4 ms·
sorry. i'm trying to be eloquent here. the gov or court was never a part of ATC union negotiation, until they decided that a legal(explicitly legal, defined, u
by altmind 5y ago
sorry. i'm trying to be eloquent here.
the gov or court was never a part of ATC union negotiation, until they decided that a legal(explicitly legal, defined, upheld in courts) strike was illegal.
what they did to a union who can protest the decision? they formally decertified it.
thats wrong in so many directions, not only in legal system favoring one side, not having a council between the parties, but also ill-defined sharp response, as well as showing that gov dont need any base to dissolve(formally - discertify) any union organization? and all this without formal involvement of the POTUS?
i thought i understood the values and boundaries of local legal system. turns out i'm lost.
- fargle 5y ago> the gov or court was never a part of ATC union negotiation the gov was the other party > explicitly legal, defined, upheld in courts no it wasn't - not be a long shot. this was why it was declared illegal. ATC controllers are legally NOT allowed to strike. > gov dont need any base to dissolve(formally - discertify) any union organization? an illegal strike is more than a basis, it's a guarantee.