Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

All Airline Pilots MUST READ

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
F18

Please define a level playing field.

To me, after reading the legislation, it seems that

1. Each side comes to the table with a final offer

2. Each side gets a member of the board, and has the right to concur on the other members of the board

3. The board must take into account the contracts of similar carriers (I don't see DAL or UAL poilots working for $20/hr). Otherwise, it could probably be successfully challenged in court per section 9

"JUDICIAL REVIEW- At the request of either party to the dispute, a final order of the Secretary under this subsection is subject to review by the court of appeals under section 46110 of this title. "

4. Each side has a grievance process through the secretary of transportation, or the court system

Sounds fair to me. I guess if it passes, we'll no longer be able to hold the company, all it's employees and customers hostage under the threat of financial ruin, and we'll have to resolve our disputes by negotation or in court.

This is what happens when unions start to abuse their power.

I think the union has way too much power. Basically, if we don't get what we want, we strike. The company is financially devastated, thousands of workers lose their jobs, the local economy, and possibly the national economy is severly damaged, and customers do not get the product they paid for.

That's way too much power for an employee group. Our union is no longer fighting for the "poor, overworked, underpaid laborer being exploited by the big, bad capitalists."

I think S1327 levels the playing field. Let's have some neutral arbritrators decide what's fair based on sound market economics...not the top part of the seniority list looking for "max pay to the last day."
 
CRJ200FO said:
I will not have a logical debate with scumbags like Turbo because there is no reasoning with them. They only care about themselves, and are willing to stab anybody in the back to get aheah in their careers.




This coming from someone who PFT'd at Gulfstream?

You're a real piece of work.
 
Hey CRJ,

Next time you're in the southwest, give me a call and we'll discuss our differences over a beer....oh wait, unregard, how about Peter Piper Pizza?
 
Darnnearajet.

You're darn near the point with your AirZimbabwe comment. However, stopping this bill and maintaining the status quo on bargaining won't do much to prevent the AirZimbabwe problem. Aviation Week just wrote about a recent European Court ruling that could dramatically affect bilateral agreements. Bad things could be just around the corner.

As far as the proposed arbitration bill, I'm all for it. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, times they are a changin, and we may have to accept some of those changes. At least they aren't proposing to totally outlaw unions, just the negotiation style.

Goldentrout,

Right on.

regards,
8N
 

Latest resources

Back
Top