NLRA versus RLA

[enigma]

The current AW&ST includes a viewpoint piece, by Brad Bartholomew, a Texas based major airline pilot and labor relation specialist, that asks why the airlines should not be brought under the NLRA. It's a very good piece.

I have to ask the same question, Why not remove us from RLA jurisdiction, and place us under the NLRA? Under the NRLA contracts can expire, where they cannot under the RLA. Mr. Bartholomew argues that the very nature of the RLA forces long drawn out and protracted negotiations, negotiations that lead to supreme frustration. He contends that placing the airlines under theNRLA is a far superior method of dealing with disputes than is baseball style arbitration because things like work rules do not lend themselves to arbitration.

He also makes the point that the so called grass roots effort to give us baseball style arbitration is being funded by Leo Mullin and Fred Smith.

If you have access to Aviation Week, I would strongly reccommend the last page of the June second issue.

regards,
8N

 

[Wats]

Of course if contracts expire, then we can use the threat of strike to get a whole lot more leverage. With out the threat of a strike looming at "expiration" management has time to try to bargain with the pilots instead of with our negotiating team. They do this with mailings, meeting and polling their lap dogs in our ranks. No matter how much sense nlra makes the government won't go for it because they hate unions.