If workers go on strike is a business allowed to fire them all and replace them with someone else? I’d assume not, but what about extremely important professions like healthcare workers, what are the rules there. Are military personnel allowed to strike?
In most states, particularly Employment At Will states (the majority of states, IIRC), they absolutely can fire them and replace them. In most cases they won’t, though, because it can present a bad public image, and it’s also expensive to train new people. Normally, management tries to fill in as best they can, or they’ll hire temporary help until the strike is resolved.
Well, I honestly don’t know about specific union laws around the world, but I think it’d be kind of gross(yes, that’s a legal term 
) if it was illegal to fire all of them. I mean once the workers form a union it kind of becomes a fair game. They form a union for the sole purporse of being harder to fire(i.e. you have to fire them all), but if it’s cheaper for you to fire them and hire a whole bunch of other people or bring in temps(what are those called anyway, some derogatory term), well I guess then union’s demands are NOT reasonable, and you should be free to do so.
However, if union forces some sort of an employment contract upon the employer that doesn’t stipulate that you actually have to work(i.e some sort of strike clause), then all bets are off.
They’re called “scabs,” which is fairly hilarious.
Generally, government workers are not allowed to strike. Theoretically the only jobs the government is supposed to provide are for positions where it is critical that somebody be performing the functions of the job at all times and there is no other way for those functions to be provided in the private sector. Therefore, government workers are not allowed to strike… even those whose services are not actually critical or whose functions could be better performed by a private entity. The Air Traffic Controllers learned this lesson much to their chagrin during the Reagan Administration. It is not uncommon in other countries for all mass transportation to be shut down over some labor disagreement.
I think I am correct in saying that Unions are free to negotiate a contract with the employer that spells out just what rights each side has in a labor dispute.
No. That’s called “sedition”.
Highly illegal, and by Article 94 of the UCMJ if someone is found guilty, is subject to penalty of death, if a court-martial directs it.
Tripler
Strikes are highly illegal in the military.
What about civilian personnel who work for the military?
Civilian personnel are not under the authority of the UCMJ, and are therefore not under the direct chain of command of the base commander. It’s almost a seperate chain of command which merges at the highest civilian deputy of the military manager.
Therefore, they can strike, but I don’t know the legal ramifications. I’m military, and know the UCMJ. I can’t comment on what happens to civilians. But I do know they do have unions and agreements through those unions.
Tripler
I can only enforce the law on those military under my command.
I thought employers were required to abide by the National Labor Relations Act which mentions employers must engage in collective bargaining and cannot fire employees for trying to do just that.
IANAL so one of them needs to come by and translate for us but this part seems relevant (from link posted just above):
I dunno about that, Whack. I’m no expert, admittedly, but I used to manage a Radio Shack store, and I know for a fact that on several occasions, employees were terminated when they attempted to organize a union. I don’t believe that was the reason given for the terminations, however. AFAIK, it was generally for issues (real or imagined) related to job performance - i.e., for failing to maintain minimum sales standards, for example.
You know, Whack-a-Mole, I specifically remember my Pop saying he fired a couple of workers in his shop for trying to bring the union into the place (he’s a glass screenprinter).
Are those laws tempered to some extent by the states’ “Right to Work” laws?
Tripler
I’m not a lawyer either, but I’m waiting for one to float along. . .
I believe “mutiny” would be a trifle more accurate. Here’s the relevant part of the UCMJ:
I quote the same article, but as I understand it, “mutiny” was on a vessel of some sort, while “sedition” was not (to me, it’s not exactly clear). It’s half-a-dozen or six ways to the other.
Tripler
Either way, it’s breach of chain of command, punishable by death.
I think the distinction is that sedition is rebellion against civil authority. Dictionary.com seem to agree with the UCMJ on this point.
The most common use of “mutiny” is certainly on board a ship, but it has the more general sense of defiance of military authority. As an example, “The Indian mutiny” of 1857 happened entirely on shore.
You can’t fire someone for participating in their rights to bargain collectively. Q.E.D., you’re lucky no one ever brough suit against you for firing them for engaging in legally protected activities. You can fire someone for not showing up to work, even if they do so as part of a collectively-organized strike, but it was very rare until Reagan did it to the air traffic controllers. It’s more common now, but it still causes public relations problems.
–Cliffy
You misunderstand. I never fired anyone for that reason - this was all handled by upper management. I’m not entirely clear on the details, as none of this happened in my store, nor any in the immediate district. To my knowledge, however, no one ever successfully sued the company for these actions.
Granted. However, since the UCMJ applies to military members only, I would submit that ‘sedition’ doesn’t occur in the example of “Dictionary.com” (i.e. “civil authorities” because we have none for the most part) but more in line with my original example.
I’ll see if I can’t find one of my JAG buddies to clarify in the next week or so. . . It ought to be interesting to see the difference.
Tripler
Enquiring minds want to know.
I should clarify that I meant “mutiny” versus “sedition” in the eyes of the UCMJ.
Tripler
A link for reference.
Ya know, I immediately take this back. You’re right. Clause 1 spells out “mutiny” as an offense against military authorities. Clause 2 spells out “sedition” against civil authorities.
I need to learn to read. :smack:
Tripler
“Reading is fundamental”.
As in many (if not most) employment termination disputes, it’s usually pretty easy for an employer to find perfectly legal causes for firing someone, in addition to the “real” reason, whatever it may be - union organization, OSHA complaints, “wrong” sex, “wrong” race. While it’s true that “pretextual” dismissals are actionable in theory, in practice they’re awfully tough to win. And, of course, in many cases there really are problems with a person’s work record - heck, maybe the reason the employee’s so keen on forming a union is because he wants job security without, like, working. But in the more likely scenario, the employee is basically an ok worker, but like many employees has a less-than-spotless record. Suddenly the employer decides that, say, tardiness is really a problem, knowing that our union-organizing friend has a not-great tardiness record. Firing an empoyee under these circumstances is almost certainly pretextual and illegal, but it puts the employee in the position of having to prove that lots of other employees were tardy, or had similar minor black marks on their record, without getting fired. Obtaining those records usually is not easy or cheap. So the employer wins by exhaustion, unless the employee has some serious resources (such as a union or the NLRB) to back him up. The moral is that unions have to be extremely careful about the people they recruit as organizers.