In August of 2024, the recent surge in labor movements hit the transportation industry in a big way. The union of flight attendants at one of the country’s largest airlines, United, went on strike.[1] While the strike itself may not be surprising, the immense support that it received from the union members was. With over 90% of members participating in the vote, the strike was authorized by 99% of participants.[2] A strike like this raises big questions regarding what led to a strike of this scale at United and if will this be a trend across the industry or a warning to other airlines to come to the table prepared for serious negotiations.
During negotiations, flight attendants asked for a base pay raise of over double digits, payment for time spent at work outside of flights, flexibility regarding scheduling, job security, and retirement benefits, among other things.[3]
This strike was the first one authorized in almost 20 years, with the last one coming during the 2005 bankruptcy negotiations.[4]Historically, when the Association of Flight Attendants authorizes a strike, they carry it out using a system called CHAOS. CHAOS stands for “Create Havoc Around Our System”.[5] The idea behind the system is that by adding an element of unpredictability, it eliminates, or at least greatly reduces, the ability of management to plan for the strike.[6]This uniform front illustrated by the authorization vote plays a large role in the strategy’s effectiveness. If the strike were to last only a day, doing so without any notice to either management or passengers would send United into a spiral and place the entire airline industry in limbo.
Even the threat of striking with no notice carries a fair amount of weight due to the potential implications. The most obvious risks are financial. The threat of a strike may cause some customers to be hesitant about booking with the airline out of fear that their flight would land on a day that the strike was happening, in turn costing the company money. If the strike were to happen without notice, the only choice would be to cancel flights and issue refunds. Because of the union’s strong united front, it would be nearly impossible to replace that many employees without notice. Additionally, if a strike were to take place, it would almost certainly cause the chilling effect on bookings that is possible with simply the threat of a strike. The chilling effect would likely be comprised of people refusing to book with the airline because they want to stand in solidarity with striking workers and those afraid of how a strike would impact their travel.
These potential financial implications come with more than just the possibility of a loss in profits by opening up the airline up to legal liability. United is a publicly traded company, with shareholders that it has a fiduciary responsibility to. It is not very likely that this would become an issue with just the small chilling on flights booked from the threat of a strike. However, if a strike were to happen, it would be an entirely different situation. Large profit losses that were predictable and preventable are likely to be seen by many shareholders as a breach of the fiduciary duty that they are owed by the airline and grounds for suing. To make a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, a party must prove: (1) that a fiduciary duty exists; (2) that the fiduciary duty was breached; and (3) that such breach proximately caused the injury of which the party complains.[7]
Similar to the financial implications, the potential for a snowballing public relations disaster increases with every day that a deal has not been met. While some may think the demands regarding a raise are a little steep, none of the other requests from the flight attendants are even a little outrageous when compared to the risk a company takes on in relation to a strike. That alone could start a PR crisis, which has the potential to get out of control quickly in the case of a strike.
Moreover, these implications have the possibility of extending beyond United to other airlines. Many customers may look at the situation and decide flying is too risky without proof that other airlines are not better situated to avoid a strike. Obviously, there are many situations where flying is the only option for a consumer, but there is an array of situations where driving, taking a bus or taking a train are a reasonable alternative. This is especially the case for a person who lacks confidence that other airlines can negotiate with their employees more successfully than United did with its employees.
It seems that United realized the magnitude of the risk that they faced because the union and management finally came to an agreement on a new contract, nine months after the strike was authorized. While they did not get quite everything that they asked for, the flight attendants certainly left the negotiation table as winners with a deal that includes large wage increases, retroactive pay, boarding pay, and layover improvements.[8] However, months later when the flight attendants finally had their say, they voted overwhelmingly to decline the deal that had been struck by union management and the airline.[9] The President of the United chapter of the union explained the vote, stating that the agreement “didn’t go far enough to address the years of sacrifice and hard work to make the airline the success it is today.”[10]Following the vote, the parties will have to return to the negotiating table, in hopes of reaching an agreement that will be approved by the flight attendants.[11]
Comments