Is the Railway Labor Act next after Janus Ruling?

[eolesen]

This was brought up in the AA forum, but I think it deserves a little wider attention as a topic.

SCOTUS is going to rule on the legality of agency fee/fair share with the Janus vs. ACSCME case sometime in early 2017. That case only has a bearing on public sector unions, but I think there's some potential for cascading impact to airlines with regard to the RLA...

1. Abood would have been overturned had Scalia been alive to vote on in Friedrichs vs. CA Teachers, and it's probably a given that Gorsuch will vote in favor of Janus.
   
   
2. Assuming the Court rules for Janus, that becomes a defacto national RTW declaration for public sector unions.
   
   
3. If it's no longer legal to force union membership dues or fees as a condition of public sector employment, how long can it be before there's a challenge on whether Federal law can force union membership dues or fees as a condition of private sector employment?

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

This was brought up in the AA forum, but I think it deserves a little wider attention as a topic.

SCOTUS is going to rule on the legality of agency fee/fair share with the Janus vs. ACSCME case sometime in early 2017. That case only has a bearing on public sector unions, but I think there's some potential for cascading impact to airlines with regard to the RLA...

1. Abood would have been overturned had Scalia been alive to vote on in Friedrichs vs. CA Teachers, and it's probably a given that Gorsuch will vote in favor of Janus.
   
   
2. Assuming the Court rules for Janus, that becomes a defacto national RTW declaration for public sector unions.
   
   
3. If it's no longer legal to force union membership as a condition of public sector employment, how long can it be before there's a challenge on whether Federal law can force union membership as a condition of private sector employment?

Yea Right !!

Tell that to the I L W U. (International Longshore and Wharehouse Union)

 

[eolesen]

I'm sorry, but did I miss something about the ILWU being subject to the RLA?

 

[Kev3188]

For #3, my guess is it's solely dependent on how fast the NRTW Foundation can mount a case. They've probably had the initial framework built for years, lying in wait.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

For #3, my guess is it's solely dependent on how fast the NRTW Foundation can mount a case. They've probably had the initial framework built for years, lying in wait.

You're right there Kev. As far as the ILWU goes, I DO NOT see the NRTW getting anywhere 'off the ground' in CA/OR or WA !!

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

This was brought up in the AA forum, but I think it deserves a little wider attention as a topic.

SCOTUS is going to rule on the legality of agency fee/fair share with the Janus vs. ACSCME case sometime in early 2017. That case only has a bearing on public sector unions, but I think there's some potential for cascading impact to airlines with regard to the RLA...

1. Abood would have been overturned had Scalia been alive to vote on in Friedrichs vs. CA Teachers, and it's probably a given that Gorsuch will vote in favor of Janus.
   
   
2. Assuming the Court rules for Janus, that becomes a defacto national RTW declaration for public sector unions.
   
   
3. If it's no longer legal to force union membership as a condition of public sector employment, how long can it be before there's a challenge on whether Federal law can force union membership as a condition of private sector employment?

Employment in public sector does not “force union membership.” An employee would be part of the bargaining unit, and covered by the terms of the agreement negotiated by that union. In Janus, it is only because he lived in Illinois, that requires agency fees to be paid. Illinois is one of 22 states that require this.

No public sector employee is “forced” to join any union, although the union must still represent the employee as a member of the bargaining unit. Twenty-eight states do not require any payments (agency fees, not dues) from bargaining unit employees in the public sector.

 

[eolesen]

Post updated, Glenn.... You're right. They can't force membership, but you still have to fork out money for services not being delivered.

You can go ahead and call partial dues an agency fee, but there's no way that "only" the costs associated with collective bargaining are baked into that payment.

There's probably a #4 in there as well --- if you can't be forced to pay dues or fees by Federal law, can you be forced by State law to pay dues or fees?

I think NRTW is on the right side of history for this issue, and unions had better be working on a Plan B that doesn't involve compulsory dues. It starts with proving their value so that people want to belong. They've done a bad job of that in the past 20 years.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Post updated, Glenn.... You're right. They can't force membership, but you still have to fork out money for services not being delivered.

You can go ahead and call partial dues an agency fee, but there's no way that "only" the costs associated with collective bargaining are baked into that payment.

There's probably a #4 in there as well --- if you can't be forced to pay dues or fees by Federal law, can you be forced by State law to pay dues or fees?

I think NRTW is on the right side of history for this issue, and unions had better be working on a Plan B that doesn't involve compulsory dues. It starts with proving their value so that people want to belong. They've done a bad job of that in the past 20 years.

Agree with all of the above. States can, and do impose more strict labor laws on workers/employers. For instance, MA & NY require weekly pay (or they used to when I was still with airline) even when negotiated agreements have bi-weekly pay schedules. One can argue for or against giving states rights over fed rules. But many want to have it both ways re: unions.

 

[delldude]

Post updated, Glenn.... You're right. They can't force membership, but you still have to fork out money for services not being delivered.

You can go ahead and call partial dues an agency fee, but there's no way that "only" the costs associated with collective bargaining are baked into that payment.

There's probably a #4 in there as well --- if you can't be forced to pay dues or fees by Federal law, can you be forced by State law to pay dues or fees?

I think NRTW is on the right side of history for this issue, and unions had better be working on a Plan B that doesn't involve compulsory dues. It starts with proving their value so that people want to belong. They've done a bad job of that in the past 20 years.

It starts with proving their value so that people want to belong

Exactly. I've taken a lot of hits whenever I mentioned that. They are providing a service and it should sell itself.

 

[Kev3188]

It starts with proving their value so that people want to belong

Exactly. I've taken a lot of hits whenever I mentioned that. They are providing a service and it should sell itself.

I agree. I'd say the one union really doing this right now is AFA. I've seen enthusiasm for others, but it's on a more anecdotal level.

 

[delldude]

I agree. I'd say the one union really doing this right now is AFA. I've seen enthusiasm for others, but it's on a more anecdotal level.

Hopefully it grows away from an ingrained mindset of many decades........

 

[CRASTOR]

This is coming.

In two decades in the industry (above and below the wing), unions have done nothing but steal money from checks, fail to represent, protect people who should have been fired, prevented the free market from working for labor, and worked squarely against the interests of safety.

 

[Zom JFK]

This is coming.

In two decades in the industry (above and below the wing), unions have done nothing but steal money from checks, fail to represent, protect people who should have been fired, prevented the free market from working for labor, and worked squarely against the interests of safety.

Up to the last sentence I thought you were talking about the twu. Your post described them perfectly.

 

[DTSPC20]

protect people who should have been fired, s.

Unions do not have a choice when it comes to representing their members. They have to represent everyone the same way and to the best of their ability. To not do so could open them up to liability.

 

[xUT]

Unions do not have a choice when it comes to representing their members. They have to represent everyone the same way and to the best of their ability. To not do so could open them up to liability.

Now that is humorous...