This might seem naive to some, but it seems to me that in recent airline labor disputes the Railway Labor Act (which was applied to the airline industry in 1935) and it's differing provisions for conflict resolution are used by the respective parties be they management or unions to drag out negotiations- I've read about negotiations lasting YEARS under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act at some airlines. As a result, we're seeing some of these "work-to-rule" actions, sickouts, and so on that prove to be just as disruptive to the industry and the travelling public as a general strike would be.
If I'm not mistaken, there has only been one serious legal challenge to Railway Labor Act in the airline industry and that was with the FAs union versus Alaska Airlines back in the early 90s and that lawsuit concerned work stoppages as a form of "self-help" during labor negotiations. I'm no legal scholar, but it sounded like a conflict between the standards between the Railway Labor Act (which applies to airlines) and the National Labor Relations Act (which I think applies to everyone else).
I got a serious headache trying to understand this sh*t and I'm tempted to say that there probably needs to be a better way than the RLA in resolving airline disputes.
But then I make a living sticking my finger in people's asses, so what do I know?
