Some L.A. teachers may defy restraining order

[billyoc]

Source: Los Angeles Times

Although a judge has barred a strike, they plan to engage in civil disobedience at the district headquarters to protest potential budget cuts.
By Jason Song
8:22 PM PDT, May 14, 2009
Teachers union officials said Thursday that some of their members would not report to work at Los Angeles Unified School District campuses this morning and instead would engage in civil disobedience at the district headquarters to protest potential budget cuts.

United Teachers Los Angeles had planned a one-day strike today, but a judge earlier this week issued a restraining order prohibiting the action.

If teachers continued with the work stoppage, they each would have faced a $1,000 fine and the possible loss of their credentials.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers15-2009may15,0,4932443.story

---

It is your moral duty and obligation to disobey an unjust law! - Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

[kimmylavin]

1. What?

How can a judge issue a restraining order prohibiting a protest?

[Old Coot]

2. The restraining order was against the strike.

"United Teachers Los Angeles had planned a one-day strike today, but a judge earlier this week issued a restraining order prohibiting the action."

[kimmylavin]

3. Okay...

Then how can a judge issue a restraining order against a strike?
What does a judge have to do with what a union wants to do?

(Obviously I'm missing some finer points of law here, but I didn't think you had to get permission from a judge to hold a strike?)

[billyoc]

4. Draconian labor laws(Taft-Hartley, etc.) actually do prohibit strikes of public sector workers.

State governments have similar laws. They must all be struck down.

[montanto]

5. The LA times is talking out of its ass again.

Teachers are considering a strike next school year because of layoffs and class size increases due to the tanked California budget. The plan was for a one day walkout and demonstration Friday, but since we still have a valid contract at this time, unlike other occasions we have gone on strike after the contract has expired, we were forced to stand down. The injunction was the district's legal move to point out that we, the teachers, are still under a binding contract and that if we walk out we are AWOL, which may result in fines and credential revocation (you figure the chances the district can replace 27K+ teachers each with 6+ years of higher education on the salary offered at a time when new teachers are hardest hit by staggering class sizes and scant or nonexistent support). That said, the sidewalk is fair game for non-violent civil disobedience any time, and the district hasn't any say in whether teachers call in sick. The article does accurately say that those teachers participating called for substitutes; what it doesn't say is that that is required by contract, thus the teachers violated no law, restraining order or injunction.