Pilots Strike at Cargo Carrier Serving DHL, Amazon.com | Hacker News Reader

Pilots Strike at Cargo Carrier Serving DHL, Amazon.com

wsj.com

78 pointsjstreebin54 comments

WSJ has no details on why the strike happened, says an "unspecified" number of flights for Amazon (actually 35/day) and even seems out of date.. since the court order ABX attempted to get was already dismissed.

Each of the pilots has worked an average of 32 emergency days so far this year (days they would have had off). In just the first 3 months of this year, 40% of captains exceeded their emergency work days.. so it's possible there are no captains or first officers on ABXs payroll with emergency work days remaining. ABX says this is a minor contractual dispute, so they should be forced back to work (along with more emergency days) and it should be resolved through arbitration/mediation. The judge didn't agree. And the issue has been ongoing for a year and half.

This article has more detail: http://aviationtribune.com/airlines/north-america/pilots-str...

Apparently, the pilots' contract says that flight time scheduled on an emergency basis is supposed to be repaid with compensatory time off.

Clearly, from the sheer amount of emergency scheduling, the company simply does not employ enough pilots to honor all of its contract obligations. ABX needs to immediately expand its permanent pilot workforce by about 15%, and still hire additional temporary contractors to get through the end-year holiday season.

But that'd cost money and eat into profits /s

EDIT: I don't care who you are, abusing labor for profits is not morally acceptable.

I don't know the full situation (and definitely didn't downvoted you), but just because they were working "emergency hours" doesn't mean they were being abused. Workplace abuse is things like harassment, physical intimidation, etc.

“The situation has risen to the level where the company is illegally violating its contract with pilots by not allowing them to take contractually obligated compensatory time for the forced extra work. Throughout the year and now, especially during the 4th quarter, ABX has been forcing its pilots to fly flights because it had intentionally short-staffed its operations in the face of increased customer demands” the Airline Professionals Association said in a statement.

“ABX refused to recall pilots who had been furloughed as a result of DHL’s termination of North American operations several years ago. ABX refused to recall those pilots because it did not want to bring them back and pay them at the top of the pilots’ wage scale, as required by the pilots’ contract. ABX instead extinguished those pilots’ recall rights earlier this year and then tried to hire new pilots who would be paid at the bottom of the pilots’ wage scale. ABX management has acknowledged that its penny-wise, pound foolish scheme backfired, as it waited too long to start hiring additional pilots and actually hired too few pilots. Since then, ABX has been forcing its pilots to fly additional trips and disrupting their schedules in an effort to climb out from the staffing hole it dug for itself”.

Seems like self-serving profit motivated labor abuse to me. Wage theft is still theft.

Wage theft is actually the single largest known form of theft in the USA right now[1].

>No one knows exactly how big a problem wage theft is, but in 2012 federal and state agencies recovered $933 million for victims of wage theft. By comparison, all the property taken in all the robberies of all types in 2012, solved or unsolved, amounted to a little under $341 million.

[1] -- http://theweek.com/articles/642568/biggest-crime-waves-ameri...

Thanks for this! I'm interested in projects to automate the detection and reporting of wage theft.

I'm not sure I'd be overly eager to hang my hat on either number. Here's the FBI's stats on property crime in the US in 2012 [1], which they claim is higher than $341M.

[1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

The scheme where pilots are paid more purely from working at the same airline longer seems like a big part of the problem here. Not the only part, but a big part.

Relevant: http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines

Based on what I understand of economics, I have to think that pilot unions are part of the cause of the problem here. By locking pilot compensation to number of years' service at the firm, firms are unable to compete with each other for pilot talent, and incentives are screwed up (like you quoted above). Pilots are also unable to compete with each other on compensation by changing firms.

I do not mean this as any kind of defense of ABX (I know little about this situation beyond what I've read in this thread), and I agree they are morally bound to meet their contractual obligations to their pilots, but at the same time perhaps they'd be able to hire more pilots in a sane way if the airline industry pilot salaries weren't all locked up by this arbitrary and stupid (from my position) years-at-firm requirement.

A lot of the way the industry is structured is focused around safety. Perhaps there's concern that an escalating price war over pilots would cause airlines to skimp on costs like mechanics and maintenance?

Pilot unions seem like a good thing to me.

I don't want an underpaid, overworked pilot who will never be able to retire to fly a plane I'm in or over my house.

Never, ever fly a regional airline for this reason.

Disclaimer: I have a private pilot's license, and my flight instructor was working for a regional making less than $20k a year with a terrible, sleep deprivation inducing schedule. You don't make $100k as a captain for almost 15-20 years.

I agree that pilot unions and ruthless enforcement of labor protections are a good thing.

The airline industry seems particularly rough. I assume it's because of the high cost of just entering the business. I was on a United Express (ie - a carrier operating under United's name) flight once and sat next to a pilot. I was listening to him talk about their imminent strike and contract negotiations and it just seemed like a bummer. Basically, the minor carrier is only big enough to contract out to one major carrier, which is also all that's economically feasible since the crew need uniforms of the major airline and the plane can't be repainted with every flight to represent another carrier.

With their dependence on United established, United then failed to pay the minor carrier. This caused the minor carrier to go delinquent on bills, salaries, etc. United then agreed to immediately backpay everything if the minor carrier agreed to salary cuts across the board. If they didn't, then United would hold out paying until a court made them.

This is made all the more insulting because United, et al, ask these same pilots not to wear their uniforms when using their food stamps.

"then United would hold out paying until"

We should really be moving away from this bullshit to blockchain-mediated escrow enforced by contract. This way the only case you don't pay upon delivered work is if you're bankrupt.

Which is what should happen here, btw. Don't want to pay? Congratulations, you're technically bankrupt. Get your shares loose.

I don't understand the down votes. In Australia, directors are personally liable if they allow their company to trade while insolvent. Good place to start.

> Basically, the minor carrier is only big enough to contract out to one major carrier

That depends on the regional carrier. The bigger ones (SkyWest, ExpressJet, Mesa, Republic, Shuttle America, Compass/GoJet/Trans States) have contracts with United as well as other carriers. The pay is still crap and barrier to entry is still very high though.

This tactic is common across businesses. Quite a few publishers in the game industry have pulled the same stunt and when the developer goes under re-hire everyone to work on the title at a lower rate.

Most publishing contracts have a clause the the publisher gets source/assets in the event of a developer bankruptcy.

Without statutory protection it's a race to the bottom. We can't expect everyone to just duke it out in the courts to sort everything out. Clearly that gives yet another advantage to big pocketed corporations. But it seems the US prefers it this way.

But what pilots would want to work there? They treat their employees like crap!

It's a self-perpetuating problem.

>ABX says this is a minor contractual dispute, so they should be forced back to work

The problem with our free market system is we don't have one.

When a company wishes to cut wages or slash benefits, free market.

When the workers decide they don't want to work under certain conditions anymore, get a judge involved.

In a way the title is almost misleading - not the fault of most articles though - because the carrier is attempting to use the US Court System to block the pilots going on strike. So, while yes they may "go on Strike" it's part of a longer process. Personally I know which entity I'm pulling for, so long-term I'll have to file away the result as educational no matter which side gets their way.

The text of the linked article seems to match the headline... the article says that the strike is in-progress and planes are grounded:

The pilots are picketing ABX Air, a subsidiary of Air Transport Services Group Inc., and aren’t flying scheduled routes, the union said Tuesday. ATSG has 58 freighter aircraft in its fleet, including 50 widebody Boeing 767 planes.

Pilots aren’t crossing the picket lines, which means planes are unable to leave an Amazon hub in Wilmington, Ohio, and a DHL hub in Cincinnati, said a person familiar with the matter.

The carrier said they are seeking a court order to end the work stoppage, but it hasn't been granted yet and it's not at all clear that it will be (at least, not according to the article):

Air Transport Services Group said it is trying to end what it calls an illegal work stoppage. ABX Air President John Starkovich said the airline is seeking a court order to force the pilots back to work.

> ABX Air President John Starkovich said the airline is seeking a court order to force the pilots back to work.

How are these kinds of court orders possible in a free country, with largely at-will employment? Employees are not slaves.

Reagan famously set this precedent

Actually it's the Railway Labor Act of 1926. So before Reagan's time.

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act

Basically the idea is rail (and later airlines) are critical national infrastructure, and the country should not be brought to a standstill over minor contract disputes. Before the law, here's what would happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877

So the law requires minor disputes to be resolved through arbitration or mediation, instead of with a strike. ABX is saying this is a minor dispute, the union says it's a major dispute. The judge agreed with the union.

Even if the employees were forced back to work, they can still quit. So there's no slavery here.

So, strike-busting used to be enforced through murder - now it is enforced through the courts. Wouldn't it seem that the obvious solution to the problem consist of handing out hemp neckties to the people orchestrating, and perpetrating the violence.

IMHO, if the courts are being used to break the strike they should also be used to arbitrate the dispute and make the resolution binding. Make it dangerous to try to use the government to prosecute your own labor relations problem because they could find in favor of the unions and force you to honor time off promises or raise pay or whatever it is the union is striking over. And of course if the union is the one being unreasonable then we have today's situation where the workers are told to get back to work and the Union is told to pound sand.

Right now, the NLRB does that. The board uses administrative law judges, and they can be appealed to the US court of appeals or the US supreme court.

It's so similar to what you're suggesting, I'm not quite sure what the advantage of changing it would be?

>Basically the idea is rail (and later airlines) are critical national infrastructure, and the country should not be brought to a standstill over minor contract disputes.

I have to ask: why not? That is, since it's only the goods sold by private business being "brought to a standstill", why not? Moving people or military goods under all conditions makes sense. Moving Amazon shipments under all conditions does not.

because stalling shipments of food or medical supplies is a big problem.

because you could be costing companies that have no direct relation to the dispute lots of money.

So the courts have some power to say no, get back to work. if the conditions are that bad the employees can still counter this by quitting.

As Matt Bruenig has noted, the BATNA for many workers is dire poverty. Quitting isn't that easy.

"stalling food and medical supplies"

That's what the employer knowingly brought into risk when they decided to run understaffed to increase profits.

That's risk that the transportation provider brought. The medical company ordering supplies from some other company, who happens to use this transportation provider some of the time but not all the time, was not aware of and could not have reasonably foreseen this risk.

There are surely indemnity clauses all the way upstream. There are plenty of next day shipping options from 3 national carriers, plus same day options and just putting someone on a flight.

There are rules around when strikes can happen and when they can't. If a court says the strike is not legitimate, they can be forced back to work.

Of course, employees can still not show up. In that case, the employer can fire them (which they can't do during a legal strike).

If you go on strike for a genuine grievance, you generally can't be fired for that. Basically they're asking the court to determine if it's a genuine grievance, or if these people just aren't showing up to work. And if they're just not showing up to work, then the company can fire them.

(NB: I'm generalising. This applies in some other countries, not sure about the US).

There are also some professions where you don't want them to strike, and disputes should be worked out through some other arbitration process (think emergency services personnel - if paramedics go on strike, there can be some pretty severe consequences).

Free market is a one way street in America lately.

I so misinterpreted that headline - for a moment I though military aircraft had attacked a cargo ship!

I had the same thought, and closed the article after realizing it. I suppose that still benefits the authoring website...

Right?!

Please stop posting paywalled articles. There are all kinds of arguments for paying for quality news and whatever, but I'll never pay for WSJ and I simply don't care enough to bother with circumvention. If people want to try the paywall thing let them build the wall. Lets stop peeking over the top though shall we?

I kind of agree with you but I am not sure of the principle at play here. Because I wonder how that would apply if we gave equal status to all outputs of human labor. For e.g. You need to spend money to buy a macbook, so why link to a review? Or you need to buy a book to read it, so why should comments be able to link to a book? etc etc. OTOH we could simply downvote and move on? :)

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989

I do wish that paywall articles could be tagged as such though.

Maybe if there was a little more encouragement of non-paywalled submissions, where possible?

Here's a Bloomberg article that seems to cover mostly the same ground as this WSJ piece, for example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-22/pilot-str...

Sometimes the WSJ or NYT or whoever just has something to offer that others do not. In many cases, though, it seems like there's other paywall-free reporting that could work basically as well.

Here's the story from another source:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-air-transport-sr-strike-id...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com