Today I have seen and heard various commentaries saying that once shippers are ordered to end lockout and dockworkers go back to work under terms of the injunction instead even of a 30-day extension to their contract, then if dockworkers just work to rule, they may be subject to fines for violations of the National Security / economic necessity provisions of Taft-Hartley.
I do not understand the full subtleties of this, but it seems unlikely to me that Bush and Co would suddenly soften their perpetual hard line about labor issues.
Of course, in my rich fantasy life, there would be unionized Wal-mart workers in solidarity refusing to sell scab freight or supporters camping out at the gates of the ports if the shippers tried another lockout.
DoreneC
In a message dated 10/9/02 12:16:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jbdelong at uclink.berkeley.edu writes:
> Is it?
>
> (a) Injunction is issued.
> (b) Dockworkers go back to work.
> (c) Shippers pay dockworkers.
> (d) Dockworkers continue to work-to-rule--as they were doing before
> the lockout.
> (e) Not all that much cargo is moved--so shippers have a big
> incentive to settle: they're paying out wages and getting little in
> return.
>
> What am I missing? It seemed to me that Bush's injunction is actually
> going an offensive move against the shippers. But I may well be out
> of my depth here...
>
>
> Brad
>
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20021009/1c1e2387/attachment.htm>