Bob, I need to learn how to do those in-lines quotes at some point, bear with me.... but to your questions:
So the question isnt whether or not she was willing to hurt the company, its whether or not it was legal to do so?
Well... yeah. Her union called for a strike, and she went on strike. That was (is) part of the recognized process, when it gets to that point. In 1993 it apparently got to that point.
So she was willing to hurt the company as long as she was following the recognized process, now the process has been altered, not by legislators elected by the people, but by rulings by Judges to where the process that we have agreed to since 1926 has been altered through Judicial activism and we have been stripped of our rights, they have left us no legal recourse. The law has been altered to allow the company to excercise self help but the same option has been denied to unions. The RLA was based upon the concept of equal consideration of rights, the Unions could not use self help as long as the carriers didnt use it. Are you aware of the fact that ALL OTHER WORKERS (except airline workers)IN THIS COUNTRY CAN
LEGALLY STRIKE IN BANKRUPTCY ONCE THE COMPANY ABROGATES THE LABOR AGREEMENTS? (Is your wife aware of that?) Are you aware that under the bankruptcy code sect 1167 that contracts under the RLA can not be abrogated in bankruptcy? Are you aware of the fact that some Judges ruled that "that" part of the RLA that drove Sect 1167 does not apply to airline workers (but it does to Rail workers) but the prohibition on striking does? (How could a just court declare that the same law applies differently?) Are you aware that a judge ruled that for Airline Workers, and airline workers alone contracts are not abrogated, they are annulled, as if they never existed? The basis for annulment of contracts is that the contracts were illegally enterred into, either the parties did not have the legal basis, there was fraud or coercion. The basis under C-11, for annullment of airline workers contracts is the company wants to earn $3 billion a year in profits and in order to do that they have to take it from the workers that help them generate those revenues. Our choices now are just accept it or fight back. Your wife apparently has chosen to accept it, the pilots have chosen to fight back. I support the pilots position.
The company could not get what they wanted through negotiations so with over $4 billion in the bank they filed for bankruptcy.
"Do I think that a good way to 'educate' the public is to purposely create situations that (for example) cause a customer to miss a life long friend's funeral, or a daughter's playoff soccer game, or a business conference that their company had paid thousands of dollars to exhibit at? Not so much..."
This is an economic contest, not a PR one. Labor doesnt get equal time in the corporate media, never did, nevr will. They will focus on the person who had to fly to a friends funeral, daughters soccer game or business meeting, comparatively minor one time inconviences, and not on the fact the workers are losing their pensions, their medical, their Homes and permanently seeing their standards of living decline, big changes that they have to live with every day. The fact is our labor provides these people the ability to afford such luxuries as travelling thousands of miles to attend funerals, soccer games and business meetings. They had options, the most likely reason they chose AA was price, its advisable to check the weather before you start any journey, book on an airline thats screwing its workers is inherantly risky.
Have you ever read the Railway Labor Act? Are you familiar with the history of it?
No and yes. I have not read the RLA, but I am aware as to why it was passed and why it was\is very much needed. I love history.
You obviously do not understand the History of the law enough to understand what is going on and why. Try reading "Understanding the Railway Labor Act by Frank N Wilner ISBN # 978-0911382-59-4 for a start.
As a History buff you are aware of how African Americans in the South went from having NO rights as slaves, to having full rights to the point that we had African American Senators, Congressmen and even Govornor, then with the introduction of new laws were stripped back to the point of being second class cistizens for the next 100 years. It took civil disobedience to get those opressive laws changed. Well labor has seen a similar process, no rights, the granting of rights and the slow step by step erosion of rights. When African American stopped riding the BUS is was an economic contest that eveolved into a PR contest, still the bottom line is economics was the primary reason for change.
Look, I feel like most employees are on the same page when it comes to their feelings towards management. The point of my initial post was that a very small number of employees are potentially jeopardizing the long term viability of the company through what, in my opinion, are senseless and selfish (and we will probably now see if illegal...) acts that *really* impact a *lot* of other people. And to what end? We have to destroy the village to save it?
Your opinion, and you dont work there. When your wife went on strike in 1993 she was doing a lot more damage than the pilots are accused of doing. oh yea its ok to burn down the village if you follow the process thats "legally recognized", and I guess you feel that working people still have as much control over the process as big corporations and the 1% do? Segregation was legally recognized as well, so was Aparthied, so was the extermination of Jews, so was Inquisition etc etc. History is full of morally corrpt legalities, every one of them had to be challenged, many through violence, thankfully, hopefully it will not get to that point as working people rediscover that they still have free will and can say "no: (as in No , I'm not going to sit on that defect until the aircraft terminates for the day), and vote.
You seem to forget that the company is making two accusations, one that pilots are calling in sick more than normal, but refuse to produce evidence backing up that claim, and two, that pilots are purposely reporting minor defects, thats part of their job. If a pilot notices a defect he reports it to Maintenance, maintenance evaluates the defect and determines if the aircraft can go or not, not the pilot. failure to do so is both a violation of Company rules and a violation of his duty as an FAA licensed Airline Pilot.Did you ever consider the possibility that Maintenance is no longer willing to take risks with their personal health and license to get an airplane out and the combination of both groups working exactly as the Company and the FAA demand has resulted in an operation that can not be sustained? Are you aware of all the steps that a mechanic must take before what appears to be a simple task as opening an engine cowl or changing a tire? My guess is no. Most of these steps involve things that keep the mechanic safe such as installing lock out devices that prevent things from being moved or powered up as the mechanic performs his primary task and often doing these things takes more time than the task itself. The proceedure for changing a tire on a live trip full of people is no different than it is for when an aircraft is in a hangar for major overhaul. Tire changes are routinely done on the line, mechanics who install the safety locks, and take all the other precautions outlined are considered to be troublemeakers, when they need a CS or a PV, to help out their dying parents or spouse management may deny it and tell them they have to be at work. We had one manager tell a mechanic whose brother was terminally ill that he had to write off his brother who was going to die anyway and focus on his job because after his brother was dead on gone he would need that job to support his family. That mechanic quit the company shortly afterwards. He was an above average mechanic but said that after being treated that way he could no longer work for AA.
This is the path that management has chosen, if the Village burns , no matter who strikes the match, they are the ones to blame. That goes with their job.
When corporations file for bankruptcy the court automatically makes the assumption that they would not do so unless liquidation was imminent andf this was the only option to prevent it. The assumption is is niave, and has already been dismissed as far as personal bankruptcies which now require that the debtor prove they need relief. Corporations still do not have to prove they need relief, workers have to prove they do not. Still the courts have shown that they believe in fairy tales, they accept such weak arguements siuch as "We need to make $3 billion a year in profits to attract further capital from the investment community".
To quote click on the quote box on the top pf the menu. When you drag the icon across the icons it tells you what they are.
