• JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      6 days ago

      First, wildcat strikes, and strikes in general, were never legal per-say. They became legal when the US finally concluded that they could not stop unions from forming and strikes from disrupting production.

      Second, the NLRB’s existence was specifically for the purposes of reducing interruptions in industrial production. The NLRB were never an efficient means of getting what you wanted/needed at work, they were mostly just a low-risk means of applying fines to an abusive employer.

      The labor wars are coming back in style, most likely. It’ll only be a matter of time before armed strikes and similar matters start happening again.

      • EnsignRedshirt [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        6 days ago

        The recent Air Canada strike is a good example of what happens when the government gets too comfortable shutting down labour actions arbitrarily. If you make labour actions illegal, then workers will do illegal labour actions.

    • Chana [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      6 days ago

      It would come down to exactly which portions of the NLRA (etc) are struck down. And I think any legislative revisiting of the NLRA will be sure to make any substantive labor actions illegal.

    • WrongOnTheInternet [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      6 days ago

      No, they just want to sack and replace them without cause

      “The employers challenge the structure of the board itself—specifically, whether its members and administrative law judges are too insulated from presidential removal.” They are, and that makes the NLRB unconstitutional, the appellate court ruling says.