First off, in what manner is a strike illegal? Last I checked, the only strikes that were illegal were for people in critical social functions like cops and firefighters.
The second claim, that it was unauthorized, strikes me as similarly bogus. By whose definition is a strike “unauthorized?” Are striking workers required to ask their employer’s permission before they strike? Wouldn’t that kind of defeat the purpose?
Ditto
Teachers by their collective bargaining agreements (and not because they are government employees) are usually not allowed to strike unless a whole chain of steps are taken beforehand hence the use of “the blue flu”.
It’s not that it’s against the law as in “illegal” or “felony” or “misdemeanor”.
Rather, it’s a violation of a contractual agreement. As a result, the employer can take the employees and the union to court and demand recompense.
If the strike is by civil servants whose job is designated an “essential service” then it may be breaking the law, if the law defining essential services and removing the right to strike also contains penalties for violating that law. Of course, to prosecute you would have to prove that any particular individual was not “too sick to work” which I imagine especially for health care workers, or people whose job takes them outdoors in bad weather, would be difficult.
Not turning up for work is not an offence, generally. And it doesn’t become an offence if your motivation is to protest about an employment dispute.
But organising or inciting people not to turn up for work may be an offence in many jurisdictions. (Whether it is in relation to the UPS dispute mentioned in the OP, I can’t say.) It’s not uncommom to have a legal regime which criminalises the organisation or conduct of strike action, and then creates exemptions and defences to cover trade unions who follow recognised procedures.
And what law would that be? Please cite the actual law for me. Last I checked, business contracts were enforced through civil court and lawsuits, not the police.
I guess this goes back to what I was talking about in my earlier debate thread… All strikes are by definition unauthorized because you are telling your employer to get bent. The entire point of a strike is to coerce the employer to redress a grievance. Telling someone they can’t strike is basically saying, “You can’t protest the law because the law says you can’t protest it.”
An employee working without a contract (i.e. most employees) is under no obligation to show up if he doesn’t want to. On the other hand, his employer is under no obligation to give the employee his job back if he decides to show up again.
Collective bargaining contracts typically contain a set of promises by each party (employer and the union) and an expiration date when those promises end and may be renegotiated. Often the union promises not to strike during that period if the employer lives up to their end.
Further complicating this mess is that the employees in question went ahead and struck without the permission or oversight of their union, leading to an embarrassing clusterfuck for all concerned.
Employment is a contractual relationship. If he’s an employee, he has a contract. If there is no contract, in what sense is he an employee?
The contract may, by its terms, be terminable at will without notice by either party. Or it may not. Either way, the employee usually cannot be compelled to work. If he fails to turn up for work and he’s in breach of the contract in not turning up, you can sue him for damages and you may possibly seek other remedies, e.g. rescission, or perhaps you can treat his failure to turn up as a repudiation of the contract, but in general you can’t get an order forcing him to work.
Union contracts (even private sector contracts) are governed by a whole set of Federal laws and regulations–and there’s quite a few of them governing how strikes can occur, who can participate in strikes, etc. I don’t really have time to do any analysis of this particular situation, but it is possible in theory to violate a law or regulation by striking improperly. Post # 2 (by Steophan) in this thread gives an example of a type of strike that potentially violates the National Labor Relations Act.
Excluding criminal actions like damaging property or preventing scabs from going to work, what would be an example of such a law?
I’m well aware that UNIONS are restricted by their strike actions because they have contractual obligations under their bargaining agreements, but we are talking about a group of employees acting outside of the union. This is not “illegal” activity, regardless of whether it is considered protected concerted activity by NLRB.
The NLRA lists a bunch of “unfair labor practices.” Unfair labor practices are illegal under the NLRA. I have already pointed out that a wildcat strike can be considered an “unfair labor practice” in some circumstances. Secondary boycotts can also be illegal under certain circumstances. There’s a whole list of these.
As well as violating the NLRA, it’s also a violation of the Clayton Act. The Act exempts labor organizations, but a wildcat strike is not an action by a labor organization.
It is now used to refer to all types of government workers who are prohibited from striking. You’ll notice your own cite uses it in reference to firefighters as well. From the OED: