Airplane landing sunset
Photograph ©2015 by Brian Cohen.

Why Strikes Should Be Illegal.

The latest strike is currently affecting Air Canada.

As a person who travels, you have likely been affected by the industrial action of a component of a multinational company in the travel industry that is represented by a union — which leads to the reason why strikes should be illegal.

Why Strikes Should Be Illegal.

Flights have been canceled by Air Canada at the time this article was written due to a labor dispute that has led to the shutdown of most of the operations of the airline.

The main purpose of unions is to provide a strengthened alliance to work with management and executives of a company on behalf of the best interests of the employees — stronger than if individual employees tried to work with members of the executive and management teams of the company. Unions were created to protect the rights of employees.

That right there stopped me short of denouncing unions and simply saying that they no longer have any relevance in the world of today. If their representation positively helps the very constituents they serve, so be it.

Approximately 70 percent of people approved of labor unions as of Thursday, August 1, 2024, according to a poll that was conducted by Gallup, Incorporated. Only 23 percent of those surveyed disapprove of labor unions, with seven percent having no opinion. Moreover, 61 percent of the participants oppose taking away some of the collective bargaining rights of most public unions — even if it leads to reducing the budget deficit in a government. I have no idea who was surveyed for this poll, however.

The problem is that unions exacerbate labor disputes to the point of striking — although they will tell you that that is the last resort when communications and negotiations are unsuccessful between a company or an industry and the employees. Some unions also seem to prioritize looking out for themselves over the very people they represent, which is flat out wrong, in my opinion.

Many components of the travel industry are represented by numerous unions, associations, and advocacy groups — including but not limited to:

I have attended many trade shows as a presenter. I remember one year when I saw boxes that were shipped to the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in New York that were for our booth. They were only a few yards away from the booth; so I went to get one of those packages in order for me to help set up the booth sooner and be able to go out and grab a bite to eat and not have to worry about setting up the booth later that evening. A worker approached me and scolded me for touching the box, as I was not allowed to do so due to union rules and regulations. We had to wait several hours before someone delivered those boxes those several yards to the booth.

I thought that was absolutely ridiculous, as what I was attempting to do was permitted in numerous other areas around the world with no problem.

Final Boarding Call

Striking is a form of protest — but as protesting is a form of freedom of speech, the two are not interchangeable. As I wrote in this article on Thursday, August 8, 2024, “…if someone is doing something wrong, harming someone else, or is otherwise exceeding the bounds of the law, that should be enough to hold that person accountable and responsible and prosecute that person — whether or not he or she is wearing a mask or some other covering for his or her face.”

Accordingly, I believe that employees have a right to protest the working conditions and compensation that is provided by their employers — but similar to people who protest on city streets or on access roads to airports, workers should not be allowed to disrupt the lives of ordinary innocent citizens who have absolutely nothing to do with the labor disputes. They can battle their employers all they want, whether peacefully or vociferously; and they can even bring their sides of the dispute to the public via mainstream media and social media — but they have no right to prevent you from going about your life.

“Needlessly inconveniencing people typically does not solve problems or issues”, I wrote in this article on Wednesday, December 27, 2023. “Rather, more problems and issues are usually caused — as well as increased animosity towards the people who attempt to advance their cause.”

That quote that you just read applied to people who block access roads to protest their causes — but I believe it equally applies to employees who strike and disrupt the lives of customers. In the case of Air Canada, what if attempting to attend an emergency situation depended on that timely flight? What about if that flight was for a critical interview for a job? Do these strikes prevent at least some commerce from being conducted and potentially impacting business in Canada? Why is this even allowed?

If a person is unhappy with his or her working conditions, that person should quit his or her job and find a position that is more suitable to what he or she wants or needs — which is what I have done all of my life. I have never been a member of any union in my lifetime. Most of the people I know are not — and never were — members of unions. We all somehow managed just fine.

Strikes are already illegal in some governments. Similarly, strikes should be illegal if they directly aversely affect both innocent people and paying customers of the company or industry for whom the employees work, in my opinion.

Photograph ©2015 by Brian Cohen.

  1. If employees are “at will”, why not singularly or collectively refuse to work or perform some duties. Ownership can dismiss or offer restrictive hours per an agreement or the absence of one. Brian, are you suggesting employees should be forced to work under “onerous” conditions?
    Strikes are meant to inconvenience management and ownership. The public…That’s collateral and intertwined. At least, now, strikes don’t devolve into a Homestead/Pullman car open warfare.

    1. I believe that no one should ever be forced to work under onerous conditions, First Last. I would never suggest that.

      If employees do not like the job, they should either let management know or leave. While I realize that the public can be intertwined, they should not punish the public as collateral and act as though they are more important that the people that they are supposed to serve.

      Many people who are not part of unions put their customers first whenever possible. Anything less can be perceived as selfishness.

  2. I attended a convention where an exhibitor said that they liked it there instead of NYC. They said in NYC, it is too expensive due to labor rules. When setting up the exhibit in NYC, but not elsewhere, there must be a separate person plugging in the cords. A separate person puts up the petitions of the exhibit, etc.

    As far as unions, one problem is that once a union represents employees, it is impossible to replace that union should the union go astray.

    In favor of unions is that the situation can become lopsided without unions. Nurses can form unions. Doctors are not allowed to form unions unless it is opposed to a hospital. Doctors cannot form unions to negotiate with an insurance company, like United Healthcare.

    The flight attendants union in many airlines appear to favor the few FAs with a lot of seniority. They get paid a lot. In contrast, junior FAs don’t get paid much.

    1. The points you raise are interesting, derek.

      Based on my experiences, you are correct about different people being required to do different jobs when a union controls them — such as a separate person to plug in electrical cords.

      I did not know that statistic pertaining to flight attendants and who the union favors, though…

  3. You are a typical self centered person

    Remember you where obsessed about the right to not wear a mask. Oh no you need to wear a mask. You are pathetic.

    You seem to think it is easy to get a job. You do not show any respect for the hard work for the people who fly you around in comfort. Like these people are your slaves.

    They deserve to make a living wage and have a comfortable live for the hard work they put in.

    But everything seems to revolve around you.

    You are a typical first world loser!

    1. Your diatribe makes absolutely no sense, Eddie.

      Not once did I say it was easy to get a job. Not once did I say that I do not respect anyone who flies me around — nor do I treat them as though they were my slaves.

      You jumped to a slew of conclusions. Perhaps if you actually read the article, you would understand my point…

    2. Instead of attacking the messenger, why not entertain us with a thoughtful and intelligent reply relative to unions and strikes?

  4. You want to make them work at gunpoint? They withhold labor because it works. It works because the workers, not management, are the necessary component. If management wants them to work again, they can honor the demands of the workers. You guys profess to love capitalism but the second a worker exercises their market freedom — the freedom to take the risk and withhold their labor — you want the state to come in and force their hands.

    1. I would argue that market freedom would not require unions in the first place, dave. Many industries and companies somehow work without unions and are still able to fully participate in capitalism. As one of countless examples, the flight attendants at Delta Air Lines are not part of a union.

      I never said I want to make the employees “work at gunpoint”. I also believe that workers are indeed a necessary component to a company and its employees — but don’t the workers also need the company that employs them? If a strike continued to the point that the company is forced to go out of business, who wins then?!?

      I also never said or implied that I “want the state to come in and force their hands.” In fact, I have opined in many articles in the past that government should be reduced and interfere less with labor relations — as well as the free market itself…

      1. I think you ignore the point that most strikes never last long. The airline is losing money by no flying and the union members are not getting paid. Sure their union may offer them strike pay, but like unemployment it doesn’t come close to covering their normal pay. I’m fine with the disruption. Air Canada is not the only airline in Canada and if going to and from Canada you have all the USA based carriers as alternatives too.

        Everyone knew this strike was a possibility. It was covered in the news and on blogs and other media. Basically, if you HAD to be somewhere like the situation you laid out in your blog, you booked away from Air Canada knowing they may be on strike.

        1. You are correct that many strikes thankfully do not last long, World Traveler — at least, in commercial aviation, anyway…

          …but they do seem to happen rather often around the world, which can cause a domino effect worldwide as a result. In this article pertaining to Labor Actions: Necessary or Selfish? from May 18, 2023, I wrote:

          “Currently, the personnel at four different airlines are unhappy:

          “Pilots from United Airlines were on picket lines in ten different cities, stating that increases in their wages are past due by four years.

          “At least 111 flights were proactively canceled by WestJet Airways for today, Thursday, May 18, 2023 as negotiations between the airline and the union which represents the pilots are inching closer to a deadline.

          “On Friday, May 12, 2023, pilots at Southwest Airlines almost unanimously voted to authorize a strike.

          “The union which represents flight attendants are currently in tense negotiations with American Airlines; and an authorization for a strike is possible.

          “Additionally, industrial actions in countries such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom seem to recur on a regular basis.”

          https://thegatewithbriancohen.com/labor-actions-necessary-or-selfish/

          The coverage in the articles I do write only barely scratch the surface of strikes and labor disputes in the aviation industry alone that occur around the world. Finnair recently had been engaged in labor disputes as one of many examples.

          Sometimes strikes never happen at all. That means a deal has been reached to which all parties compromised and came to an agreement. That is the best solution in a labor dispute.

          As you noted, with Air Canada, the strike only pertains to one particular group of that airline, and no — not all flights have been canceled; so yes — other plans could have been made with other airlines — although not always as conveniently…

          …but what about when a strike occurs within an entire industry within the country, potentially crippling aviation for even only a few days — sometimes with little advance notice? Would you be fine with that as well?

          1. I would not book a necessary trip (e.g. important business or traveling for medical care) on a airline with a known strike threat. It’s basically rolling the dice and stupid. Would I book a discretionary trip, it depends but maybe. The airline often lowers fares to continue to get bookings knowing people are booking away given the publicity of a possible strike.

            Finally, I believe strikes are needed because of theater. Management wants to show they took a strike to show their shareholders the negotiated till the bitter end of the strike. Union leadership is often doing the same so you need to let that play out IMHO.

            1. You are correct about not booking a necessary trip with an entity that has clearly advertised a threat of a strike, World Traveler. For people who live in major cities like Toronto, that can translate into a minor inconvenience at worst…

              …but I would believe that smaller airports which are served only by Air Canada are far more than a mere inconvenience for people who live near those airports. Yes, they could get transportation to a larger airport somehow — but in a time critical situation, that may not be possible.

              I believe that you are also correct about the theater aspect of labor relations. Yes, it could purport to show how either a company or its employees act when the chips are down…

              …but theater is very risky, as it has been known to backfire as well as become a negative aspect to the customer and to the public.

              If labor disputes could be resolved without strikes, the theater would most likely not be wanted or needed after all…

              1. Having been on the management side of a union campaign a few times (both winning and losing – in the losing time to be perfectly honesty, we had just been bought by another airline that was union and the employees would be assumed into that group without a vote so we figured better they blame their union for getting hosed on seniority than us). Also my first job out of college I spent my second month in a headquarters position going to a sort of expedited new hire flight attendant training – they had voted for CHAOS and if so, as individual crew members went on strike, they’d be de-badged and locked out and replaced by management. Thankfully never came to that because what a crew resource management environment that would be on a plane…..

                All that said, I have come to learn of the strike aspect of labor relations to be almost like mutually assured destruction. Management cannot just roll over and give in, because then that means they’ll get pushed further by the union. And the union obviously has to be willing to take it all the way too, up to the point of potentially being without income for days/weeks/months. The stronger unions have funds for this and can basically give some assistance to those on strike. One of the things that put the AA flight attendants independent union APFA at a disadvantage is they couldn’t/can’t afford a lengthy strike.

                I think that is both the biggest problem and also the biggest necessary evil the way our labor relations are structured in the US. Who will blink first or who is most willing to scuttle the ship?

              2. So Air Canada has 46% of the market share in Canada and WestJet 44% based on a Google search. But WestJet has a far more limited international network so I’m not sure how many airports get only Air Canada service only. However, to me it’s a problem that two airlines have 90% of the market! That’s a anti trust issue to me more than a strike inconvenience issue, but everyone has their own opinion so I respect your positions.

                My question to you is how do you resolve disputes without the theater. As long as shareholders include private equity firms which demand better returns on their investment and labor union members want more when they see their employer earning excessive profits. The issues that come with being a publicly traded can’t be mitigated IMHO.

                1. One need only look back at the whole Canadian Airlines vs Air Canada situation and how the government allowed a monopoly to form to see their view on things…. I agree, only 2 airlines having that much of the market is an anti-trust issue especially as the government is only happy to set the barriers to entry so high. Look at the attempts to quash Porter’s start… Porter’s founder/owner had to think a little outside the box to put the screws to Air Canada, which under the circumstances I can agree with….

                2. Sorry typo, WestJet has 36 percent market share. But that’s still over 80 percent market share with two carriers. Porter is expanding rapidly, the question is when will their expansion hit the wall of unfprofitably?

                  1. The first thing I want to do is thank you for this discussion, World Traveler. I do not write articles just to espouse some unwavering opinion or attitude, as some other people may believe. I do so to spark intelligent discussion, in which you have engaged — and hopefully arrive at some answers that could help result in an improvement on society. I respect your positions as well.

                    I agree with your assessment pertaining to only two airlines controlling the majority of commercial air travel in a country as large as Canada; but other countries with more people do not have as much of a choice either. Many of those countries have what is known as a “flag carrier” that represents the country and operates a high percentage of the flights. I suppose that Air Canada is as close to being the flag carrier of Canada as possible.

                    The United States does not have a flag carrier, as at least ten airlines serve the country with domestic flights. However, even more airlines used to serve the country prior to the demise of Pan American Airways, Trans World Airlines, Braniff, National, America West, Continental Airlines, Eastern Airlines, PeoplExpress, USAirways, and others. That range of choice helps mitigate the inconveniences of a strike if only one of those airlines experienced a labor dispute.

                    Interestingly, the flight attendants of Delta Air Lines are not members of a union.

                    “My question to you is how do you resolve disputes without the theater. As long as shareholders include private equity firms which demand better returns on their investment and labor union members want more when they see their employer earning excessive profits. The issues that come with being a publicly traded can’t be mitigated IMHO.” That actually is a different topic altogether, as what you pointed out is more inherent with human nature in general and does not necessarily translate to common sense. Some people might blame the theater on the emphasis on financial results in the short term and not for the long haul. Other people might simply attribute the theater as the result of those who seek attention.

                    I do not have the answer to that question; but I would surmise that the theater likely would be resolved if either the seeking of attention was ignored — or if at least one of the sides of a dispute suffered harm that was significant enough for that entity to realize that perhaps the theater was not worth the effort in the first place.

                    What amazes me is that a side must be forced to come to a resolution. Whenever a labor dispute ends, I wind up asking myself why they could not have arrived at that result sooner to have avoided a strike in the first place.

                    I look forward to any further insight you may have on this, World Traveler — as well as the insights from other readers at The Gate With Brian Cohen

  5. Who exactly would make the strikes “illegal”? That would be the state, no? You’re asking for state intervention on labor relations here.

    1. You are correct, dave — deeming a strike to be illegal would require intervention by the state…

      …but that would be for the protection of the public and not for the intervention of labor relations, which should solely be between the employees and the members of the management of the company. Labor relations should not directly involve innocent customers in any adverse way, which is the point of my article.

      If you were a passenger whose flight was canceled due to labor relations — and you had a critical reason for taking that flight — how would you feel?

  6. I would be upset and I would understand that management’s greed, not the workers’, is the reason I’m grounded. There’s a demand that could have been met and the fat cats chose not to meet it. All sides are exercising their market freedom.

    Everyone believes their reason for supporting state intervention is for the “protection of the public”. You don’t oppose state intervention for some principled reason — you’re ideological, just like everyone else. And your ideology happens to be sympathetic to the wealthy non-workers. You choose to blame the workers for the strike, rather than managements’ unwillingness to compromise. Fine. But it rings hollow to frame yourself as a small government, free market guy…except when there’s something you disagree with ideologically. Then it’s totally cool to get the state involved. That’s not a principled opposition to state intervention.

    1. I am not sympathetic to the wealthy non-workers, dave. Rather, I am sympathetic to the people who are inconvenienced by a strike.

      I am also not completely convinced that every time a labor dispute occurs, it is always the fault of those “wealthy non-workers”. Greed can happen on both sides of a labor dispute. Regardless of whose fault is the labor dispute, people who have nothing to do with it should be the ones paying the price — which again is the point of the article.

      I do believe in the free market; but sometimes intervention from the state is necessary — which leads me to ask: do you believe in absolutely no intervention by the state for any reason whatsoever? Do you not believe that at least some laws or rules are necessary?

  7. This blog makes no sense being on boadngarea

    Should be linked to from the heritage foundation

    You do not live in the real world

    For example “I have never been a member of any union in my lifetime. Most of the people I know are not — and never were — members of unions. We all somehow managed just fine.”

    You are an entitled brat

    1. Well, then, Eddie, I suppose that millions of people who have never been a member of any union in their lifetimes also are entitled brats who do not live in the real world either.

      Safe travels to you.

      1. Seems I have provoked you

        The millions of people not in unions do not say shit you say so they are not brats

        Next time you decide to post non sense like this post please think twice.

        BTW your blog and the blogs on boardingarea should be about travel and not about attacking hard working people who belong to unions.

        You are a hater and have serious issues. There is no reason people need to be haters. Please seek help for the sake of your loved ones.

  8. Let’s flip the question: Should lockouts by employers also be illegal even if the employer doesn’t agree with the working employees’s right to protest without striking?

    1. Sorry, I meant employees’ not employees’s. I just fired my proofreader yesterday for complaining about their working conditions.

      1. If I understood your question correctly, InLA, yes – I believe that lockouts should be illegal as well…

        …and when I say illegal, I do not mean the government should intervene at all. What both sides in a labor dispute should do is be forced to engage in mediation or binding arbitration as many opponents in court cases do; and then abide by the final decision. Labor disputes should never get to the point of a strike or a lockout.

        My point in the article is that the paying customer and innocent members of the public should not be penalized by the actions of either the worker or the employer.

        Now that I think about it, I generally stopped watching Major League Baseball after one of their strikes or lockouts and have not paid to see a game in person ever since. The actions of both the players and owners — both of whom earn more money in a year than most people will ever see in a lifetime — permanently soured my enjoyment of the game. Like protests that block streets, strikes and lockouts that directly affect the public risk losing customers and trust on a permanent basis.

        By the way, thanks for the laugh about firing your proofreader. I appreciate that!

  9. I’m not sure why you’ve chosen to hate freedom and declare yourself an enemy of working people but it would be a lot cooler if you didn’t, scab.

    Will never click on this site again knowing you’re crossing picket lines to travel.

    1. Sigh.

      Okay — I’ll bite. Here is a couple of moments of my life which I will never get back — but if it entertains even one reader, it will be worth the trouble.

      A strikebreaker (sometimes pejoratively called a scab, blackleg, bootlicker, blackguard or knobstick) is a person who works despite an ongoing strike. Strikebreakers may be current employees (union members or not), or new hires to keep the organization running (hired after or during the strike). In continuing to work, or taking jobs at a workplace under current strike, strikebreakers are said to “cross picket lines”.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker

      So, Ice Machine, here is a little free education for you to cool off to:

      1. I do not hate freedom and have no idea what you meant by that comment, which absolutely makes no sense at all.
      2. I have never declared myself an enemy of the working people. What a ridiculous accusation.
      3. I have not purchased any tickets to fly with Air Canada; so I will not be crossing any picket lines to travel.
      4. Referencing the aforementioned definition: as I do not work for an airline or for any company in the travel industry; I therefore cannot be a scab by definition. This alone should help improve your vocabulary significantly.
      5. I will bet just about anything that you were never a regular reader of my blog at any time during the past almost 19 years; so I am not sure what you believe you are accomplishing by not clicking here ever again — but you do you. I would further bet that even if I changed my opinion and fully acquiesced to your point of view, you would never click here again anyway.
      6. Please let me know for which company you work so that I know never to patronize a business whose employees are so selfish that they care more about themselves than the customers they are supposed to serve, which was the point of this article.

      Safe travels to you as well.

  10. I once got smacked for hanging a picture in my office on a weekend. My own personal item brought in to decorate. Apparently the property owner (not my employer) had union maintenance personnel who had in their contracted scope of work to hang anything that needs to be “mounted” on a wall. I was either reported or, as the building manager said the maintenance foreman would “safety inspect” offices sometimes and would notice such things.

    I had to take it down, put in a work order, and wait nearly 3 weeks before someone came back, stuck the hook back in the same hole, and put the picture back on the wall. That’s fine because every time it needed straightening I put in another work order. I learned that the time it took to clear work orders on existing “monuments and fixtures” was a performance metric that the maintenance staff were held to.

    1. That is so beyond ridiculous, NedsKid. What a waste of time and money…

      …so what did this policy accomplish — other than guaranteeing at least one paid job?

      1. What it accomplished was leaving a bunch of us wondering what the purpose of this union contract was other than inflating costs and annoying tenants.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.

You have Successfully Subscribed!