RTW

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

 
Buck, on 12 Apr 2015 - 6:55 PM, said:
Then please explain how Right to Work affects the airline industry, in Oklahoma and possibly those in the TWU at the Tulsa Base?
 
OldGuy@AA, on 13 Apr 2015 - 5:19 PM, said:
So since Right to Work doesn't hurt you personally but it destroys other union members in Oklahoma it's not a bad thing?  RTW is just an example of the anti union crap that the GOP pushes.  They have changed the bankruptcy laws so big business can screw the workers.  And they have made the Railway Labor Act slant so far toward the airline management it is impossible to get a fair deal.  These two issues have affected you. 
 
Buck, on 13 Apr 2015 - 6:33 PM, said:
I do not believe I ever stated that RTW was good or bad. Now you are defending these RedNeck Yokels you were slamming just the other day.  "See Ment" and "Po Dunk Hell Oklahoma" If the GOP has legislated the labor laws so that the RLA is slanted toward Airline Management, then where is your savior they call the President and and the Congress that had control for the last 6 years? Why have they not changed these horrifying laws?

 
 

OldGuy@AA, on 13 Apr 2015 - 5:19 PM, said:
So since Right to Work doesn't hurt you personally but it destroys other union members in Oklahoma it's not a bad thing?  RTW is just an example of the anti union crap that the GOP pushes.  They have changed the bankruptcy laws so big business can screw the workers.  And they have made the Railway Labor Act slant so far toward the airline management it is impossible to get a fair deal.  These two issues have affected you.  
 
OldGuy@AA I think we can both agree that the TWU is an abysmal failure.
 
Do you feel it is right to force an employee to join and pay a failure UNION as a condition of employment? Prospective employees put in an application to AA not TWU.
 
Being in a UNION is a business transaction.
 
The problem with the TWU is they don't have to earn their keep. It is either their way or the highway. 
 
A UNION like any other service one pays for should have to earn their keep. There is nothing wrong with expecting a return on investment and having a closed shop takes away any motivation the TWU has to perform well.
 
If the TWU was effective people would WANT to be members.
 
People that are for RTW are not necessarily anti UNION, they just don't want to be trapped in a situation similar to what the TWU has created. They want a choice.
 
 
Let me ask you this OldGuy@AA, and correct me if I am wrong, but the TWU is protected from RTW by the railway labor act correct?
 
Can you honestly say you have seen any benefit to that?
 
 
I am not trying to change your mind. I am just asking that you consider the possibility that having a closed shop removes any motivation a UNION may have for performance and enables a cycle of incompetence and laziness as UNIONs coast on their closed shop status.

 

[eolesen]

RTW doesn't impact the airlines, at least not until someone finally wakes up and realizes that the RLA is outdated by about 60 years and that there should just be one set of labor laws instead of two.

When unions have the threat of their members being able to leave without ramifications, they perform for the membership. When there is no real threat of leaving, they become the TWU.

 

[Kev3188]

At the same time, having CBAs actually expire instead of becoming perpetually amendable might actually force a company to take reaching an agreement seriously as well...

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

When unions have the threat of their members being able to leave without ramifications, they perform for the membership. When there is no real threat of leaving, they become the TWU.

Indeed.

 

[OldGuy@AA]

The problem with RTW is that the non paying employee enjoys the same benefits as the dues paying employee and also the union must represent these free loaders.  A fair scenario would be that the non dues paying employee is not protected by the union.  This was not included in the law because those who wrote it knew it would hurt the unions and the dues paying members.  It is one sided.  This is like you showing up at Tulsa Country Club and demanding a tee time and getting one in front of a dues paying member of the club.  The same people who made this law have memberships to these country clubs and are not going to let you or I play a round without paying the dues.  Hypocrites.  AA is a closed shop and since we are international this state law does not affect us.  If it did the TWU would be even weaker than they are now.

 

[eolesen]

That's an old & tired argument, Old Guy. Nobody said that working conditions & workrules have to be the same for those who opt out. Arguably, you're paying for the representation services (grievances, shop stewards, etc) as much as you are for the negotiating power.

If you want the union's working terms, you join. If you don't, you either work on the company's terms or to what you negotiate.

There's already precedent for that in other countries, and it's pretty much how the entire at-will community works.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

I'd take some of that action -
 
Membership becomes voluntary(forcing unions to perform) - and we can strike immediately upon contract expiration

 

[Ms Tree]

I'd take some of that action -
 
Membership becomes voluntary(forcing unions to perform) - and we can strike immediately upon contract expiration

Can the business hire replacements if they can find them?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Can the business hire replacements if they can find them?

Absolutely - so long as the minute the contract expires there isn't a single hindrance to striking 

 

[Kev3188]

Edit: TSH beat me to it...

 

[Ms Tree]

Pretty much negates the strike now doesn't it?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Pretty much negates the strike now doesn't it?

 
Not in aviation, which is why you'll never see A4A as an advocate for that sort of change

 

[Ms Tree]

How so?  I woud think given the current economy there would be plenty of mechanics, pilots, flight atendants etc who would be willing to work. 

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

How so?  I woud think given the current economy there would be plenty of mechanics, pilots, flight atendants etc who would be willing to work. 

 
Willing perhaps, but are they hire-able?  How much of a training liability do they pose? Can they pass a drug test? Can they clear a background check for AOA and Custums access?  Are the airlines willing cough up the money all this would require and more every 3 years or so? Nevermind the PR nightmare they'd enjoy.  Could they find enough to replace an entire bargaining unit?  Doubtful
 
The RLA favors the airlines, and the unions thus far have played only lip service to changing it. While its an interesting "what-if" I don't see it changing anytime soon

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

The problem with RTW is that the non paying employee enjoys the same benefits as the dues paying employee and also the union must represent these free loaders.

OldGuy@AA I feel if anyone is a freeloader it is the TWU. They have taken money for years with no return on membership investment.
 

A fair scenario would be that the non dues paying employee is not protected by the union

You are right that would be fair.