Is the Railway Labor Act next after Janus Ruling?
- Thread starter eolesen
- Start date
jimntx
Veteran
I have no idea why two people rated your post as funny. The DFR (Duty of Fair Representation) is a cornerstone of classic unionism. Every member should be represented with the same amount of fervor--particularly in employment termination situations.
That being said, I know of more than one termination case involving a represented employee where the union in exasperation told the employee (on the 3rd time the employee was terminated for cause (pending the binding arbitration step, of course) that the employee would have to pay the lawyer because the union had spent more than fair share on this one employee on lawyer fees. When quoted the lawyer's rates, the terminee decided to make himself available to the wider job market. And, that's the way it ought to be handled in the case where the company has good cause to terminate--such as drug use on duty.
Side note regarding thread topic. If the courts should overturn the requirement for agency fees or mandatory dues in private sector unions, I think you will see a demise of most unions. The younger folk don't know the history of unions and the good they did at one time. And, they don't see much union activity outside of dues collections. In my own case, I called a union rep about a possible grievance several years ago. He informed me (in an irritated tone of voice) that he was on a trip and would call me when he got back to base. I am still waiting on his call.
CRASTOR
Member
- Oct 2, 2017
- 61
- 7
- Banned
- #18
Its funny because the union does not represent them. I know of cases where the union colludes with management and will commit a crime on an employee dissatisfied with being forced to pay a bargaining agent that is clearly working against their best interests. In other words, unions collude with the company ultimately using psychiatry to silence a disenfranchised employee not wanting to pay agency fee for a total lack of representation.
Its the perfect crime when you think about it. It starts with bullying in a recurrent event, at which point the affected disenfranchised employee is asked: "Is everything ok" "Do you need help" In a nutshell, crime is what keeps unwanted unions in power and prevents affected employees from doing anything about it and it gets buried in political graft.
Well entrenched unions, particularly those affiliated with the AFLCIO, have barriers in place in preventing meaningful representation and goodwill bargaining. With the RLA sidelined, companies would be free to hire or fire whom they please without the interference of third party parasites protecting the jobs of some of the worst offenders and in house representation (sans politico), with a few legal people is all that is necessary. You can spare me the argument that unions promote safety; they do not and, in fact, work contrary to the interests of safety. Just think steak dinners, booze, dirty lawyers, and an unwanted magazine in the mail box every month; that's all you get.
Well meaning employees are then free to negotiate individually or with their feet, as a free market for labor 'should' function once the political graft is removed.
Its the perfect crime when you think about it. It starts with bullying in a recurrent event, at which point the affected disenfranchised employee is asked: "Is everything ok" "Do you need help" In a nutshell, crime is what keeps unwanted unions in power and prevents affected employees from doing anything about it and it gets buried in political graft.
Well entrenched unions, particularly those affiliated with the AFLCIO, have barriers in place in preventing meaningful representation and goodwill bargaining. With the RLA sidelined, companies would be free to hire or fire whom they please without the interference of third party parasites protecting the jobs of some of the worst offenders and in house representation (sans politico), with a few legal people is all that is necessary. You can spare me the argument that unions promote safety; they do not and, in fact, work contrary to the interests of safety. Just think steak dinners, booze, dirty lawyers, and an unwanted magazine in the mail box every month; that's all you get.
Well meaning employees are then free to negotiate individually or with their feet, as a free market for labor 'should' function once the political graft is removed.
Last edited:
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,404
- 2,649
I don't know about that. I doubt these A&P's would be making what they make in the "real" (non UNION) world. I would say the UNION benefited them pretty well.
I mean what would these guys make if there were no UNIONs in the airline industry? I figure about 24 an hour or so where I live (Tulsa). To clarify I don't mean 24 an hour plus license premium and all that, I mean just 24 an hour period. Maybe 17 an hour for unlicensed but experienced support mechanics.
I don't take it as gospel but payscale.com reports A&P national average at $23.52 so 24 an hour for my low cost of living area may even be a bit generous.
glassdoor reports the national average as even lower than that at $23.23 an hour.
So do UNIONs deliver...... well I don't know, ask a topped out A&P working at TULE (a low cost of living area) what he makes, compare it to the national average, and get back to me.
OP
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,940
- 9,371
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #20
Keep in mind that most of what Glassdoor and Payscale use for their calculations is self-reported data, so it's only as good as the size of the sample and the honesty of the people reporting.
I can't imagine that too many AMT's with 20 years and are TOS will bothering to check those websites and self-report their own pay, so the averages are going to likely reflect more younger guys career shopping and fewer union guys who thinks they're underpaid.
I will say that the data for my line of work is fairly close, but in IT you tend to see lots of people shopping for jobs every couple years and self-reporting their current pay/experience, particularly mid-career folks who wind up having to look for new work due to downsizing or outsourcing.
Arguably, absent unions in a union dominated trade, you could see a situation where payscales are the same or even higher once you strip away the constraints that the union introduces into their contracts.
Case and point: Legacy AA had no problem offering WN wages with the rest of WN workrules and benefits. The unions only wanted the wages.
I can't imagine that too many AMT's with 20 years and are TOS will bothering to check those websites and self-report their own pay, so the averages are going to likely reflect more younger guys career shopping and fewer union guys who thinks they're underpaid.
I will say that the data for my line of work is fairly close, but in IT you tend to see lots of people shopping for jobs every couple years and self-reporting their current pay/experience, particularly mid-career folks who wind up having to look for new work due to downsizing or outsourcing.
Arguably, absent unions in a union dominated trade, you could see a situation where payscales are the same or even higher once you strip away the constraints that the union introduces into their contracts.
Case and point: Legacy AA had no problem offering WN wages with the rest of WN workrules and benefits. The unions only wanted the wages.
Last edited:
Tim Nelson
Veteran
I'm not sure if there will be a RLA exclusive case, prolly a case that deals with all private employers. WHo knows but the unions really need to start being worth the dues instead of cutting pink dog contracts against workers as the unions take the cash from the employers.
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
See Serna v. TWU 3:13-cv-02469-N USDC Northern District of Texas Dallas Division. While waiting for the Freidrichs case Scalia died and so did this argument....until now. With Quinn, Knox and soon to be Janus, the Supreme Court will probably put the mandatory dues requirement where it belongs....in the trash heap of history. Hanson, Street and Abood will all be overturned and the next RLA court case about union dues will come again. I hope I get to be the lead plaintiff.
jimntx
Veteran
Only because there is a law which requires it. Laws can be created and laws can be rescinded. Which is sort of the topic of this thread. If they make it illegal to require dues assessments from non-union members, I "spec" they can give the union the ability to refuse representation--particularly to repeat offenders. If an airline employee is repeatedly caught stealing or using illegal drugs, why should the union have to expend resources on representing such a person?
OP
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,940
- 9,371
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #29
The ruling is in. Unions lost.
From today’s ruling:
“States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.”
From today’s ruling:
“States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.”
