Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Supreme Court Empowers Employers to Lock Out Workers
The Supreme Court Empowers Employers to Lock Out WorkersThursday, 23 May 2013 11:05
By Ann C Hodges and Ellen Dannin, Truthout | News Analysis
This is the seventh article in the Judicial Amendment Project series on the history of the National Labor Relations Act. The stories in the series to date include:
For many years, employee strikes were common and often in the news while lockouts by employers were rare. Today, lockouts have become far more common than in years past. There are reasons employers have become more willing to lock out their employees.
In both lockouts and strikes, an employer's workers are not working, so it may seem that the only difference between the two is who made the decision for the employees to be out of work. Employees strike when they think striking will put pressure on their employer to agree to the employees' demands. Employers lock out workers who want to continue working to pressure them to accept contract terms the employer wants.
But like the employer's ability to impose its proposal when the parties are at impasse, the lockout has become a powerful employer bargaining tool, while the strike has been declawed. What is most puzzling about these results is that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) says that the right to strike is to be protected, but says nothing about protecting the lockout. The explanation is that judges have judicially amended the NLRA to weaken strikes, while making lockouts far more powerful.
The NLRA has been interpreted to create two types of lockouts - defensive lockouts and offensive lockouts. Early decisions allowed employers to use "defensive lockouts." Defensive lockouts were timed by employers to take place when the employer would be less vulnerable and, depending on the industry, the employees would feel more pressure from being out of work. Consider sports, for example. A lockout in the off-season when fans would not be disappointed if games were not held could pressure the players to settle and let the employer avoid a strike during the season. In other words, the employer could time the work stoppage to reduce its impact and its power. .............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://truth-out.org/news/item/16531-the-supreme-court-empowers-employers-to-lock-out-workers
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1693 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Supreme Court Empowers Employers to Lock Out Workers (Original Post)
marmar
May 2013
OP
as Ralph Nader said, George Bush's Repub. SCOTUS picks & Al Gore's/Dem's SCOTUS picks one and same
graham4anything
May 2013
#2
Slaves to a sick Corptocracy. All with a bipartisan sheen to dupe the fools.
blkmusclmachine
May 2013
#6
xchrom
(108,903 posts)1. du rec. nt
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)2. as Ralph Nader said, George Bush's Repub. SCOTUS picks & Al Gore's/Dem's SCOTUS picks one and same
actions=consequences.
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)3. Ah, that SCOTUS!
Paving the road to Serfdom, case-by-case.
May the Lords of the New Dynasties of the United Corporations of Walmartia treat them well for their great work. History will ensconce them in patriotic glory as activists for affluence, guardians of predatory capitalism and defenders of Fiefdoms.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)4. And the Dancing Supremes, will be bribed well, I mean paid well
by their owners and masters the corporate elite.
I bet if we audited all the supposed judges on the Supremes, we would find some very interesting pay offs. I wonder how much per vote they get?
Brigid
(17,621 posts)5. If a medieval serf were to come back today. . .
He would find much in the modern workplace that is familiar to him.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)6. Slaves to a sick Corptocracy. All with a bipartisan sheen to dupe the fools.