Unions sued for economic losses from strike action

[The Idler]

I was shocked yesterday when my friend told me that trade unions are sued by companies for economic losses resulting from strike action. Is this true, and if so, how prevalent is it? I looked it up and sure enough, Workers' Liberty has an article on the Employment Acts, the 1982 one

Made trade unions legally liable to pay disabling damages from strikes. Fines of up to £250,000 could be charged. If fines were not paid, the union's entire funds could be sequestrated.The 1990 Employment Act;

Held trade unions financially responsible for walk-outs and unofficial action unless they publicly disowned a dispute.and the 1993 Employment Act

Gave people the right to sue unions if industrial action 'damages' them. If this is accurate, then is there much point in taking strike action? Won't members funds just compensate bosses for lost working hours? So strikes will only inconvenience the public and the workers who won't get paid? Wouldn't members funds be better going to parties left of Labour in order to change the legislation?

[Manifesto]

I would imagine that is the point.

[Patchd]

Anti-union laws are a big problem, but this doesn't completely negate using strike action, sometimes the bosses will come to the table in order to get the workers back to work as soon as possible, obviously the union bureaucrats will help to reach a deal which would usually see the workers' original demands being overlooked completely (replaced with a less harsh, on the boss, deal). But it gains us some advances in the meantime, and it builds a culture of struggle.

But anti-union laws aren't a new thing, at least they don't shoot us on pickets these days eh? ;) The point is to agitate within the class now, and build these links between workers, if ever we reach a revolutionary situation, we may see strike action being truly effective, if not replaced by another more successful class struggle tactic.

[blake 3:17]

If this is accurate, then is there much point in taking strike action? Won't members funds just compensate bosses for lost working hours? So strikes will only inconvenience the public and the workers who won't get paid? Wouldn't members funds be better going to parties left of Labour in order to change the legislation?

In the West, usually these laws are not applied. They're used more as a threat than a punishment, which in many does the same thing.

The alternative for a bourgeois state is to either kill or jail labour activists.

[Uncle Ho]

Unions should see this as a challenge, not an obstacle.

It'd be fun to one-up each other on how much of the capitalists plunder you can reclaim from them. We need a return to black cat actions anyway, and this would be a good excuse.

Besides, once you've broken them, you can force them to agree to wave any fines or penalties you might incur.

[ls]

Unions should see this as a challenge, not an obstacle.

It'd be fun to one-up each other on how much of the capitalists plunder you can reclaim from them. We need a return to black cat actions anyway, and this would be a good excuse.

Besides, once you've broken them, you can force them to agree to wave any fines or penalties you might incur.

This is in contradiction though, most unions WILL disown a black cat action, if not disown.. then they will not support them. You only need to look to recent examples to see this in actuality in the UK.. Same things in the US I would imagine. Also:


If this is accurate, then is there much point in taking strike action? Won't members funds just compensate bosses for lost working hours? So strikes will only inconvenience the public and the workers who won't get paid? Wouldn't members funds be better going to parties left of Labour in order to change the legislation?

Not at all, not only is this reformist, but parties left of labour have no power in parliament anyway so it's impossible, even if you wanted it..


Anti-union laws are a big problem, but this doesn't completely negate using strike action, sometimes the bosses will come to the table in order to get the workers back to work as soon as possible

This doesn't negate using strike action at all, as Uncle Ho said - wildcat action is important.


obviously the union bureaucrats will help to reach a deal which would usually see the workers' original demands being overlooked completely (replaced with a less harsh, on the boss, deal). But it gains us some advances in the meantime, and it builds a culture of struggle.

Well no, workers will only win by self-organising. One can look to the recent examples of lindsey oil refinery and the workers rejecting their union and rejecting useless demands as well, I'm sure you do push for workers to self-organise but still, this idea that every struggle is probably doomed from the onset is silly and slightly defeatist.

[blake 3:17]

Unions should see this as a challenge, not an obstacle.

It'd be fun to one-up each other on how much of the capitalists plunder you can reclaim from them. We need a return to black cat actions anyway, and this would be a good excuse.

Besides, once you've broken them, you can force them to agree to wave any fines or penalties you might incur.


It's not quite so easy. The one mass illegal picket organized explicitly by a national union I've been at was during a period of sharp class struggle, where there was strong inter union and community solidarity.

The government threatened massive massive fines which would've bankrupted the largest union in the country. The Conservatives dropped it because it would have provoked riots and wildcats in heavy industry around the country, rather than try to collect on the money.


Edited to add: RLers should probably know about the Smith Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act and the Taft Hartley Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act

Even though they are "just" US law, the role the US plays in world power means these anti-labour, anti-socialist, pro-imperialist laws have a world wide effect.

One of the evils of these laws is, like drug laws, how arbitrarily they are enforced. They should be completely removed.

[Patchd]

This doesn't negate using strike action at all, as Uncle Ho said - wildcat action is important.
Sorry, wrong choice of words. Strike action is never out of the question obviously, but simply other tactics may be more effective, workers' occupations in light of closing down workplaces etc...


Well no, workers will only win by self-organising. One can look to the recent examples of lindsey oil refinery and the workers rejecting their union and rejecting useless demands as well, I'm sure you do push for workers to self-organise but still, this idea that every struggle is probably doomed from the onset is silly and slightly defeatist.
I was only speaking in the context of 'official' strikes, those supported by the union, where the union bureaucracy is responsible for the negotiations. This had nothing to do with me calling for workers to organise and struggle independent of authority.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In Los Angeles the teachers union (pushed by a left-wing reform movement within the union) planned a one-day strike to protest some of the proposed cuts and layoffs. A judge placed an injuntion on the action and threatened anyone who took part with a $1000 fine and the loss of their teaching credential!

In 2001, George Bush threatened to use the taft-heartly act on West cost Longshoremen and send in the National Guard to force longshoremen to work.

No, they aren't really shooting us on the pickets right now - but that's only because they don't need to go that far.

Essentially yes, it will take breaking the law and even going against the union leadership to begin to really have strikes like the 70s or 30s (a lot of which were also illegal or wildcats). But we shouldn't underestimate the real fear and intimidation workers face - it's a tough thing to be threatened with blacklisting (which essentially loosing your teaching credential would be). This is why it's important right now to take the small steps towards greater rank and file democracy, solidarity between unions, as other people have said here.

It's like being on a demonstration and trying to figure out if you can break the law and take a building or do civil disobedience or whatnot. These times will come but we need to be organized so we can know when people are ready and willing to take this step and if we have the forces to be able to carry through.

[Uncle Ho]

It's not quite so easy. The one mass illegal picket organized explicitly by a national union I've been at was during a period of sharp class struggle, where there was strong inter union and community solidarity.

You must work towards building this solidarity everywhere. Far too many unions get tunnel vision and lose sight of what they should be about, which is the emancipation of the proletariat. It should not matter what trade, creed, ethnicity or sex they are, we must fight for all of them, not just on the picket line and in government, but in the community. Unions should provide for the downtrodden and assist them, not just protect them from being fired.

Once unions realize this and do it, they will be more powerful than they could ever imagine.


The government threatened massive massive fines which would've bankrupted the largest union in the country. The Conservatives dropped it because it would have provoked riots and wildcats in heavy industry around the country, rather than try to collect on the money.Let them fine you all they want. So long as you defy them and never pay one dime, you will only gain reputation from it.

[CommunistWaffle]

We must fight to unite the workers of the world!

[syndicat]

Strikes in the USA in the private sector are only subject to legal imposition of damages if it is a case of breach of contract. The ability of employers to sue for damanges in cases of breach of contract was a provision of the Taft-Hartley Act. Typically a union would only be legally liable if there is a contract in force and it has a no-strike clause or a binding arbitration clause.

Unfortunately, since World War 2, most union contracts in the USA do have either a no-strike clause or a grieve to binding arbitration clause or both. Hence strikes tend to occur only at expiration of contract. But this gives the employer the opportunity to prepare for the strike. At the time of the 1970 Teamsters national wildcat strike, judge imposed massive penalities on the Teamsters over the road drivers in St Louis, gutting the contract, for example.

If I were part of a group organizing a union from scratch, i'd insist on a ban on no-strike clauses in the union constitution. Better not to have a contract.

Employers have generally been strong enough in the USA to impose no-strike contracts. Workers at contract time do not necessarily understand the importance of the ability to take action during life of the contract, and are often willing to give up the right to strike for the life of the contract. This is why you'd really need a ban in the union constitution so as to make it harder for people to fall into this mistake.

Note also that it isn't up to the political authorities to initiate suit for breach of contract...it's up to the employer. So if the level of solidarity and society wide support is strong enough, this might discourage the employer from filing for damages. But that's a pretty big "if" as far as the present situation in the USA.

[blake 3:17]

If I were part of a group organizing a union from scratch, i'd insist on a ban on no-strike clauses in the union constitution. Better not to have a contract.

Employers have generally been strong enough in the USA to impose no-strike contracts. Workers at contract time do not necessarily understand the importance of the ability to take action during life of the contract, and are often willing to give up the right to strike for the life of the contract. This is why you'd really need a ban in the union constitution so as to make it harder for people to fall into this mistake.

Note also that it isn't up to the political authorities to initiate suit for breach of contract...it's up to the employer. So if the level of solidarity and society wide support is strong enough, this might discourage the employer from filing for damages. But that's a pretty big "if" as far as the present situation in the USA.


Could you explain? I know a fair bit of US labour, I mean "labor", history, but don't know that much about US or California labour laws.

[syndicat]

If a contract prohibits job actions during the life of the contract and you strike before the contract expires, that would be legally regarded as breach of contract, and the union could be sued for damages. This is permitted under the Taft-Hartley Act, an anti-union law passed in 1948.

Courts in USA have also ruled that a binding arbitration clause for dealing with grievances is an implied no-strike clause.

If you have no no-strike clause in your contract with the employer and you strike, the employer could not sue the union or workers for damages, as long as this is in the private sector. Public sector is different and varies from state to state and city to city. I believe the federal governent bans strikes for all federal employees.

[blake 3:17]

If you have no no-strike clause in your contract with the employer and you strike, the employer could not sue the union or workers for damages, as long as this is in the private sector.

So there can be legal strikes before the expiry of the contract? Or is that if the union or employer goes has already applied for a legal strike or lock out. In Ontario, that's a No Board report and there's a 2 week + (I think it's 17 days) waiting/cool off period.

Do expired contracts in the US hold if a new agreement hasn't been reached? That probably varies state to state. Some unions and employers just drag negotiations on for years. Generally a bad move for our side.

[syndicat]

no expired contracts don't hold. and if a contract has a no strike clause, strikes are no longer subject to potential lawsuit once the contract has expired. this is why most strikes occur when no contract is in force.

not having a contract can be to some extent an advantage because then workers can engage in quickie strikes and various kinds of disruptive job actions without fear of being sued. but yes this situation can drag on for a long time. I think it took almost 2 years for the San Francisco hotel workers in 2006 to obtain a contract.

[Bitter Ashes]

Yes, unions can be sued for wildcat action if the leaders do not condemn the action publicly. They can also be sued by members of the public for loss of services. There's other things that unions can be fined for too, which is basicly any breach of the pro-employer laws.

If the union refuses to pay then the money is sequestered by a court. This is yet another reason I'm against this new policy with the Wobblies to use bank accounts for our funds as I believe it's putting our own necks in the noose.

Although the law is massivly weighted against the unions, there's a few things that unions can sue the employers for too, although not many. Some union busting tactics are illegal for example.

[YSR]

I don't know much about UK labor relations, truth be told, but certainly one of the key problems with the approach of labor unions to negotiation here in the States is the emphasis on contractualism. It's not the hierarchical pro-capitalist unions themselves that are the problem, though they're certainly part of it, as well as the ones implementing this strategy.

But when you bargain for the purpose of getting a contract, especially one with a no-strike clause, as syndicat explains, you're really tied into a corner. I don't think that unions are going to pull away from contractualism en mass, especially if EFCA somehow passes one day, but it's certainly something that rank-and-filers should think about how they relate to. This emphasis on negotiation-negotiation-strike sets up situations where the bosses have all the power and they determine how worker resistance plays out. Labor organizers need to think critically about how they organize and how they fight management. If you're going to get an injunction and get locked out, then don't leave the shop floor: organize there, through various quick actions and patchwork strikes, slow-downs, sick-ins, occupations, etc. Things that don't cede the most basic part of industrial conflict, the means of production, to the capitalists straight away.