4 ms·
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
by rgbrenner 10y ago
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 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.
- vkou 10y agoSo, 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.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jandrese 10y agoIMHO, 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.
- rgbrenner 10y agoRight 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?
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago>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.
- serge2k 10y agobecause 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.
- bertiewhykovich 10y agoAs Matt Bruenig has noted, the BATNA for many workers is dire poverty. Quitting isn't that easy.
- quickben 10y ago"stalling food and medical supplies" That's what the employer knowingly brought into risk when they decided to run understaffed to increase profits.
- Pyxl101 10y agoThat'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.
- tehwebguy 10y agoThere 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.