The Supreme Court Empowers Employers to Lock Out Workers

[marmar]

The Supreme Court Empowers Employers to Lock Out Workers

Thursday, 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

[xchrom]

1. du rec. nt

[graham4anything]

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]

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]

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]

5. If a medieval serf were to come back today. . .

He would find much in the modern workplace that is familiar to him.

[blkmusclmachine]

6. Slaves to a sick Corptocracy. All with a bipartisan sheen to dupe the fools.