Repercussions of Striking when not allowed?

[LoadMasterC141]

I am wet behind the ears so help me out here:
You have to ask a judge permission to strike nowadays I guess, which makes no sense to me. Now, I was reading about the Comair strike. If the judge says "No you cannot strike", and then you all strike anyway, what could happen? You goin in the slammer? Fines? Fired?

[DE727UPS]

They will fine the union. There was a deal at American a while back where there was a grass roots effort to have a sick out. The union didn't try to stop it and a judge ended up fining the union millions for revenue the airline claimed it lost.

In the end, the union didn't have to pay it as the settlement became part of contract negotiations.

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by LoadMasterC141

I am wet behind the ears so help me out here:
You have to ask a judge permission to strike nowadays I guess, which makes no sense to me. Now, I was reading about the Comair strike. If the judge says "No you cannot strike", and then you all strike anyway, what could happen? You goin in the slammer? Fines? Fired?

Under the Railway Labor Act (which governs airlines) you can only strike under "Section 6" contract negotiations. These are negotiations that occur at the amendent date for a contract. And then, you can only strike under an impasse declared by a government appointed labor relations mediator.

In bankruptcy, the negotiations are not "Section 6" negotiations. There is no legal precedent for a strike in this set-up. To date, a judge has not had to rule on the precedent for such a strike...and it's still a gray area on whether it is legal or not. That's where the "judge's permission" applies.

[CFIse]

Originally Posted by DE727UPS

They will fine the union. There was a deal at American a while back where there was a grass roots effort to have a sick out. The union didn't try to stop it and a judge ended up fining the union millions for revenue the airline claimed it lost.

Plus the union leaders - MEC initially but eventually ALPA leadership will be threatened with and would eventually go to jail. If the court orders no strike and you strike the union is in contempt of court and can be punished accordingly. There is precedent for this.

Now if the union says "oh alright we won't strike" but people don't come to work anyway - I'm not sure anybody knows how that would work. Can the court force individuals to go to work, I don't think so. Anyway - what are the chances enough Comair pilots would actually just quit - not very high.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

The company also could start firing individual strikers. Ordinarily, a strike would be protected activity (you can't be fired for it). But if the strike is not in compliance with the RLA or a judge's orders, it wouldn't be protected.

[DE727UPS]

"Can the court force individuals to go to work, I don't think so"

There was the famous court decision where the ABX pilot were told they couldn't have an opentime ban. In other words, the union couldn't come out and say "stop doing the extra flying". That would be a change in the status quo. I know it's something the IPA has had to tip toe around. On our last contract, we negoiated the right to have the union ban overtime flying but only if it happened with guys on furlough.

The idea behind banning overtime flying is that it's cheaper for the company to pack the schedules or solicit crewmembers to fly extra than it is for the company to properly staff the airline. One way to "get a company's attention" is to tell guys not to work the overtime anymore. That's the theory, anyways.

[LoadMasterC141]

Besides the grocery store I worked at when I was 15, pushing carts, I've never been in a union.

It all seems so complex. Perhaps more complex than it should be. I guess it helps unify the employees, but not being allowed to strike seems absurd in a way.

Thanks for all your answers though.

[BobDDuck]

The problem, as of recent anyways, is that most of the union busting that's been done has been while in Section 6 talks. In the past, *most* labor-management tension occurred leading up to and into contract negotiations. With the rash of bankruptcies recently most of the problems haven't fallen into this category. It is untested waters for unions AND companies. So far, the courts seem to be siding more with the companies then the unions, but as carriers step out of BK and the next round of contracts start to come due in the next few years (I think CAL and Alaska are up first for the big boys) I think we will see a little more power sliding back towards the union side.

Of course, the problem with being under the RLA is that contracts don't expire, they just become amendable. Because of that there is no rush for a company to get a new deal done if the pay rates and other compensation are going to go up. Some CBAs have been smart and have included penalty clauses so for each month/year that goes by with no new contract past the amendable date the company is forced to pay out some large scale wage increase. I think UPS or FDX has this is theirs. But outside of those rare cases Section 6 stuff can go on for a LONG time. Just look at 9E and ASA right now. A few months ago the company I am at was offered -900s for a VERY low rate. The offer was more then insulting, but the way management tried to sell it was, take the deal now and we'll work out better rates when the contract comes up in 2009. *If* we really would get a new contract 1/1/09, then it might have been an ok deal, but the fact of the matter is we will be lucky to see anything much before 2011 or 2012. Just the way things work under the RLA.

[DE727UPS]

"the company is forced to pay out some large scale wage increase"

Well, I wouldn't call it large scale, exactly, as in a penalty sort of thing, but we did get something in our current contract that wasn't in the last one. In the last one, our pay just maxed out at a certain level so jacking us around for years didn't cost them anything. In our current contract, the pay raises contine past the amendable date, which will be nice. In the overall scheme of things, though, dragging these things out for a long time favors the company and I don't think that's gonna change.

[kellwolf]

Even Mesaba got a pay raise past ammendable date tossed in on their "concessionary" contract. Concessionary is in quotes b/c their current deal is better than our current deal. There's been a couple of truths tossed out in this thread. One is it's cheaper for an airline to understaff and either JM/extend/pray people pick up the open time. Earlier this month, we were having such a staffing problem, they offered a premium on open time. Previously, it was just straight normal pay. This is something we've been fighting to get put in writing on the next contract, but the company has been saying "No way" on. Then they come out and do it for a span of about 4 days b/c they're hurting. Some guys were in a bind on that one. Take the extra flying and the $$$ or let 'em suffer until they properly staff the place. It was almost all on the CA side, so I didn't even have an option. The second truth is there's no motivation for a company to speedily settle a contract if wages are going to increase. If it were the other way around, they'll race you to the negotiatiing table. In our current situation, we're having to drag them beaten and bloody to pretend to talk to us. Why? They know we won't sign anything less than a pay increase. The only incentive for the company to speed things along is retro pay, but that's an item that must be negotiated. If they say "no," then thing either continue as they have or it doen't get paid.

[CFIse]

Originally Posted by DE727UPS

"Can the court force individuals to go to work, I don't think so"

There was the famous court decision where the ABX pilot were told they couldn't have an opentime ban. In other words, the union couldn't come out and say "stop doing the extra flying". That would be a change in the status quo. I know it's something the IPA has had to tip toe around. On our last contract, we negoiated the right to have the union ban overtime flying but only if it happened with guys on furlough.

The idea behind banning overtime flying is that it's cheaper for the company to pack the schedules or solicit crewmembers to fly extra than it is for the company to properly staff the airline. One way to "get a company's attention" is to tell guys not to work the overtime anymore. That's the theory, anyways.

But the union is still on the hook as I understand it. If the union comes out and says "no overtime ban, no, really, we mean it" and there is no evidence that the union supports an overtime ban and maybe has to actively try and prevent it, if individuals just choose not to work overtime, or in the Comair case not show up for work, will the courts intervene with the individual?

I suspect not - the company will probably fire them and there won't be much the union can do about it - but I don't think the court will order individuals back to work, or to work under specific conditions (i.e. they will not force an individual to pick up overtime).