WestCoastGuy
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2004
- 813
- 0
JS said:
Unfortunantly it also means the company is no long bound by a contract and is free to permanently replace any worker who walks off his job.
From Now On, Passengers Can't Complain
- Thread starter biztraveller29
- Start date
Unfortunantly it also means the company is no long bound by a contract and is free to permanently replace any worker who walks off his job.
WestCoastGuy said:Unfortunantly it also means the company is no long bound by a contract and is free to permanently replace any worker who walks off his job.
[post="236766"][/post]
Correct. IMHO, this is the way it should be all the time (i.e., no RLA b.s.)
I voted Libertarian last November like I always do. Had they won and implemented the Libertarian platform, it means labor would be free to strike the second a contract expires, not years later and after federal approval.
Sure, it also means you could be replaced, but you can't expect everything. Wouldn't you prefer the right to strike over today's years-long b.s. games with the feds meddling in everything?
JS, I was referring to this:
And "I vote YES" is not the same as "I like it."
You still seem to be saying that the contracts U employees were working under (up until yesterday) were fully and freely "agreed" to by the employees because they "wanted" them. My point was that they were working under Concession Contracts I and II (we are now on round III in case you are losing count), which in many U employees' eyes, although ratified by a majority, were only ratified because of the threat of U going to the BK court and getting something even worse imposed.
IOW, they were ratified with guns pointing at people's heads. (Must remember to use that cliche more now that I know how much it annoys some people here ...)
JS said:
And "I vote YES" is not the same as "I like it."
You still seem to be saying that the contracts U employees were working under (up until yesterday) were fully and freely "agreed" to by the employees because they "wanted" them. My point was that they were working under Concession Contracts I and II (we are now on round III in case you are losing count), which in many U employees' eyes, although ratified by a majority, were only ratified because of the threat of U going to the BK court and getting something even worse imposed.
IOW, they were ratified with guns pointing at people's heads. (Must remember to use that cliche more now that I know how much it annoys some people here ...)
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
or you could just use plain english and say, 'they don't like the contracts that they agreed to, reluctantly.'
So if as you guys say the employer renigged on the contract, why not leave?
If you stay then the market basically spells out that you are paid your worth, expecially if there are people willing to do the work at the same or better quality. I suspect if they held a job fair today for FA, pilots or mechanics there would be a line out the door.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but why stay in a job with an employer that you disdain if you can make more outside the industry? Your staying basically says you are being paid "fairly"
If you stay then the market basically spells out that you are paid your worth, expecially if there are people willing to do the work at the same or better quality. I suspect if they held a job fair today for FA, pilots or mechanics there would be a line out the door.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but why stay in a job with an employer that you disdain if you can make more outside the industry? Your staying basically says you are being paid "fairly"
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
I agree, reluctantly
Well, then, let's go back to where this thread quickly ran after it was started. Bob Owens says that customers don't deserve to be served, because the customers don't care about the employees. I alleged, and continue to allege, that it is the job, and the contractual obligation of the employees to serve the customers.Bear96 said:
That some employees may choose not to perform their job because they're pissed off at management is, frankly, beside the point.
OK, again, here's the part some of y'all aren't getting. Leaving is one option, yes, but so is staying and fighting, even if fighting seems futile to you or me. If they choose to do so, why shouldn't they stay and exercise every legal option they can under labor laws, just like management is trying to exercise every legal option they can under bankruptcy laws?mrman said:
Personally, it seems like a great waste of energy to stay and fight, and I agree it would be smarter to leave. But it is their right to stay and fight, just like it is their right to leave. Who are we to say that is the "wrong" choice? What business is it of ours?
And technically, you are correct. And in a perfect world, such a simple, sublime statement would serve to inspire the thousands of U employees and magically resolve many of U's problems, like a ray of sunshine piercing through the morning fog, enlightening the masses.mweiss said:
If you're still not seeing the connection, I'm afraid I can't help you any more. But I am at least satisfied to know I tried my best.
Oy. I'm not trying to inspire anyone. Lots of people have crappy jobs. Lots of people have bad morale. They still deserve to be fired if they won't do their jobs.Bear96 said:
And when I said that voting "yes" on a TA is the same as agreeing to it, you said:
...which doesn't matter. You can disagree all you want, but you agreed at the time you were hired that your (collective) vote on a TA constitutes contractual agreement to it. If you voted Yes, you are part of that collective contractually agreeing to it. Saying that you disagree that you were doing that is the same thing as signing a contract and then saying after the fact that you didn't agree to it. You did.Bear96 said:
