Slate's Bizbox
explainer: Answers to your questions about the news.

Why Can't American Airlines Pilots Go on Strike?

Bruce Gottlieb
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 17, 1999, at 7:31 PM ET

Last week, over a quarter of the pilots at American Airlines called in sick. A federal judge ordered them back to work. Why did pilots choose a so-called "sick-out" rather than a plain vanilla strike? And why did a federal judge prohibit this sick-out?

The aggrieved pilots resorted to a sick-out because federal law makes it very difficult for railway and airline employees to strike. Under the Railway Labor Act, airline employees must participate in a lengthy mediation process expressly designed to force a resolution before they can strike. If mediation fails, the president may order a 60-day cooling-off period--during which airline workers must return to work--if he feels a strike would substantially disrupt the national transportation system. If this fails, Congress may force both sides to accept a settlement, or may extend the cooling-off period indefinitely. This is what happened to American Airlines pilots two years ago: President Clinton ordered the cooling-off period four minutes after they went on strike, and they were forced to accept a settlement.

The Railway Labor Act outlaws sick-outs because they're just an end-run around the purpose of the law, which is to prevent transportation strikes. Accordingly, a federal judge threatened to fine the pilots' union for encouraging the sick-out and the union backed down. As of Tuesday, Feb. 16, only 400 of American's 9,200 pilots called in sick. Since only about half of American's pilots work on a given day, this means that around eight percent of pilots are still sick. Astoundingly, American Airlines says this is typical of a February day.

Other critical professions--such as teachers, policemen, and other municipal employees--are also specifically discouraged from striking by federal and state laws. More generally, the president can order a cooling-off period for any industry if a strike endangers the "national health and safety"--a much higher standard, however, than merely disrupting national transportation.

Next question?

Explainer thanks Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell Law School.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Bruce Gottlieb is a law student and a former Slate staff writer.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby