Altamont Press Discussion Board :: Discussion :: Re: RLA-- Railway Labor Act for those who ain't rails... Yep, well this still sucks....

Re: RLA-- Railway Labor Act for those who ain't rails... Yep, well this still sucks....

Author: Dr Zarkoff

Date: 01-11-2021 - 12:32

> At one point in time, back in my early RR union days, when workers still had some power left, a "strike" over a "health and safety" issue "failure to act" like this grievance might have been allowed by courts.

The capability to wildcat, which this UP issue has all the appearances of being, has not been unilaterally done away with. An RR union can still wildcat over an issue which is not specifically covered by its labor agreement. This is what the BLE did in the 1980s when the SP announced large scale cutbacks in Special Agents (and I walked the picket line for a day or so). Once health an welfare became part of the agreements (those medical plans), it became subject to the section 6 notice process and an issue no longer possible to wildcat over.

This means that no court is going to allow a strike over an agreement-covered dispute if the strike is not part of the normal agreement negotiating processes specified by the RLA.

Navigate: Previous Message•Next Message

Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message

Subject	Written By	Date/Time (PST)
Federal court sides with Union Pacific, thwarting a potential strike.	TMer	01-09-2021 - 11:36
Re: Federal court sides with Union Pacific, thwarting a potential strike.	Anon	01-09-2021 - 17:33
Re: Federal court sides with Union Pacific, thwarting a potential strike.	An Observer	01-09-2021 - 19:10
Re: Federal court sides with Union Pacific, thwarting a potential strike.	Furthermore	01-10-2021 - 18:52
Re: Federal court sides with Union Pacific, thwarting a potential strike.	Dr Zarkoff	01-10-2021 - 20:25
RLA-- Railway Labor Act for those who ain't rails... Yep, well this still sucks....	BOB2	01-11-2021 - 08:24
Re: RLA-- Railway Labor Act for those who ain't rails... Yep, well this still sucks....	Dr Zarkoff	01-11-2021 - 12:32

Go to: Message List•Search

Subject:
Your Name:

Help information:

BBcode help

Spam prevention:

Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.

  *******   **    **        **   ******   ********  
 **     **  ***   **        **  **    **  **     ** 
 **         ****  **        **  **        **     ** 
 ********   ** ** **        **  **        **     ** 
 **     **  **  ****  **    **  **        **     ** 
 **     **  **   ***  **    **  **    **  **     ** 
  *******   **    **   ******    ******   ********

Enter code:

Dr Zarkoff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > At one point in time, back in my early RR union
> days, when workers still had some power left, a
> "strike" over a "health and safety" issue "failure
> to act" like this grievance might have been
> allowed by courts. 
> 
> The capability to wildcat, which this UP issue has
> all the appearances of being, has not been
> unilaterally done away with. An RR union can still
> wildcat over an issue which is not specifically
> covered by its labor agreement. This is what the
> BLE did in the 1980s when the SP announced large
> scale cutbacks in Special Agents (and I walked the
> picket line for a day or so). Once health an
> welfare became part of the agreements (those
> medical plans), it became subject to the section 6
> notice process and an issue no longer possible to
> wildcat over.
> 
> This means that no court is going to allow a
> strike over an agreement-covered dispute if the
> strike is not part of the normal agreement
> negotiating processes specified by the RLA.

This message board is maintained by:Altamont Press
You can send us an email at altamontpress1@gmail.com