# Strikes and aviation



## ampurdan

Last weak the land workers of a Spanish airline company in Barcelona abandoned their job unexpectedly and occupied the landing runaway of the airport. They feared that their company would fire them all because of structural reasons. They did it even against the will of the trade union. No plane could land or take off from the airport. That was really putting the people on the planes in jeopardy, in my opinion. Moreover, it is a period in which many people take their holidays in Spain. The airport was full of people waiting for hours and days ever rescheduled flights. They need their belongings, but nobody could let them back... It's been a Chaos.

Does this kind of thing happen in other countries or is it just us?


----------



## .   1

Unions worked out long ago that strikes organised for midnight on Wendesday in the middle of nothing were not very effective.
It is my experience that strikes are timed so as to cause the most disruption possible.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

It happens here all the time - and not just in the aviation industry.
It is known as an unofficial strike.
Most recently we had strikes among the check-in staff at Dublin Airport.


----------



## fenixpollo

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Last week the ground crews of a Spanish airline company in Barcelona abandoned their jobs unexpectedly and occupied the landing runaway of the airport. They feared that their company would fire them all because of restructuring reasons. They did it even against the will of the trade union. No plane could land or take off from the airport. That was really putting the people on the planes in jeopardy, in my opinion. Moreover, it is a period in which many people take their holidays in Spain. The airport was full of people waiting for hours and days for rescheduled flights. They needed their belongings, but nobody could get them back... It's been a Chaos.
> 
> Does this kind of thing happen in other countries or is it just us?


It's not just you. Labor unions are active in many states of the US, most recently in a dispute between grocery stores and their workers in California. The stores wanted employees to pay more for their healthcare benefits, so the workers stopped working and picketed (walked outside the stores holding protest signs). 

Such protests are very, very common in the capital city of Mexico. If you are a tourist in Mexico City and you stay for a weekday, you will probably get to see a march or demonstration of some kind. If you are a resident of Mexico City, que Dios te bendiga.


----------



## Etcetera

I've never heard of such protests in Russia.
There were several miners' strikes, but it was about 10 years ago.


----------



## ampurdan

. said:
			
		

> Unions worked out long ago that strikes organised for midnight on Wendesday in the middle of nothing were not very effective.
> It is my experience that strikes are timed so as to cause the most disruption possible.


 
I know where is the worker strength, but I think that the people involved in a illegal strikes should pay the all the damages produced by it. The company should not be the final responsible.


By the way, Fenixpollo, thank you very much for your corrections.


----------



## Etcetera

Frankly, I don't like the idea of such strikes, because in the end it's common passengers (if we're talking about aviation) who suffer most. 
And do those strikes produce any effect on the companies, I wonder?


----------



## .   1

Etcetera said:
			
		

> Frankly, I don't like the idea of such strikes, because in the end it's common passengers (if we're talking about aviation) who suffer most.
> And do those strikes produce any effect on the companies, I wonder?


Strikes strike businesses in the only spot they fear to be hit and that is in their hip pocket.

Strikes lower the profit level of a company and this is often the only way for workers to obtain the full attention of a boss focussed only on profit at the expense of worker's conditions.

.,,


----------



## fenixpollo

Yes, consumers suffer. But what power do the workers have against the injustices of their employers? Unless the government has a mechanism to advocate for the workers and force companies to treat their workers well, then the workers are on their own. Consumers will just have to adapt and adjust, and hopefully, support the workers morally and economically.

So amp, the workers are being exploited by their company, but then they should have to pay damages when they use the only tool they have in order to stop the exploitation? That doesn't seem fair to the workers.

And is there such thing as an "illegal" strike?


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> I know where is the worker strength, but I think that the people involved in a illegal strikes should pay the all the damages produced by it. The company should not be the final responsible.
> quote]
> 
> Excuse me, I am a little bit confused...
> 
> You're upset by a strike of avwerage people who were afraid for their average paid jobs...
> 
> And you have nothing to say about the strike of pilots of the same company that was just some days before? Pilots who earn at least 180 000 euros per year (the lowest pay), and work 59 hours per month?
> 
> Anyway, the workers were provoked by a company, and the company got exactly what they wanted - the reason to fire the workers and go away from Barcelona...


----------



## natasha2000

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> And is there such thing as an "illegal" strike?


 
Yes, Ampurdan, I join to Fenix in this question.


----------



## panjabigator

I remember reading in my pragmatics book that strikes in Spanish countries are MUCH more common than in the US. I cannot remember the example off the top of my head (I will email my teacher for it), but it was something like this: "Please forgive us for some technical difficulties at this time." I dont remember the Spanish equivalent (it wasn't word for word) but they specifically used the word strike. My teacher (a lady from Montevideo) stated that Hispanics would laugh at hearing technical difficulties and would not fret over a measly strike.

If someone could give me an example of this type of a statement and its Spanish equivalent, I would be much obliged. And I do not mean word for word translation; it was stated differently. Two very different meanings were conveyed.

Thank you come again


----------



## .   1

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Yes, Ampurdan, I join to Fenix in this question.


May I display my ignorance and ask what is a legal strike?

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

In most of the US, the right to strike is protected by law.  If the strikers take such an action while covered by an unexpired contract, they may be subject to a suit to recover damages caused by the work stoppage, and their defense would generally have to include demonstration of breach of contract by the employer.

In some areas, New York City and State, I believe, public employees have legal limits on their right to strike, and may be held accountable for damages resulting from a strike.

Federal employees (of the central US government) are not allowed to strike, and if they do so, they may be dismissed fro m their jobs.  This happened under the regime of Reagan when air traffic controllers went on strike.


----------



## fenixpollo

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> In most of the US, the right to strike is protected by law.


 Most = 28 states = 56%

22 states are right-to-work states where union membership and the right to strike are not protected by law.


----------



## natasha2000

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> In most of the US, the right to strike is protected by law. If the strikers take such an action while covered by an unexpired contract, they may be subject to a suit to recover damages caused by the work stoppage, and their defense would generally have to include demonstration of breach of contract by the employer.


 
I apologize for my ignorance, but what do you mean exactly when you say unexpired contract?  If it is a working contract, then it wold be a little stupid to go on strike once you stop working for the company. Usually workers who strike are employees of the company, i.e. they are covered by an unexpired contract...


----------



## ampurdan

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Yes, consumers suffer. But what power do the workers have against the injustices of their employers? Unless the government has a mechanism to advocate for the workers and force companies to treat their workers well, then the workers are on their own. Consumers will just have to adapt and adjust, and hopefully, support the workers morally and economically.
> 
> So amp, the workers are being exploited by their company, but then they should have to pay damages when they use the only tool they have in order to stop the exploitation? That doesn't seem fair to the workers.
> 
> And is there such thing as an "illegal" strike?


 
Of course there is. There is always a procedure to make things legal. You have to communicate your intention to strike in order to let the people organize themselves. Otherwise, I think you become responsible for your negligence. You cannot strike out of the blue. He who does so won't have my support.

Natasha, I didn't like the pilots strike, I think they took advantade of their position, but at least they made things legal and did not put anyone in jeopardy.


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Of course there is. There is always a procedure to make things legal. You have to communicate your intention to strike in order to let the people organize themselves. Otherwise, I think you become responsible for your negligence. You cannot strike out of the blue. He who does so won't my support.
> 
> Natasha, I don't like the pilots strike, I think they take advantade of their position, but at least they made things legal and did not put no one in jeopardy.


 
Sorry for my tone, maybe I was a little bit rude. But since you started with workers strike, without mentioning the pilots' one... 
I agree with you on that about informing on intentions to have strike. I remember that if RENFE (train company in Spain) wanted to organize strike, they at least gave the minimum of services guaranteed by law, and they inform in advance. I really do not aprove what they did, and I really wouldn't like to be in those travellers' shoes who happened to have to take a trip exacly that day when the workers went crazy.

But if we try to put aside the passangers just for a moment, and concentrate on those two strikes, I would say that the pilots are shameless and cheeky, and they did it with no qualms. Besides, they were asking the same thing as the workers, the guarantee of their jobs, but you will agree with me that it is not the same if a ground worker with a 1000 euros per month stays without a job and if this happens to a pilot with at least 180 000 euros per year (and working only 59 hours per month*). Who will be more alarmed? In my opinion, the only mistake of the workers is that they allowed to be provoked, and they blew it with this one. And the very same company and its politics towards Barcelona airport is another story which i leave for some other thread, since here it would be a little bit off topic.

*Some statistics say that the pilots of this company are the best paid pilots in the whole Europe. They live better than kings! So how on Earth they have the face to even think of strike, let alone doing it?


----------



## Fernando

I fully agree with Ampurdan. 

I can not say my boss, "Well, I have decided to strike this morning from 9 to 11".

I notice that anyone can obligue the employees to strike (say) on 17th October, instead of the moment they have more strength, but I think it should be enforced (in Spain it is in the law, but who cares?):

- They should communicate the strike.

- Civil servants and employees of essential services should have SOME (not all) restrictions. Police and Army should not have strike rights at all (or with many restrictions).

The problem here is not that they went on strike, the problem is that they occupied the airport tracks (Eng.?).

About the pilot's strike: Nobody thinks they are exactly nice guys.


----------



## ampurdan

You're right Natasha, they're cheeky and there's no more to say. I think something has to be done with all the people who do not care of other people's lifes when they protest. Now I'm thinking about those people in Barcelona who every Wedenesday block Barcelona's ring road to protest against the Mayor's decision to put a drug clinic* in their neighbourhood. They say they have no other choice, but I think they are quite selfish, because if such thing was not in their neighbourhood, it will be in another one, and then the other neighbours would have the right to block the ring road or the underground or who knows what...

*I don't know the word in English. It's a room in a hospital where drug addict people can go to have a clean dose.


----------



## natasha2000

People protest for many things. Some of the reasons are serious ones, some are stupid, like this one with drug whatever it is. (I don't know the word either.)

But since in a democratic world it is supposed to have the right to strike, then it is also supposed that no one else but your company should suffer because of it. Therefore public services must inform in advance about the strike they are planning to do, because you or I or some cleaning woman or a clark, also have some rights that should be respected in a democratic society.


----------



## french4beth

There was a strike recently at a local helicopter manufacturer. Local businesses suffered (both subcontractors & places like delis, restaurants, etc.), workers didn't receive pay for the time that they were out of work, the town had to pay for extra police coverage around the plant, and the employees ended up going back to work after agreeing to the same basic contract that they had refused 6 weeks earlier.

Employers in the US don't always mind when their employees go on strike - they don't have to pay holidays, sick days, etc.

When my sister's employer's hourly workers went on strike (telecommunications industry), the salaried workers had to take over in the factory - and production was higher for the salaried workers than the hourly workers!


----------



## fenixpollo

Amp, there is a big difference between people protesting and workers striking. In a democracy, the people have many legal ways of correcting problems and injustices -- starting with their vote -- and that is part of the definition of a democracy. 

In a capitalist society, the workers do not necessarily have the ability to correct problems or injustices, unless that ability was given to the workers by the government. So a strike is the only way out.

I agree that it would be nice if the workers informed the public and tried to get people on their side, but the idea of a partial strike is strange to me: the purpose of the strike is to pressure the company to change. Partial strike = partial pressure = partial or nominal change.


----------



## natasha2000

I agree with you, Fenix. It's everything or nothing. There cannot be a partial strike. But it seems that this is how the things are in Spain. As I already said, whenever the workers of RENFE (train company) went on strike, there were still trains, and it is said that the minimum of guarateed sevices if done. The trains pass but not with usual frequency. If they achieved something or not, it's beyond my knowledge. But they always do like this.


----------



## ampurdan

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Amp, there is a big difference between people protesting and workers striking. In a democracy, the people have many legal ways of correcting problems and injustices -- starting with their vote -- and that is part of the definition of a democracy.
> 
> In a capitalist society, the workers do not necessarily have the ability to correct problems or injustices, unless that ability was given to the workers by the government. So a strike is the only way out.
> 
> I agree that it would be nice if the workers informed the public and tried to get people on their side, but the idea of a partial strike is strange to me: the purpose of the strike is to pressure the company to change. Partial strike = partial pressure = partial or nominal change.


 
I understand perfectly the difference, Fenix, but please, pay attention to what both situations have in common, that is, the abuse of a right. We have the right to demonstrate and the right to strike. I'm not acquainted with  the USA legal system, but in Spain those rights are not absolute and they do not prevail over whatever other rights, or at least they shouldn't. Anyway, I think that the State is more prone to intervene in Spain than in the USA, because our different political traditions. If it is true that strikes are rare in your country, I can understand your feeling about partial strikes... But if you had to suffer as many transport strikes as there are in my country, I think you would change your mind.


----------



## fenixpollo

I see exactly what you are saying about the difference in the political systems of Spain and the US, and I agree that if my life (and especially my income) were interrupted by transportation strikes, I might change my tune.  

I still disagree with you, however, that there is any "abuse of a right" on the part of workers who are striking -- on the contrary, I believe that workers who strike are exercising (what is often) the only right they have.


----------



## natasha2000

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I see exactly what you are saying about the difference in the political systems of Spain and the US, and I agree that if my life (and especially my income) were interrupted by transportation strikes, I might change my tune.
> 
> I still disagree with you, however, that there is any "abuse of a right" on the part of workers who are striking -- on the contrary, I believe that workers who strike are exercising (what is often) the only right they have.


 
But don't you think that maybe, if there is no limitation, the strike can be abused and not only used by workers, like it is obvious case with pilots?

I understand perfectly when doctors went on strike here, because they are fed up with too many hours of work and too small number of minutes they have to dedicate to each patient. But pilots???? I think that this what pilots did was pure abuse of the right to strike.


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> ............and blocking the airport runaways is a behaviour which shows complete disdain for other people's rights.


 
If we spoke in general, I would agree with you. But the workers were provoked. Their reaction was expected by those who provoked them. They acted foolishly and in a stupid way, because they let themselves to be provoked.

I certainly do not expect the understanding for this from someone whose holidays were ruined before even started because of them.


----------



## cuchuflete

To the earlier question about strikes with an unexpired contract...

In the US, I can think of three broad categories of strikes.  I'm not any kind of expert on labor law, so others who know more are invited to correct and add information.

1- The most common kind of strike is during negotiations for a new, long-term contract.  Often times, the old contract will have expired during the negotiations, and the workers continue with the assumption that a new contract will be retroactive to the end date of the former contract.  When negotiations break down, a strike is employeed as a pressure tactic by labor towards ownership.  Such strikes are completely legal, as there is no current labor contract in force.
The strikes may last from a few days to over a year.

2- "Work stoppages" occur while a contract is in place.  They may be legal or illegal, depending on the terms of the contract in place.

3- "Wildcat" strikes-  These are staged by workers without the approval of union leadership.  They usually violate terms of a contract, and are undertaken to protest presumed abuses by management.  Legal status is hard to determine, as workers may stay away from their jobs with the pretext of medical necessity, but this is generally just a ploy to excuse absence from work by a few hundred or a few thousand people all at the same time.

Personally, I believe that all workers should have the right to strike as part of a labor contract negotiation, and should be held accountable for contract adherence when a labor agreement is in place. There are other fully legal means to resolve disputes in the workplace, such as petitions to the National Labor Relations Board, and the courts.  These generally are unbiased towards either labor or management.
Both management groups and labor organizations would dispute this, which is a sign of the essential fairness of the legal system.


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Could you elaborate on this?


 
From our point of view as users of the airport, they are just people who are there to give you a service. Just like waiters, of hotel staff, or what ever other service giving staff. Usually you do not look at them as persons who have feelings etc. If everything goes ok, i.e. you come to use the service, they serve you, you don't even remember the face of that man or a woman. This is normal. We forget that those people are people too, and that they have their needs, feelings. Now when the service is taken away, we just know that we are lacking of that service and this is where the thing finishes. We are upset because we must change our plans, wait , or whatever unpleasant and unplanned thing we have to do ONLY because of the strike. And this is the same even when the strike is announced. It's usually us, without a service, and them who denied us the expected service. Us against them. Or better, they against us. We don't care about their reasons, we only know that they refused to give us a service, and we become angry. With them. Directly. We do not thing further. This is what I mean when I say, "generally speaking".

But, I like to see the things from a little bit deeper point of view. Let's try to see them as one of us. Try to put yourself in their shoes. They were threatened that they will all be fired. They are normal people, not rich ones. They do not have savings that would give them bread in case they loose their jobs. They got afraid for their jobs. They even got mad because maybe they thought it was not right to get fired if they didn't do anything bad. Then, they did a foolish thing. They lost their minds. They forgot about their obligations.They forgot about the sindicat and sindical organization of ther stirke. And they did what they did. They behaved just as the provokers expected them to behave. They themselves gave the reason to the company to fire them. Now with a good reason. 

Now, if I see the things like this, I pitty those workers, and I am very angry to the company because I lost my flight and my vacation is ruined.

But I also understand people at the airport who cannot or don't want to see the things like I do. That is why I said:



> I certainly do not expect the understanding for this from someone whose holidays were ruined before even started because of them.


 
I just try to see the events from the points of view of all participants.
Hope this helps.


----------



## natasha2000

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> 1- The most common kind of strike is during negotiations for a new, long-term contract. Often times, the old contract will have expired during the negotiations, and the workers continue with the assumption that a new contract will be retroactive to the end date of the former contract. When negotiations break down, a strike is employeed as a pressure tactic by labor towards ownership. Such strikes are completely legal, as there is no current labor contract in force.
> The strikes may last from a few days to over a year.


 
But, this first type doesn't have any sense! Or I am missing something... If the contract has expired, then i don't see how a worker can make his point by making a strike. As far as I know, you cannot continue working if your contract has expired and wasn't renewed before the expiration of the first one. When your contract expires, you stop working. And if you don't have a new contract, then you cannot continue working. you're not in strike, you're in the street, jobless, and your ex employee gives a job to the other. So, how can you negotiate about a new contract and be on strike in order to make the employee to meke a better offer, if you don't have a contract? I mean, without a contract, you don't have any rights in relation with that company. You're no longer the part of that company.
I'm afraid I cannot express what I mean...
But at least in Spain, if your contract expires in 15 days, and the company does not tell you anything, you have a good basis to think that your contract will be renewed, because the employee, accordin to the law must inform you at least 15 days before the expiration of the contract that he won't renew it. If he doesn't do that, than you can be almost 100% sure he has started the procedure of renewal of your contract. So, by the date of the expiration of your contract, you will or be informed that your contract will be renewed, or maybe you will start negotiations about the better conditions, but the agreement must be reached before the date of expiration, because if not, your employee has legal right to do whatever he wants, including not to give you the job. So, if your contract has expired, you don't have nothing to make your point?


----------



## cuchuflete

I'll attempt to address your questions directly in the text below...





			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> But, this first type doesn't have any sense! Or I am missing something...Yes, what you are "missing" is that cultural and labor practices are different in different parts of the world!  Substantially different, in this case.
> 
> Here is a set of broad generalities about US labor practices.  They may sound very strange to you.  Still, they operate this way, and have for many decades.  Take a large auto manufacturer, say Ford or General Motors.  They have hundreds of thousands of employees.  Replacing all of them with equally skilled labor is just not a realistic option for the employer.   Negotiations for a new contract...usually a multi-year contract...begin many months in advance of the expiration date of the current contract.  (1) Sometimes the new contract is agreed to by union leadership and management a few weeks or days before the current contract expires.  It then goes to the "rank and file" or union membership for a vote.  It is usually, but not always, approved.
> 
> (2)If negotions are proceeding with good progress, but are not completed by the expiration date, union leadership may advise members of this, and continue collective bargaining.  The most common case is for the new contract to be retroactive to the expiration date.  If negotiations come to an impasse, then a strike vote may be called by union leadership.  This vote, in itself, applies substantial pressure on management to come to a quick agreement.  If agreement is not reached by the strike date, workers leave their jobs, and  bargaining continues during a strike.  Management may or may not continue to pay medical insurance premiums during a short strike, and can use the suspension of these payments as a bargaining tool.
> 
> You say that this kind of strike doesn't make sense.   It is a tremendously powerful tool for unions.  Assuming the employer is earning any level of profit at all during normal business, such a shutdown has two huge costs: a. no profits earned; b. costs of maintaining, shutting down industrial processes, and costs of re-starting these.  Thus, just the threat of a strike has great leverage.  A strike itself is a powerful economic blow against the employer.  If the contract has expired, then i don't see how a worker can make his point by making a strike. As far as I know, you cannot continue working if your contract has expired and wasn't renewed before the expiration of the first one. Why not?  There is no law preventing people from working without a contract, in some countries.   When your contract expires, you stop working. This may be the practice you are familiar with.  It does not apply in all countries.  And if you don't have a new contract, then you cannot continue working. you're not in strike, you're in the street, jobless, and your ex employee gives a job to the other. So, how can you negotiate about a new contract and be on strike in order to make the employee to meke a better offer, if you don't have a contract? I mean, without a contract, you don't have any rights in relation with that company. You're no longer the part of that company.
> I'm afraid I cannot express what I mean... The self-interest of the employer, especially in very large labor force companies, is to retain workers.  Thus, negotiations continue even after the expiration of a contract.  Labor's self-interest is to maintain employment with the same employer.  Again, they too have a strong motive to continue to try to reach a collective bargaining agreement.  The strike during negotiations is but one very strong tool sometimes used by labor organizations.  The nearest thing to a corresponding management tool is a lockout, by which a company voluntarily shuts down at the expiration of a contract.  This is very rarely used, and typically only if a company is losing money during operations.
> So, if your contract has expired, you don't have nothing to make your point?


----------



## natasha2000

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I'll attempt to address your questions directly in the text below...


 
Thanks, Chuchu. I have it more clear now. If i understood well, it is mainly when as Ampurdan says, collective contracts are in quiestion. 

Ampurdan, I didn't try to justify them. I just tried to find out the reason why they did such a stupid thing, ignoring completely the union. They did what they did - they did the stupid thing and therefore they will have to put up with consequences. The end of the story. I never tried to justify their actions.

And I do think that big companies as Iberia are "mean" as Telefonica or other companies that have monopoly over the market in Spain. This is my personal opinion, and I don't expect anyone to agree with me.


----------



## Fernando

Laus Deo, Telefónica and Iberia has no more the monopoly in Spain (though it is true they have an -unfair- additional power over other operarors.

Anyway, the problem here is that they are losing their strength position and competing against low-cost (English?) companies. Those companies pay less to their employers and are more "mean" than Iberia or TEF are. So, they are obligued to create their own low-cost affiliate and to fire people. That is called "free market".

Employees are also in a free market. If Iberia lower their wages they can get a job in other company. Spanish Law obligues the company to pay them (only for long-term contracts) to pay them substantial reparations.

In the company I work, if I begin a strike the company would certainly feel the difference (1), but the general public hardly so. So, I do not have the possinbility of taking hostages the whole population. 

But even a strike affecting the general public (to a degree) would be acceptable to me. The problem is when they break the law.

(1) I hope so.


----------



## natasha2000

Fernando said:
			
		

> Anyway, the problem here is that they are losing their strength position and competing against low-cost (English?) companies.


 
Not all low cost companies are English (British) ones.
As far as I know, "Vueling" is Spanish low cost company.


----------



## badgrammar

Here in France, striking is a national pasttime.  A couple weeks ago we were all basically punished by the railworker's strike, and for the passed five days, by the Air France navigating personnel strikes.  As has already been noted, these things are planned so that they hurt the maximum of users.  The Air France strike coincided with school holidays here...

So Thursday morning my two children and I learned our flight to the states to see the grandparents was canceled, only a few minutes before boarding.  Eight hours later, after standing in line all that time, we left the airport with a new reservation and missing one of our checked bags.  Next day (and another 100€ worth of taxi services later), we did it again.  Only to have the flight cancelled once again,  at the boarding gate.  We were one of several families travelling for the same reason.  Explain to a kid who hasn't seen his family in over a year that the plane isn't leaving and there's no chance you'll get to go at all.  

I do not disagree with the right to strike, and will not even get into whether or not I think Air France are justified in their actions.   But what is terrible, and what seems to be the norm here, is to use a family holiday period to punish employers, effectively taking hostage of users and using them to blackmail the company, both financially and practically.  

And I wonder how much the navigating personnel thinks about what the ground personnel then has to go through? 

A final point, the spokesman for the strikers was on national news two nights ago to explain the union's position.  I could not believe it!  Not one time did he ever utter even the slightest apology or sympathy for the thousands of people who got screwed over because of the srike, not even an appeal or a "bear with us, we realize the hardship this has created for our passengers and we thank you for your understanding..."  Nada.  Nothing.  

The strike is perfectly legal, as strike laws are very clear-cut here and they gave legal notice of the eventuality of the strike.  Now they are threatening a new strike at... Christmas!

So yeah, sure, strikes...  But is it morally right to hurt so many people in order to get paid more?  I think combining a strike with a period of high demand for families and children is at the limit of indecent. 

Grrrrrrrr.


----------



## badgrammar

fenixpollo said:


> I see exactly what you are saying about the difference in the political systems of Spain and the US, and I agree that if my life (and especially my income) were interrupted by transportation strikes, I might change my tune.
> 
> I still disagree with you, however, that there is any "abuse of a right" on the part of workers who are striking -- on the contrary, I believe that workers who strike are exercising (what is often) the only right they have.



Fenix, I wanted to mention that although there are places where workers are not protected and do not have enough rights, there are also countries that are real "champions" of workers rights (a good thing), and perhaps as a consequence, the right to strike is overused, misused and abused - and all this without getting into the benefits, early retirement, and salaries paid out to those who strike the most often.


----------



## alexacohen

It is a bit late, but well.

Aviation services are, in Spain, considered "essential". So their worker's rights to go on strike are heavily regulated. Even if a strike is approved and some services are cancelled, the passengers suffer the minimum of inconvenience, though a company may have heavy losses.

What those workers did at the Barcelona Airport such a long time ago was not a strike, but a revolt. They had no right to do that, even if they had been threathened with massive firing (and they weren't, by the way).

As for pilots going on strike, as we say in Spain: "corramos un tupido velo, espeso y peludo" (no comment).


----------



## badgrammar

Interesting, Alexa.  Here in france, beginning in January 2008, law will require a "service minimum" that must be provided during transportation strikes...  And to the surprise of AF workers, this policy may also be extended to cover air transportation.  I certainly hope it will be.


----------



## alexacohen

badgrammar said:


> Interesting, Alexa. Here in france, beginning in January 2008, law will require a "service minimum" that must be provided during transportation strikes...


Yes, that "minimum" is required by law here and has been for a very long time. Passengers must be notified if their flights are cancelled, and must be rebooked into other flights and/or companies. 
But this has to be done in advance, and not at the boarding gate.
It is the workers' right to go on strike; but travellers have rights, too.


----------

