Yes, we've heard of it. And yes, you're missing something.
In 1932, nobody ever imagined that Congress would someday pass legislation (the US Bankruptcy Code) that actually permits employers to abrogate their contracts with labor and impose their own terms.
Sure they did. Read the RLA.
The Norris-LaGuardia Act was pass to prohibit judges from enjoining a lawful strike. In 1932, there were still people who didn't believe that strikes were ever lawful, and believed that judges could simply prohibit them.
People could believe what they want but the law said otherwise.
You're assuming that the NWA FAs don't have to be released from mediation and suffer a 30 day cooling off period before exercising self-help.
Read the RLA. Its clear in that once pay has been changed they have engaged in self help, they are no longer subject to the cooling off peroid which requires both parties to maintain the status quo.
As an aside - my personal views are that the RLA's restrictions on strikes can be ignored once the employer abrogates the contract and imposes terms.
That view is supported by the RLA language.
Problem is, reasonable people can disagree on that one.
Reasonable people that are being unreasonable that is.
And since NWA disagrees with the NWA FAs and there's no real precedent on point, the judge wants to think about it before ruling.
Precident? Its clear, they changed the rates of pay,an act of self help and a major dispute, the FAs can engage in self help. The RLA makes no exceptions as to the means or cause of the major dispute only that both parties are able to engage in self help under the RLA if either party engages in it. Since neither party sought assistance from the NMB, cooling off peroids and other restrictions that are imposed when the parties seek the assistance of the NMB do not apply.
This ain't the People's Court - judges rarely rule from the bench on something so important; even more so when they're plowing new ground.
Whats new? Companies have gone BK before and tried to prevent strikes before and the court ruled against them. Didnt EAL try the same thing? All the Judge had to do is read the RLA.
It is the RLA that prohibits the FAs from striking. The RLA is clear in that the prohibition on striking is tied to the maintenace of the status quo. The RLA recognizes the importance of transportation to commerce but it also recognizes the rights of workers engaged in transportation to look out for their intrests. The intent of the RLA is not to deny either party of their rights but to provide a structure where agreements can be made without interuption to commerce, it does not however dictate that when an agreement can not be made the rights of workers are completely subordinate to the needs of commerce.
In the clearest of terms the RLA states that the prohibition on self help is directly tied to status quo.
By operating outside of the RLA in its objective to impose new inferior rates of pay and working conditions, in other words engage in self help, NWA cannot then use "half the law" to seek refuge from the consequences of their actions. The RLA is clear that when the company engages in self help the union can also engage in self help. There are no exceptions.
NWA can not seek to keep the protections of the RLA while engaging in an end run, via the BK code, that allows it to engage in self help while denying the workers the same option.
If allowed to do so there is no quid pro quo. This would make the RLA a punative law that strips workers of their rights to determine future wages and working conditions. This clearly is not the stated intent of the law.
Also,the BK code is there to protect companies from debt owed to creditors, in no other case have creditors had their current and future assetts confiscated by the courts for the benifit poorly managed companies. So while a judge may change contract terms he can not foce the other party to agree to those terms. The intent of BK is not to impose unconsentual contracts either.
So niether law supports what NWA is trying to do. NWA is trying to use BK to create unconsentual contracts upon its workers. The RLA and other laws recognizes the rights of workers to form unions and to collectively bargain for wages and working conditions. The Intent of the BK code is not to impinge upon those rights and the RLA clearly defends those rights. NWAs attempt to twist and manipulate these two laws, in one case use it for something it was not intended for and in the other to directly challege the terms of the law is an unreasonable, intolerable attack upon the rights of workers to engage in collective bargaining and look out for their intrests.
If NWA went to the court and demonstrated that their fuel costs have tripled over the last several years and that increase has been an "onerous" financial burden on the company and the reason why the company now stands before the Judge the Judge could rip up any agreement that NWA had with the fuel companies, perhaps he could even recommend a new price for NWA to pay for fuel but he can not force the fuel company to agree to that contract and sell NWA fuel at the company's recommended price. BK is protection from debt, it was not intended to give companies the right to confiscate into the future the property of others at terms that are made solely to the benifit of the BK entity. If that was the intent then the incentive for BK would be so great that every company in America would seek the use of BK.
I would love to read the arguements the so called legal teams for these unions have been using. BK allows companies to set aside labor contracts if the company can demonstrate that the terms are onerous and the union has not demonstarted a reasonable reason for rejecting new terms. None of these airlines, starting with USAIR could have demonstrated that labor was the cause of their financial distress compared to competitors unless the lawyers representing the unions just sat on their hands and gave no counter arguement. All the majors were around the same.How can a company argue that the terms are onerous when in fact its competitors, who have similar terms are not in BK? Sure they could have cited some of the smaller upstarts but the unions could have cited that we have had such upstarts for 20 years, their small size inevitably leads to their extinction despite their lower labor costs. SWA is really the only upstart that has persevered and they do so because of superior management practices, not inferior wages and benifits.
What really gets me is that it seems that all these airlines had to do was make a case that they needed to cut costs by some figure, that figure then automatically got thrown at labor even though we only make up 30 to 40% of the total costs. In the meantime fuel costs have risen dramatically and the fuel companies are boasting about record profits, where is it written that our wages should be reduced to allow the oil companies to make record profits? That seems to be the position taken by these BK Judges. Could it be that these same Judges stand to see their portfolios benifit from our loss? We should give the law the respect it deserves, however when the law has no respect for the people, and those we entrust use their power to enrich themselves while denying us the porotections we expect from government it deserves no respect.
