AFA appeals strike injunction
- Thread starter ThirdSeatHero
- Start date
groundcontrol
Veteran
- Oct 17, 2005
- 716
- 0
They're F&*ked.
These Judges are such hypocrites.
If the owners decided to shut down NWA and liquidate tomorrow those same 130,000 people would be told thats "Free enterprise".
If NWA didnt pay for their fuel the court would not force the oil companies to give NWA fuel, once again "thats free enterprise".
The fact is that its no secret that NWA abrogated the Flight Attendants contract and that under the RLA the absence of a mutual agreement allows the flight attendants the right to strike, any of those 130,000 passengers that bought tickets on an airline whose employees have announced their intentions to strike should know that there is a good chance that service could be interrupted. They chose to take the risk.
Why is it that in just about every other case its "let the buyer beware" but here the courts are implying that workers have more of a duty to the customers than the company that sold them the ticket?
Under the RLA if the NMB declares an impasse the company is free to impose new terms and the union is free to strike, well in this case the company is already imposing new terms, they have no incentive to really negotiate, all they have to do is claim they are willing to continue to talk.
Basically this judge is implying that labor no longer has a right to strike because of this "third party interest". Surely if they rule that this third party interest takes precedence over legislation and the right to withhold labor then all labor strikes will be banned. Chapter 11 could give a damn about this "third party intrest" BS, the RLA takes it into account but strikes a balance between those intrests and creating the illusion that workers are on a level playing field with the company.
The Flight Attendants should just go ahead and CHAOS. Dont wait for the call from your leaders because it wont come. Legally how could the court tell individual workers that they have to work under terms that they neither collectively or individually agreed to? Who knows mayby this could trigger an industrywide wildcat walkout? I'm ready.
Excellent post Bob!
'There's a third party _ the public interest,' Jacobs said.
He noted that Congress has purposely structured labor laws regarding the transportation industry to ensure 'the ability to travel from here to there.'
The 130,000 people that bought tickets on an airline that may go on strike have other options, they could fly on another airline, they could take the bus, train or rent a car.If the public has the right to travel by air then they should nationalize the whole industry. Pricing could just as easily be considered a barrier to travel as a strike yet we dont see the government legislating pricing. Airlines are private companies, not public utilites. People dont have a right to fly on any airline, they can buy the privilege,but they dont have a right to fly on any particular airline.
What about all the stockholders of UAL, notably the employees of UAL, and all the other people who owned UAL stock, I'll bet it was more than 130,000. The courts did not protect them, they knew that money in stock was "at risk" The "public" owned UAL stock but only the banks and UAL were protected there.
I dont have much faith in the courts. A bunch of rich bastards who will likely be rewarded if they can find a way around the legislated will of the people and basically outlaw strikes doesnt inspire much faith that justice shall prevail. The fact is that we must revolt, we must deny our labor to these people, until that happens you can count on the fact that they will tell you that the law does not mean what it says and that you do not have any rights.
True. Just like if NWA had contracted to lease aircraft at $1million a month, the judge could tear up the contract. NWA could offer to pay $1 a month and the lessor could take his aircraft back. Is the court now implying that due to this "third party " intrest that the court can force the lessor to give NWA the aircraft for $1/month, or for that matter $0/month until they feel like reaching a new deal?
This third party interest is a load of crap because the worker at NWA did not enter into an agreement with the customer at NWA. It could also be argued that this "Third party interest" is unduly benifitting from the imposed working conditions upon the flight attendants in that they are getting cheaper tickets, and the FAs are unwilling participants in this arrangement. Surely the same arguement could be used to reintroduce slavery despite the 14th amendment because if companies could get slave labor then both the "third party" and the "Financially struggling corporation" would benifit, even though this benifit woiuld come at the expense of sacrificing the rights of some individuals. The fact is the RLA is clear in that once pay and benifits are changed we have the right to also engage in self help. The BS premise that BK law introduces new rules despite its silence in the law is another farce.That would be like saying that since the RLA does not specifically state that the company cant change rates of pay whenver the moon is full that they can and the workers cant strike. This idea of blatently violating one law on the premise that another law is silent on what some wish for it to say is the most blatent abuse of judicial power that I've ever seen. Yes C-11 allows for a lot protection for a financially struggling carrier but I seriously doubt that the American people want a law that gives mismanaged corporations the ability to obtain the right to confiscate the labor of working people. It allows for the escape from onerous contracts but not the right to impose them.
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
Any new info, or is this subject closed? 
B) UT
B) UT
