Looks like Boeing created a dozen scabs

jhugz

The Juarez Express
#81
Which makes sense indeed. Bottom line being these ATI pilots (rightfully) rely on the advisement of their union leadership on matters such as these, and follow the reasonable advice given. If IBT disagrees with that, then thats between IBT leadership and ALPA leadership, not between IBT and a group of pilots who are following legitimate union advice from their own union.
Actions have consequences. They're scabs I don't care what ridiculousness ALPA spouted off about. You guys were so quick to label the Falcon Air Guys scabs...time to return the favor.
 

Cptnchia

Dissatisfied Customer
#83
Actions have consequences. They're scabs I don't care what ridiculousness ALPA spouted off about. You guys were so quick to label the Falcon Air Guys scabs...time to return the favor.


It’s OK to have an opinion. Good luck with your perceived version of the truth. I suppose it’s fair to believe we’ll never see you at an ALPA carrier?
 

jhugz

The Juarez Express
#86
That's because they crossed a legal picket line after the Spirit pilots had been released by the NMB. Stop being such a child.
That strike was illegal in my book. They had no right to try and better themselves. They should have sit down and continued to let the company abuse them.
 

jhugz

The Juarez Express
#95
It wasn't because of that specific post I asked that question.
I'm not a lawyer but have done my research. Enough to know that "status quo" strikes are in fact, not "illegal" and have been used with success in other professions that fall under the same rules.

I'm also familiar enough with the ongoing Teamsters/ALPA/ABX/ATI drama to know that not supporting the strike was a power move by ALPA to retaliate against Teamsters for trying to bring ATI back under their umbrella.

I know they had to find a way to try and protect these employees that they as an organization didn't support properly and now would be labeled scabs. There logic was to discredit the ABX strike and spin up the "illegal" narrative.

ATI and their pilots continue to whipsaw the ACMI industry even after the strike with the signing of their new CBA, nearly the same one ABX turned down earlier.
 

Cptnchia

Dissatisfied Customer
#96
I'm not a lawyer but have done my research. Enough to know that "status quo" strikes are in fact, not "illegal" and have been used with success in other professions that fall under the same rules.
There is no reference to “Status Quo Strike” in any legal document or reference to it in any RLA legal matter. It is a term made up by the IBT. Care to provide the links to whatever documents you have found during your research to show:
1. They actually exist.
2. They have legal precedent under the RLA.
3. Where those other professions governed by the RLA.
 

jynxyjoe

The Kickin' Chicken!
#97
I'm not a lawyer but have done my research. Enough to know that "status quo" strikes are in fact, not "illegal" and have been used with success in other professions that fall under the same rules.

I'm also familiar enough with the ongoing Teamsters/ALPA/ABX/ATI drama to know that not supporting the strike was a power move by ALPA to retaliate against Teamsters for trying to bring ATI back under their umbrella.

I know they had to find a way to try and protect these employees that they as an organization didn't support properly and now would be labeled scabs. There logic was to discredit the ABX strike and spin up the "illegal" narrative.

ATI and their pilots continue to whipsaw the ACMI industry even after the strike with the signing of their new CBA, nearly the same one ABX turned down earlier.
Wow. That's a pretty convoluted...-conspiracy? Strategy? Something.

"And you've read enough to know?" Man it seems like ur a little backwards on status quo meaning.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
#98
In this case what were the ATI pilots to do, once their union leadership had told/advised them that this wasnt a recognized strike? Were those pilots expected to tell their ALPA leadership to go pound sand, and refuse the work? Had they done that and gotten in trouble with the company, would they have a leg to stand on for defense by ALPA, after they defied an instruction to continue working, from the union?
Some of the ATI pilots didn't cross. To my knowledge they all still work there if they haven't left on their own accord.
 

BobDDuck

Island Bus Driver
#99
I'm not a lawyer but have done my research. Enough to know that "status quo" strikes are in fact, not "illegal" and have been used with success in other professions that fall under the same rules.

I'm also familiar enough with the ongoing Teamsters/ALPA/ABX/ATI drama to know that not supporting the strike was a power move by ALPA to retaliate against Teamsters for trying to bring ATI back under their umbrella.
ALPA/IBT drama aside (and I really think there is less of that going on than you think there is), unless any of those other professions that you think have successfully used status quo violations as a reason to strike were railroads they wouldn't be falling under the RLA, but rather the NLRA, which has an entirely different set of rules.
 
Top