the compensation, retirement, work rules, medical benefits, and lifestyle for ourselves, our families, and our profession that is commensurate with the liability and responsibility we assume every time we walk down a jetway.
If we can’t make that leap and be willing to employ the credible threat of and, if necessary, actually use the strongest economic weapon available to us, then we can expect the company to continue to walk all over us and reward us with far less than we deserve.
Right now, unfortunately, our act is not together. In the latest RP’s RLA educational section, there are several errors. Think about that: our own union, who would be the people, if we decide to go that route, to shepherd us along the bold and, for us, new path of attempting to employ the RLA to maximum effect doesn’t even itself fully understand the RLA and/or can’t be bothered to proofread their own RLA education articles.
First, the article says that the NMB, because it’s an election year, would be unlikely to release us until next year when the new president takes office. This article was published in October 2022.
This NMB has already proven that they were willing to release a major dispute (the railroad unions in June 2022) with a potentially enormous impact on interstate commerce in this election year. While it’s very likely true that we will not get released this year due to the fact that there are only a couple of months left in the year, it’s not because the currently seated NMB would be unwilling to release a union with the ability to significantly affect interstate commerce in an election year.
Beyond that, we are more than two years away from a potentially new president taking office. Whoever the next president is will not be sworn in until January 2025 as opposed to the article stating that a new president will take office next year. Whether we get released or not this year has nothing to do with a new president taking office next year because, barring the death or resignation of the President or a coup, there will not be a new president in 2023.
The president does not have the authority to extend the thirty day deadline for the board to issue its report. As Deputy Asst AG John McGinnis reported to President Bush in a 1990 report entitled Presidential Authority to Extend Deadline for Submission of an Emergency Board Report Under the Railway Labor Act, “The President may require an Emergency Board under the Railway Labor Act to submit its report before the statutory deadline, but he may not extend that thirty day deadline unless the parties involved have entered into a side agreement extending the status quo period during which they refrain from self-help.” Read the full DOJ legal opinion for yourself at the highlighted link.
This point is absolutely critical to understand. The President CANNOT extend a PEB nor create a second follow-on PEB to further delay the onset of self help. Many people within our pilot group, including within SWAPA, have claimed that the President does, in fact, have that power. They are wrong.
In my experience, these people have typically made these claims in conjunction with the assertion that attempting to leverage the RLA is therefore pointless because the President can prevent us from threatening to strike by simply indefinitely extending a PEB or creating endless follow-on PEB’s.
Are they willfully or negligently putting forth misinformation when they try to make that point? I don’t know, BUT THEY ARE INCORRECT.
The president only gets 60 days to delay self help. That is all he/she gets. This is a point that every member of our pilot group and, especially every SWAPA rep and staff member should understand with 100% clarity.
But SWAPA doesn’t understand it. SWAPA’s most current RLA education information is wrong. And the pilot group is reading that incorrect information and believing it because who would guess that SWAPA, who ought to be an authority on the subject, would get it wrong? But please don’t simply believe what I’m saying. Believe the DOJ. Read the legal brief linked to above.
Third, the article states that after a PEB issues it’s report, both sides can either accept or reject its recommendations. It then goes on to explain that, if rejected, another thirty day cooling off period is triggered.The president only gets 60 days to delay self help. That is all he/she gets. This is a point that every member of our pilot group and, especially every SWAPA rep and staff member should understand with 100% clarity.
But SWAPA doesn’t understand it. SWAPA’s most current RLA education information is wrong. And the pilot group is reading that incorrect information and believing it because who would guess that SWAPA, who ought to be an authority on the subject, would get it wrong? But please don’t simply believe what I’m saying. Believe the DOJ. Read the legal brief linked to above.
This is kind of a minor point, but the way SWAPA explains it is not really the way the PEB is intended to work. Yes, the parties could both accept the PEB’s recommendation upon issuance of the board’s report or any time during the thirty days afterward and end the dispute. That’s true.
But it’s not technically the rejection of the PEB’s recommendations that triggers the thirty day status quo period following the issuance of the PEB report. That thirty day status quo period is mandated by law. The RLA stipulates, “After the creation of such board and for thirty days after such board has made its report to the President, no change, except by agreement, shall be made by the parties to the controversy in the conditions out of which the dispute arose.”
The thirty day status quo period automatically begins after the board issues its recommendations. It’s not triggered by the rejection by either side of those recommendations.
The NMB adds some clarification on their web site, “After the emergency board reports to the President, the parties to the dispute have another 30 day cooling off period to consider the recommendations of the emergency board and to reach an agreement. If no agreement is reached at the end of the cooling off period, then the parties may engage in self-help, including strikes, lockouts and unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment.”
I love every part of what you just wrote. Please consider putting this in a RP article where it may reach those who don't do forums.
This APA TA (rumored) is a big wake up call for SWAPA. Time to do some heavy lifting.
10-26-2022, 11:09 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,153
If SWA is really playing 3D chess, they’d come in super high to raise the bar and get the cream of the crop applicants. But I’m not gonna hold my breath. They are refusing to replace the broken and lost covers on our next iPads!🤣
Pole vaulting over gold bars to scrape up pennies stuck to the bottom of the mall fountain since 1971.
Pole vaulting over gold bars to scrape up pennies stuck to the bottom of the mall fountain since 1971.
10-26-2022, 05:54 PM
#15
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 17
We’ll have to wait and see if the rumors regarding the AA AIP are true, but if they are and this thing turns out to be as bad as it sounds, then it should be even more clear to everyone than it was before that the idea of a pilot shortage at the major airline level as massive leverage bringing us all to the promised land is not something to pin our hopes on. IMO, it never was.
There’s a great post right now on the “Conscience” thread OTOF pointing out that it’s becoming apparent that airline management is willing to pull a lot of other levers with respect to solving their pilot manning issues that do not include paying us or agreeing to significant improvements in our contracts.
We have to get very comfortable with the idea of actually acting like organized labor if we want to apply real leverage against the corporation. To many pilots, though, “organized labor” and “unionism” seem to be synonymous with “socialism,” and “anti-Americanism.” That is a mental hurdle that must be cleared by our pilot group if we are ever going to get our act together and secure the compensation, retirement, work rules, medical benefits, and lifestyle for ourselves, our families, and our profession that is commensurate with the liability and responsibility we assume every time we walk down a jetway.
If we can’t make that leap and be willing to employ the credible threat of and, if necessary, actually use the strongest economic weapon available to us, then we can expect the company to continue to walk all over us and reward us with far less than we deserve.
Right now, unfortunately, our act is not together. In the latest RP’s RLA educational section, there are several errors. Think about that: our own union, who would be the people, if we decide to go that route, to shepherd us along the bold and, for us, new path of attempting to employ the RLA to maximum effect doesn’t even itself fully understand the RLA and/or can’t be bothered to proofread their own RLA education articles.
First, the article says that the NMB, because it’s an election year, would be unlikely to release us until next year when the new president takes office. This article was published in October 2022.
This NMB has already proven that they were willing to release a major dispute (the railroad unions in June 2022) with a potentially enormous impact on interstate commerce in this election year. While it’s very likely true that we will not get released this year due to the fact that there are only a couple of months left in the year, it’s not because the currently seated NMB would be unwilling to release a union with the ability to significantly affect interstate commerce in an election year.
Beyond that, we are more than two years away from a potentially new president taking office. Whoever the next president is will not be sworn in until January 2025 as opposed to the article stating that a new president will take office next year. Whether we get released or not this year has nothing to do with a new president taking office next year because, barring the death or resignation of the President or a coup, there will not be a new president in 2023.
Second, the article says that after a PEB convenes, the board has 30 days to report its findings to the president. That is true. But then, the article says that, at the president’s direction, that thirty day deadline can be extended. That is incorrect.
The president does not have the authority to extend the thirty day deadline for the board to issue its report. As Deputy Asst AG John McGinnis reported to President Bush in a 1990 report entitled Presidential Authority to Extend Deadline for Submission of an Emergency Board Report Under the Railway Labor Act, “The President may require an Emergency Board under the Railway Labor Act to submit its report before the statutory deadline, but he may not extend that thirty day deadline unless the parties involved have entered into a side agreement extending the status quo period during which they refrain from self-help.” Read the full DOJ legal opinion for yourself at the highlighted link.
This point is absolutely critical to understand. The President CANNOT extend a PEB nor create a second follow-on PEB to further delay the onset of self help. Many people within our pilot group, including within SWAPA, have claimed that the President does, in fact, have that power. They are wrong.
In my experience, these people have typically made these claims in conjunction with the assertion that attempting to leverage the RLA is therefore pointless because the President can prevent us from threatening to strike by simply indefinitely extending a PEB or creating endless follow-on PEB’s.
This is kind of a minor point, but the way SWAPA explains it is not really the way the PEB is intended to work. Yes, the parties could both accept the PEB’s recommendation upon issuance of the board’s report or any time during the thirty days afterward and end the dispute. That’s true.
But it’s not technically the rejection of the PEB’s recommendations that triggers the thirty day status quo period following the issuance of the PEB report. That thirty day status quo period is mandated by law. The RLA stipulates, “After the creation of such board and for thirty days after such board has made its report to the President, no change, except by agreement, shall be made by the parties to the controversy in the conditions out of which the dispute arose.”
The thirty day status quo period automatically begins after the board issues its recommendations. It’s not triggered by the rejection by either side of those recommendations.
The NMB adds some clarification on their web site, “After the emergency board reports to the President, the parties to the dispute have another 30 day cooling off period to consider the recommendations of the emergency board and to reach an agreement. If no agreement is reached at the end of the cooling off period, then the parties may engage in self-help, including strikes, lockouts and unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment.”
If we are going to finally end our fifty year long exodus wandering around in the desert of lagging contracts, we are going to have to learn how to apply real pressure on the company. If our own union doesn’t fully understand in intricate detail the law that governs our ability to do that, we are likely to end up wandering for quite a few more years.
There’s a great post right now on the “Conscience” thread OTOF pointing out that it’s becoming apparent that airline management is willing to pull a lot of other levers with respect to solving their pilot manning issues that do not include paying us or agreeing to significant improvements in our contracts.
We have to get very comfortable with the idea of actually acting like organized labor if we want to apply real leverage against the corporation. To many pilots, though, “organized labor” and “unionism” seem to be synonymous with “socialism,” and “anti-Americanism.” That is a mental hurdle that must be cleared by our pilot group if we are ever going to get our act together and secure the compensation, retirement, work rules, medical benefits, and lifestyle for ourselves, our families, and our profession that is commensurate with the liability and responsibility we assume every time we walk down a jetway.
If we can’t make that leap and be willing to employ the credible threat of and, if necessary, actually use the strongest economic weapon available to us, then we can expect the company to continue to walk all over us and reward us with far less than we deserve.
Right now, unfortunately, our act is not together. In the latest RP’s RLA educational section, there are several errors. Think about that: our own union, who would be the people, if we decide to go that route, to shepherd us along the bold and, for us, new path of attempting to employ the RLA to maximum effect doesn’t even itself fully understand the RLA and/or can’t be bothered to proofread their own RLA education articles.
First, the article says that the NMB, because it’s an election year, would be unlikely to release us until next year when the new president takes office. This article was published in October 2022.
This NMB has already proven that they were willing to release a major dispute (the railroad unions in June 2022) with a potentially enormous impact on interstate commerce in this election year. While it’s very likely true that we will not get released this year due to the fact that there are only a couple of months left in the year, it’s not because the currently seated NMB would be unwilling to release a union with the ability to significantly affect interstate commerce in an election year.
Beyond that, we are more than two years away from a potentially new president taking office. Whoever the next president is will not be sworn in until January 2025 as opposed to the article stating that a new president will take office next year. Whether we get released or not this year has nothing to do with a new president taking office next year because, barring the death or resignation of the President or a coup, there will not be a new president in 2023.
The president does not have the authority to extend the thirty day deadline for the board to issue its report. As Deputy Asst AG John McGinnis reported to President Bush in a 1990 report entitled Presidential Authority to Extend Deadline for Submission of an Emergency Board Report Under the Railway Labor Act, “The President may require an Emergency Board under the Railway Labor Act to submit its report before the statutory deadline, but he may not extend that thirty day deadline unless the parties involved have entered into a side agreement extending the status quo period during which they refrain from self-help.” Read the full DOJ legal opinion for yourself at the highlighted link.
This point is absolutely critical to understand. The President CANNOT extend a PEB nor create a second follow-on PEB to further delay the onset of self help. Many people within our pilot group, including within SWAPA, have claimed that the President does, in fact, have that power. They are wrong.
In my experience, these people have typically made these claims in conjunction with the assertion that attempting to leverage the RLA is therefore pointless because the President can prevent us from threatening to strike by simply indefinitely extending a PEB or creating endless follow-on PEB’s.
Are they willfully or negligently putting forth misinformation when they try to make that point? I don’t know, BUT THEY ARE INCORRECT.
The president only gets 60 days to delay self help. That is all he/she gets. This is a point that every member of our pilot group and, especially every SWAPA rep and staff member should understand with 100% clarity.
But SWAPA doesn’t understand it. SWAPA’s most current RLA education information is wrong. And the pilot group is reading that incorrect information and believing it because who would guess that SWAPA, who ought to be an authority on the subject, would get it wrong? But please don’t simply believe what I’m saying. Believe the DOJ. Read the legal brief linked to above.
Third, the article states that after a PEB issues it’s report, both sides can either accept or reject its recommendations. It then goes on to explain that, if rejected, another thirty day cooling off period is triggered.The president only gets 60 days to delay self help. That is all he/she gets. This is a point that every member of our pilot group and, especially every SWAPA rep and staff member should understand with 100% clarity.
But SWAPA doesn’t understand it. SWAPA’s most current RLA education information is wrong. And the pilot group is reading that incorrect information and believing it because who would guess that SWAPA, who ought to be an authority on the subject, would get it wrong? But please don’t simply believe what I’m saying. Believe the DOJ. Read the legal brief linked to above.
This is kind of a minor point, but the way SWAPA explains it is not really the way the PEB is intended to work. Yes, the parties could both accept the PEB’s recommendation upon issuance of the board’s report or any time during the thirty days afterward and end the dispute. That’s true.
But it’s not technically the rejection of the PEB’s recommendations that triggers the thirty day status quo period following the issuance of the PEB report. That thirty day status quo period is mandated by law. The RLA stipulates, “After the creation of such board and for thirty days after such board has made its report to the President, no change, except by agreement, shall be made by the parties to the controversy in the conditions out of which the dispute arose.”
The thirty day status quo period automatically begins after the board issues its recommendations. It’s not triggered by the rejection by either side of those recommendations.
The NMB adds some clarification on their web site, “After the emergency board reports to the President, the parties to the dispute have another 30 day cooling off period to consider the recommendations of the emergency board and to reach an agreement. If no agreement is reached at the end of the cooling off period, then the parties may engage in self-help, including strikes, lockouts and unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment.”
very ... good ... post.
10-26-2022, 05:55 PM
#16
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 17
We’ll have to wait and see if the rumors regarding the AA AIP are true, but if they are and this thing turns out to be as bad as it sounds, then it should be even more clear to everyone than it was before that the idea of a pilot shortage at the major airline level as massive leverage bringing us all to the promised land is not something to pin our hopes on. IMO, it never was.
There’s a great post right now on the “Conscience” thread OTOF pointing out that it’s becoming apparent that airline management is willing to pull a lot of other levers with respect to solving their pilot manning issues that do not include paying us or agreeing to significant improvements in our contracts.
We have to get very comfortable with the idea of actually acting like organized labor if we want to apply real leverage against the corporation. To many pilots, though, “organized labor” and “unionism” seem to be synonymous with “socialism,” and “anti-Americanism.” That is a mental hurdle that must be cleared by our pilot group if we are ever going to get our act together and secure the compensation, retirement, work rules, medical benefits, and lifestyle for ourselves, our families, and our profession that is commensurate with the liability and responsibility we assume every time we walk down a jetway.
If we can’t make that leap and be willing to employ the credible threat of and, if necessary, actually use the strongest economic weapon available to us, then we can expect the company to continue to walk all over us and reward us with far less than we deserve.
Right now, unfortunately, our act is not together. In the latest RP’s RLA educational section, there are several errors. Think about that: our own union, who would be the people, if we decide to go that route, to shepherd us along the bold and, for us, new path of attempting to employ the RLA to maximum effect doesn’t even itself fully understand the RLA and/or can’t be bothered to proofread their own RLA education articles.
First, the article says that the NMB, because it’s an election year, would be unlikely to release us until next year when the new president takes office. This article was published in October 2022.
This NMB has already proven that they were willing to release a major dispute (the railroad unions in June 2022) with a potentially enormous impact on interstate commerce in this election year. While it’s very likely true that we will not get released this year due to the fact that there are only a couple of months left in the year, it’s not because the currently seated NMB would be unwilling to release a union with the ability to significantly affect interstate commerce in an election year.
Beyond that, we are more than two years away from a potentially new president taking office. Whoever the next president is will not be sworn in until January 2025 as opposed to the article stating that a new president will take office next year. Whether we get released or not this year has nothing to do with a new president taking office next year because, barring the death or resignation of the President or a coup, there will not be a new president in 2023.
Second, the article says that after a PEB convenes, the board has 30 days to report its findings to the president. That is true. But then, the article says that, at the president’s direction, that thirty day deadline can be extended. That is incorrect.
The president does not have the authority to extend the thirty day deadline for the board to issue its report. As Deputy Asst AG John McGinnis reported to President Bush in a 1990 report entitled Presidential Authority to Extend Deadline for Submission of an Emergency Board Report Under the Railway Labor Act, “The President may require an Emergency Board under the Railway Labor Act to submit its report before the statutory deadline, but he may not extend that thirty day deadline unless the parties involved have entered into a side agreement extending the status quo period during which they refrain from self-help.” Read the full DOJ legal opinion for yourself at the highlighted link.
This point is absolutely critical to understand. The President CANNOT extend a PEB nor create a second follow-on PEB to further delay the onset of self help. Many people within our pilot group, including within SWAPA, have claimed that the President does, in fact, have that power. They are wrong.
In my experience, these people have typically made these claims in conjunction with the assertion that attempting to leverage the RLA is therefore pointless because the President can prevent us from threatening to strike by simply indefinitely extending a PEB or creating endless follow-on PEB’s.
This is kind of a minor point, but the way SWAPA explains it is not really the way the PEB is intended to work. Yes, the parties could both accept the PEB’s recommendation upon issuance of the board’s report or any time during the thirty days afterward and end the dispute. That’s true.
But it’s not technically the rejection of the PEB’s recommendations that triggers the thirty day status quo period following the issuance of the PEB report. That thirty day status quo period is mandated by law. The RLA stipulates, “After the creation of such board and for thirty days after such board has made its report to the President, no change, except by agreement, shall be made by the parties to the controversy in the conditions out of which the dispute arose.”
The thirty day status quo period automatically begins after the board issues its recommendations. It’s not triggered by the rejection by either side of those recommendations.
The NMB adds some clarification on their web site, “After the emergency board reports to the President, the parties to the dispute have another 30 day cooling off period to consider the recommendations of the emergency board and to reach an agreement. If no agreement is reached at the end of the cooling off period, then the parties may engage in self-help, including strikes, lockouts and unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment.”
If we are going to finally end our fifty year long exodus wandering around in the desert of lagging contracts, we are going to have to learn how to apply real pressure on the company. If our own union doesn’t fully understand in intricate detail the law that governs our ability to do that, we are likely to end up wandering for quite a few more years.
There’s a great post right now on the “Conscience” thread OTOF pointing out that it’s becoming apparent that airline management is willing to pull a lot of other levers with respect to solving their pilot manning issues that do not include paying us or agreeing to significant improvements in our contracts.
We have to get very comfortable with the idea of actually acting like organized labor if we want to apply real leverage against the corporation. To many pilots, though, “organized labor” and “unionism” seem to be synonymous with “socialism,” and “anti-Americanism.” That is a mental hurdle that must be cleared by our pilot group if we are ever going to get our act together and secure the compensation, retirement, work rules, medical benefits, and lifestyle for ourselves, our families, and our profession that is commensurate with the liability and responsibility we assume every time we walk down a jetway.
If we can’t make that leap and be willing to employ the credible threat of and, if necessary, actually use the strongest economic weapon available to us, then we can expect the company to continue to walk all over us and reward us with far less than we deserve.
Right now, unfortunately, our act is not together. In the latest RP’s RLA educational section, there are several errors. Think about that: our own union, who would be the people, if we decide to go that route, to shepherd us along the bold and, for us, new path of attempting to employ the RLA to maximum effect doesn’t even itself fully understand the RLA and/or can’t be bothered to proofread their own RLA education articles.
First, the article says that the NMB, because it’s an election year, would be unlikely to release us until next year when the new president takes office. This article was published in October 2022.
This NMB has already proven that they were willing to release a major dispute (the railroad unions in June 2022) with a potentially enormous impact on interstate commerce in this election year. While it’s very likely true that we will not get released this year due to the fact that there are only a couple of months left in the year, it’s not because the currently seated NMB would be unwilling to release a union with the ability to significantly affect interstate commerce in an election year.
Beyond that, we are more than two years away from a potentially new president taking office. Whoever the next president is will not be sworn in until January 2025 as opposed to the article stating that a new president will take office next year. Whether we get released or not this year has nothing to do with a new president taking office next year because, barring the death or resignation of the President or a coup, there will not be a new president in 2023.
The president does not have the authority to extend the thirty day deadline for the board to issue its report. As Deputy Asst AG John McGinnis reported to President Bush in a 1990 report entitled Presidential Authority to Extend Deadline for Submission of an Emergency Board Report Under the Railway Labor Act, “The President may require an Emergency Board under the Railway Labor Act to submit its report before the statutory deadline, but he may not extend that thirty day deadline unless the parties involved have entered into a side agreement extending the status quo period during which they refrain from self-help.” Read the full DOJ legal opinion for yourself at the highlighted link.
This point is absolutely critical to understand. The President CANNOT extend a PEB nor create a second follow-on PEB to further delay the onset of self help. Many people within our pilot group, including within SWAPA, have claimed that the President does, in fact, have that power. They are wrong.
In my experience, these people have typically made these claims in conjunction with the assertion that attempting to leverage the RLA is therefore pointless because the President can prevent us from threatening to strike by simply indefinitely extending a PEB or creating endless follow-on PEB’s.
Are they willfully or negligently putting forth misinformation when they try to make that point? I don’t know, BUT THEY ARE INCORRECT.
The president only gets 60 days to delay self help. That is all he/she gets. This is a point that every member of our pilot group and, especially every SWAPA rep and staff member should understand with 100% clarity.
But SWAPA doesn’t understand it. SWAPA’s most current RLA education information is wrong. And the pilot group is reading that incorrect information and believing it because who would guess that SWAPA, who ought to be an authority on the subject, would get it wrong? But please don’t simply believe what I’m saying. Believe the DOJ. Read the legal brief linked to above.
Third, the article states that after a PEB issues it’s report, both sides can either accept or reject its recommendations. It then goes on to explain that, if rejected, another thirty day cooling off period is triggered.The president only gets 60 days to delay self help. That is all he/she gets. This is a point that every member of our pilot group and, especially every SWAPA rep and staff member should understand with 100% clarity.
But SWAPA doesn’t understand it. SWAPA’s most current RLA education information is wrong. And the pilot group is reading that incorrect information and believing it because who would guess that SWAPA, who ought to be an authority on the subject, would get it wrong? But please don’t simply believe what I’m saying. Believe the DOJ. Read the legal brief linked to above.
This is kind of a minor point, but the way SWAPA explains it is not really the way the PEB is intended to work. Yes, the parties could both accept the PEB’s recommendation upon issuance of the board’s report or any time during the thirty days afterward and end the dispute. That’s true.
But it’s not technically the rejection of the PEB’s recommendations that triggers the thirty day status quo period following the issuance of the PEB report. That thirty day status quo period is mandated by law. The RLA stipulates, “After the creation of such board and for thirty days after such board has made its report to the President, no change, except by agreement, shall be made by the parties to the controversy in the conditions out of which the dispute arose.”
The thirty day status quo period automatically begins after the board issues its recommendations. It’s not triggered by the rejection by either side of those recommendations.
The NMB adds some clarification on their web site, “After the emergency board reports to the President, the parties to the dispute have another 30 day cooling off period to consider the recommendations of the emergency board and to reach an agreement. If no agreement is reached at the end of the cooling off period, then the parties may engage in self-help, including strikes, lockouts and unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment.”
very ... good ... post.
10-27-2022, 02:59 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,610
We’ll have to wait and see if the rumors regarding the AA AIP are true, but if they are and this thing turns out to be as bad as it sounds, then it should be even more clear to everyone than it was before that the idea of a pilot shortage at the major airline level as massive leverage bringing us all to the promised land is not something to pin our hopes on. IMO, it never was.
There’s a great post right now on the “Conscience” thread OTOF pointing out that it’s becoming apparent that airline management is willing to pull a lot of other levers with respect to solving their pilot manning issues that do not include paying us or agreeing to significant improvements in our contracts.
We have to get very comfortable with the idea of actually acting like organized labor if we want to apply real leverage against the corporation. To many pilots, though, “organized labor” and “unionism” seem to be synonymous with “socialism,” and “anti-Americanism.” That is a mental hurdle that must be cleared by our pilot group if we are ever going to get our act together and secure the compensation, retirement, work rules, medical benefits, and lifestyle for ourselves, our families, and our profession that is commensurate with the liability and responsibility we assume every time we walk down a jetway.
If we can’t make that leap and be willing to employ the credible threat of and, if necessary, actually use the strongest economic weapon available to us, then we can expect the company to continue to walk all over us and reward us with far less than we deserve.
Right now, unfortunately, our act is not together. In the latest RP’s RLA educational section, there are several errors. Think about that: our own union, who would be the people, if we decide to go that route, to shepherd us along the bold and, for us, new path of attempting to employ the RLA to maximum effect doesn’t even itself fully understand the RLA and/or can’t be bothered to proofread their own RLA education articles.
First, the article says that the NMB, because it’s an election year, would be unlikely to release us until next year when the new president takes office. This article was published in October 2022.
This NMB has already proven that they were willing to release a major dispute (the railroad unions in June 2022) with a potentially enormous impact on interstate commerce in this election year. While it’s very likely true that we will not get released this year due to the fact that there are only a couple of months left in the year, it’s not because the currently seated NMB would be unwilling to release a union with the ability to significantly affect interstate commerce in an election year.
Beyond that, we are more than two years away from a potentially new president taking office. Whoever the next president is will not be sworn in until January 2025 as opposed to the article stating that a new president will take office next year. Whether we get released or not this year has nothing to do with a new president taking office next year because, barring the death or resignation of the President or a coup, there will not be a new president in 2023.
Second, the article says that after a PEB convenes, the board has 30 days to report its findings to the president. That is true. But then, the article says that, at the president’s direction, that thirty day deadline can be extended. That is incorrect.
The president does not have the authority to extend the thirty day deadline for the board to issue its report. As Deputy Asst AG John McGinnis reported to President Bush in a 1990 report entitled Presidential Authority to Extend Deadline for Submission of an Emergency Board Report Under the Railway Labor Act, “The President may require an Emergency Board under the Railway Labor Act to submit its report before the statutory deadline, but he may not extend that thirty day deadline unless the parties involved have entered into a side agreement extending the status quo period during which they refrain from self-help.” Read the full DOJ legal opinion for yourself at the highlighted link.
This point is absolutely critical to understand. The President CANNOT extend a PEB nor create a second follow-on PEB to further delay the onset of self help. Many people within our pilot group, including within SWAPA, have claimed that the President does, in fact, have that power. They are wrong.
In my experience, these people have typically made these claims in conjunction with the assertion that attempting to leverage the RLA is therefore pointless because the President can prevent us from threatening to strike by simply indefinitely extending a PEB or creating endless follow-on PEB’s.
This is kind of a minor point, but the way SWAPA explains it is not really the way the PEB is intended to work. Yes, the parties could both accept the PEB’s recommendation upon issuance of the board’s report or any time during the thirty days afterward and end the dispute. That’s true.
But it’s not technically the rejection of the PEB’s recommendations that triggers the thirty day status quo period following the issuance of the PEB report. That thirty day status quo period is mandated by law. The RLA stipulates, “After the creation of such board and for thirty days after such board has made its report to the President, no change, except by agreement, shall be made by the parties to the controversy in the conditions out of which the dispute arose.”
The thirty day status quo period automatically begins after the board issues its recommendations. It’s not triggered by the rejection by either side of those recommendations.
The NMB adds some clarification on their web site, “After the emergency board reports to the President, the parties to the dispute have another 30 day cooling off period to consider the recommendations of the emergency board and to reach an agreement. If no agreement is reached at the end of the cooling off period, then the parties may engage in self-help, including strikes, lockouts and unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment.”
If we are going to finally end our fifty year long exodus wandering around in the desert of lagging contracts, we are going to have to learn how to apply real pressure on the company. If our own union doesn’t fully understand in intricate detail the law that governs our ability to do that, we are likely to end up wandering for quite a few more years.
There’s a great post right now on the “Conscience” thread OTOF pointing out that it’s becoming apparent that airline management is willing to pull a lot of other levers with respect to solving their pilot manning issues that do not include paying us or agreeing to significant improvements in our contracts.
We have to get very comfortable with the idea of actually acting like organized labor if we want to apply real leverage against the corporation. To many pilots, though, “organized labor” and “unionism” seem to be synonymous with “socialism,” and “anti-Americanism.” That is a mental hurdle that must be cleared by our pilot group if we are ever going to get our act together and secure the compensation, retirement, work rules, medical benefits, and lifestyle for ourselves, our families, and our profession that is commensurate with the liability and responsibility we assume every time we walk down a jetway.
If we can’t make that leap and be willing to employ the credible threat of and, if necessary, actually use the strongest economic weapon available to us, then we can expect the company to continue to walk all over us and reward us with far less than we deserve.
Right now, unfortunately, our act is not together. In the latest RP’s RLA educational section, there are several errors. Think about that: our own union, who would be the people, if we decide to go that route, to shepherd us along the bold and, for us, new path of attempting to employ the RLA to maximum effect doesn’t even itself fully understand the RLA and/or can’t be bothered to proofread their own RLA education articles.
First, the article says that the NMB, because it’s an election year, would be unlikely to release us until next year when the new president takes office. This article was published in October 2022.
This NMB has already proven that they were willing to release a major dispute (the railroad unions in June 2022) with a potentially enormous impact on interstate commerce in this election year. While it’s very likely true that we will not get released this year due to the fact that there are only a couple of months left in the year, it’s not because the currently seated NMB would be unwilling to release a union with the ability to significantly affect interstate commerce in an election year.
Beyond that, we are more than two years away from a potentially new president taking office. Whoever the next president is will not be sworn in until January 2025 as opposed to the article stating that a new president will take office next year. Whether we get released or not this year has nothing to do with a new president taking office next year because, barring the death or resignation of the President or a coup, there will not be a new president in 2023.
The president does not have the authority to extend the thirty day deadline for the board to issue its report. As Deputy Asst AG John McGinnis reported to President Bush in a 1990 report entitled Presidential Authority to Extend Deadline for Submission of an Emergency Board Report Under the Railway Labor Act, “The President may require an Emergency Board under the Railway Labor Act to submit its report before the statutory deadline, but he may not extend that thirty day deadline unless the parties involved have entered into a side agreement extending the status quo period during which they refrain from self-help.” Read the full DOJ legal opinion for yourself at the highlighted link.
This point is absolutely critical to understand. The President CANNOT extend a PEB nor create a second follow-on PEB to further delay the onset of self help. Many people within our pilot group, including within SWAPA, have claimed that the President does, in fact, have that power. They are wrong.
In my experience, these people have typically made these claims in conjunction with the assertion that attempting to leverage the RLA is therefore pointless because the President can prevent us from threatening to strike by simply indefinitely extending a PEB or creating endless follow-on PEB’s.
Are they willfully or negligently putting forth misinformation when they try to make that point? I don’t know, BUT THEY ARE INCORRECT.
The president only gets 60 days to delay self help. That is all he/she gets. This is a point that every member of our pilot group and, especially every SWAPA rep and staff member should understand with 100% clarity.
But SWAPA doesn’t understand it. SWAPA’s most current RLA education information is wrong. And the pilot group is reading that incorrect information and believing it because who would guess that SWAPA, who ought to be an authority on the subject, would get it wrong? But please don’t simply believe what I’m saying. Believe the DOJ. Read the legal brief linked to above.
Third, the article states that after a PEB issues it’s report, both sides can either accept or reject its recommendations. It then goes on to explain that, if rejected, another thirty day cooling off period is triggered.The president only gets 60 days to delay self help. That is all he/she gets. This is a point that every member of our pilot group and, especially every SWAPA rep and staff member should understand with 100% clarity.
But SWAPA doesn’t understand it. SWAPA’s most current RLA education information is wrong. And the pilot group is reading that incorrect information and believing it because who would guess that SWAPA, who ought to be an authority on the subject, would get it wrong? But please don’t simply believe what I’m saying. Believe the DOJ. Read the legal brief linked to above.
This is kind of a minor point, but the way SWAPA explains it is not really the way the PEB is intended to work. Yes, the parties could both accept the PEB’s recommendation upon issuance of the board’s report or any time during the thirty days afterward and end the dispute. That’s true.
But it’s not technically the rejection of the PEB’s recommendations that triggers the thirty day status quo period following the issuance of the PEB report. That thirty day status quo period is mandated by law. The RLA stipulates, “After the creation of such board and for thirty days after such board has made its report to the President, no change, except by agreement, shall be made by the parties to the controversy in the conditions out of which the dispute arose.”
The thirty day status quo period automatically begins after the board issues its recommendations. It’s not triggered by the rejection by either side of those recommendations.
The NMB adds some clarification on their web site, “After the emergency board reports to the President, the parties to the dispute have another 30 day cooling off period to consider the recommendations of the emergency board and to reach an agreement. If no agreement is reached at the end of the cooling off period, then the parties may engage in self-help, including strikes, lockouts and unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment.”
10-27-2022, 08:20 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,264
To address your point, though, yes, Congress can enact legislation to block a strike. The term that’s used for such an action is a “post-PEB congressional intervention.”
In the case of the recent railroad union dispute, in the last week of their PEB, two Republican senators, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Richard Burr of NC, did introduce a resolution that would force the railroad workers to accept the PEB’s proposed settlement and prohibit them from striking.
However, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont objected to their resolution, forcing it to meet a 60-vote threshold for passage in the Senate. Senator Sanders explained, “Rail workers have a right to strike for reliable schedules. They have a right to strike for paid sick days. They have a right to strike for safe working conditions. Rail workers have a right to strike for decent benefits.”
In response, Senator Burr asserted, “This is in Senator Schumer’s hands. He’s the majority leader. . . . Here is the promise I’ll make to Senator Schumer. If you bring it to the floor, I’ll produce 48 Republican votes for it. That means Dems only need to produce 12 people to support it to keep the American people from a $2 billion a day negative impact on them.”
Senator Wicker urged President Biden to make clear that he supported the proposed PEB settlement. He added, President Biden should “exercise the presidential leadership that is needed at this point to persuade his friends in the four holdout unions that this is what needs to be done. . . . It’s really up to the Democratic leader and the president of the United States.”
President Biden never did comply with Senator Burr’s request.
In the end, by removing the Republican pressure of a threat of a congressional intervention from the table, Senator Sanders enabled President Biden to work with the rail companies to secure for the unions the sick days that the PEB had declined to recommend as part of its settlement and for which the unions were refusing to capitulate over.
So, no, it was not the case that, as you imply, that both the Democrats and Republicans attempted to intervene in the railroad unions’ dispute. The actual fact of the matter is that the GOP did attempt to intervene. But Bernie Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats, blocked them. Sen Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader did not deliver the Republicans the twelve Senate votes they needed to override Senator Sanders’ objection. That gave President Biden the latitude he needed to affect the negotiations between the unions and railroad management so as to secure sick days for the unions.
Further, and more generally, the recent railroad unions dispute proves why the threat of a congressional intervention is not the RLA-as-leverage killer that people like you attempt to portray it as. While Congress can intervene, senators and representatives are loathe to actually come out and state that they will intervene or propose legislation to do so until very late in the game. In this most recent case, for example, Senators Burr and Wicker didn’t introduce their resolution until day 56 of the 60-day PEB process.
Even if some or many members of Congress do announce an intention to intervene, that doesn’t mean, as we saw in the railroad unions’ episode, that they will have the votes to pass any legislation or that the President will sign it into law if they do.
All of that boils down to the fact that there will always be so much uncertainty around whether or not Congress will intervene that unions still retain tremendous leverage in the face of a possible congressional intervention.
Especially in the case of an impending airline strike, if there’s a chance of a particular airline going on strike in X days or Y weeks, news stories will circulate reporting on that risk. Airline unions can help to amplify that risk in the public’s mind with picketing and press relations. Even if some members of Congress are suggesting that an intervention may occur to head off a possible strike, passengers will still book away from that airline so as to avoid the possibility of their travel plans being spoiled if Congress doesn’t intervene and a strike actually does end up occurring.
A congressional intervention can occur but to insinuate that it therefore removes leverage from unions under the RLA is a Chicken Little way to neuter yourself because a congressional intervention, if it occurs at all, will never be a certainty until very late in the game, after or almost after the near entirety of the RLA process has been played out to exhaustion.
It’s like refusing to ever eat a big, juicy hamburger because some scientist asserted you would definitely get cancer from eating charbroiled red meat or refusing to buy a gun because some scaremonger cited some study saying your home is actually less safe with a firearm in the house.
10-27-2022, 09:10 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,029
I didn’t omit that point. My post was responding to errors in a RLA educational piece in our union publication, the RP. My post focused on errors that were made in that piece about PEB’s. It was not intended to be an all-encompassing takedown of those who suggest unions have no teeth under the RLA.
To address your point, though, yes, Congress can enact legislation to block a strike. The term that’s used for such an action is a “post-PEB congressional intervention.”
In the case of the recent railroad union dispute, in the last week of their PEB, two Republican senators, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Richard Burr of NC, did introduce a resolution that would force the railroad workers to accept the PEB’s proposed settlement and prohibit them from striking.
However, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont objected to their resolution, forcing it to meet a 60-vote threshold for passage in the Senate. Senator Sanders explained, “Rail workers have a right to strike for reliable schedules. They have a right to strike for paid sick days. They have a right to strike for safe working conditions. Rail workers have a right to strike for decent benefits.”
In response, Senator Burr asserted, “This is in Senator Schumer’s hands. He’s the majority leader. . . . Here is the promise I’ll make to Senator Schumer. If you bring it to the floor, I’ll produce 48 Republican votes for it. That means Dems only need to produce 12 people to support it to keep the American people from a $2 billion a day negative impact on them.”
Senator Wicker urged President Biden to make clear that he supported the proposed PEB settlement. He added, President Biden should “exercise the presidential leadership that is needed at this point to persuade his friends in the four holdout unions that this is what needs to be done. . . . It’s really up to the Democratic leader and the president of the United States.”
President Biden never did comply with Senator Burr’s request.
In the end, by removing the Republican pressure of a threat of a congressional intervention from the table, Senator Sanders enabled President Biden to work with the rail companies to secure for the unions the sick days that the PEB had declined to recommend as part of its settlement and for which the unions were refusing to capitulate over.
So, no, it was not the case that, as you imply, that both the Democrats and Republicans attempted to intervene in the railroad unions’ dispute. The actual fact of the matter is that the GOP did attempt to intervene. But Bernie Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats, blocked them. Sen Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader did not deliver the Republicans the twelve Senate votes they needed to override Senator Sanders’ objection. That gave President Biden the latitude he needed to affect the negotiations between the unions and railroad management so as to secure sick days for the unions.
Further, and more generally, the recent railroad unions dispute proves why the threat of a congressional intervention is not the RLA-as-leverage killer that people like you attempt to portray it as. While Congress can intervene, senators and representatives are loathe to actually come out and state that they will intervene or propose legislation to do so until very late in the game. In this most recent case, for example, Senators Burr and Wicker didn’t introduce their resolution until day 56 of the 60-day PEB process.
Even if some or many members of Congress do announce an intention to intervene, that doesn’t mean, as we saw in the railroad unions’ episode, that they will have the votes to pass any legislation or that the President will sign it into law if they do.
All of that boils down to the fact that there will always be so much uncertainty around whether or not Congress will intervene that unions still retain tremendous leverage in the face of a possible congressional intervention.
Especially in the case of an impending airline strike, if there’s a chance of a particular airline going on strike in X days or Y weeks, news stories will circulate reporting on that risk. Airline unions can help to amplify that risk in the public’s mind with picketing and press relations. Even if some members of Congress are suggesting that an intervention may occur to head off a possible strike, passengers will still book away from that airline so as to avoid the possibility of their travel plans being spoiled if Congress doesn’t intervene and a strike actually does end up occurring.
A congressional intervention can occur but to insinuate that it therefore removes leverage from unions under the RLA is a Chicken Little way to neuter yourself because a congressional intervention, if it occurs at all, will never be a certainty until very late in the game, after or almost after the near entirety of the RLA process has been played out to exhaustion.
It’s like refusing to ever eat a big, juicy hamburger because some scientist asserted you would definitely get cancer from eating charbroiled red meat or refusing to buy a gun because some scaremonger cited some study saying your home is actually less safe with a firearm in the house.
To address your point, though, yes, Congress can enact legislation to block a strike. The term that’s used for such an action is a “post-PEB congressional intervention.”
In the case of the recent railroad union dispute, in the last week of their PEB, two Republican senators, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Richard Burr of NC, did introduce a resolution that would force the railroad workers to accept the PEB’s proposed settlement and prohibit them from striking.
However, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont objected to their resolution, forcing it to meet a 60-vote threshold for passage in the Senate. Senator Sanders explained, “Rail workers have a right to strike for reliable schedules. They have a right to strike for paid sick days. They have a right to strike for safe working conditions. Rail workers have a right to strike for decent benefits.”
In response, Senator Burr asserted, “This is in Senator Schumer’s hands. He’s the majority leader. . . . Here is the promise I’ll make to Senator Schumer. If you bring it to the floor, I’ll produce 48 Republican votes for it. That means Dems only need to produce 12 people to support it to keep the American people from a $2 billion a day negative impact on them.”
Senator Wicker urged President Biden to make clear that he supported the proposed PEB settlement. He added, President Biden should “exercise the presidential leadership that is needed at this point to persuade his friends in the four holdout unions that this is what needs to be done. . . . It’s really up to the Democratic leader and the president of the United States.”
President Biden never did comply with Senator Burr’s request.
In the end, by removing the Republican pressure of a threat of a congressional intervention from the table, Senator Sanders enabled President Biden to work with the rail companies to secure for the unions the sick days that the PEB had declined to recommend as part of its settlement and for which the unions were refusing to capitulate over.
So, no, it was not the case that, as you imply, that both the Democrats and Republicans attempted to intervene in the railroad unions’ dispute. The actual fact of the matter is that the GOP did attempt to intervene. But Bernie Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats, blocked them. Sen Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader did not deliver the Republicans the twelve Senate votes they needed to override Senator Sanders’ objection. That gave President Biden the latitude he needed to affect the negotiations between the unions and railroad management so as to secure sick days for the unions.
Further, and more generally, the recent railroad unions dispute proves why the threat of a congressional intervention is not the RLA-as-leverage killer that people like you attempt to portray it as. While Congress can intervene, senators and representatives are loathe to actually come out and state that they will intervene or propose legislation to do so until very late in the game. In this most recent case, for example, Senators Burr and Wicker didn’t introduce their resolution until day 56 of the 60-day PEB process.
Even if some or many members of Congress do announce an intention to intervene, that doesn’t mean, as we saw in the railroad unions’ episode, that they will have the votes to pass any legislation or that the President will sign it into law if they do.
All of that boils down to the fact that there will always be so much uncertainty around whether or not Congress will intervene that unions still retain tremendous leverage in the face of a possible congressional intervention.
Especially in the case of an impending airline strike, if there’s a chance of a particular airline going on strike in X days or Y weeks, news stories will circulate reporting on that risk. Airline unions can help to amplify that risk in the public’s mind with picketing and press relations. Even if some members of Congress are suggesting that an intervention may occur to head off a possible strike, passengers will still book away from that airline so as to avoid the possibility of their travel plans being spoiled if Congress doesn’t intervene and a strike actually does end up occurring.
A congressional intervention can occur but to insinuate that it therefore removes leverage from unions under the RLA is a Chicken Little way to neuter yourself because a congressional intervention, if it occurs at all, will never be a certainty until very late in the game, after or almost after the near entirety of the RLA process has been played out to exhaustion.
It’s like refusing to ever eat a big, juicy hamburger because some scientist asserted you would definitely get cancer from eating charbroiled red meat or refusing to buy a gun because some scaremonger cited some study saying your home is actually less safe with a firearm in the house.
Can we get a like button already???
+1000. That's certainly some 4D Chess that I wish our SWAPA execs and BOD would help educate our membership on. Thank you for taking the time and effort to post everything you've been doing Lew.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
