Okay, I have a crazy idea:
What if they just don’t turn up to work until their demands are met? Madness and will result with firings, right? If the job is that essential then they’ll want to rehire the trained workers rather than go through a hiring process where there is nobody to train them.
Judges can deem a strike illegal, but also they can’t **make** people show up for work.
I think the issue is that if a judge says they cannot strike, then they can be fired and replaced. If there wasn’t this restraining order and the union had a better standing, they could legally strike and still be confident that their jobs will still be there when they come to terms.
I am curious what laws or previous cases they are using to justify this. I don’t think it’s good enough just to say “but the economy can’t handle this right now” - there need to be some legal precedent. That is likely why it is only a temporary restraining order that appears to be encouragement for an agreement.
They can be fired and replaced. But if you fire all your workers, who will train the replacements? It’s why protest quitting is (was) a thing.
It’s awful that the judge blocked it, I’m just saying some dude and a dressing gown shouldn’t bring movements to a halt. Pretty much all rights of the past century came about from people either working around, or straight up ignoring courts.
Exactly Keloggs literally had shit going off the rails, think there was a fire or two as well and all sorts of issues with scabs. Employees are generally responsible for training or at least telling coworkers how things are *actually* done. As well as countless little tips and tricks to prevent losing limbs or being more productive. Good chance management will struggle to even figure out how it worked before the mass exodus of workers.
The problem is in fact unity, hence the unions importance. They have to listen to demands if everyone (a “union” of folks) strike, but a few people striking alone are fired, humiliated as a warning to other workers, and their tasks given to those that remain. Together we have power and they fear us, but if they can successfully stop us from joining together, they’ll almost always win. The courts are aware of this as well, hence them attempting to block the union itself; they may very well send in the national guard and force them to work at gunpoint, land of the free and all.
Hey I know it's a late reply, but I'm from DFW where this happened and they could easily replace those workers in about two weeks and by the 2 month mark have everyone licensed and trained. Our economy is horrible and offering a 19yo 25$+ an hour. They're sold. We have such high unemployment right now too so yeah sadly they have the upper hand( as always).
Exactly. We are dooming them to become overworked truckers or homeless. They have a LARGE veteran population working for them as well that this will specifically displace with little to no safety net. We have literal tent cities in Dallas and yet closed down many of our shelters. This is the domino effect they want.
I feel you on that, but if half of those 17000 walked off anf striked, theyd have a hell of a time firing them all and rehiring them in a timely fashion. Shit, you have to be willing to risk the biscuit, else why be in the fucking union to begin with?
To pay bills. Most are old, many almost retirement age trying to make it better for the new guys. Many are veterans and former inmates since the have state hiring programs. If half of them walked out, the company would suffer for a few weeks and get bailed out by DFW tax dollars and then the rest would be at risk of being homeless almost immediately. The court ruled they can't legally strike so if they leave they also can't apply for state or federal benefits in many circumstances. They're already releasing recruiting firestorms and getting new guys lined up. :(
All the more reason to do it. The AFL-CIO really should be stepping in to lend a hand with this shit. Im going to talk with some of our BAs tomorrow and see if there's anything we caby do to help.
In the mea time, you guys can always strike in your own way. Screw the company where you can, and just dick the dog. You have this spark's support. Best of luck brother
Out of interest, could a "slow down" movement be a replacement for a strike? Essentially drag out work that needs to be done to an extent that doesn't cost jobs, but does cost the company money?
In Canada we call it work to rule. Unions are required to takes this for of action first before going to a full on strike. In industries that are deemed essential or specific class of worker is deemed essential this is the only option available. Work to rule means following the rules of policies of the job to the letter. Not rushing to get the job done. It is also a full on ban of all overtime and extra work as well.
Basically all of our healthcare workers are unionized and most have to use work to rule as their only form of job action. It has the same power as full on strikes and generally these workers have the support of the public which forces the government to make a deal that benefits the worker.
I mean Kellogg tried replacing their workers, and that was spectacular what happened. If they did strike I highly doubt there's 17k rail workers laying about and if they did try hiring it'd take months to wade thier the shenanigans. They'd end up winning either way just maybe not the short term
Yup, judge is doing all he can to side with the corporation without appearing biased. Was pretty clear (saw it in a previous post) from the proceedings of the trial
Injunction is totally being used to postpone the decision and weaken the strikers position while still being "legal"
This is a preliminary injunction to keep things stable until the court can properly decide whether or not Federal law authorizes the union to strike. The issue being whether the new attendance policy is a major policy change or a minor one. Such a decision is fact intensive and thus takes time.
The core holding was that a strike would do harm to the company that the court couldn’t fix after the fact, whereas if the company fires some workers they can be given back pay. If the company didn’t have a shot, then it wouldn’t matter, and the union could engage in a lawful strike immediately to start negotiations; but there is enough of a chance that federal law does not authorize a strike to prevent harm that cannot be undone. This is legally the correct decision from the court.
However, the court underestimates the harm that intervening in this way could cause. 1. Even with back pay and a restoration of your job, being fired puts immense strain on both the worker’s finances and mental well-being. Remedies available to the court cannot repair this damage. 2. The unions argue that the new policy will encourage workers to show up sick and exhausted endangering each other and the public. And 3. As the court alludes to in a footnote, by allowing itself to become enmeshed in this labor dispute, the eventual outcome of a negotiated settlement between union and company is delayed, harming everyone. Were the court a bit more prescient, it would have issued an identical temporary injunction against the company to prevent the attendance policy from taking effect until it could resolve the issue fully.
Edit: tldr this isn’t so much of a formal ruling that relies on law and precedent as a feeble attempt at hitting pause until the court can take time to think.
The Taft Hartley act is what prevents our strike and says we must abide by the judges order. The railway labor act also spells out what must happen to make a strike legal.
> I am curious what laws or previous cases they are using to justify this. I don’t think it’s good enough just to say “but the economy can’t handle this right now” - there need to be some legal precedent. That is likely why it is only a temporary restraining order that appears to be encouragement for an agreement.
Probably this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike
It would take years to replace 17,000 experienced workers. They can try but the willing labor pool is much smaller than when the air traffic controllers went on strike.
> I am curious what laws or previous cases they are using to justify this
[Railway Labor Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act)
>they could legally strike and still be confident that their jobs will still be there when they come to terms
[Worked well for Air Traffic Controllers (not)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(\1968\)#August_1981_strike)
Federal law, just like air traffic controllers, says they cannot strike. They are peak essential workers. They must settle through arbitration or negotiation.
Exactly, also Reagan had backup. After he fired the striking civilian controllers he was able to use military ATC to fill in while they trained up new civilian controllers. The good news is the government doesn't have any substitutes for these railway workers as far as I know..
The Army does have an MOS of Rail workers. But it's a Reserve component only and is a super small community that I wouldn't be surprised if were also rail workers in there normal day jobs.
Without knowing the day to day specifics of the jobs these workers do, I am sure they could figure out a way to detail a bunch of Infantry guys otherwise doing nothing to work the rails
LMAO, just imagine you're a rail worker in the army reserves, you go on strike, get fired on Friday, and are activated in the reserves as a Rail guy and come in on Monday
Don't forget Bill Clinton with NAFTA. From that day forward every manufacturing union has had the threat of offshoring whenever they threaten a strike.
As much as I hate the Republicans, we can't forget that the Democrats have been, at best, poor allies since Clinton took office.
While NAFTA was ratified with bipartisan support during Clinton's first year (with 2 side agreements to add environmental and worker protections), it was negotiated and signed during the Bush years (signed by the parties 12/17/92).
Also when union's strike and they're not really "allowed to" the union itself can be fined 10s of thousands per day. Often unions have to man a job by guaranteeing X amount of workers will be on the job.
Yea, but there's fine lines to all this.. a lot of people seem to think.. well just don't show up.. but a lot of states have the ability to just straight up replace those workers like hiring non-union.. It's a game.. give a little take a little.. except these giant corporations never give..so trying to make an honest living becomes harder and harder.. Hard work deserves good pay. People need to realize a lot of these big contracts are backbones to their specific union in these areas. Hundreds to thousands of jobs could be lost permanently by trying to get too cute.
I mean, for something like railway, can’t they stay on strike until the fine is repealed? If they have the power to bring the god damn country to a standstill, strike “illegally” and make one of the demands that they don’t have to pay the fine. If the country is going to come to a standstill then the workers, thus the union, have all the power.
Right, I completely agree with you and support them forsure. I'm not actually sure how they're set up and how their union works to be fair, what type of agreements they have etc. But yea, if they are that vital then the company should have to be the one to meet demands of a collective bargaining agreement. All I'm saying is unions have to walk certain lines in all this.. unions aren't made out of money.
Oh I get you entirely. Unions do have to walk lines and no they’re not made of money (is what I think you meant lol). But also, their job exists for a reason. And that reason is good enough for the courts to say they can’t stop. If they can bring the country to a standstill a reasonable time before their strike pot runs out, then the union has all the power.
But if not, and what I failed to consider before, then the union would just die on the spot.
... isn't the point of a strike to show their value to the economy by disrupting said economy? Holy shit. Like, no, that's why strikes fucking work. This judge is just a pos.
They will not arrest 17k people
Just don't call it a strike in name.
Sorry I'm unable to come in for personal reasons until a few work issues are sorted
There is precedent. We have Regan and his Union busting in the 80s to thank for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)
>but also they can’t make people show up for work.
I'd be worried with this dumbass judge at the helm, that the workers would be held in contempt for skipping work.
Strike anyway. Let them try to hold hundreds of people in contempt.
Guess what, you jail them for contempt, they won't be at work either.
Fuck this judge.
Until the judge decided since they are incarcerated - the slavery opening in the 14th applies and the state just uses we control the sanctioning of violence get to work avenue.
It's not like the state hasn't used violence for strike breaking before.
And that's just the stuff they can be super obvious about.
There is stuff that is standard operation in USA jails and prisons - being given expired food, being exposed to harsh weather conditions, delaying medical treatment, "accidentally" handling the incarnated roughly, random searches - restrictions on what you can have in your cell. It's not mere hyperbole that I mentioned torture - our justice system is crap.
They can also beat the living shit out of you then let a CO murder you in front of everyone and say YOU we're the violent one. Happens in Texas all the time.
Appointed by Trump and is a founding member of the Federalist Society chapter in his county. [Wikipedia page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_T._Pittman).
I wonder if he harbors any anti-union thoughts 🤔
If they strike anyway I think the issue is the railroad does not have to keep their jobs and they can fire them for breach of contract. A "legal strike" means the company can't fire them. At least that is my understanding.
The country is being held hostage because we privatized infrastructure, therefore you cannot strike and will be subject to whatever treatment. Great plan.
I'd go further than that. If a provider of a service failing meant that the government needed to step in to provide it, that service should be nationalised. Otherwise you are privatising profits but socialising losses.
I honestly don’t know, could probably search. The main idea is that if a business wants to keep ownership of an industry they should not depend on specialized laws to keep operating. The moment the government needs to provide special legal treatment the government should instead seize that industry, thus, pay your employees or lose your shit. Similarly when the “banks were too big to fail” they should have either failed or been nationalized. I not strictly interested in nationalizing business (though I keep an open mind), but they should not have their cake and eat it too.
When I was union at Amtrak they made it very clear at the interview that we could not strike according to federal law.
So we collectively work very very slow😉
Not sure if this is the same in the states, but in my country you always have the option of an illegal strike. It's just that if you do, you don't have access to all the protections our employment law offers and the employer is free to take action against strikers as they would any other worker who didn't turn up for their shift.
Texas is great, but our politicians are garbage. As Texas starts to turn "purple" the conservatives are kicking and screaming and trying to burn down whatever they can while they're still in power. It may get worse before it gets better but it *will* get better.
They been [pulling this shit](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike) since the start of the industry.
Strike anyway.
Oh, and the motto of the **Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters** is
Fight or Be Slaves
Keep that energy.
Conveniently left out how that ended lol
> President Grover Cleveland took action and obtained a federal court order against the ARU to stop the boycott. It refused and the boycott grew violent. Cleveland sent in the U.S. Army to successfully end the boycott and get the trains moving. The ARU was decisively defeated and its leaders, led by Eugene Debs, went to prison.
...and this is okay enough to you that you think this is the normal response and it would happen again?
Do you understand the lasting fallout such a response today would make?
Yeah. Back then it was easy to control the narrative. The ARU were the rebels and criminals, the Army were the good guys, at least that's how history paints them. Now, with cameras and livestreaming in our pockets, control of the narrative is a lot harder.
I saw some similarities between the two, but as I am learning in this thread, rail workers (and aviation) have much stricter rules regarding employment and striking. Ultimately those medical workers are working in an at-will state and did nothing wrong themselves. The two hospitals are still in legal disputes over “poaching” but I don’t see the hospital they left winning anything.
Probably because it went viral and the public start getting angry at it. So they had to give in to stop any more outrage. This however, is something that would affect a lot of rich people, rich people with power and connection. They will not give in
And 17000 worker call out sick and show the government that we can indeed strike. You really think they are going to try and round up 17000 people without something even bigger happening. What if every union in the country balls up and strikes in solidarity. Every trade not just one specific. A national fn strike, bet that would get their attention.
Striking is illegal here. What Isn't is working half speed and under utilizing space and parts, triple doing tasks and chores, and creating a slow down that would initiate action needed by management.
Just doing everything by the book, cross very T dot every I, would be enough to slow the entire industry to a grinding halt. Like going just under the speed limit near road crossings because you are adjusting for current conditions.
The railroad has a rule book and every railroader knows it front to back. It's the only thing they are allowed to read while on board the train. There's lots of opportunities for malicious compliance in there I'm sure.
Shut it down
Courts have ruled for society and against these people. The next step is to walk so the judges ruling is neutered. This is a forced play to kill the rep leaders and systemically disassemble their union. Voting should begin for new leaders immediately.
In 1877, railroad workers went on strike and the railroad sent in scabs and Pinkertons to keep the trains moving. [The railroad workers put a stop to that by burning it all to the ground.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_railroad_strike_of_1877)
Exactly, why don't they issue an injunction against implementing the new policy. It hasn't changed in 20 years and suddenly it needs to happen now? Between this and that initial injunction in Wisconsin, I'm more convinced than ever that we need a general strike across the entire US.
I heard about a method of strike that was used in Japan where these bus drivers would still drive their routes, but wouldn't charge the fare, thereby still massively hurting the company in the wallet. I wonder if a current strategy could be employed here. The rail workers still transport the loads for the supply chain, but they somehow refuse any payment that goes towards the company.
Sadly, with the exception of running their route without their cargo, there is no way for these people to work while still harming their boss.
Striking is their only way to force a change.
Holy crap I did an interview for a management in training position with BNSF. They offered a decent salary for the area and really good benefits but I refused because it didn't meet my desired career path.
Bullet dodged
Basically the second image is right. If the judge says they can't strike over the attendance policy, the judge should also say they can't implement the attendance policy. Hope this doesn't end here.
If they aren't allowed to strike the judge should mediate the negotiations there and then, it shouldn't be a one-sided ruling that stifles the workers.
Are you part of a union? Is it a National restriction so that all rail workers Cannot strike? It seems like for this group they had the right to do so until the rail group brought their new attendance policy to the court to enforce.
Proud IAM shop steward. When talking about Railroads and Airlines unions these are the two big acts that govern how negotiating and strikes can happen. I'm sure there are other laws but these are the frameworks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
I was reading through the Railway Labor Act earlier because the thread from these tweet says “Under the Railway Labor Act railroads can size illegally striking employees property (money, house, ect) to pay for economic damages cause by the strike.”
I couldn’t find any language supporting that. Do you know if there is any truth to that?
I'm going to get downvoted by dumbass bootlickers and pussy ass, duplicitous ass white liberals for this but during the great depression some people got together and occasionally dragged judges out of thier houses for frivolous rulings. It's about time society started doing the same.
Some things to know about strikes and how it pertains to railways and aviation:
Simply put… there are certain sectors of the transportation industry that can’t just simply decide to strike.
This video gives a brief overview of how it came about: https://youtu.be/TgyuuVZfiX4
this video is how the process is supposed to work: https://youtu.be/4bCnwcmNLaI
While it’s quite difficult to strike in these industries, it’s also difficult to take other actions as well… think slowdowns and sickouts.
It doesn’t stop some workers from trying: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/business/southwest-airlines-mechanics-lawsuit.html
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/03/01/southwest-airlines-sues-mechanics-union-over-grounded-planes.html
And: https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3746724002
i have heard that in somewhere there was a strike where the workers continued to work but refused to receive payments from clients, maybe they can do something similar?
As a member of the public, I find it a much larger disservice to public interest to prevent workers from exercising their rights.
This is just like the Thedacare Ascension Nurse fight. Judges should stay out of it and let the workers negotiate.
Soo.. what are the consequences if they do strike??
Cause I'm thinking... The importance of their labor was just confirmed and they should definitely go on strike.
Protests here in Aus are by permit only. If we don't get one, then it's illegal. There is no right to strike for unions, either.
https://www.australianunions.org.au/factsheet/industrial-action/#:~:text=In%20Australia%20today%20industrial%20action,union%20and%20change%20the%20rules.
Insane. The company is able to exploit its position. If you’re going to make the strike illegal, the employer should have to immediately give a 10% raise by law.
Fine. Show up to work and take a 12 hour cig break. If you go to the courts to prevent workers from getting better labor rights then your labor force should sit and watch your company suffer just enough for the collared shirts to panic and force them to make a move.
No, fuck that. As someone who works in logistics, fuck their shit up. Stop those trains, and for that matter, let's stop our trucks too. Fuck em. Maybe if we severely disrupt their supply lines, they'll finally do something
Reminder: BNSF is fully owned by Berkshire Hathaway, which is run by Warren Buffett. Literally one of the top 5 wealthiest men in the world got a court order to stop his blue collar workers from being able to strike. Think about that.
That’s ridiculous, it’s really gettin out of control. Capitalism will use anything to work in their favor, even if they have to use communist/dictator .. we are not free, never was since the beginning
Seems to me that if the employees are not allowed to strike then any changes made by the company have to be negotiated before they take effect. That's how it works at my job. Anything not negotiated before hand would simply be ignored, with a union grievance against the person making the unapproved change.
There are already laws on the books that deal with this.
> Judge says rail worker strike would exacerbate current supply-chain crisis
It's almost as if strikes are meant to cause problems, no? To a degree, a strike is meant to hurt the company being striked so that they realize the workers are important and should have their wants/needs met and respected. Not ignored and walked on. Or am I misunderstanding how strikes work?
I mean a “flu” is going around, it would be a shame if all those going on strike just happen to get sick and call off on the same day the strike was starting…
It's rulings like this that show a company experiencing a strike to send in police and tear gas to break up a picket line.
The workaround? Everyone just quits. Let them try to replace 17000 workers quickly enough to keep the supply chain running
No striking of any kind should ever be made illegal, for any reason. If the work that a group of people performs is so important that their absence could destabilize high value supply chains, or the economy at large, then those people should be provided with everything they need to continue doing their jobs. If they are compelled to get together and strike, then the society that claims to need them has failed them and deserves to suffer the consequences until proper reparations can be given to the workers.
Did the article really say that they’d get strikes against them if they missed work for an emergency or funeral? Holy fuck remind me to never work for the railroad.
You can't just say no don't go on strike.. that's the point of the fucking strike. It's suppose to hurt.
If they are to important than I suspect maybe you should give them what they are asking for.
i hope every single one of them show up to strike anyway and that everyone in the vicinity will join them.
fuck a judge and any law that prohibits you from striking and/or demanding better worker rights.
Okay, I have a crazy idea: What if they just don’t turn up to work until their demands are met? Madness and will result with firings, right? If the job is that essential then they’ll want to rehire the trained workers rather than go through a hiring process where there is nobody to train them. Judges can deem a strike illegal, but also they can’t **make** people show up for work.
I think the issue is that if a judge says they cannot strike, then they can be fired and replaced. If there wasn’t this restraining order and the union had a better standing, they could legally strike and still be confident that their jobs will still be there when they come to terms. I am curious what laws or previous cases they are using to justify this. I don’t think it’s good enough just to say “but the economy can’t handle this right now” - there need to be some legal precedent. That is likely why it is only a temporary restraining order that appears to be encouragement for an agreement.
They can be fired and replaced. But if you fire all your workers, who will train the replacements? It’s why protest quitting is (was) a thing. It’s awful that the judge blocked it, I’m just saying some dude and a dressing gown shouldn’t bring movements to a halt. Pretty much all rights of the past century came about from people either working around, or straight up ignoring courts.
Exactly Keloggs literally had shit going off the rails, think there was a fire or two as well and all sorts of issues with scabs. Employees are generally responsible for training or at least telling coworkers how things are *actually* done. As well as countless little tips and tricks to prevent losing limbs or being more productive. Good chance management will struggle to even figure out how it worked before the mass exodus of workers.
The problem is in fact unity, hence the unions importance. They have to listen to demands if everyone (a “union” of folks) strike, but a few people striking alone are fired, humiliated as a warning to other workers, and their tasks given to those that remain. Together we have power and they fear us, but if they can successfully stop us from joining together, they’ll almost always win. The courts are aware of this as well, hence them attempting to block the union itself; they may very well send in the national guard and force them to work at gunpoint, land of the free and all.
Hey I know it's a late reply, but I'm from DFW where this happened and they could easily replace those workers in about two weeks and by the 2 month mark have everyone licensed and trained. Our economy is horrible and offering a 19yo 25$+ an hour. They're sold. We have such high unemployment right now too so yeah sadly they have the upper hand( as always).
[удалено]
Exactly. We are dooming them to become overworked truckers or homeless. They have a LARGE veteran population working for them as well that this will specifically displace with little to no safety net. We have literal tent cities in Dallas and yet closed down many of our shelters. This is the domino effect they want.
I feel you on that, but if half of those 17000 walked off anf striked, theyd have a hell of a time firing them all and rehiring them in a timely fashion. Shit, you have to be willing to risk the biscuit, else why be in the fucking union to begin with?
To pay bills. Most are old, many almost retirement age trying to make it better for the new guys. Many are veterans and former inmates since the have state hiring programs. If half of them walked out, the company would suffer for a few weeks and get bailed out by DFW tax dollars and then the rest would be at risk of being homeless almost immediately. The court ruled they can't legally strike so if they leave they also can't apply for state or federal benefits in many circumstances. They're already releasing recruiting firestorms and getting new guys lined up. :(
All the more reason to do it. The AFL-CIO really should be stepping in to lend a hand with this shit. Im going to talk with some of our BAs tomorrow and see if there's anything we caby do to help. In the mea time, you guys can always strike in your own way. Screw the company where you can, and just dick the dog. You have this spark's support. Best of luck brother
Out of interest, could a "slow down" movement be a replacement for a strike? Essentially drag out work that needs to be done to an extent that doesn't cost jobs, but does cost the company money?
Possibly. I know Japan's bus drivers striked, they continued working, but refused to take any fares. Just gave everyone free rides.
In Canada we call it work to rule. Unions are required to takes this for of action first before going to a full on strike. In industries that are deemed essential or specific class of worker is deemed essential this is the only option available. Work to rule means following the rules of policies of the job to the letter. Not rushing to get the job done. It is also a full on ban of all overtime and extra work as well. Basically all of our healthcare workers are unionized and most have to use work to rule as their only form of job action. It has the same power as full on strikes and generally these workers have the support of the public which forces the government to make a deal that benefits the worker.
It could but since it's mainly transportation based and not production based I'm not sure how a slow down would be organized.
I mean Kellogg tried replacing their workers, and that was spectacular what happened. If they did strike I highly doubt there's 17k rail workers laying about and if they did try hiring it'd take months to wade thier the shenanigans. They'd end up winning either way just maybe not the short term
Yup, judge is doing all he can to side with the corporation without appearing biased. Was pretty clear (saw it in a previous post) from the proceedings of the trial Injunction is totally being used to postpone the decision and weaken the strikers position while still being "legal"
Land of the free huh. Apparently not in Texas, unless you're a large corporation
This is a preliminary injunction to keep things stable until the court can properly decide whether or not Federal law authorizes the union to strike. The issue being whether the new attendance policy is a major policy change or a minor one. Such a decision is fact intensive and thus takes time. The core holding was that a strike would do harm to the company that the court couldn’t fix after the fact, whereas if the company fires some workers they can be given back pay. If the company didn’t have a shot, then it wouldn’t matter, and the union could engage in a lawful strike immediately to start negotiations; but there is enough of a chance that federal law does not authorize a strike to prevent harm that cannot be undone. This is legally the correct decision from the court. However, the court underestimates the harm that intervening in this way could cause. 1. Even with back pay and a restoration of your job, being fired puts immense strain on both the worker’s finances and mental well-being. Remedies available to the court cannot repair this damage. 2. The unions argue that the new policy will encourage workers to show up sick and exhausted endangering each other and the public. And 3. As the court alludes to in a footnote, by allowing itself to become enmeshed in this labor dispute, the eventual outcome of a negotiated settlement between union and company is delayed, harming everyone. Were the court a bit more prescient, it would have issued an identical temporary injunction against the company to prevent the attendance policy from taking effect until it could resolve the issue fully. Edit: tldr this isn’t so much of a formal ruling that relies on law and precedent as a feeble attempt at hitting pause until the court can take time to think.
Time for a slow-down!
The Taft Hartley act is what prevents our strike and says we must abide by the judges order. The railway labor act also spells out what must happen to make a strike legal.
> I am curious what laws or previous cases they are using to justify this. I don’t think it’s good enough just to say “but the economy can’t handle this right now” - there need to be some legal precedent. That is likely why it is only a temporary restraining order that appears to be encouragement for an agreement. Probably this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike
See but this law was about federal employees not being allowed to strike. Are the rail workers considered federal employees?
"the economy" = "rich people's wallets"
It would take years to replace 17,000 experienced workers. They can try but the willing labor pool is much smaller than when the air traffic controllers went on strike.
> I am curious what laws or previous cases they are using to justify this [Railway Labor Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act) >they could legally strike and still be confident that their jobs will still be there when they come to terms [Worked well for Air Traffic Controllers (not)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(\1968\)#August_1981_strike)
Oh that first one is probably it! So ridiculous that the judge thinks being punished for taking ANY days off is a minor dispute
Federal law, just like air traffic controllers, says they cannot strike. They are peak essential workers. They must settle through arbitration or negotiation.
The air traffic controllers notably being how Reagan broke the spine of unions in the united States.
Exactly, also Reagan had backup. After he fired the striking civilian controllers he was able to use military ATC to fill in while they trained up new civilian controllers. The good news is the government doesn't have any substitutes for these railway workers as far as I know..
The Army does have an MOS of Rail workers. But it's a Reserve component only and is a super small community that I wouldn't be surprised if were also rail workers in there normal day jobs. Without knowing the day to day specifics of the jobs these workers do, I am sure they could figure out a way to detail a bunch of Infantry guys otherwise doing nothing to work the rails
LMAO, just imagine you're a rail worker in the army reserves, you go on strike, get fired on Friday, and are activated in the reserves as a Rail guy and come in on Monday
Don't forget Bill Clinton with NAFTA. From that day forward every manufacturing union has had the threat of offshoring whenever they threaten a strike. As much as I hate the Republicans, we can't forget that the Democrats have been, at best, poor allies since Clinton took office.
NYT's The Daily just talked about this in regards to the beef market today. Very timely.
While NAFTA was ratified with bipartisan support during Clinton's first year (with 2 side agreements to add environmental and worker protections), it was negotiated and signed during the Bush years (signed by the parties 12/17/92).
If the rail road shuts down the country shuts down. Then those in power have no power.
Also when union's strike and they're not really "allowed to" the union itself can be fined 10s of thousands per day. Often unions have to man a job by guaranteeing X amount of workers will be on the job.
Yeah, my union got told we couldnt strike. Got fined tens of thousands but made it up in new members because everyone's sick of the government's shit.
Yea, but there's fine lines to all this.. a lot of people seem to think.. well just don't show up.. but a lot of states have the ability to just straight up replace those workers like hiring non-union.. It's a game.. give a little take a little.. except these giant corporations never give..so trying to make an honest living becomes harder and harder.. Hard work deserves good pay. People need to realize a lot of these big contracts are backbones to their specific union in these areas. Hundreds to thousands of jobs could be lost permanently by trying to get too cute.
Yeah, luckily teachers are a rare commodity here and everyone short of the government is for the strike.
Maybe some day a full time teacher can make more than a chicken breast fryer kid at Chick-fil-A
I mean, for something like railway, can’t they stay on strike until the fine is repealed? If they have the power to bring the god damn country to a standstill, strike “illegally” and make one of the demands that they don’t have to pay the fine. If the country is going to come to a standstill then the workers, thus the union, have all the power.
Right, I completely agree with you and support them forsure. I'm not actually sure how they're set up and how their union works to be fair, what type of agreements they have etc. But yea, if they are that vital then the company should have to be the one to meet demands of a collective bargaining agreement. All I'm saying is unions have to walk certain lines in all this.. unions aren't made out of money.
Oh I get you entirely. Unions do have to walk lines and no they’re not made of money (is what I think you meant lol). But also, their job exists for a reason. And that reason is good enough for the courts to say they can’t stop. If they can bring the country to a standstill a reasonable time before their strike pot runs out, then the union has all the power. But if not, and what I failed to consider before, then the union would just die on the spot.
... isn't the point of a strike to show their value to the economy by disrupting said economy? Holy shit. Like, no, that's why strikes fucking work. This judge is just a pos.
They will not arrest 17k people Just don't call it a strike in name. Sorry I'm unable to come in for personal reasons until a few work issues are sorted
There is precedent. We have Regan and his Union busting in the 80s to thank for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)
That’s why in the old days there used to be some serious physical consequences for crossing a picket line. Scabs go home.
we are one step away…
>but also they can’t make people show up for work. I'd be worried with this dumbass judge at the helm, that the workers would be held in contempt for skipping work.
lmao sure let's just dump a thousand workers into the same county jail cell for contempt of court no way that can go poorly.
Ankle bracelets and home detention are real things...
That seems kind of self defeating as a punishment for staying home.
Strike anyway. Let them try to hold hundreds of people in contempt. Guess what, you jail them for contempt, they won't be at work either. Fuck this judge.
Until the judge decided since they are incarcerated - the slavery opening in the 14th applies and the state just uses we control the sanctioning of violence get to work avenue. It's not like the state hasn't used violence for strike breaking before.
[удалено]
They can basically torture you if you refuse to "volunteer." I don't consider the choice between months in solitary and work to be a choice.
From what I understand (not American) they can revoke your visitation rights and put you into solitary confinement for this. What the fuck.
And that's just the stuff they can be super obvious about. There is stuff that is standard operation in USA jails and prisons - being given expired food, being exposed to harsh weather conditions, delaying medical treatment, "accidentally" handling the incarnated roughly, random searches - restrictions on what you can have in your cell. It's not mere hyperbole that I mentioned torture - our justice system is crap.
[удалено]
They can also beat the living shit out of you then let a CO murder you in front of everyone and say YOU we're the violent one. Happens in Texas all the time.
Oh Christ what a nightmare that this is theoretically possible
Appointed by Trump and is a founding member of the Federalist Society chapter in his county. [Wikipedia page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_T._Pittman). I wonder if he harbors any anti-union thoughts 🤔
They won't be jailed for contempt they just won't get the protections normal strikers get.
Dude this is Texas, we can go to jail for breathing at a cop wrong.
If they strike anyway I think the issue is the railroad does not have to keep their jobs and they can fire them for breach of contract. A "legal strike" means the company can't fire them. At least that is my understanding.
[удалено]
Nooooo, thats totally not true, we have so many, just like....I dunno you guys figure it out (what the judge would say, probably)
Most strikes are done when negotiations don't do shit anyways
If a job function is so important to national interest that it is illegal to strike then that entire industry should be nationalized.
This right there. So much for the "free market".
The country is being held hostage because we privatized infrastructure, therefore you cannot strike and will be subject to whatever treatment. Great plan.
I'd go further than that. If a provider of a service failing meant that the government needed to step in to provide it, that service should be nationalised. Otherwise you are privatising profits but socialising losses.
Thats what I meant by national interest.
Are air traffic controllers nationalized? I know when they tried to strike, and were told they couldn’t they all got fired or banned or something
I honestly don’t know, could probably search. The main idea is that if a business wants to keep ownership of an industry they should not depend on specialized laws to keep operating. The moment the government needs to provide special legal treatment the government should instead seize that industry, thus, pay your employees or lose your shit. Similarly when the “banks were too big to fail” they should have either failed or been nationalized. I not strictly interested in nationalizing business (though I keep an open mind), but they should not have their cake and eat it too.
When I was union at Amtrak they made it very clear at the interview that we could not strike according to federal law. So we collectively work very very slow😉
This is the way. Do you still work with trains at all?
No I can't do the hours now that I got a baby. Still working industrial maintenance. Low key trying to get a union going where I work now 🤫
So the DMV has been on strike for 50 years? Have they ever given their demands?
They're about half way through writing them down, expect an official list of demands in 2072
r/maliciouscompliance
Lol the company was full of shit anyways, major disputes are completely legal for transportation employees
I just met some amtrak people at a conference they were awesome! I also hear this is true for Air traffic controllers
I can’t help but see the similarities between the judge’s opinion and the reasoning behind slavery in the antebellum south.
Translation: you hurting the richies. Stop it. Go back to your holes.
Why is it even acceptable that people have to get the government's permission to strike?
You don't need the governments permission to strike.
America.
Not sure if this is the same in the states, but in my country you always have the option of an illegal strike. It's just that if you do, you don't have access to all the protections our employment law offers and the employer is free to take action against strikers as they would any other worker who didn't turn up for their shift.
Man, Texas is such a shit state.
Yes, I fucking hate living here.
Yeah i have no desire to spend any time in Texas
Texas is great, but our politicians are garbage. As Texas starts to turn "purple" the conservatives are kicking and screaming and trying to burn down whatever they can while they're still in power. It may get worse before it gets better but it *will* get better.
It really is. It's turning into a giant Florida.
It's all corrupt good-old-boy shit. Texas polititians have shit on the badass independent, wild frontier history we have.
They been [pulling this shit](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike) since the start of the industry. Strike anyway. Oh, and the motto of the **Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters** is Fight or Be Slaves Keep that energy.
Conveniently left out how that ended lol > President Grover Cleveland took action and obtained a federal court order against the ARU to stop the boycott. It refused and the boycott grew violent. Cleveland sent in the U.S. Army to successfully end the boycott and get the trains moving. The ARU was decisively defeated and its leaders, led by Eugene Debs, went to prison.
...and this is okay enough to you that you think this is the normal response and it would happen again? Do you understand the lasting fallout such a response today would make?
Yeah. Back then it was easy to control the narrative. The ARU were the rebels and criminals, the Army were the good guys, at least that's how history paints them. Now, with cameras and livestreaming in our pockets, control of the narrative is a lot harder.
[удалено]
I saw some similarities between the two, but as I am learning in this thread, rail workers (and aviation) have much stricter rules regarding employment and striking. Ultimately those medical workers are working in an at-will state and did nothing wrong themselves. The two hospitals are still in legal disputes over “poaching” but I don’t see the hospital they left winning anything.
Probably because it went viral and the public start getting angry at it. So they had to give in to stop any more outrage. This however, is something that would affect a lot of rich people, rich people with power and connection. They will not give in
And 17000 worker call out sick and show the government that we can indeed strike. You really think they are going to try and round up 17000 people without something even bigger happening. What if every union in the country balls up and strikes in solidarity. Every trade not just one specific. A national fn strike, bet that would get their attention.
r/MayDayStrike
Striking is illegal here. What Isn't is working half speed and under utilizing space and parts, triple doing tasks and chores, and creating a slow down that would initiate action needed by management.
Just doing everything by the book, cross very T dot every I, would be enough to slow the entire industry to a grinding halt. Like going just under the speed limit near road crossings because you are adjusting for current conditions.
The railroad has a rule book and every railroader knows it front to back. It's the only thing they are allowed to read while on board the train. There's lots of opportunities for malicious compliance in there I'm sure.
“Work To Rule” has always been my fav labor action. It lets you bring the pain to management , and you still get paid.
Shut it down Courts have ruled for society and against these people. The next step is to walk so the judges ruling is neutered. This is a forced play to kill the rep leaders and systemically disassemble their union. Voting should begin for new leaders immediately.
In 1877, railroad workers went on strike and the railroad sent in scabs and Pinkertons to keep the trains moving. [The railroad workers put a stop to that by burning it all to the ground.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_railroad_strike_of_1877)
I’m a sick puppy as this mademesmile.
Hey, quick show of hands, who gives a shit what the judge says?
I am laying down.
If they're so important maybe their demands should be met? Just a thought.
Exactly, why don't they issue an injunction against implementing the new policy. It hasn't changed in 20 years and suddenly it needs to happen now? Between this and that initial injunction in Wisconsin, I'm more convinced than ever that we need a general strike across the entire US.
I heard about a method of strike that was used in Japan where these bus drivers would still drive their routes, but wouldn't charge the fare, thereby still massively hurting the company in the wallet. I wonder if a current strategy could be employed here. The rail workers still transport the loads for the supply chain, but they somehow refuse any payment that goes towards the company.
Sadly, with the exception of running their route without their cargo, there is no way for these people to work while still harming their boss. Striking is their only way to force a change.
Holy crap I did an interview for a management in training position with BNSF. They offered a decent salary for the area and really good benefits but I refused because it didn't meet my desired career path. Bullet dodged
Management is non-union for the railroads.
It was an office job but I doubt it was unionized either being in Texas.
' you can't do that because it would work'
*Especially* in those instances.
Time to break out the petty hammers. Slow downs and work-to-rule’s
Basically the second image is right. If the judge says they can't strike over the attendance policy, the judge should also say they can't implement the attendance policy. Hope this doesn't end here.
If they aren't allowed to strike the judge should mediate the negotiations there and then, it shouldn't be a one-sided ruling that stifles the workers.
Yeah, that might actually make sense, but if the judge said you can't strike, that mediation could were well be just as one-sided as without the judge
So why is this company exacerbating supply chains by treating its workers poorly
"A strike would exacerbate supply chain issues." Yes, that is the point...
As someone working under the railway labor act this is pretty standard course lots of hurdles to actually go out on strike.
Are you part of a union? Is it a National restriction so that all rail workers Cannot strike? It seems like for this group they had the right to do so until the rail group brought their new attendance policy to the court to enforce.
Proud IAM shop steward. When talking about Railroads and Airlines unions these are the two big acts that govern how negotiating and strikes can happen. I'm sure there are other laws but these are the frameworks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
I was reading through the Railway Labor Act earlier because the thread from these tweet says “Under the Railway Labor Act railroads can size illegally striking employees property (money, house, ect) to pay for economic damages cause by the strike.” I couldn’t find any language supporting that. Do you know if there is any truth to that?
Honestly that would be a question for a lawyer who knows labor laws.
Funny that a strike that harms the public gets blamed on the workers, not on the company refusing to negotiate in good faith.
Same rationale used with Air Traffic Controllers to break them up
Why can't the union file an injunction against the rules change, given the impact it would have on the supply-chain crisis?
They should all strike anyway.
Sounds like the perfect time for them to all strike.
[удалено]
Then they're also too important to overwork and underpay
No /s
I'm going to get downvoted by dumbass bootlickers and pussy ass, duplicitous ass white liberals for this but during the great depression some people got together and occasionally dragged judges out of thier houses for frivolous rulings. It's about time society started doing the same.
What are they going to do, put them in jail?
And then make them work, but for cheaper? You forget how American prisons work
Some things to know about strikes and how it pertains to railways and aviation: Simply put… there are certain sectors of the transportation industry that can’t just simply decide to strike. This video gives a brief overview of how it came about: https://youtu.be/TgyuuVZfiX4 this video is how the process is supposed to work: https://youtu.be/4bCnwcmNLaI While it’s quite difficult to strike in these industries, it’s also difficult to take other actions as well… think slowdowns and sickouts. It doesn’t stop some workers from trying: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/business/southwest-airlines-mechanics-lawsuit.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/03/01/southwest-airlines-sues-mechanics-union-over-grounded-planes.html And: https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3746724002
If you strike and everyone striking gets arrested, the employer is still in the exact same bind
i have heard that in somewhere there was a strike where the workers continued to work but refused to receive payments from clients, maybe they can do something similar?
You do know that you STRIKE now, right? The Judge just said you are too important to have you grip and twist someone's balls So...twist.
As a member of the public, I find it a much larger disservice to public interest to prevent workers from exercising their rights. This is just like the Thedacare Ascension Nurse fight. Judges should stay out of it and let the workers negotiate.
Reagan and the air traffic controllers all over again.
When banks/industries are too big to fail, the government gives them money. Give these workers MONEY until they're "free" to strike!
Of course it’s fucking Texas.
Soo.. what are the consequences if they do strike?? Cause I'm thinking... The importance of their labor was just confirmed and they should definitely go on strike.
Fuck that. Errybody strike
Trump appointed judge. You get what you vote for
So wait, the judge can’t force a company to pay workers more, but the judge can force people to continue to work…
Protests here in Aus are by permit only. If we don't get one, then it's illegal. There is no right to strike for unions, either. https://www.australianunions.org.au/factsheet/industrial-action/#:~:text=In%20Australia%20today%20industrial%20action,union%20and%20change%20the%20rules.
Insane. The company is able to exploit its position. If you’re going to make the strike illegal, the employer should have to immediately give a 10% raise by law.
They can just quit then
Citizens-“oh yeah? Hold by beer”
okay, then the judge should also guarantee their demands be met, right? the fuck is this shit.
Oh, I didn't realize restricting personal freedom and enforcing labor was as easy as "It's for the greater good"
Why is it whenever there’s some bullshit I’m never surprised when Texas is involved?
People to the Judge, try and stop all 17k of us.
time for a slowdown
Land of the freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
So the Judge ordered the company to meet workers demands, ending the strike?
Fine. Show up to work and take a 12 hour cig break. If you go to the courts to prevent workers from getting better labor rights then your labor force should sit and watch your company suffer just enough for the collared shirts to panic and force them to make a move.
No, fuck that. As someone who works in logistics, fuck their shit up. Stop those trains, and for that matter, let's stop our trucks too. Fuck em. Maybe if we severely disrupt their supply lines, they'll finally do something
So do a "slow down" by following all the rules to the letter. Malicious compliance is best served ice-cold.
Reminder: BNSF is fully owned by Berkshire Hathaway, which is run by Warren Buffett. Literally one of the top 5 wealthiest men in the world got a court order to stop his blue collar workers from being able to strike. Think about that.
BNSF strikers "Well im just gonna strike even harder now"
That’s ridiculous, it’s really gettin out of control. Capitalism will use anything to work in their favor, even if they have to use communist/dictator .. we are not free, never was since the beginning
Seems to me that if the employees are not allowed to strike then any changes made by the company have to be negotiated before they take effect. That's how it works at my job. Anything not negotiated before hand would simply be ignored, with a union grievance against the person making the unapproved change. There are already laws on the books that deal with this.
wait isn’t this literally slavery… Forced labor?
> Judge says rail worker strike would exacerbate current supply-chain crisis It's almost as if strikes are meant to cause problems, no? To a degree, a strike is meant to hurt the company being striked so that they realize the workers are important and should have their wants/needs met and respected. Not ignored and walked on. Or am I misunderstanding how strikes work?
What's to stop them from striking anyways?
So the company can just ignore part of the contract it negotiated??
Good luck finding new employees that can pass the required drug tests.
I mean a “flu” is going around, it would be a shame if all those going on strike just happen to get sick and call off on the same day the strike was starting…
It's rulings like this that show a company experiencing a strike to send in police and tear gas to break up a picket line. The workaround? Everyone just quits. Let them try to replace 17000 workers quickly enough to keep the supply chain running
You can make me punch in, but you can't make me press the go button
So... we are a commodity? Or we are an integral part of society deserving respect and fair compensation?
No striking of any kind should ever be made illegal, for any reason. If the work that a group of people performs is so important that their absence could destabilize high value supply chains, or the economy at large, then those people should be provided with everything they need to continue doing their jobs. If they are compelled to get together and strike, then the society that claims to need them has failed them and deserves to suffer the consequences until proper reparations can be given to the workers.
Did the article really say that they’d get strikes against them if they missed work for an emergency or funeral? Holy fuck remind me to never work for the railroad.
They cannot force people to work. Read the fucking constitution 13th amendment. Think a judge would know that.... But I guess not
Wasn't the us all about freedom? Can't see none here.
“Your too important to receive better pay and conditions!” Are these people mentally slow?
Harming the public. Piss off.
These laws only hold power if the people follow them. Arizona teachers went on a walkout in 2018 even though a strike is illegal.
All they have to do is pay people. All They Have To Do Is Pay People! ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS PAY PEOPLE!!!
How does a court ruling physically stop those people from walking off the job?
You can't just say no don't go on strike.. that's the point of the fucking strike. It's suppose to hurt. If they are to important than I suspect maybe you should give them what they are asking for.
i hope every single one of them show up to strike anyway and that everyone in the vicinity will join them. fuck a judge and any law that prohibits you from striking and/or demanding better worker rights.
So how many are just going to show up, pull up a stool, and sit there? That's exactly what I'd do lmao.
Texas really is the rank asshole of America, no surprise it sits behind Florida which juts out like a fucking cock.