cheepcheepimasheep
cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivgqctz wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in U.S. rail union representing 4,900 workers narrowly approves contract by Banemorth
Very interesting opinion about Bruen... please elaborate.
cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivgoxyj wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in U.S. rail union representing 4,900 workers narrowly approves contract by Banemorth
Sounds like you do... go ahead, I won't interrupt.
cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivgn377 wrote
Reply to comment by WET318 in U.S. rail union representing 4,900 workers narrowly approves contract by Banemorth
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.
cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivgk1ps wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in U.S. rail union representing 4,900 workers narrowly approves contract by Banemorth
"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 caffeineđź‘Š
cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivg29h4 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in U.S. rail union representing 4,900 workers narrowly approves contract by Banemorth
>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?
cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivffmtv wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in U.S. rail union representing 4,900 workers narrowly approves contract by Banemorth
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.
cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivfa19h wrote
Reply to comment by WET318 in U.S. rail union representing 4,900 workers narrowly approves contract by Banemorth
You think companies should be able to sue unions and individuals for profits lost from workers going on strike?
cheepcheepimasheep t1_j24m89g wrote
Reply to comment by World_Navel in FTX diverted $200 million of customer money for two venture deals that caught the SEC’s attention by cloud_coder
On top of that, the break-even for every put on $DAVE is negative dollars. As in, you won't break even on a put unless the share price is < 0 dollars. Which is impossible. Don't buy puts.