There are strikes (such as wildcat strikes) which are illegal under certain circumstances. You’ve been provided multiple cites.
What we’ve settled is that you have severe reading-comprehension deficiencies.
Are you being dense on purpose just to get a rise out of people? Because that’s illegal.
Do you understand what a contract is? Do you understand what it is to breach one? If the answer to those questions is “yes”, then you’ll understand why your statement is nonsensical.
If you disagree, please cite the definitions of “contract” and “breach of contract” you are using.
The Union has an agreement with the Company (collective bargaining agreement). I’m not familiar with this particular CBA, but the relevant bit probably goes something along these lines: you shall not fire our members when the Union goes on strike.
But just like any employment relationship since the end of slavery, employees and employers are free to terminate that relationship. If an employee intentionally is a no show and it isn’t a Union-approved strike, the employee can be terminated.
Saying an employee intentionally not going to work is “illegal” is a stupid way of saying that an employer can terminate an employee for not going to work; unless you mean that the employee can actually be held liable for damages for not going to work. I’d be interested in seeing what precedent there is for that.
Yes, that’s exactly what people mean. Do you really not know what a contract is? See the current threads about the legal battle about whether an actress is liable for damages for refusing to perform nude scenes she contracted to do. The question is whether she actually breached the contract, not whether she’s liable if she did. That’s how it works, that’s the point of a contract.
For most employees, of course, it would not be worth it, in either financial terms or publicity, to sue bad employees, but for important ones, or major harm, they can and will.
Cite for companies suing employees in general.
Let’s apply it to the present case. Are these employees going to be sued by their employer for not going to work?
Why not?
They are doing something ILLEGAL! Where is the justice? Oh the huge manatee!
I doubt it, as it wouldn’t make sense either financially or in terms of publicity for the company. Not to mention that there seems to be some uncertainty whether this particular strike was, in fact, illegal, and if so, whether the employees knew it was. The union and employer have reached an agreement on how to deal with the issue, so the legality is unlikely ever to be determined.
His posts are his cite.
Waaah! What happened? I thought you were leaving the thread. Oh, I see, you’ve decided to return to make up your own definitions and argue against strawmen.
And no, we’re not going to apply it to the present case, because we don’t have all the facts of the present case, so there’s no way to tell.
Also, from here:
Also, from Complete Auto Transit v. Reis, 451 US 401:
Oh, my god! The Supreme Court of the actual United States of America thinks there’s such a thing as an illegal strike. But what do they know?