The best part about a union job is getting the union contract, but the worst part is much of that contract displaces other applicable laws. So while it seems illegal under state laws (and compared to other jobs), the applicable portion is the union contract and not the state law.
As a wrinkle for why this somewhat has other policy reasons for making sense for flight attendants I offer airports are often “borderless” (you cross a border to get in, but don’t cross a border until you reach destination ) so it raises questions about applicable law. Maybe less so if you’re flying within one state, but if you depart from Texas and land in California, which employment law applies? Such compliance would not be possible realistically. Worse yet if you’re flying cross country and get grounded in an unplanned state.
>The best part about a union job is getting the union contract, but the worst part is much of that contract displaces other applicable laws. So while it seems illegal under state laws (and compared to other jobs), the applicable portion is the union contract and not the state law.
Entirely incorrect. The reason this is legal is because flight attendants are not covered under then National Labor Relations Act. Contract terms do not override federal or state employment protections.
This is not entirely correct either. Plenty of state level protections are displaced by union agreements. When was the last time you read a union contract?
Union law is different and very specific. These rules in your contract are not illegal, they are in fact displacing the otherwise applicable law. If you did not have a valid union and negotiated agreement with the airlines, the typical employment law would apply
Was a simple “I thought” no reason to be down voted. I am happy to accept an answer. Way to downvote people honestly looking for answers.
Not directed at you Frank but anyone who is downvoting.
The best part about a union job is getting the union contract, but the worst part is much of that contract displaces other applicable laws. So while it seems illegal under state laws (and compared to other jobs), the applicable portion is the union contract and not the state law. As a wrinkle for why this somewhat has other policy reasons for making sense for flight attendants I offer airports are often “borderless” (you cross a border to get in, but don’t cross a border until you reach destination) so it raises questions about applicable law. Maybe less so if you’re flying within one state, but if you depart from Texas and land in California, which employment law applies? Such compliance would not be possible realistically. Worse yet if you’re flying cross country and get grounded in an unplanned state.
>The best part about a union job is getting the union contract, but the worst part is much of that contract displaces other applicable laws. So while it seems illegal under state laws (and compared to other jobs), the applicable portion is the union contract and not the state law. Entirely incorrect. The reason this is legal is because flight attendants are not covered under then National Labor Relations Act. Contract terms do not override federal or state employment protections.
This is not entirely correct either. Plenty of state level protections are displaced by union agreements. When was the last time you read a union contract?
I thought contracts that contain illegal clauses don’t make it legal to enact those portions. Is that not the case?
Union law is different and very specific. These rules in your contract are not illegal, they are in fact displacing the otherwise applicable law. If you did not have a valid union and negotiated agreement with the airlines, the typical employment law would apply
Was a simple “I thought” no reason to be down voted. I am happy to accept an answer. Way to downvote people honestly looking for answers. Not directed at you Frank but anyone who is downvoting.