Hacker News Reader

Comment by 6stringmerc | Hacker News Reader

In a way the title is almost misleading - not the fault of most articles though - because the carrier is attempting to use the US Court System to block the pilots going on strike. So, while yes they may "go on Strike" it's part of a longer process. Personally I know which entity I'm pulling for, so long-term I'll have to file away the result as educational no matter which side gets their way.

View on HN

The text of the linked article seems to match the headline... the article says that the strike is in-progress and planes are grounded:

The pilots are picketing ABX Air, a subsidiary of Air Transport Services Group Inc., and aren’t flying scheduled routes, the union said Tuesday. ATSG has 58 freighter aircraft in its fleet, including 50 widebody Boeing 767 planes.

Pilots aren’t crossing the picket lines, which means planes are unable to leave an Amazon hub in Wilmington, Ohio, and a DHL hub in Cincinnati, said a person familiar with the matter.

The carrier said they are seeking a court order to end the work stoppage, but it hasn't been granted yet and it's not at all clear that it will be (at least, not according to the article):

Air Transport Services Group said it is trying to end what it calls an illegal work stoppage. ABX Air President John Starkovich said the airline is seeking a court order to force the pilots back to work.

> ABX Air President John Starkovich said the airline is seeking a court order to force the pilots back to work.

How are these kinds of court orders possible in a free country, with largely at-will employment? Employees are not slaves.

Reagan famously set this precedent

Actually it's the Railway Labor Act of 1926. So before Reagan's time.

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act

Basically the idea is rail (and later airlines) are critical national infrastructure, and the country should not be brought to a standstill over minor contract disputes. Before the law, here's what would happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877

So the law requires minor disputes to be resolved through arbitration or mediation, instead of with a strike. ABX is saying this is a minor dispute, the union says it's a major dispute. The judge agreed with the union.

Even if the employees were forced back to work, they can still quit. So there's no slavery here.

So, strike-busting used to be enforced through murder - now it is enforced through the courts. Wouldn't it seem that the obvious solution to the problem consist of handing out hemp neckties to the people orchestrating, and perpetrating the violence.

IMHO, if the courts are being used to break the strike they should also be used to arbitrate the dispute and make the resolution binding. Make it dangerous to try to use the government to prosecute your own labor relations problem because they could find in favor of the unions and force you to honor time off promises or raise pay or whatever it is the union is striking over. And of course if the union is the one being unreasonable then we have today's situation where the workers are told to get back to work and the Union is told to pound sand.

Right now, the NLRB does that. The board uses administrative law judges, and they can be appealed to the US court of appeals or the US supreme court.

It's so similar to what you're suggesting, I'm not quite sure what the advantage of changing it would be?

>Basically the idea is rail (and later airlines) are critical national infrastructure, and the country should not be brought to a standstill over minor contract disputes.

I have to ask: why not? That is, since it's only the goods sold by private business being "brought to a standstill", why not? Moving people or military goods under all conditions makes sense. Moving Amazon shipments under all conditions does not.

because stalling shipments of food or medical supplies is a big problem.

because you could be costing companies that have no direct relation to the dispute lots of money.

So the courts have some power to say no, get back to work. if the conditions are that bad the employees can still counter this by quitting.

As Matt Bruenig has noted, the BATNA for many workers is dire poverty. Quitting isn't that easy.

"stalling food and medical supplies"

That's what the employer knowingly brought into risk when they decided to run understaffed to increase profits.

That's risk that the transportation provider brought. The medical company ordering supplies from some other company, who happens to use this transportation provider some of the time but not all the time, was not aware of and could not have reasonably foreseen this risk.

There are surely indemnity clauses all the way upstream. There are plenty of next day shipping options from 3 national carriers, plus same day options and just putting someone on a flight.

There are rules around when strikes can happen and when they can't. If a court says the strike is not legitimate, they can be forced back to work.

Of course, employees can still not show up. In that case, the employer can fire them (which they can't do during a legal strike).

If you go on strike for a genuine grievance, you generally can't be fired for that. Basically they're asking the court to determine if it's a genuine grievance, or if these people just aren't showing up to work. And if they're just not showing up to work, then the company can fire them.

(NB: I'm generalising. This applies in some other countries, not sure about the US).

There are also some professions where you don't want them to strike, and disputes should be worked out through some other arbitration process (think emergency services personnel - if paramedics go on strike, there can be some pretty severe consequences).

Free market is a one way street in America lately.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com