WET318 t1_ivf8ogb wrote
Reply to comment by LittleTXBigAZ in U.S. rail union representing 4,900 workers narrowly approves contract by Banemorth
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