IronCityBlue
Blue member (hey wait...)
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2006
- Posts
- 638
the new "scab"...
All kidding and flame baiting aside, that's an interesting question.
Of course a scab is someone who crosses a picket line and flies struck work. Period.
Lots of people want to broaden the term to include anyone who makes less than anyone else.
Both are seemingly outdated and/or unfair. To simply obtain the ability to legally strike is next to impossible. It happens, but its extremely rare. The tables are severely tilted in management's favor. And everyone rememberes the "airline dispute/conflict resolution act" proposed not that long ago? It didn't happen last time, but is always on the back burner on the Hill. The issue is alive and well and waiting to resurface. One stroke of the pen in DC and there will be no more airline strikes ever. Then what happens to the definition? Will there no longer be such a thing?
So if a scab is a strike breaker, and all strikes are illegal, then there will be no more scabs. This hardly seems like a good definition and application of the term. On the other hand, is any pilot group who accepts pay and working conditions less than the top tier a scab in spirit? That doesn't make sense either.
Freedum A listers are a grey area under the best of circumstances, but GJ does seem to have crossed the blurry line if its true that they are performing flying that contractually belongs to TSA pilots. I see no difference between crossing a picket line and blatently vioilating another pilot group's binding contract and simply doing the flying when there is no legal strike picket line to cross. The original spirit and intent of the word was to perminantly disparage and label those among us who will stop at nothing to stab others in the back for their own gain. Crossing a picket line certainly fits that definition, but so does outright violating someone else's contract. I see no difference there.
Now the GJ example depends on the language in the TSA contract. IF TSA truly owns that flying, then GJ pilots are most definately, without a doubt, scabs. If the TSA contract permits this sort of alter ego flying, as dispicable as that is for someone to do it even if its allowed, GJ pilots are merely back stabbing bottom feeders (like freedum A listers) and not scabs, by any definition.
All kidding and flame baiting aside, that's an interesting question.
Of course a scab is someone who crosses a picket line and flies struck work. Period.
Lots of people want to broaden the term to include anyone who makes less than anyone else.
Both are seemingly outdated and/or unfair. To simply obtain the ability to legally strike is next to impossible. It happens, but its extremely rare. The tables are severely tilted in management's favor. And everyone rememberes the "airline dispute/conflict resolution act" proposed not that long ago? It didn't happen last time, but is always on the back burner on the Hill. The issue is alive and well and waiting to resurface. One stroke of the pen in DC and there will be no more airline strikes ever. Then what happens to the definition? Will there no longer be such a thing?
So if a scab is a strike breaker, and all strikes are illegal, then there will be no more scabs. This hardly seems like a good definition and application of the term. On the other hand, is any pilot group who accepts pay and working conditions less than the top tier a scab in spirit? That doesn't make sense either.
Freedum A listers are a grey area under the best of circumstances, but GJ does seem to have crossed the blurry line if its true that they are performing flying that contractually belongs to TSA pilots. I see no difference between crossing a picket line and blatently vioilating another pilot group's binding contract and simply doing the flying when there is no legal strike picket line to cross. The original spirit and intent of the word was to perminantly disparage and label those among us who will stop at nothing to stab others in the back for their own gain. Crossing a picket line certainly fits that definition, but so does outright violating someone else's contract. I see no difference there.
Now the GJ example depends on the language in the TSA contract. IF TSA truly owns that flying, then GJ pilots are most definately, without a doubt, scabs. If the TSA contract permits this sort of alter ego flying, as dispicable as that is for someone to do it even if its allowed, GJ pilots are merely back stabbing bottom feeders (like freedum A listers) and not scabs, by any definition.
Last edited:
