DL EMPLOYEE FEELINGS ABOUT POSSIBLE PILOT STRIKE

[aislehopper]

If their contract is thrown out and destroyed by the BK Judge, they have a legal right to strike and don't have to come back if ordered.

This is really a non-answer. You just restated what you had already posted above.

A court will be bound by precedent. As anyone who watches Court TV can tell you, ignoring a court order will subject a person to contempt of court charges which can carry civil and criminal sanctions. Therefore, if a judge orders them back to work, and that judge is not overturned, the union will have to obey.

Once more, what is the legal basis of your opinion, or have you once again based your opinion solely on how you feel?

 

[B.O.B.]

This is really a non-answer. You just restated what you had already posted above.

A court will be bound by precedent. As anyone who watches Court TV can tell you, ignoring a court order will subject a person to contempt of court charges which can carry civil and criminal sanctions. Therefore, if a judge orders them back to work, and that judge is not overturned, the union will have to obey.

Once more, what is the legal basis of your opinion, or have you once again based your opinion solely on how you feel?

Once again, you still do not understand. If the judge tosses out the DAPLA Contract, the pilots can strike. They don't have to return to work if ordered. Have you ever heard of the word Quit?

Like you have said before, I will not answer your questions here.

 

[luv2fly]

This is really a non-answer. You just restated what you had already posted above.

A court will be bound by precedent. As anyone who watches Court TV can tell you, ignoring a court order will subject a person to contempt of court charges which can carry civil and criminal sanctions. Therefore, if a judge orders them back to work, and that judge is not overturned, the union will have to obey.

Once more, what is the legal basis of your opinion, or have you once again based your opinion solely on how you feel?

If I am not mistaken, Judge Prudence was quoted as saying that she did not believe she would be able to enjoin the pilots from striking. I may be remembering incorrectly.
I think a legal precedent allowing a company to arbitrarily throw out a contract with no repercussion is a dangerous one.
For example, if Delta cannot renegotiate a lease with the lessor, the lessor is allowed to withdraw is assets.
Such a case for the pilots would not necessarily fall under the RLA, so any talk of a PEB could be moot. This is not your ordinary section 6 negotiation process. I don't believe it falls under section 6 at all.
I don't think a court could issue an injunction preventing you from quitting. I think that would be called socialism.
Perhaps we have a legal type on here that could offer up some info.

 

[aislehopper]

If I am not mistaken, Judge Prudence was quoted as saying that she did not believe she would be able to enjoin the pilots from striking. I may be remembering incorrectly.
I think a legal precedent allowing a company to arbitrarily throw out a contract with no repercussion is a dangerous one.
For example, if Delta cannot renegotiate a lease with the lessor, the lessor is allowed to withdraw is assets.
Such a case for the pilots would not necessarily fall under the RLA, so any talk of a PEB could be moot. This is not your ordinary section 6 negotiation process. I don't believe it falls under section 6 at all.
I don't think a court could issue an injunction preventing you from quitting. I think that would called socialism.
Perhaps we have a legal type on here that could offer up some info.

Hence the problem. The company says that a strike is illegal. The union says that a strike is possible. Since both sides are fairly adamant about their position, it sounds like this is something that remains to be litigated.

The way is was explained to me is that bankruptcy is a process to protect a company while it reorganizes. When in bankruptcy, the court automatically stays (prevents) certain actions. For example, if a creditor wants to repossess (take) an engine, it has to go through the bankruptcy court process where a judge has the power to prevent the repossession of the engine. In your example, the lessor must petition the court before it can withdraw its assets.

The "no strike" theory is that a strike is an action to "take" from the company.

In this case, a company and a union fail to come to an agreement, and a contract is rejected. The union, seeking better terms, strikes. This can be interpreted as an attempt to take (better wages, etc.) from the bankrupt company. This could allow a bankruptcy judge the power to prevent a strike

Now, a judge cannot compel an individual to work, but it can compel the union to call off a strike and make efforts to get its members back to work. Remember the Contract 2000 case where DALPA was told to stop the unofficial job action where no one was taking green slips? Remember the APA fine for the sickout at AA? Both were cases where the union was held responsible for policing its members.

The other side is that a rejection is a rejection and there is a right to seek self help.

My point is that there is a question of what could happen. BOB's characteristic simplistic view of the situation does not take into consideration all of the factors.

Getting back to how I feel about a potential strike, I hope that cooler heads can prevail and an agreement can be reached.

If not, I hope that the court does have the power to enjoin the strike. If the future proves that the company took too much, an angry ALPA can get it all back from an out of bankruptcy Delta when it is time to negotiate the next contract.

 

[luv2fly]

Now, a judge cannot compel an individual to work, but it can compel the union to call off a strike and make efforts to get its members back to work. Remember the Contract 2000 case where DALPA was told to stop the unofficial job action where no one was taking green slips? Remember the APA fine for the sickout at AA? Both were cases where the union was held responsible for policing its members.

It think the difference in those scenarios is that it was demonstrated that the union memebers were involved in an illegal work action. Outside of the provisions of the RLA. I don't think anyone here is trying to imply a strike would happen if a court stepped in with an injunction. ALPA believes the strike would be legal as you stated, and the company does not. Only a judge will decide. If a court did prevent the strike, organized labor is through. If only one side is required to honor a contract, what good is it?

 

[Ch. 12]

If only one side is required to honor a contract, what good is it?

The joy of the BK process. The answer is that a contract isn't much good once the company files for BK.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

aislehopper,

Lets envision a few scenario's.

Assuming your correct(Illegal Strike), the pilots could go on "work to rule", Sick outs WITH DR's notes etc.
(there is ALWAYS more than 1 way to "skin a cat")

I'm not so sure "W" would step in.(There is plenty of "over capacity")

Then again, Georgia(ATL) is a "good ol' boy, SOLID RED state.


NH/BB's

 

[B.O.B.]

aislehopper,

Lets envision a few scenario's.

Assuming your correct(Illegal Strike), the pilots could go on "work to rule", Sick outs WITH DR's notes etc.
(there is ALWAYS more than 1 way to "skin a cat")

I'm not so sure "W" would step in.(There is plenty of "over capacity")

Then again, Georgia(ATL) is a "good ol' boy, SOLID RED state.
NH/BB's

No matter what you tell that kool-aid drinker...

It's not even worth your time NHBB.

 

[aislehopper]

aislehopper,

Lets envision a few scenario's.

Assuming your correct(Illegal Strike), the pilots could go on "work to rule", Sick outs WITH DR's notes etc.
(there is ALWAYS more than 1 way to "skin a cat")

I'm not so sure "W" would step in.(There is plenty of "over capacity")

Then again, Georgia(ATL) is a "good ol' boy, SOLID RED state.
NH/BB's

Hi Bear:

There may be more than one way to skin a cat, but the end result for the cat is always the same.

If talks break off and a judge sides with DALPA, they can strike away. If a judge sides with management, action such as you describe could be categorized as an illegal work action.

As luv2fly correctly pointed out above, my examples of court intervention were in cases of illegal work action. DALPA could find itself faced with sanctions if it cannot control its members. Individual members could find themselves facing discipline up to and including termination.

IMHO, as long as DALPA is not allowed to have an official strike, management can keep things going. There are no picket lines. The operation limps along. Green slip flying could replace flying for those who are staying out.

Still, the best situation is for management and DALPA to find common ground.

 

[aislehopper]

No matter what you tell that kool-aid drinker...

It's not even worth your time NHBB.

Why is it that after three years and at least three different online personas on this site, you still fall back to personal attacks and name calling when a discussion moves out of your comfort zone?

See Guess who
Guess who?

 

[luvthe9]

ALPA NEEDS TO SHUT THE WHOLE COUNTRY DOWN. BUT DUANE WOERTHLESS HAS NO BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Borescope]

Eeeeerrrrrrr...not quite Corl. ALPA has negotiated for 60+ pilots to return to the Engineer's seat until they are 65. (With Captain's pay, of course).

And where do you find an airline that has engineer seats? There may be a few, NWA comes to mind, but not ALL pilots are afforded the chance to sleep in the engineer seat after they are 60.

 

[WorldTraveler]

BOOB has repeatedly demonstrated that he is vindictive and out of touch w/ reality so his comments can pretty well be dismissed as irrelevant in any intelligent conversations.

Newsflash: Judge Prudence isn’t holding court right now and DL’s case has been turned over to another judge that is whacking through the paperwork at a speed DL used to only dream about w/ Prudence. Translation: what Prudence said before doesn’t matter anymore.

Further, there is plenty of precedent for the President to intervene and we all know that has happened many times before. It is very safe to say that any of the big 3 airlines at least and probably more are so essential to the country’s economy that allowing them to be shut down on a moment’s notice is unthinkable. The government does not mind if the pilots want to put themselves out of a job but they are taking the economies of about 20 states where DL is a dominant airline with them.

Luv,
Actually, there is no doubt that if DALPA had given a billion dollars a year earlier, things would be very different. Just look at AA and how deeply they took but they happened to have the good fortune of having a year of very good revenue performance to get their balance sheet restored. DALPA insisted on draining DL’s bank accounts before talking and, lo and behold, oil prices shot through the roof right after DALPA gave, eliminating the possibility of any recovery. The airline industry is tough enough but expecting to play all the way to the limits of the balance sheet and expecting to recover is a very dangerous proposition. DALPA bargained and lost and I suspect they will be paying for as long as they represent DL pilots. No airline management has gotten it completely right but having uncooperative labor groups has only increased lasting damage – something management doesn’t and shouldn’t forget.

 

[luv2fly]

Further, there is plenty of precedent for the President to intervene and we all know that has happened many times before. It is very safe to say that any of the big 3 airlines at least and probably more are so essential to the country’s economy that allowing them to be shut down on a moment’s notice is unthinkable. The government does not mind if the pilots want to put themselves out of a job but they are taking the economies of about 20 states where DL is a dominant airline with them.

No disrespect WT, but I don't think you really know what you are talking about here. The presidential intervention you refer to has been in regards to the RLA and section 6 negotiations. BK proceedings are not governed by the RLA. In fact, the courts have not had to decide on this issue, and that is likely the reason they have pushed both sides so hard to reach a negotiated settlement. It is arguable that the President would even have the authority to convene a PEB since this is not a section 6 negotiation, and even if he did, the findings of the board are not binding. The PEB can only delay a strike and that period is usually 60 days.
Only Congress could vote to impose a contract, and to date, it has not been done in the history of the airline industry. While the current administration may not favor labor, imo, it is highly unlikely that Congress would intervene.
We could argue until we are blue in the face about the legality of a strike, but the courts will ultimately decide. You cannot cite precedent because it is unprecedented. If the courts allow a strike, it is highly likely a strike will occur.


From the NMB's website:

What is a “Presidential Emergency Board?â€￾
During the 30-day cooling off period, the NMB makes a determination regarding the impact of a strike. Pursuant to Section 160 of the RLA, the NMB "notifies" the President that in its "judgment" the dispute between a carrier and its employees cannot be adjusted and "threaten substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service.â€￾ Once the President receives such notification, he may, "in his discretion, create a board to investigate and report on such dispute.â€￾ The NMB submits a recommended list of potential neutrals to the President. The PEB usually has 30-days to develop a proposed agreement and present that agreement to the parties for consideration. After the PEB delivers its proposed agreement, there is a further 30-day cooling off period.

What happens if either party rejects the PEB's proposed agreement?
If either party rejects the PEB's proposal, the parties may, after the second 30-day cooling off period, engage in self-help.

Is there any circumstance in which the parties are constrained from engaging in self-help after rejecting a PEB's proposal?
Yes. It is possible for Congress to intervene and legislatively mandate a settlement. If this is done, Congress most typically would simply take the recommendations of the PEB and write them into law. This would mean that a contract would be legislated by Congress and no strike or no membership ratification would be allowed.

 

[luv2fly]

Eeeeerrrrrrr...not quite Corl. ALPA has negotiated for 60+ pilots to return to the Engineer's seat until they are 65. (With Captain's pay, of course).

There are no FE's at DL airlines and no active pilots over the FAA mandated retirement age of 60. Very few major airlines operate aircraft requiring three man crews anymore.