I always find it rather amusing that unionists - who on the one hand are so insistent on their 'rights' - at the same time seek to deny those same rights to others.
They have the right to withdraw their labour, fine.
But what about the passengers that have entrusted their fares, travel plans - and ultimately their lives - with the carrier? Don't
they have rights?
Or the shippers of cargo that could be affecting the lives of hundreds - or even thousands - of people? Don't
they have rights?
Or the owners of the company - the shareholders - who have invested their hard earned money and want a decent return on their investment? Don't
they have rights?
Sorry, people, but wake up and smell the coffee here. Not only
do they all have rights - but management has rights as well - the right to source alternative personnel (whether short term or permanent) to replace those that are not working. Those replacement workers have the right not to be intimidated - and I trust that if intimidation does take place, then the perpetrators of such intimidation will feel the full force of the law.
If an employer is genuinely awful, then it will find
good employees very hard to find. If, on the other hand, the action is simply one where the union is out to get its members a bigger slice of the cake (something which strangely in most airlines I've seen is usally at the expense of other employee groups - so much for brother/sisterhood, eh, comrades?
) then they will get replacements - and pretty easily as well. Look at the Cathay situation!
Sabena too is a perfect example of a company where one union - BeCA - with its unilateral action (opposed by all the other unions) has put management into a position where they are close to putting the company into administrative receivership (Chapter 11).
Plus, of course, in South America you have Aerolineas Argentinas where the unions made continual demands, expecting management to keep backing down - but at the end they, too, were forced into receivership.
Pilots are allegedly professionals. The reality, unfortunately, is that many appear to be more militantly blue collar than Arthur Scargill and his NUM bully boys.
