At the time of its inception in 1926, it could be argued that the RLA was an advance for labor, since it guaranteed certain rights for unions and their members.

But more than 80 years later, we now see the act more and more used as a tool of the carriers. They have learned to exploit the provision that allows contract disputes to drag on for years. Then, when the time suits them, they suddenly become interested in a settlement, as it appears at the moment, since the Democrats are seen as likely victors in the elections of 2008.

I have had arguments with various union officials over the years about the RLA, most notably with IAM Intl President Tom Buffenbarger at a meeting of the IAM District 19 a few years ago.

His position, which represents the mainstream of labor officials, was that it is too politically dangerous to open up the RLA for legislative revision, and that the only thing we can do is utilize certain language in the act better.

To me, this position reflects the political weakness of labor, in that we have no friends in Congress powerful enough to help us.

I am curious about the opinions of RWU site visitors. What do you think?

Jon Flanders