AFA US Airways MEC for October 18, 2004
Talk of a Strike
Any talk of a strike under the current circumstances at US Airways is reckless nonsense. In a normal situation, a strike (or more accurately, the threat of a strike) is designed to put economic pressure on management to agree to a settlement that is favorable to the union's members. Threatened with the economic consequences of a strike, management in a normal situation would weigh the costs of a strike against the costs of a favorable settlement. When the costs of the threatened strike outweigh the costs of a settlement, that creates leverage. We know this well because in the last 12 years we've carried out the most effective strikes in the history of the airline industry.
On a superficial level, this dynamic would seem to apply at US Airways. The threat posed by a strike is great: a strike would force the liquidation of the company. If this were a normal labor dispute against a company with the resources to pay the cost of a favorable settlement, being able to credibly threaten the company with liquidation would generate all the leverage we would need for a favorable settlement.
It's not clear what those who talk of a strike would view as a favorable settlement. No concessions? Reduced concessions? Pay raises? It is clear however, that the company does not have the financial resources for what we would normally think of as a "favorable" settlement. All the financial analysts agree that the company is very low on cash and very much at risk of liquidation. If, as it appears, the company lacks the resources to fund a favorable settlement, then such a settlement would simply force the company into liquidation. Faced with two scenarios (strike vs. unaffordable settlement) both of which result in liquidation, management will have no choice but to liquidate the company.
Leverage does not work in a vacuum. We could have all the leverage in the world (like the ability to threaten the certain destruction of the company) but it would be of no value if the cost of a settlement would have the same effect. An armed robber uses a gun to threaten the victim in order to take the victim's money. If the victim has no money, the threat is rendered useless. The robber may still kill the victim, but the robber ends up with no money.
The current situation is actually worse. The mere talk of a strike (never mind the threat of a strike, or an actual strike action) may be enough to tip the company into liquidation. If that occurs we will have, by reckless talk of a strike, denied our members the possibility of keeping their jobs, and of negotiating the best agreement possible under very difficult circumstances. The talk of a strike adds nothing, and risks everything.
There are some who would say that this analysis somehow reflects fear; that people who are against threatening to strike are somehow afraid to 'take the company on.' This attitude is simply not supported by the facts. A pointless strike (or threat of a strike) that drives the company into liquidation is not in the best interests of anyone. To rule out such an nonsensical strategy reflects only a carefully reasoned analysis of the situation we find ourselves in. AFA has struck companies before, and will do so again, without fear. But we never have and never will strike without a strategy that makes sense. That would be an invitation to disaster and we owe our members the thoughtful leadership, and reasoned strategy that will avoid such an irrevocable blunder.
Since we cannot and should not strike under the current circumstances, our focus should be on what we can do. Just because we can't strike is no reason to let the company have complete control. We have seen many times that, but for our strenuous opposition at the bargaining table, management would impose far more severe terms. We can and will continue to make a difference at the bargaining table (and in court if necessary).
We can and should continue to fight the company every step of the way when management overreaches, demanding more from us than is right or fair. We can play an important role in the survival of the airline, and the shaping of its future, and our future. We will face difficult decisions and we need to work through those decisions together.
The most important decision may be the balance between jobs and work rules. We all want to preserve jobs and to preserve work rules. But the balance between those two items will determine the quality of life for those working in the jobs that remain. Should we give up more in pay and work rules in order to preserve more jobs? Or, should we try to keep pay and work rules from falling too far, even though that may force the company to cut more jobs to make up the difference? There is no 'right' answer to these questions, but achieving the proper balance is a crucial factor in trying to preserve our careers.
Everyone is angry that management has brought this situation on the airline. They've essentially forced the company to the brink of collapse. If the company survives, we will be here long after the current management team is gone. It is imperative, therefore, that we engage in constructive efforts that will preserve our airline and our careers. No one would wish to be put in these circumstances, but this is where we find ourselves. It's counterproductive to engage in reckless talk of a strike at this point. Rather than risk the destruction of our airline, we should focus instead on finding solutions.
Perry Hayes
MEC President
Association of Flight Attendants - CWA, AFL-CIO
Talk of a Strike
Any talk of a strike under the current circumstances at US Airways is reckless nonsense. In a normal situation, a strike (or more accurately, the threat of a strike) is designed to put economic pressure on management to agree to a settlement that is favorable to the union's members. Threatened with the economic consequences of a strike, management in a normal situation would weigh the costs of a strike against the costs of a favorable settlement. When the costs of the threatened strike outweigh the costs of a settlement, that creates leverage. We know this well because in the last 12 years we've carried out the most effective strikes in the history of the airline industry.
On a superficial level, this dynamic would seem to apply at US Airways. The threat posed by a strike is great: a strike would force the liquidation of the company. If this were a normal labor dispute against a company with the resources to pay the cost of a favorable settlement, being able to credibly threaten the company with liquidation would generate all the leverage we would need for a favorable settlement.
It's not clear what those who talk of a strike would view as a favorable settlement. No concessions? Reduced concessions? Pay raises? It is clear however, that the company does not have the financial resources for what we would normally think of as a "favorable" settlement. All the financial analysts agree that the company is very low on cash and very much at risk of liquidation. If, as it appears, the company lacks the resources to fund a favorable settlement, then such a settlement would simply force the company into liquidation. Faced with two scenarios (strike vs. unaffordable settlement) both of which result in liquidation, management will have no choice but to liquidate the company.
Leverage does not work in a vacuum. We could have all the leverage in the world (like the ability to threaten the certain destruction of the company) but it would be of no value if the cost of a settlement would have the same effect. An armed robber uses a gun to threaten the victim in order to take the victim's money. If the victim has no money, the threat is rendered useless. The robber may still kill the victim, but the robber ends up with no money.
The current situation is actually worse. The mere talk of a strike (never mind the threat of a strike, or an actual strike action) may be enough to tip the company into liquidation. If that occurs we will have, by reckless talk of a strike, denied our members the possibility of keeping their jobs, and of negotiating the best agreement possible under very difficult circumstances. The talk of a strike adds nothing, and risks everything.
There are some who would say that this analysis somehow reflects fear; that people who are against threatening to strike are somehow afraid to 'take the company on.' This attitude is simply not supported by the facts. A pointless strike (or threat of a strike) that drives the company into liquidation is not in the best interests of anyone. To rule out such an nonsensical strategy reflects only a carefully reasoned analysis of the situation we find ourselves in. AFA has struck companies before, and will do so again, without fear. But we never have and never will strike without a strategy that makes sense. That would be an invitation to disaster and we owe our members the thoughtful leadership, and reasoned strategy that will avoid such an irrevocable blunder.
Since we cannot and should not strike under the current circumstances, our focus should be on what we can do. Just because we can't strike is no reason to let the company have complete control. We have seen many times that, but for our strenuous opposition at the bargaining table, management would impose far more severe terms. We can and will continue to make a difference at the bargaining table (and in court if necessary).
We can and should continue to fight the company every step of the way when management overreaches, demanding more from us than is right or fair. We can play an important role in the survival of the airline, and the shaping of its future, and our future. We will face difficult decisions and we need to work through those decisions together.
The most important decision may be the balance between jobs and work rules. We all want to preserve jobs and to preserve work rules. But the balance between those two items will determine the quality of life for those working in the jobs that remain. Should we give up more in pay and work rules in order to preserve more jobs? Or, should we try to keep pay and work rules from falling too far, even though that may force the company to cut more jobs to make up the difference? There is no 'right' answer to these questions, but achieving the proper balance is a crucial factor in trying to preserve our careers.
Everyone is angry that management has brought this situation on the airline. They've essentially forced the company to the brink of collapse. If the company survives, we will be here long after the current management team is gone. It is imperative, therefore, that we engage in constructive efforts that will preserve our airline and our careers. No one would wish to be put in these circumstances, but this is where we find ourselves. It's counterproductive to engage in reckless talk of a strike at this point. Rather than risk the destruction of our airline, we should focus instead on finding solutions.
Perry Hayes
MEC President
Association of Flight Attendants - CWA, AFL-CIO
