Mesaba - the definition of "Struck Work"

[throttlejockey]

I would be happy to get everyones comments about "struck work."

I fly for a regional carrier that operates to a couple of Mesaba destinations. We do not fly the same routes, only the same destinations.

If my company decides to add an additional aircraft on the our original route to pick up any slack (but not with a XJ or NW code), would that be considered "struck work"?

If my company starts to fly that route but under a different code-share, say American instead of Northwest, is that "struck work"?

FYI - I believe that both the above situations are not struck work, but rather a competative respone to a competitors internal problems. Only if we were to fly those flights on behalf of Northwest or Mesaba would it then be defined as stuck work and subject to sanctions.

Look forward to your comments.

tj

 

[Timebuilder]

Only if we were to fly those flights on behalf of Northwest or Mesaba would it then be defined as stuck work and subject to sanctions.

From a legal standpoint, I think you are right. For example, during the SAG/AFTRA writers' strike a while back, no SAG or AFTRA actors worked. I was offered a chance to perform what would have been a union job during the strike. I declined it because it was "struck work". If the same client business had gone to a non-union production house or agency, I could have done the job and it would not have been "struck work".

Does that help?

 

[saabtrash]

Who do you work for, if there is a codeshare, it could possibley be considered it...maybe? I'm not 100%. If no codeshare, well, why wouldn't the competition up their flights. I guess it would be a question of whether or not you are ALPA and if so whether or not you want to support us. That is just my take on it.

 

[Kaman]

Hello,
Without trying to re-state what someone else already has. you would only be considered working "struck work" if your company was outsourced, contracted, etc... by xyz airline to fly their routes. However, considering the grey areas in defining what a true "scab" is by some folks that frequent this board. I don't know? Perhaps the best suggestion would be to contact your union rep. and get the correct gouge.
If your airline was in competition with Mesaba on the same routes, it IS NOT struck work, if you fly it. As harsh it might seem, it's capitalism and the weak will be absorbed by the strong. Labor unrest is a failure on the part of both parties, but it is a part of the process. Unfortunately, the human wreckage left behind is what "we" the worker has to try and survive and adapt to. Meanwhile trying to maintain our professional and personal integrity.

Regards,

ex-Navy Rotorhead

 

[DoinTime]

If your airline was in competition with Mesaba on the same routes, it IS NOT struck work, if you fly it.

It may not be struck work but it should be. ALL ALPA members should support each other. Look in the back of your Airline Pilot magazine (if you are an ALPA member) sometime. There is a list of all buisnesses you should be boycotting due to one of their AFL-CIO labor groups being on strike. This is the way organized labor should operate.

As harsh it might seem, it's capitalism and the weak will be absorbed by the strong.

In the view of organized labor its more of a case of the weak absorbing the strong when the lowest bidder is allowed to consume the market share of the group trying to improve their working conditions.

 

[Kaman]

Hello,
I would tend to agree with you up to a point on what is considered supporting a fellow union member and what my own employer would consider an illegal work stoppage/slowdown. It's difficult to say how that would stand-up in court. Historically speaking individual pilot groups within ALPA haven't always come to their fellow "bother's" aid. Take a look back at what other carriers pilots did when NW (which had numerous labor relation problems in the 70's), Eastern and Continental went on strike.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on your second comment. I hope that it works out for the best for y'all.

Regards,

ex-Navy Rotorhead

 

[FN FAL]

It's real easy to not fly Great Lakes...struck work or not.

 

[Blue Dude]

It may not be struck work but it should be. ALL ALPA members should support each other. Look in the back of your Airline Pilot magazine (if you are an ALPA member) sometime. There is a list of all buisnesses you should be boycotting due to one of their AFL-CIO labor groups being on strike. This is the way organized labor should operate.

Silly me, I thought the point of a strike was to inflict monetary harm on your employer, not to shut down all traffic on a given city pair. (Nor even to say, shut down all pickle production, only production for a given employer. It's a boycott on a particular supplier, not the overall product!) Not only is flying the same route for a competitor not struck work, you should be applauding it! It's something tangible to point to and say, look, we're having an impact on the bottom line. It should be a victory for you, not an opportunity to vilify a fellow pilot going about his business for his own employer.

Now you'd have a point if your (struck) employer was in a code share arrangement with that still-operating carrier, and still making money from the arrangement. You could legitimately say then that someone else was taking your place in the revenue stream and providing work for your employer in whatever roundabout way. But a direct competitor? What logic is this? Methinks you're too quick to slap labels. Better think this one out.

 

[DoinTime]

Silly me, I thought the point of a strike was to inflict monetary harm on your employer, not to shut down all traffic on a given city pair. (Nor even to say, shut down all pickle production, only production for a given employer. It's a boycott on a parti

Shutting down all traffic on an exclusive city pair generates an enormous amount of pressure from local and state governments on the employer to resolve the work stoppage.

Lack of unity has been ALPA's Achilles heel from the beginning and it will continue to destroy careers as ALPA carriers fight to exploit each others weaknesses. It takes a ton of courage to stick your neck out in this industry because there are so many of your "brothers" out there that are willing to swing the ax.

 

[Blue Dude]

Shutting down all traffic on an exclusive city pair generates an enormous amount of pressure from local and state governments on the employer to resolve the work stoppage.

That's nice in theory. It's also unworkable. It is illegal to engage in a work stoppage unless you've been released by the NLB to do so. Your proposed sympathy strike is not only illegal, it's utterly futile. In order to make it effective, you'd have to completely end service to every airport that's affected, since passengers would just connect to their destinations via another airline's hub, and wouldn't even have to fly the same segments. How do you propose to do that?

There's a reason that work considered "struck work" is limited to the airline affected. If that means that another carrier takes advantage, and perhaps takes some market share permanently then what of it? That possibility alone is more pressure on management than a dozen nasty letters from the East Bufu Airport Authority.

Insisting on every other airline stopping service in the name of unity is beyond the pale, and self-defeating. Want to force Congress to end airline unions altogether? This is one way to do it. A multi-carrier strike would generate such outrage that the labor unions may never recover. Careful what you ask for.

 

[njcapt]

Shutting down all traffic on an exclusive city pair generates an enormous amount of pressure from local and state governments on the employer to resolve the work stoppage.

Lack of unity has been ALPA's Achilles heel from the beginning and it will continue to destroy careers as ALPA carriers fight to exploit each others weaknesses. It takes a ton of courage to stick your neck out in this industry because there are so many of your "brothers" out there that are willing to swing the ax.

Whoa, brother. You need to focus on the situation at hand. You could demand that all ALPA pilots boycott WalMart and internet porn during your strike for added financial pressure, but you have no right to do so.

Your MEC (with concurrence from ALPA National) will define what is struck work if you guys need to go to self help. It depends on the nature of your strike as to the definition. If, for some reason, you guys employ an Alaska Flight Attendant - type job action, your struck work might only apply to one hub turn at MSP. This would apply pressure to your management, but not totally dirupt NW's operation.

During a classic strike, however, any flying by Mesaba or NW to your existing routes, as well as any ADDITIONAL flying put on those routes by competitors during your strike would likely be considered struck work. For example, if MSP - MDW was a Mesaba city pair before the strike, any additional flying beyond the five round trips we here at ATA normally provide on the route would be considered struck work. If ATA started flying from MSP to TVC during the strike, that would be struck work. The normal, previously scheduled, flying that other airlines had in common with Mesaba would most likely not be considered struck work. Ya gotta consult your MEC for the definition.

Remember that most contracts are hashed out at the 11th hour, so you guys might not have to go through with all this. Just be ready, and stay professional. Good luck.

 

[surplus1]

Your MEC (with concurrence from ALPA National) will define what is struck work if you guys need to go to self help. It depands on the nature of your strike as to the definition.

This is true. By now the Mesaba MEC has almost certainly defined what it considers to be "struck work". Perhaps if a MSA pilot were to post his MEC's definition, it would settle the debate/argument.

 

[DoinTime]

That's nice in theory. It's also unworkable. It is illegal to engage in a work stoppage unless you've been released by the NLB to do so. Your proposed sympathy strike is not only illegal, it's utterly futile. In order to make it effective, you'd have to completely end service to every airport that's affected, since passengers would just connect to their destinations via another airline's hub, and wouldn't even have to fly the same segments. How do you propose to do that?

I wasn't refering to pilots stopping routes they already were established on. When an airline has "exclusive" service to a city pair that means they are the ONLY airline that serves that city pair. Many smaller midwestern cities are exclusive to Mesaba. I don't believe that other ALPA carriers should be allowed to introduce new service to these "exclusive" cities just to take advantage of the strike situation but you seem to think its OK.

 

[shamrock]

I have to agree with Blue Dude here. I'm sure I will have some very eloquent responses to this, but isn't the point of a strike to put financial pressure on the airline? If Mesaba goes on strike and XYZ airline (not affiliated with the NWA system) increases existing service or starts new service to a city, how is that struck work? Mesaba gets no money from that flying and risks losing customers from that city even after the strike is over, which I believe would place a great deal of pressure on Mesaba to get the strike settled. If the goal is to deprive the company of revenue, what difference does it make whether the people at these Mesaba cities are stranded there with no airline service or connect on another airline? Either way Mesaba loses out on the revenue for that city.

 

[surplus1]

It is illegal to engage in a work stoppage unless you've been released by the NLB to do so. Your proposed sympathy strike is not only illegal, it's utterly futile.

In general I agree with your thinking (in your post). However, it bothers me that you think a sympathy strike is illegal per se. In reality sympathy strikes are very legal and do not require a "release" from the NMB.

A good example would be the EAL strike. That was a "sympathy strike", in sympathy with a different labor union (the IAM) and there was nothing illegal about it and no "release" was required, nor was any obtained.

That doesn't mean that any airline can strike in sympathy with Mesaba. For example, it probably would not be legal for Comair or TSA (individually) to strike in sympathy with Mesaba. It also may not be legal for PCL or NWA to strike in sympathy with Mesaba. However, when MSA, NWA and PCL were all owned by the same company (no longer the case) it probably would have been "legal" for them to strike in sympathy, just as it was legal for the Eastern pilots to strike in sympathy with the Eastern mechanics. They did not even have to be of the same "class and craft".

It's complex and the details do have to be considered. The only point I am trying to make is that sympathy strikes ARE legal under the RLA and they do not require a "release" from the NMB.

The fact that the pilots are represented by the same Union, is another factor. Technically, it might very well be possible and legal for all members of a given union and the same craft to strike in sympathy with other members of the same union and craft. Complicated, but not impossible.

Something like that would undoubtedly result in legal challenges from the Companies and most likely trigger intervention by the President. The Companies would argue that it wasn't legal, the President would act on the same basis as any other PEB. As far as I know it hasn't be challenged in any court, since ALPA has never seen fit to do that. An example would be the infamous "SOS", which ALPA almost did at one time but later reneged on trying (allegedly at the request of the then President of the US).

On the other hand other Unions have done it in situations under the NLRB & Taft-Hartley (which is somewhat different from the NMB and the RLA). If I'm not mistaken, truckers and auto workers have struck in sympathy with each other on more than one occasion. I believe coal miners may have done it as well (not sure) ..... even thought they were not owned or employed by the same Company.

Don't take my word for it. Check out the RLA, and don't believe everything that some alpa lawyers may tell you. There are lots of things that ALPA chooses not to do, which doesn't necessarily mean they are illegal. On the other hand, ALPA also chooses to do a lot of things that many could (and do)argue ARE illegal. That's why there is so much litigation.

Regards

 

[dispatchguy]

I would say struck work could be this, in a simplied form:

Citypair AB; there are 6 flights a day between A and B, 3 mesaba, 3 pinnacle flights.

MES strikes.

Pinnacle can operate their three flights a day, but adding extra sections to reaccomodate the cancelled MES flights due to a strike, I would consider to be struck work.

Just plain adding additional frequencies on a scheduled basis between the citypair strictly due to the strike, I think would be struck work, because they didnt have it before. Basically, their flight schedule would have to remain static (at least on those markets where they share the frequencies between cities). Of course, they (PCL) would be able to add flights on those citypairs where they are the only game in town; but in those markets where PCL and MES share the load - they cant add additional flights, nor add flights out of a city to an additional non-previously-served hub.

But thats a simplistic view

 

[surplus1]

I have to agree with Blue Dude here. I'm sure I will have some very eloquent responses to this, but isn't the point of a strike to put financial pressure on the airline? If Mesaba goes on strike and XYZ airline (not affiliated with the NWA system) increases existing service or starts new service to a city, how is that struck work? Mesaba gets no money from that flying and risks losing customers from that city even after the strike is over, which I believe would place a great deal of pressure on Mesaba to get the strike settled. If the goal is to deprive the company of revenue, what difference does it make whether the people at these Mesaba cities are stranded there with no airline service or connect on another airline? Either way Mesaba loses out on the revenue for that city.

Well, this isn't going to be "eloquent" even by a long shot, but there are viable arguments that contradict this theory. I call it a theory because that's what it is.

While it is true that Mesaba would "get no money" from flying done by (for example) CAL, it is also true that there would be a lot more "pressure" on Mesaba from other companies and the government, in addition to the revenue loss, if all the airlines refused to serve all Mesaba destinations or fly over Mesaba routes, or increase frequency or guage on those routes. That "pressure" would be far greater than the revenue lost only to/by Mesaba. Everyone would be "losing revenue" and the public would be suffering, and the politicians screaming. You can bet they'd all be banging on Mesaba's door to settle and quick. They would also be very angry at the union.

The fact that you make an exception for airlines "not affiliated with the NWA system" helps to prove my point. Technically there is no difference between airlines affiliated with and those NOT affiliated with (except political). Mesaba doesn't get "revenue" from PCL or NWA either, so why should they be exempt from your rule and not allowed to increase flights or guage on Mesaba routes? What is different between PCL and MSA, that is not different between ACA and MSA or CMR and MSA or NWA and MSA? They are all separate corporations. Therefore, if it is OK for ACA or CMR (only an example) to increase guage, add frequency or start a new route, it should also be OK for PCL and NWA to do the same, should it not?.

These "decisions" are political decisions made by the labor union. It is not politically correct for the union to ask NWA not to fly to any Mesaba destination, so they don't. However, when NWA went on strike, the same union did consider that it was politically correct for Mesaba not to fly over any NWA route. As it turned out, Mesaba didn't have to honor that political decision because the Company locked them out.

The effect on the Mesaba pilots (at the time) was the same. Their airline shutdown for (I think) 15 days and they went without pay for that time. ALPA did NOT vote or pay any benefits to the Mesaba pilots. As it turned out the strike was a short one, but if it had lasted longer (say 60 days) the NWA pilots would have been elegible for strike benefits and the Mesaba pilots NOT eligible (since they were not on strike, technically).

I'm not arguing the "right or wrong" of these political decisions. In many cases they are the only decision that can be made, given the attitudes of the membership. I'm just trying to point out that what is or is not considered to be "struck work" is almost always a decision made for political reasons and has very little to do with true "support" of the striking group.

When Comair was on strike, it was not politically correct for the Delta pilots to strike in sympathy nor was it politically correct for the ASA pilots to do so, and neither one did. I argue that if Delta had been on strike, the political correctness might have been quite different, and both the union and the Delta pilots would have been sceaming bloody murder because the passengers were being rebooked on CMR flights to the same hubs.

These political decisions are not made in a vacuum. The union knows that its members at Delta are not willing to strike in sympathy with members at Comair. The same applies at ASA. Therefore, the union does not ask them to do so. It really has nothing to do with how much pressure that will bring on the "struck" management. It has more to do with how much pressure and bad publicity that would bring on the Union. The same thing applies in the Mesaba/NWA/PCL scenario. NWA and PCL pilots will have no trouble crossing the MSA picket lines and the union will choose to define "struck work" in a way that makes that acceptable and precludes the lable of scabbing.

The fact is that the "pressure" on the struck management would be far greater if we did decide to withdraw service in sympathy, when it is legally possible to do so (which is not always the case, but could often be). That however, is not going to happen. Instead, we will all fly the routes, cross the lines, and find a way to justify it, just as we always have ..... and we will be careful to define "struck work" in a way that makes that legitimate, whether or not we are "affiliated with the NWA system".

What's more, if it lasts longer than anticipated we will soon be complaining about having to pay the assessment and frequently reminding the Mesaba pilots of how much we "give" to their cause, until they're sick of hearing it. The truth is we belong to an Association of competitors, which is a "union" of convenience, and in name only. The concept of "brotherhood" barely extends to the members of our individual airline, let alone those at some other competing company. It just sounds nice and it works ... right up until it begins to affect "ME".

Regretably, that's just the way it is.

 

[shamrock]

Thanks for the reply Surplus. I wasn't really up to speed on the NWA/Pinnacle/Mesaba relationship. All I know is the DAL/CMR/ASA/CHQ/SKW, etc. dysfunctional "family", so I guess my perception is a little warped. With the way DAL has integrated all our hubs, defining struck work should we (ASA) go on strike will be an interesting exercise.

As you said, these choices will be politically based. They will not have anything to do with loyalty or whether anyone else should be "allowed" to fly to these cities.

 

[Blue Dude]

Thanks, Surplus. I wrote that in a big hurry so I didn't have time to expand, but you did so nicely. Of course all sympathy strikes aren't illegal, but it takes a lot more than the MES MEC deciding to label all flying to and from a particular city "struck worK" to actually make such a sympathy job action legal. And as you, say, they wouldn't ask for such a thing, complicated and political as it is. As to whether it "should" be that way? No, I still don't think so. Competition is a better (and politically much safer) incentive to settle than an industry wide selective work stoppage. An industry wide SOS (even one limited to certain city pairs) is the nuke, available in extremis but hopefully never needed. ALPA isn't going to drop a nuke for Mesaba's contract. Cabotage, now, that may set off WWIII. Thanks for the post.