Judge blocks Northwest flight attendants from striking
Liz Fedor, Star Tribune
Last update: September 15, 2006 – 10:23 AM
A federal judge in New York today granted Northwest Airlines' request for an injunction to prohibit flight attendants from engaging in targeted strikes against the carrier.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero's decision comes three weeks after he temporarily barred flight attendants from going on strike. At that time, attendants were ready to begin a campaign of walkouts on selected flights.
The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) has fought to preserve the right of flight attendants to strike because it would enhance the union's bargaining power at the negotiating table.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 16235 posts, RR: 64 Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1444 times:
I take it this is a seperate ruling from the one last week that also prevented the FA's from striking? Or was that ruiling just relating to CHAOS-type events?
TVNWZ From United States, joined Feb 2006, 1587 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1403 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): I take it this is a seperate ruling from the one last week that also prevented the FA's from striking? Or was that ruiling just relating to CHAOS-type events?
The first was a temporary order until he made a final determination.
This is his formal, final ruling.
Krisair747 From United States, joined Oct 2000, 229 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1397 times:
Thank heaven for that! Although none of us wanted to take cuts, we had to, in order to save our company. The FA's will have to take their cuts just as the rest of us. Lets finish this union war and get on with things. If you don't like the new rules, please find somewhere that will make you happy. Time to turn the corner...
NWCOflyer From United States, joined Jun 2003, 583 posts, RR: 22 Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1369 times:
Isn't it great that the process of "collective-bargaining" is thrown out the window because the airline is in bankruptcy.
Traditionally it has always been harder for airline groups to strike because the RLA and all of the legal garbage that goes on between the airline, the courts and it's employees.
NW employees ought to have the right to strike, and be able to threaten NW management with a strike in order to successfully negotiate with management. If they don't, what card are the flight attendants holding in their hand?
I believe that judges like this are really hurting working Americans right now. Of course I understand that NW needs to return to profitability (heck, they look like they have done great the past few months), but to take it from a work group who has given so much, who is on the front lines with their customers all of the time, I can't believe that management is so unwilling to change their demands even to the slightest.
I really wish the flight attendants at NW the best.
Quoting Krisair747 (Reply 4): Although none of us wanted to take cuts
You work for OH. NW flight attendants have already taken benefit/pay cuts, are working longer hours with less staff (which has happened all throughout this indstury). I am not a NW employee, but I have many friends who are, and find it ridiculous how management is treating them. This is not the first cut they have taken. Furthermore, look at how they have faired in the past when they took their cuts in the 1990's. Not too good..... I think that it is great to see that NW employees are fighting for what they believe in, and say enough is enough.
1rocco From United States, joined Dec 2003, 119 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1318 times:
Look on the bright side. NWA won't be in bankruptcy forever.. Then they won't be able to run to the judge for protection. They will have to face reality at some point. Keep your chin up boys and girls.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2306 posts, RR: 11 Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 15 hours ago) and read 907 times:
Quoting Milesrich (Reply 10): The US Government is running huge deficits. Let's cut the Bankruptcy Judge's salary to 30% below 1985 levels, and see if he goes on strike.
I agree, let capitalism run its course and if NW can't hack than the annals of the US airline industry are full of what were once great airlines ran aground by inept leadership.
777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 9898 posts, RR: 24 Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 727 times:
Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 13): Quoting 777ER (Reply 12):
Any employee has the fight to strike if they are unhappy with management.
No, they do not.
Banning employees from striking is against the International Human Rights policy, so anyone has the right to strike (but only for good reasons when all other options have failed).
Don't forget to check out my youtube movies in my profile!
777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 9898 posts, RR: 24 Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 722 times:
Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 13): Quoting 777ER (Reply 12):
Any employee has the fight to strike if they are unhappy with management.
No, they do not.
Right now one of New Zealands major supermarket chains distrbution staff are on strike because of their low pay rates and because each centre in Auckland, Palmerston North and Christchurch are on different pay rates just for doing the same job. They are now into their third week on strike. Are you saying they should shut up and get back to work and continue working with their disgusting pay rate and let their co-workers getting different pay rates to them for doing the same job as them. The way their emplyer is treating them is disgusting and have banned them from the supermarkets that they own and wont allow them to return back to work unless they quit their union. The way they are being treated is against the law and against the International Human Rights policy, the same as what NW is doing to their FAs. NW FAS DESERVE TO STRIKE AND SHOULD STRIKE AND CAUSE NW PROBLEMS
Don't forget to check out my youtube movies in my profile!
TVNWZ From United States, joined Feb 2006, 1587 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 619 times:
Quoting 777ER (Reply 15): Banning employees from striking is against the International Human Rights policy,
You will have to show me something on that one. And it won't matter anyway. Our country has a long history of living by our own laws.
Quoting 777ER (Reply 16): Right now one of New Zealands major supermarket chains distrbution staff are on strike because of their low pay rates and because each centre in Auckland, Palmerston North and Christchurch are on different pay rates just for doing the same job. They are now into their third week on strike.
We are not New Zealand. And our judge says its illegal. So, unless the NW flight attendants can get a higher judge to disagree, it is illegal.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2505 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 585 times:
Legally the judge has ruled that it is illegal for the UNION to call its members out on strike. The US constitution does protect individual rights and the judges ruling has nothing to do with that. The FA's as a group cannot strike, but as individuals they can stop working, however, they must resign, then NW can demand notice, not sure how much time the law requires, usually its 2 weeks. Only legal recourse NW would have is to attempt to prove that even though they have resigned, its a co-ordinated action instigated by the union, good luck with that one.
If the FA's really feel strongly about whats going on, most of them will leave within the next few months anyway, most are probably already looking for jobs.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2306 posts, RR: 11 Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 511 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 18): The FA's as a group cannot strike, but as individuals they can stop working, however, they must resign, then NW can demand notice, not sure how much time the law requires, usually its 2 weeks.
There is no law outside of the military perhaps that forces anyone in the United States to come to work the next day.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 18): Only legal recourse NW would have is to attempt to prove that even though they have resigned, its a co-ordinated action instigated by the union, good luck with that one.
And a lot of fun NW can have doing that in court when they are simultaneously filing chapter seven liquidation papers - NW simply can't last more than a week or two with the FA's on strike and this judge getting away even with what he has thus far is nearly criminal on his own end.
D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7821 posts, RR: 55 Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 477 times:
Quoting 777ER (Reply 12): Any employee has the fight to strike if they are unhappy with management.
Whoa. This is patently false. Federal law explicitly states that certain people can be ordered back to work, can be prevented from striking, etc. Any employee does however have the right to quit ... and not be paid.
Quoting 777ER (Reply 15): Banning employees from striking is against the International Human Rights policy, so anyone has the right to strike
It's still not the law in the United States. (And it would be stupid policy even if it were.)
"Marrero said Friday that the Association of Flight Attendants hadn't completed the procedure that labor law requires before a strike can occur because it wasn't formally released from mediation. The union represents Northwest's 9,000 flight attendants."
"He referred the case back to U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Allan Gropper, who ruled last month that flight attendants had the right to strike. However, at the time, he said he lacked the jurisdiction to issue an injunction preventing a work stoppage, and he encouraged an appeal. Marrero said Gropper does in fact have jurisdiction."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand how a contract can be imposed, yet both sides were not "released" from mediation. The fact that both sides were not going to reach a mutual agreement was a determining factor in the release. The decision to allow NW to impose was a defacto release. Maybe the union would've had to wait 30 days to act, but it still had the same effect as a release.
It's obvious to me that this is a hot potato that no judge wants to touch. Gropper didn't want to rule on it, so he claimed not to have jurisdiction. Marrero doesn't want to, so he's kicked it back. IMO, this matter is so precedent setting, it won't be final until the Supreme Court issues a ruling... By the time it gets that far, NW will be out of CH11 anyway.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2306 posts, RR: 11 Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 281 times:
Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 22): I don't understand how a contract can be imposed, yet both sides were not "released" from mediation. The fact that both sides were not going to reach a mutual agreement was a determining factor in the release. The decision to allow NW to impose was a defacto release. Maybe the union would've had to wait 30 days to act, but it still had the same effect as a release.
The union has took the posistion now where they say they will not further negotiate unless they have the right to strike left on the table.
Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 22): It's obvious to me that this is a hot potato that no judge wants to touch. Gropper didn't want to rule on it, so he claimed not to have jurisdiction. Marrero doesn't want to, so he's kicked it back. IMO, this matter is so precedent setting, it won't be final until the Supreme Court issues a ruling... By the time it gets that far, NW will be out of CH11 anyway.
That's my impression, too - NW management is trying to make a judge take the fall for a strike (which would essentially all but likely mean chapter seven soon thereafter,) and that all the more so makes me sick on behalf of NW management escaping their own consequences of their inept actions. I also agree on the notion that this is precedent setting, we who study labor law in the future will certainly be looking at this particular issue of what is already a plethora of information when it pertains to the topic.
Wjcandee From United States, joined Jun 2000, 3773 posts, RR: 20 Reply 25, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 244 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23): they say they will not further negotiate unless they have the right to strike left on the table.
They have a legal obligation to negotiate. Stupid statements like this undermine their own case and tend to support the reasoning of the judge's order, rather than refute it. Bad, bad, bad move as far as their legal case is concerned, but I guess it's some kind of benefit as far as rallying the troops goes. Pretty damn funny that they were accusing NW of refusing to negotiate just a few days ago.
"Losers spin, winners grin."
[Edited 2006-09-19 08:00:25]
26 TOLtommy: There was a legal obligation to negotiate under the Railway Labor Act. Scanorama, you might want to google or wikipedia the RLA in order to understand
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Nov 2003, 1307 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 9898 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2505 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 96 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
