Bob, As long as this ruling stands, any RLA covered entity can file for Sect. 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code and abrogate any Union Agreement while still retaining the requierement that all covered menebers of the closed shop Union must remit a portion of their wages as a condition of employment
You have to remember that my belief is that the courts overstepped their authority. They rewrote the contracts and set the terms as per the corporations requests without consideration for the workers. If our system has become so dominated by the power of Capital that workers rights are no longer a consideration then its a system that workers should not support, thats why I advocate politically motivated General Strikes under the protection of the 1st and 4th Amendments. We still have the right to peaceful assembly and protection from the illegal siezure of our property (our labor).(At least according to the Bill Of Rights if not the courts.)
The fact is that the courts allowed every other party(all corporations) to the BK filings the right continue to set terms at their discretion. They may have lost debts owed to them(which the government then allows them to use to offset their tax liabilities) but they were not forced to continue to supply the applicant under terms that they had no part in setting. The oil companies continued to raise their prices, airport authorities continued to raise their prices and taxes continued to be collected, only workers saw their labor confiscated for the benifit of the bankrupt corporation. This to me is a seperate issue from union democracy, the only tie in is that the unions did nothing to protect the workers from this injustice. Unions are supposed to negotiate for the workers but the courts took away that power, however unions were left in place to enforce the deals.
The legislative rationale for requiring workers under the RLA to be forced to pay Union or Agency Dues to any Labor Union, is, in my opinion based on the fact that only the Executive Branch and/or Congress (be it by action or inaction) could dictate the terms of a CBA governed by the RLA. The continuation of service was predicated on the continuation of the terms and agreements within the Union Members CBA. The forced solicitation of dues was a by-product of the continuation of the CBA and the costs of negotiations so that the Unions could maintain funding at the same rate the companies could continue to earn the revenue produced through Union effort.
As the Mediator said referring to the unions accepting the RLA back in 1926 "They enterred into a deal with the devil". The unions were given assurances in return for giving up their rights. They were promised that the Status quo would be maintained and the unions could have mandatory dues payments from their members. So it wasnt a Byproduct it was bait.
The purpose of the RLA was to insure that no matter what the rails still moved. In order to do that the supply of Labor had to be guaranteed, the government had to find a way to do that without running afoul of the 13th amendment so they came up with the RLA. Contracts were made interminable. The owners could not use economic downturns to set back wages and the workers could not withdraw their labor. Workers were protected, unions were protected, companies were protected, tax revenues from commerce were protected and the public was guaranteed access to the services. However government has broken the deal in favor of corporations, all the restrictions to labor still apply, however the guarantees to workers have been removed, unions are still collecting their dues so they are reluctant to fight for their members beyond the minimum required by their Duty of Fair Representation (they can claim they represent the members even though they failed to lead).
Absent that rationale, the closed shop provisions of the RLA for the forced payment of members dues are a direct form of taxation without representation.
I guess the same arguement applies to Federal Income tax as well since the Federal Government is bascally an agent of Capital and not "the people". The unions take our money and fail to lead, the government takes our money and acts in the interest of Capital.
Thusly one of the following provisions of the RLA must be eliminated: the closed-shop provisions of the RLA, airline coverage under the RLA or the entire RLA.
Or retroactively restore the protections that the act gave to workers. However I would rather see the entire Act eradicated and allow us to reorganize under the NLRA. As a worker in a high cost area the act has only brought hardship.
End game: airlines are free to continue business in ways which harm shareholder value while the unions continue to collect dues. If the games get screwed, just go to BK and pass those costs to labor; after all the Unions still get paid, the members still get the shaft.
Shareholders that invest in the airlines to make money will get screwed, but shareholders that invest money to control the airlines (over 90% of the ownership of AMR is institutional) make out like bandits. The whole industry is basically a money laundering scheme and everyone makes out except the workers. $23.7 Billion went through AA last year, more than ever before, the productivity per worker was higher than ever before, the yields were also very high yet they still managed to post losses. The more we give up the more everyone else gets to raise their prices. While we give more for less everyone else gives less for more. Just look at landing Fees and rents, despite cutbacks in flights these charges increased.
Getting back on Topic.
I commend the guys at Local 565 for their efforts. Some call them (us) turncoats, but what exactly did they-or we- turn on? What are the options? Just accept the status quo and current direction and do nothing but gripe, or try to enact change through the avenues that are available?
The fact of the matter is that while my beliefs in unionism are idealogical my choice to take the role I have is driven by economics. I'd have no problem doing just my 40 and supporting unionism through dues, showing up at functions and at the ballott box, if I thought that unions were doing the right thing and I was getting an "adequate" wage. I actually like being an aircraft mechanic, but just because I enjoy it that doesnt mean that I should give it away and my family should suffer. As a mechanic I produce a lot a value, and I should be compensated for it.
From what I know of the guys at 565 they also like being mechanics. They are trying to restore the profession and change the TWU. Some say "impossible" but the fact is we are trying, whats their approach? Wait until things get bad enough in Tulsa so that they demand change? We will be bankrupt and long gone by then.
