The Assault on Labor by Sandra L. Albrecht

Author:Sandra L. Albrecht
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Lexington Books, a division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 7

Permanently Replaced and the Long Struggle Back

IFFA’s May 17 unconditional offer to return to work ended the strike and began an equally contentious, and much longer, fight to return to work. Despite the legal right of strikers to fill available jobs, TWA disputed that the offer was really “unconditional,” and proceeded to act as if there was no union, no contract. Although many of their actions will be determined as violations of labor law, TWA effectively disrupted and delayed the right of full-term strikers to return to work.

When IFFA made an unconditional offer to return to work, they legally stopped the clock on the hiring of permanent replacements. The rumors that had been rampant in the last days of the strike about how many positions were available escalated, and numbers from 800 to 0 flew. Not only how many jobs, but how the available jobs would be distributed, became a source of continually changing rumor. TWA knew that they legally had to fill available positions with striking flight attendants, but they said they had not decided how they wanted to bring them back.1 Initially, TWA told full-term strikers to come to their domicile and put their names on a preferential “rehire” list, implying that the process would be a first-come first-served. Another alternative voiced by a TWA representative was, “We’d like to have the recall by lottery.”2 TWA also implied that, even though they had stopped taking crossovers, they could resume if they needed a larger workforce.3 Such a policy violated the legal procedures for reinstatement after an unconditional offer to return to work by strikers, but it was one of the many scenarios TWA put forward.

TWA argued that the contract no longer existed and they could rehire in any fashion they wanted. This set up a lot of confusion, a lot of concern on the part of individual workers as well as the union: it potentially pitted workers, who had maintained exceptional solidarity, against one another and it undermined the union’s position on seniority. IFFA reassured members that they did not need to put their name on a list because the legal recall would be by seniority.4

This battle over whose jobs were these would be the first of many. The very word TWA used to refer to these available positions revealed the differential treatment by TWA and IFFA. TWA called available positions rehire positions. To IFFA, they had never been unhired. IFFA always maintained the use of the term recall to refer to positions that were available, and by law were to be filled first by full-term strikers.

As the first week wore on, the number of available positions began to stabilize around 200, and TWA released the number to the press before any formal announcement to IFFA. “They might have told the newspapers that, but they haven’t told us about that yet.”5 And, in the end, it would be by seniority, but not before TWA created more anxiety and disruption by repeatedly claiming their right to “rehire” as they wished.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.