LittleTXBigAZ t1_ivf83ek wrote
Reply to comment by shariewayne in U.S. rail union representing 4,900 workers narrowly approves contract by Banemorth
Because laws in America are written to benefit corporations and profits, not the people living in the US. Hell, right now the US Supreme Court is hearing a case that will determine whether or not companies can sue unions and/or individuals for profits lost during a strike.
WirelessBCupSupport t1_ivfex2q wrote
Ah yes. The failings of Capitalism. Didn't some madman have a manifesto about this, and mailed explosives at CEOs and professors? Was right about all of it "except" his methods. Should have left that to the people...
LittleTXBigAZ t1_ivffdyd wrote
So how would you respond to your employer systemically denying you and your coworkers something as simple as no paid time off for illnesses? Please explain WITHOUT using the cop out answer of "get a better job".
WET318 t1_ivgg7sj wrote
I don't understand how that's a cop out answer. If the company is able to hire people that will put up with what you're not willing to put up with, then you're shit out of luck. The market value dictates everything. Look at the current market for employees. It's crazy how expensive employees are right now. But, that's the current market value of basic labor.
LittleTXBigAZ t1_ivgrbhv wrote
It's a cop out answer because there are multiple instances of rural communities across the country that might only have one or two employers they could go to at any given time, and usually also results in a pay cut. If you live in a town whose sole businesses are factory farming and gas stations, how easy do you think it would be to leave a job paying $12/hr at the farm to go work for $7.25 at the gas station? Not to mention a potential loss of benefits that could come along with that. Additionally, those wages are hardly sustainable for a family, leaving no room for savings to pack up and leave town for better employment opportunities. "Just get a better job" is ten times easier said than done.
Edg4rAllanBro t1_iviumdh wrote
Plus them getting a better job means society fucking collapses. Not like you can't get a big mac from mcdonalds, stuff like "coal doesn't make it to power plants" and "food rots because no one's transporting them". A good amount of society is predicated on having these people basically take it on the chin for 3 years.
WET318 t1_ivgvdec wrote
That's a fair point.
Edg4rAllanBro t1_iviuhnx wrote
The unabomber's manifesto wasn't about capitalism, it was about the development of technology. If you're going to invoke it, at the very least read the summary.
WET318 t1_ivf8ogb wrote
I don't see an issue with a company suing a union. If there is a breach of contract between the union and the company by the union, the company should be able to sue.
cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivfa19h wrote
You think companies should be able to sue unions and individuals for profits lost from workers going on strike?
WET318 t1_ivgfa81 wrote
If they breach the contract, yes. Of course.
cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivgn377 wrote
But that's already a thing. A contract is legally binding, so there are already ramifications for breaching contracts.
Should companies be able to sue unions or individuals for loss of profits with no breach of contract by the union?
Because that's what's at stake here in the coming SCOTUS hearing.
[deleted] t1_ivfb6x0 wrote
[removed]
cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivffmtv wrote
The case that the supreme court will hear isn't about breach of contract. It's about profits lost during a strike. Please familiarize yourself with the case first, and then make an opinion because right now you're doing it backwards.
[deleted] t1_ivfuqws wrote
[removed]
cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivg29h4 wrote
>Which is not the question I asked?
>What I asked is if they breech the contract why not.
Your question is seriously irrelevant...
Once a contract is in place, neither party may deviate from its terms without the other party’s consent, absent extraordinary circumstances.
The case that the Supreme Court will hear has nothing to do with this. It will likely make workers' strikes punishable by immense fines, which make unions weaker/pointless.
So, now you know unions are already not allowed to breach contracts except for extreme circumstances.
>Thanks for the condescending attitude and not explaining your thinking.
Do you believe that companies should be able to sue unions and individuals for profits lost from workers going on strike?
[deleted] t1_ivg37dg wrote
[removed]
cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivgk1ps wrote
"I am bleeding, making me the victor." - you
You started with a rhetorical question... that everyone knew the answer to... except you... and one other person.
Somehow... you thought that meant it was a "gotcha" moment...
What do you think the purpose... of a contract is?? It's legally binding. Your question is therefore... irrelevant... rhetorical... and disingenuous.
Stop derailing from the fact that Republicans and the Supreme Court want to destroy unions.
Maybe more caffeine👊
[deleted] t1_ivgkjhr wrote
[removed]
cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivgoxyj wrote
Sounds like you do... go ahead, I won't interrupt.
[deleted] t1_ivgp8tf wrote
[removed]
cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivgqctz wrote
Very interesting opinion about Bruen... please elaborate.
Malvania t1_ivfc2j9 wrote
Typically (and I'm not sure if that's the situation here), the contract expires and then the union goes on strike.
LittleTXBigAZ t1_ivf98z9 wrote
But if the union's breach of contract occurs because the company breaches their side of the contract, or fails to negotiate on a new contract in good faith, is it still okay to sue?
WET318 t1_ivgfh8d wrote
I mean you can still sue. The company would just lose the lawsuit in this case.
nsanity27 t1_ivfwqpv wrote
Unions don’t strike over nothing. There’s always some violation of safety or labor regulations which constitutes a breach of contract on the employer side of things. Alternatively, they could fail to reach an agreement on a new contract and thus there is no existing contract that is breached. Either way, to say that the laws need to be favored more heavily on the management side of things is a very hot take
MacDerfus t1_ivgc8e8 wrote
There is no contract to breach in a strike
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments