Judge Blocks NW f/as right to strike

[Bear96]

While his characterization concerning the judge may be questionable, his observation on the self-help provisions of the RLA are accurate.

You don't need a law degree to read/understand the RLA.

Maybe. But by just addressing the RLA, your response shows the flaw in his argument.

More than just the RLA is at issue here. Bob is (and I suppose you are, too) totally ignoring the other relevant law in this dispute -- the Bankruptcy Code.

It is nice to have the luxury of only considering, addressing, and citing the law that supports your position and being able to hide behind one side of the story while totally ignoring the other side. However, a judge does not have that luxury.

Make no mistake: ultimately I agree a union has the right to strike (in a traditional form, or in the form of CHAOS) in this situation. But if you are trying to be legally or rhetorically persuasive, you don't help your position by only repeating one position over and over and not explaining why the other side's position is wrong.

If you want to convince anyone important (like a judge, for instance), you not only better know your argument inside and out, but you need to show you know your adversary's as well.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Maybe. But by just addressing the RLA, your response shows the flaw in his argument.

More than just the RLA is at issue here. Bob is (and I suppose you are, too) totally ignoring the other relevant law in this dispute -- the Bankruptcy Code.

It is nice to have the luxury of only considering, addressing, and citing the law that supports your position and being able to hide behind one side of the story while totally ignoring the other side. However, a judge does not have that luxury.

Make no mistake: ultimately I agree a union has the right to strike (in a traditional form, or in the form of CHAOS) in this situation. But if you are trying to be legally or rhetorically persuasive, you don't help your position by only repeating one position over and over and not explaining why the other side's position is wrong.

If you want to convince anyone important (like a judge, for instance), you not only better know your argument inside and out, but you need to show you know your adversary's as well.

I've "totally ignored" nothing. The previous poster referred to the RLA, I referenced it in my response to you.

All that I saw was a flippant remark about a law degree.
Where was your well thought out dissertation on your professed argument/position? Maybe you should follow your own advice in the future.

However, since you brought it up...

Railway Labor Act
http://www.nmb.gov/documents/rla.html

Title 11-Chapter-11 reference 1113
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode11...13----000-.html

Norris-La Guardia Act
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp26.htm

These are 3 links to the basis of my argument.


All that Section 1113 provides for is the procedures that must be followed for the rejection of CBA's during the bankruptcy proceedings. It in no way supercedes the RLA,nor does it forgive the companies obligations under the RLA. Additionally it does not prevent unions from exercising self-help for those same RLA violations.

Additionally, an argument can be made that temporary injunction currently in place is illegal in two parts.

1)Per the Norris-La Guardia Act, the judge has no jurisdiction.

2)if in fact the first were to be ignored, the conditions of the injunction are flawed. If the FA's are being enjoined from seeking self help per the status quo, then NWA should've been required to reinstate the wages/benefits that were in place prior to culmination of the previous 1113© proceedings.

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< TWAnr!---- If your still with us, do you have a opinion on this one? (TWAnr, for those who don't know, happens to be an Attorney, married to an exTWA F/A I do believe!) B)

 

[eolesen]

TSH and others like Bob may have RLA memorized chapter and verse, but it doesn't change the fact that there are two pieces of overlapping legislation here, and it's going to take a judge to determine which takes precedence here.

None of us except for TWAnr are lawyers, and even the lawyers are fairly split on which piece of legislation takes priority here.

This is not by any means going to be resolved with this one decision. It's going to be appealed, and will either be upheld or overturned. That's going to take weeks or maybe even months.

The best thing AFA can hope for right now is that the judge will vacate the TRO, and they will need to be prepared to walk out immediately...

 

[DCAflyer]

TSH and others like Bob may have RLA memorized chapter and verse, but it doesn't change the fact that there are two pieces of overlapping legislation here, and it's going to take a judge to determine which takes precedence here.

That's the key! It's exactly why the Judge issued the TRO. This is new ground with overlaping legislation.

None of us except for TWAnr are lawyers, and even the lawyers are fairly split on which piece of legislation takes priority here.

This is also true. I have a close friend who is a lawyer in the DC area where NWA's Banckruptcy Counsel Arnold & Porter are HQ'ed and I'll leave you with his quote about them, "Bob there are none better! A Premier Law Firm"

This is not by any means going to be resolved with this one decision. It's going to be appealed, and will either be upheld or overturned. That's going to take weeks or maybe even months.

Possibly YEARS!!! Why do you think NWA has a guy like Brian Lietch from Arnold and Porter. In order to "WIN" all they have to do is keep it tied up in appeals.

The best thing AFA can hope for right now is that the judge will vacate the TRO, and they will need to be prepared to walk out immediately...

If the F/A Group is to have ANY chance of success then CHAOS must start within minutes of the TRO being lifted and symbolicly speaking the best flights to strike are the ones with all the NWA brass flying space positive in F. Then if by some miracle they find a crew for those flights then the NWA ground staff needs to make sure no meals are losded for F just the Buy on Board stuff. The F/A group needs to drive the message home hard and EARLY if the TRO is lifted. Then let them wonder what's next for a day or two, with just limited CHAOS events.

Bob, you are absolutely correct that AFA needs to hit the ground running the second the TRO is lifted, because even that could be only temporary. NWA could run to the next court and seek yet another TRA. AFA could only get in one or two days before that happens, so they need to make that time and those actions count. They need to have their plan in place NOW for that eventuality. I like the idea of hitting space exec space poz flights... brilliant! And AFA needs to learn how to effectively get their message to the media.

 

[eolesen]

All it would take is for DTW to be shut down for a couple hours, and you'll have corporate pressure from GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc. on NWA to start acting like a responsible business.

Heck, at this point perhaps AFA should simply set up picket lines at the auto plants... That's not forbidden in the TRO, is it?

 

[FWAAA]

None of us except for TWAnr are lawyers, and even the lawyers are fairly split on which piece of legislation takes priority here.

I agree with your entire post - except, of course, with this erroneous assertion; I am most certainly a lawyer. B)

 

[eolesen]

I agree with your entire post - except, of course, with this erroneous assertion; I am most certainly a lawyer. B)

My apologies, both for your career choice as well as the error in my post. 😉

 

[Bear96]

Where was your well thought out dissertation on your professed argument/position? Maybe you should follow your own advice in the future.

I am not the one parroting over and over that this was a clear cut decision, that the judge is corrupt, and that there is only one possible outcome based on the law. So I have no need to persuade anyone.

However, since you brought it up...

Railway Labor Act
http://www.nmb.gov/documents/rla.html

Title 11-Chapter-11 reference 1113
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode11...13----000-.html

Norris-La Guardia Act
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp26.htm

These are 3 links to the basis of my argument.

You are unwittingly showing that a law degree may very well be necessary to fully understand the law. Posting links to the statutes alone, and saying that is the basis of your argument so the reader should figure out the rest of your argument himself, does not show you understand the laws at all. Nor does it do anything to convince a court that your position is correct.

All that Section 1113 provides for is the procedures that must be followed for the rejection of CBA's during the bankruptcy proceedings. It in no way supercedes the RLA,nor does it forgive the companies obligations under the RLA. Additionally it does not prevent unions from exercising self-help for those same RLA violations.

Cite?

If the law clearly stood for the propositions you just stated, obviously we wouldn't be having this discussion because the issue wouldn't still be in litigation if the answers were so clear.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Then how do you explain the transit strike in NY
They all walked. They got fined but I'll bet it was worth every penny

😉

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

I am not the one parroting over and over that this was a clear cut decision, that the judge is corrupt, and that there is only one possible outcome based on the law. So I have no need to persuade anyone.

Nor am I. I have offered an argument/opinion on the topic at hand. I have provided references for the basis of my arguments/opinions. What have you offered other than simple critiques?

You are unwittingly showing that a law degree may very well be necessary to fully understand the law. Posting links to the statutes alone, and saying that is the basis of your argument so the reader should figure out the rest of your argument himself, does not show you understand the laws at all. Nor does it do anything to convince a court that your position is correct.

And you are unwittingly showing you lack basic reading comprehension. I cited my references, and made my argument/opinion based on those references. Again I ask, What have you offered in the form of opinion/argument other than off-handed critiques of other posters opinions/observations?

If the law clearly stood for the propositions you just stated, obviously we wouldn't be having this discussion because the issue wouldn't still be in litigation if the answers were so clear.

I have offered my opinion/arguments based on the references I have posted. I freely admit I am not an attorney, nor practice law in any way. With that said, the articles in question are not difficult to read or understand. So I ask of you this:

1) Find anything in Title 11 that even remotely mentions strikes as they relate to unions, or how they may be enjoined.

2) Find anything in the Railway Labor Act that grants any status quo exception whatsoever to parties in Bankruptcy, or mentions those parties in anyway.


I may not be a Lawyer, but I do know you cannot infer rights and powers where none are listed.

You may chose to trust blindly, I do not.

 

[Bear96]

TSH,

Please check post # 123 of this thread. The post of mine that apparently started your tirade was directed at Bob, not you.

1) Find anything in Title 11 that even remotely mentions strikes as they relate to unions, or how they may be enjoined.

Find anything in the RLA that even remotely mentions bankruptcy.

2) Find anything in the Railway Labor Act that grants any status quo exception whatsoever to parties in Bankruptcy, or mentions those parties in anyway.

Find anything in the RLA that denies any "status quo exception" (whatever it is you mean by that) to parties in bankruptcy.

See the problem? Two laws that apparently say different things, and don't address each other. The challenge the courts face it how to reconcile them.

I may not be a Lawyer, but I do know you cannot infer rights and powers where none are listed.

OK . . . I don't agree with that. "Powers" and "rights" are found by the courts all the time where none are listed; no law ever written has foreseen all factual situations and circumstances that may arise under which that law could potentially be applied, and so the courts fill those gaps.

Here's a good example: The word "strike" is not found in the original RLA! Strikes are referred to once or twice indirectly in some amendments that were made decades later. But does that mean that originally, unions covered by the RLA could not strike? The answer would be "No." But how can that be, if the right to strike was not specifically "listed" in the original RLA?

For the sake of argument, though, let's say that you're right, and that rights and powers cannot be inferred where none are listed.

Therefore, by your reasoning, since the right of unions to strike in BK is not "listed" in the BK code, unions cannot strike when a company is in BK. Right?

Or perhaps there's another side to the story? Maybe a little more to it than that?

You may chose to trust blindly, I do not.

Er, what is it I trust blindly? I just don't like people misrepresenting what the law does or does not say.

 

[jenny@nw]

they're recalling everyone! And the drama continues.............

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

TSH,

Please check post # 123 of this thread. The post of mine that apparently started your tirade was directed at Bob, not you.

Yes, I'm aware of that. What I find interesting is that I merely take you to task on YOUR flippant comment, and suddenly I'm on a "tirade".

Find anything in the RLA that even remotely mentions bankruptcy.
Find anything in the RLA that denies any "status quo exception" (whatever it is you mean by that) to parties in bankruptcy.

See the problem? Two laws that apparently say different things, and don't address each other. The challenge the courts face it how to reconcile them.

AND AGAIN I ASK: WHERE IS YOUR ARGUMENT?

Where do the laws contradict? What is the basis of your argument?

NWA used their legal right under Title 11 to abrogate the FA collective bargaining agreement. However, in doing so they also violated the RLA, which makes no exception for bankruptcy so the FAs have a right to engage in self help.

OK . . . I don't agree with that. "Powers" and "rights" are found by the courts all the time where none are listed; no law ever written has foreseen all factual situations and circumstances that may arise under which that law could potentially be applied, and so the courts fill those gaps.

Here's a good example: The word "strike" is not found in the original RLA! Strikes are referred to once or twice indirectly in some amendments that were made decades later. But does that mean that originally, unions covered by the RLA could not strike? The answer would be "No." But how can that be, if the right to strike was not specifically "listed" in the original RLA?

You may want to try and come up with a better example, and familiarize yourself with the term "self-help".

For the sake of argument, though, let's say that you're right, and that rights and powers cannot be inferred where none are listed.

Therefore, by your reasoning, since the right of unions to strike in BK is not "listed" in the BK code, unions cannot strike when a company is in BK. Right?

Thats an inane example.

The RLA governs Airline/Unions collective bargaining. Show me one exception, show me any exception.

Show me anything in the RLA that grants Title 11 any sort of governing power. Show me anything in Title 11 that claims governing power over the RLA.

WHERE IS THE BASIS OF YOU ARGUMENT? WHERE IS THE CONTRADICTION?

as to the rest of your "example"....

The FARs that govern aviation in this country aren't mentioned in Title 11 either, but by your BENT logic NWA should be able to throw those out too just because they're in Bankruptcy.

 

[PurduePete]

they're recalling everyone! And the drama continues.............

Jenny, do you mean to say that NW is in the process of recalling all of the F/A's on layoff status? In my opinion, that may not be good news for your work group.

Once all of the furloughed F/A's are offered their jobs back, the company may be able to "legally" lock out all of the F/A's represented by the AFA and bring in SCABS (if the judge rules in the union's favor and CHAOS begins).

Maybe that's why it's taking Judge Marrero so long to come up with his ruling - he's giving NW time to contact the laidoff F/A's... 😱

Just my two cents worth...