Bush War on Labor: ILWU Injunctions and Links for Action and Legal Backgr...

[Bradford DeLong]

>Brad, on this one you are way out of your depth.  Courts are not idiots and
>know a slowdown when they see one-- that's the intent of a "work safe"
>slowdown; the employers know it, the union knows it, and the courts know it.
>In fact, only if its pretty obvious that's its a slowdown can it by
>definition force the company to give in on a contract.
>
>But don't let me just tell you-- here's the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
>enforcing a new injunction against the IAM this past February: United Air
>Lines, Inc. v. International Ass'n of Machinist & Aero..., 243 F.3d 349
>(2001)
>
>"IAM offers no satisfying explanation for why these bulletins
>included--indeed, trumpeted--the message to WORK SAFE! in the context of
>blaming United for the lack of progress in the negotiations or of
>criticizing United for its recent oppressive management actions. Nor does
>IAM explain why the language telling mechanics to "work safe" was the only
>language written in bold face, underlined, or in all capital letters. While
>some of these bulletins also contain statements urging members not to
>"engage in any  job action," such statements are dwarfed by the messages to
>"work safe," leaving the clear impression that the relatively inconspicuous
>statements discouraging a slowdown were not meant to be taken at face value.
>Given the context in which the "work safe" messages appeared and the
>prominent nature of their display, their obvious intent was to urge
>mechanics to engage in a work slowdown in response to the impasse in
>negotiations. In addition, given that IAM does not deny that such language
>can serve as a code for a slowdown, we find it difficult to believe that IAM
>would have included such language in the context of bulletins regarding
>negotiations (especially at a time when it claims that bulletins bearing the
>same code language were being distributed by dissident mechanics as a call
>for a slowdown) unless it intended to signal the mechanics to engage in a
>slowdown."
>
>This was in the context of overriding a lower court to issue an injunction
>against the Work Safe slowdown, but if they are enjoining a Work Safe
>slowdown, they sure as hell will issue a contempt decree to enforce it.

So the trial judge refused to issue an injunction against the "Work 
Safe" slowdown, and the 7th Circuit overrode?

Brad DeLong