It’s an unfair labor practice. There is a long discussion about it in American Law Reports at 156 A.L.R. 997, if you want actual citations.
Is this directed at me? Because I certainly didn’t say anything like this.
Refusing to work is an unfair labor practice?
Oooooookay then.
Why on earth would you think it wouldn’t be?
Can I have some of whatever you are on?
A remarkably cogent legal analysis. Not.
Refusing to work in concert with other employees while failing to take the steps necessary to obtain the protections of the NLRA is, yes.
You appear to be confusing “illegal” with “criminal”. They are not synonyms. Improperly dumping toxic waste is generally not a criminal act, either, but it is illegal.
You don’t go to jail for violating (most of) the NLRA, but you don’t enjoy its protection and you can be fired.
I’ve just boiled the kettle, and you’re welcome to a nice cup of tea, but that’s not really relevant right now.
Anyway, as has been repeatedly pointed out, refusing to work is a breach of contract, and that is very often illegal. Organising others to do so outside of a formal union is definitely illegal. As for why it’s an unfair labour practice, just as it is wrong for an employer to mislead about or change conditions or pay without going through the necessary procedures, it’s wrong for an employee to agree to work at a certain time, and perform a certain job, and then not do it, without going through the necessary procedures. Such as an organised strike, or following the company’s illness policy (calling in at the specified time, providing a doctor’s note etc.).
Cite please.
Already provided, by me, in the second post of this thread.
Wikipedia? No.
Cite a source from any federal or state law that states non-union workers can face penalties (enforced by the state) for refusing to work.
The penalty is that the employer is free to terminate the relationship.
Er, yes. Don’t pretend it’s not correct here.
That wasn’t the question you asked. You asked about penalties for unauthorised striking, not refusal to work. It’s the organisation of the strike by any group other than the relevant union that’s illegal.
As for penalties for refusing to work, that’s breach of contract, and that’s something that is illegal everywhere. That doesn’t even require a cite. It’s a civil offence, so there won’t be penalties, usually, only liability for damages, and possibly termination of the contract by the injured party (the employer).
Are you confusing “illegal” with “criminal”, by the way?
Are you getting worked up about semantics here? In that “illegal” can only be used to describe an action (a crime) for which the state will enforce penalties?
In this thread, all you have been doing is using terms in weird ways and attributing arguments to other people that they didn’t make.
The term “wildcat strike” has a specific meaning in a legal context, and you don’t get to just make up your own definition for it.
The term “illegal” also has a specific meaning in a legal context, and you don’t get to just make up your own definition for it.
You’ve also been given multiple cites, which you;ve completely ignored. In any case, this is not a simple issue of just looking at the text of a specific law, because we’re dealing with multiple laws interpreted by multiple court decisions.
But, if you go to the NLRB website and search through their board decisions and opinions, you will find numerous references to illegal strikes. So, whether or not you believe that a strike can be illegal, the NLRB thinks that there are circumstances where a strike can be illegal, and they have more authority than you on the matter.
Ok so no one can give a cite showing there is a violation of state or federal law for refusing to work, whether collectively or individually. That tells me that it is not against the law. All of the hand waving can’t make it otherwise.
Even if it were against the law, I would fully support any refusal to work. That is, in essence, what a strike is. That is its impetus, and the greater the number the greater the effect.
In US history, around Wilson’s era, I believe, there were various actions taken against workers for refusing to work. Calling in the Army, etc. Those actions don’t happen anymore. And, under FDR, the Army was called in to protect workers, which was a twist.
I’m certainly not an expert on the topic, but the very idea that the government can force you to work seems incredulous. And since no one can provide a state or federal law citation that supports that idea, people should try to think a little more critically about this.
Gonna have to request a cite for that statement.
Nobody claimed that simply refusing to work is, in-and-of-itself, a violation of Federal law. That’s something you’ve made up and are asking people to defend. The reason that nobody is providing a cite for you is that you are demanding a cite for an idea of your own making.
Nope. A strike is not simply a refusal to work. A strike involves coordinating a work stoppage with other workers. Again, this is you simply making up nonsense definitions and expecting other people to defend them.
Nobody ever claimed that the government can force you to work, which is why nobody is providing a citation for it. Maybe you should try thinking more critically about what words actually mean, rather than tossing out strawmen and nonsense definitions and then demanding cites for your own nonsense.
On top of that you have been provided multiple cites that there are certain types of strikes which are illegal, but you are too lazy to bother to follow up on them.
PS: There are some circumstances where the Federal government can compel Federal workers to work (mostly military), but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
Ok, so it’s not illegal to go on strike. I’m glad we settled this.
Good day!