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…

  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.

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!