But every now and then they acknowledge slight fear or concern regarding postings here to keep us occupied and content. Both sides know that if we are busy sitting at the computer venting we are not taking any real detrimental action.
I can tell you that what is posted is read and considered, by the company (as you informed me years ago) and the NMB.
The Update I put out just before Christmas created a stir, nothing was said to me directly but the Chairmen were given an earful. The company must have looked at it as a threat, and obviously complained about it. Our intentions that week were to bring forth economic articles that were minor and pretty much standard across the industry, such as Shift Differentials. I was told that the mediator basically said that we would not touch Economic articles that session and we had to clear away all the non-economic articles first, sure we could have went ahead and thrown them out there anyway, but then we would most likely have been “put on ice”.
I previously stated that when Labor goes to the NMB for mediation it would be like going to ones In-laws for mediation for problems in their marrage. They want a settlement but they inherently are more aligned with the other side. We have already seen how long the NMB will let things drag out when the company wants them to drag out, AMTRACK. Eight years, sure they got some retro but you can bet that it it was only a fraction of what they lost. So, what does that mean for us? Well we have to look at the history of the RLA and see why it was put into law. What conditions precipitated the law? What were/are the objectives of the Law?
In the period preceding the RLA there were sporadic but very disruptive job actions across the country. If the switchmen walked off the job in Ohio service between NY and Chicago came to a halt, even if the switchmen in New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois workers showed up. Service interruptions became more frequent, usually unsanctioned acts because in many cases the workers were non-union because the carriers refused to recognize them, or would only recognize "company unions". So the Government decided to restrict by law workers ability to withhold their labor from private "for profit" enterprises, this wasn’t new because the Government and its corporate handlers considered Unions to be conspiracies against the rich. It was OK for the rich to pool their Capital in corporations for maximum leverage against the working class but it was not OK for the working class to pool their labor in order to bring some balance to the table. Obviously if the true intent of the law was exposed it would have caused outright rejection by the working class. You have to remember that the law was put in place in 1926 only six years after labor unions in Europe helped force an end to the war of Intervention when they threatened General Strikes which would have shut down the factories and ports needed to conduct the war, and only eight years after Communists took over the largest country in the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War). Once transport workers realized the power they had they became more emboldened. So what the authors of the law did was invite labor to the table to get them to believe they were getting something out of the deal. They fluffed up the law with certain protections, unions would be recognized and barriers to decertification were put in place and some worker concerns were addressed, mainly "Status quo" which would prevent employers from unilaterally reducing workers pay, however the government has since given carriers a loophole around that, limited bankruptcy. To sum it all up the RLA was put in place to ensure carriers have access to the labor they need to provide the service and to make Unions accept the fact that they could not use the their only true weapon-the labor that their members provide.
So that covers why it was put in place and what the objectives are. For many years the law functioned fairly enough for workers so the inequities were never really an issue. The NMB truly acted impartial in the Airline Industry, nowhere near as biased as they are today because the industry was more of a luxury than a necessity. If an airline went on strike there was usually enough surplus capacity to get everybody and everything where they needed to be within a day or so. In the rail industry it was a different story, the NMB frequently delayed talks or sent the parties to a PEB, however other benefits were put in place such as a generous pension plan to cover rail workers. However now the airline industry is vital, more concentrated and very little surplus capacity exists, and the NMBs treatment of airline workers has been much harsher, harsher even than in the rails, when a carrier feels they are a good position to bust the union, the NMB gives a swift release to self help, when a union is in a position to make gains they drag talks out, in some cases telling unions that if they don’t lower their demands they would “put them on ice forever”. I’ve never seen where the NMB told a carrier that their demands were too extreme. I don’t know the particulars on AMTRAK and the eight year negotiations that took place there but one thing that’s obvious is that the workers of AMTRAK adhered to the rules put forth by the RLA and they got screwed. Why? Because as far as the NMB is concerned eternal negotiations are fine so long as the workers don’t get frustrated and start to rebel on their own. In my opinion if they had started to spontaneously engage in sick outs, against the leadership of their union, and "worked to rule" their negotiations would not have dragged out as long. One of the key ingredients to the RLA has always been Union “buy in” and the expectation that the Union would control the workers (while worker protections have all but disappeared union stability and organizing has been enhanced by the NMB). The Union is prohibited by law from telling workers to do what the RLA is permitting the company to do-delay, delay, delay and we have seen where the Government tries to financially destroy Unions whose members engage in disruptive actions, (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Allied+Pilots+Association+to+pay+USD45.5m+fine+to+American+Airlines.-a065464859).
Actions that can be traced to the union will be acted upon, harshly, however actions that are spontaneous are much more difficult to deal with, back in 2000 frustrated workers at UAL showed their displeasure in what the media termed “the Summer of Hell’ ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/economy-business-finance/transportation-industry/air-transportation/united-air-lines-ORCRP017350.topic). Disruptions were not limited to UAL, sporadic disturbances were occurring all over the industry, most went unreported, some were completely misrepresented such as one that occurred at American’s JFK. There the company told the media that they were experiencing “weather related” delays, every other carrier at JFK was experiencing the same weather but the press never bothered to question that and made the announcement that passengers for AA should call the airline before going to the airport, because of "the weather". That round of negotiations turned out to be one of the most successful rounds that I’ve seen in my 30 years. The success was short lived. The industry with the full force of the government struck back, using the fallout of the tragedy 9-11 for cover.
So in summation Unionized workers, whether they at UAL, USAIR, AA, Amtrak or any other large carrier under the RLA, are pretty much screwed if they continue to “act professionally” during extended negotiations. “Status Quo” and extended negotiations only apply when its in the carriers interests, if workers make gains and a carrier feels they can get the same work out of them for less they can always count on a quick release from the NMB if in negotiations or just take a trip to BK court and have a Judge write them a dream contract that does not consider the workers needs one iota if they are “locked” into a contract. By continuing to “act professionally” workers are doing what the carriers and the NMB are counting on, so of course they encourage such behavior (“Thank you sir may I have another”-Animal House http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdFLPn30dvQ ). They are getting what they want, and as long as they are confident that they will continue to get what they want while we suffer they will continue to delay, delay, delay, hoping that our desperation drives us towards submission instead of rebellion, because every day that they do they get to keep millions of dollars for themselves and from us and our families, if we submitt they win, if we rebel its a draw. As long as the NMB sees workers willing to “act professionally” they will continue to place a heavy hand on the carriers side of the scale. Demonstrations are nice but easily ignored, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO3Df_IGvdg ) however if nobody showed up for work one holiday, at UAL, USAIR, Continental, AA and every other carrier that’s going through extended negotiations, in other words if they did what the members of the NMB and top management of the carriers were doing, spending the Holiday home with their family instead of working, that couldn’t be ignored. It sucks but that’s how I see it, if Rosa Parks had changed her seat because it was the law it would still be the law. If workers under the RLA continue to “act professionally” as their rights are suppressed, benefits disappear and real wages wane then they will continue to be suppressed, they will continue to lose benefits, and their wages will continue to decline. Thats true whether you pay dues to the TWU, IAM, IBT, AMFA, APA, ALPA, AFA, CWA, USAPA, AMP or IWW.