eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
Bingo. He knows which way he has to rule on this, and he knows that NWA is going to appeal that ruling. Far better to have all the I's dotted and T's crossed.
AFA IS A FRAUD
- Thread starter PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH
- Start date
Bingo. He knows which way he has to rule on this, and he knows that NWA is going to appeal that ruling. Far better to have all the I's dotted and T's crossed.
Unions are frauds and have no power in todays environment. Honestly, is anyone surprised? :down:
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
Nice attempt at side stepping, call it what you will, "discretion, etc" its doesn't make your statement any more credible.
You clearly implied the popularity of his decision might sway his action, I don't give a damn who appointed him,or what political pressure he may be trying to avoid, thats the worst type of BS there is from a sitting Judge.His job is to settle matters expeditously, not wait and see if he stalls long enough, if the parties involved settle on their own so he won't have to make a decision. The fact that they haven't already settled is what put them in front of him in the first place!
Got to agree with TSH here:
The judges job is not to help NWA and the F/A's meet an agreement, his job is simply to rule whether a strike is legal. Apparently, he does not want to set precedence, hence he has to look at it a bit longer, probably praying that the parties reach an agreement.
The RLA is what governs negotiations between the parties, however, the minute NWA unilaterally altered the contract, the contract ceased to be covered under the RLA. After all, a contract really is a bond between to parties, terms to which they both agrees.
Imagine if you went to buy a car, having signed a contract with an agreed price, yet when you tried to pick it up, the dealer wanted another 5 grand while claiming the contract you signed was still binding. Somehow I doubt, anyone would still believe the contract was indeed binding nor would they purchase the car.
Well, as far as I see it, this is exactly the issue at NWA, the company broke the contract. So, the ruling should have been quite simple, no contract, no RLA. "If you wannna play, you gotta pay".
The judges job is not to help NWA and the F/A's meet an agreement, his job is simply to rule whether a strike is legal. Apparently, he does not want to set precedence, hence he has to look at it a bit longer, probably praying that the parties reach an agreement.
The RLA is what governs negotiations between the parties, however, the minute NWA unilaterally altered the contract, the contract ceased to be covered under the RLA. After all, a contract really is a bond between to parties, terms to which they both agrees.
Imagine if you went to buy a car, having signed a contract with an agreed price, yet when you tried to pick it up, the dealer wanted another 5 grand while claiming the contract you signed was still binding. Somehow I doubt, anyone would still believe the contract was indeed binding nor would they purchase the car.
Well, as far as I see it, this is exactly the issue at NWA, the company broke the contract. So, the ruling should have been quite simple, no contract, no RLA. "If you wannna play, you gotta pay".
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
As one poster already said, the judge does not want to do something that will be unneccesarily be grounds for appeal.
The judge had available to him at the start of the hearing the written motion(s) and the responses. He then heard the parties oral arguments at the hearing. He could have ruled from the bench but declined to do so, which was smart because even if he had an inclanation to allow the strike an immediate ruling from the bench would be more likely overturned because it would have been viewed by appelate courts as perhaps showing the judge had not fully considered all the issues raised by NWA and the ATA.
I still feel it is likely that by the time the judge fully reviews the conflict of laws regarding the bankruptcy code and the RLA, the positions of the parties and that granting a permanent injunction against labor's right to self-help that he will conclude that the imposition of terms wholly negated labor and that the one remaining avenue left to labor is self-help since they never agreed to the provisions imposed by management and cannot be made to work under the terms imposed by management.
The judge had available to him at the start of the hearing the written motion(s) and the responses. He then heard the parties oral arguments at the hearing. He could have ruled from the bench but declined to do so, which was smart because even if he had an inclanation to allow the strike an immediate ruling from the bench would be more likely overturned because it would have been viewed by appelate courts as perhaps showing the judge had not fully considered all the issues raised by NWA and the ATA.
I still feel it is likely that by the time the judge fully reviews the conflict of laws regarding the bankruptcy code and the RLA, the positions of the parties and that granting a permanent injunction against labor's right to self-help that he will conclude that the imposition of terms wholly negated labor and that the one remaining avenue left to labor is self-help since they never agreed to the provisions imposed by management and cannot be made to work under the terms imposed by management.
"Did anyone ever stop to consider that this judge may have issued the TRO to get NWA to realize the gravity of the situation and entice them to settle BEFORE he has no choice but to rule AGAINST NWA?"
If that was the case, and he truly wanted to send a message to NWA, as opposed to those whose contract has been violated, he would have waited untill Tuesday to issue his ruling on the TRO. Something he certainly could have done.
Personally, I think the problem is, as we have seen with other judges on this particlar issue, is that they are, for some reason or other, worried about ruling on the RLA and violated contracts. I think this should have been a clear case in favor of labor and their rights, strangely enough, it apparently isn't.
If that was the case, and he truly wanted to send a message to NWA, as opposed to those whose contract has been violated, he would have waited untill Tuesday to issue his ruling on the TRO. Something he certainly could have done.
Personally, I think the problem is, as we have seen with other judges on this particlar issue, is that they are, for some reason or other, worried about ruling on the RLA and violated contracts. I think this should have been a clear case in favor of labor and their rights, strangely enough, it apparently isn't.
OP
- Oct 9, 2003
- 1,401
- 2
- Thread Starter
- #37
It doesn't matter what the judge says or doesn't say. The fact of the matter is: NWA Flight attendants should be walking that picketline NOW!
OP
- Oct 9, 2003
- 1,401
- 2
- Thread Starter
- #38
Maybe your skin isn't in this game, but mine is and every other union airline employee in this country is. If this judge decides(illegally) that NWA F/A's can't strike, then every time a strike is called the airlines will threaten bankruptcy. Enough is enough. In fact all union airline employees should walk off the job,if this judge rules that NWA F/A's can't strike. Failure to end this B.S. now will cause all airline employees to be in the poor house!
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
There is little doubt that if the situation favored Management, that the judge would delay his ruling to give labor the time to "think about it".
Justice delayed is Justice denied
Its just that simple.
Justice delayed is Justice denied
Its just that simple.
Sorry PBob but I think Princess has a viable point.
Like what happened to the AMFA could effect ALL other employees at ALL other carriers. It will be time for all other unioned employee groups at all airlines to take a stand with the NW f/a, should the strike be denied by the Judge. The denial would put another nail in the coffin as far as the death of unionism goes.
patience
–noun 1. the quality of being patient, as the bearing of provocation, annoyance, misfortune, or pain, without complaint, loss of temper, irritation, or the like.
2. an ability or willingness to suppress restlessness or annoyance when confronted with delay.
3. quiet, steady perseverance; even-tempered care; diligence.
Something a lot of people are running out of... and I don't blame them.
Like what happened to the AMFA could effect ALL other employees at ALL other carriers. It will be time for all other unioned employee groups at all airlines to take a stand with the NW f/a, should the strike be denied by the Judge. The denial would put another nail in the coffin as far as the death of unionism goes.
patience
–noun 1. the quality of being patient, as the bearing of provocation, annoyance, misfortune, or pain, without complaint, loss of temper, irritation, or the like.
2. an ability or willingness to suppress restlessness or annoyance when confronted with delay.
3. quiet, steady perseverance; even-tempered care; diligence.
Something a lot of people are running out of... and I don't blame them.
JMOH, it’s all a façade. The judge had the discretion to implement a TRO or let the chips fall. But giving the ‘bend over backwards’ attempts by the AFA (15 day notice, 10 day extension, email notice and the 9PM deadline on a Friday for CHAOS [not a strike]), I would read these signals that the AFA is satisfied with the TA1 that was implemented and give NWA more time to replace them. Of course, if NWA was ‘reasonable’ they would have implemented TA2 instead of TA1, but they are proving a point that is missed by most. They implemented TA1 to prove a point on how they view negotiations and how they ‘know’ that the FAs will accept TA1 or will be replaced (which they will be regardless). Evidently, the NWA FAs are satisfied with the TA1 agreement or they would have taken a different course of action. I have little doubt that the concessions from the rest of the BK airlines was a building stone for what they knew they would get in the end.
There are still legal opportunities out there if the FA membership chooses to follow it.
B) UT
There are still legal opportunities out there if the FA membership chooses to follow it.
B) UT
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
My reaction is hardly "knee jerk". I have read the RLA in its entirety more than once,and the sections on self-help in particular, and while I may not be an attourney, I am more than familiar with its provisions. I have also, through extended reading/research, made my self more than familiar with the 1113©and (e) processes as I followed my former employers 3 year chapter 11 adventures quite closely.
IMHO what you are about to see is a group of corporate lawyers go out of their way to try and complicate a situation that isn't.
Good fortune to you ThirdSeatHero!Mire the muddy water with doubts and deception then prove their hypothesis with more diversionary tactics which will be accepted by the masses as they concede that being a lawyer makes them right. Their only right is to litigation and dragging out a simple case into a career.
B) UT
Has anybody heard of the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932?
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp26.htm
The Norris-LaGuardia Act, passed in 1932, during the last year of the
Hoover Administration, was the first in a series of laws passed by
Congress in the 1930s which gave Federal sanction to the right of
labor unions to organize and strike, and to use other forms of
economic leverage in dealings with management.
The law specifically prohibited Federal courts from enforcing so-
called "yellow dog" contracts or agreements (under which workers
promised not to join a union or promised to discontinue membership in
one).
In addition, it barred Federal courts from issuing restraining orders
or injunctions against activities by labor unions and individuals,
including the following:
(*) joining or organizing a union, or assembling for union purposes;
(*) striking or refusing to work, or advising others to strike or
organize;
(*) Publicizing acts of a Labor dispute; and
(*) providing lawful legal aid to persons participating in a labor
dispute
It seems that Judge Marrero has overstepped his bounds regarding this case - or am I missing something? :blink:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp26.htm
The Norris-LaGuardia Act, passed in 1932, during the last year of the
Hoover Administration, was the first in a series of laws passed by
Congress in the 1930s which gave Federal sanction to the right of
labor unions to organize and strike, and to use other forms of
economic leverage in dealings with management.
The law specifically prohibited Federal courts from enforcing so-
called "yellow dog" contracts or agreements (under which workers
promised not to join a union or promised to discontinue membership in
one).
In addition, it barred Federal courts from issuing restraining orders
or injunctions against activities by labor unions and individuals,
including the following:
(*) joining or organizing a union, or assembling for union purposes;
(*) striking or refusing to work, or advising others to strike or
organize;
(*) Publicizing acts of a Labor dispute; and
(*) providing lawful legal aid to persons participating in a labor
dispute
It seems that Judge Marrero has overstepped his bounds regarding this case - or am I missing something? :blink:
tech2101
Veteran
Ding. You win the prize. Finally someone who has seen the elephant in the room.
Thanks for posting it Pete. This judge has no authority to issue any ruling in this case. He should be sanctioned for issuing the TRO.
Similar threads
