Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivffmtv wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in U.S. rail union representing 4,900 workers narrowly approves contract by Banemorth

The case that the supreme court will hear isn't about breach of contract. It's about profits lost during a strike. Please familiarize yourself with the case first, and then make an opinion because right now you're doing it backwards.

17

[deleted] t1_ivfuqws wrote

[removed]

−7

cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivg29h4 wrote

>Which is not the question I asked?

>What I asked is if they breech the contract why not.

Your question is seriously irrelevant...

Once a contract is in place, neither party may deviate from its terms without the other party’s consent, absent extraordinary circumstances.

The case that the Supreme Court will hear has nothing to do with this. It will likely make workers' strikes punishable by immense fines, which make unions weaker/pointless.

So, now you know unions are already not allowed to breach contracts except for extreme circumstances.

>Thanks for the condescending attitude and not explaining your thinking.

Do you believe that companies should be able to sue unions and individuals for profits lost from workers going on strike?

4

[deleted] t1_ivg37dg wrote

[removed]

−1

cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivgk1ps wrote

"I am bleeding, making me the victor." - you

You started with a rhetorical question... that everyone knew the answer to... except you... and one other person.

Somehow... you thought that meant it was a "gotcha" moment...

What do you think the purpose... of a contract is?? It's legally binding. Your question is therefore... irrelevant... rhetorical... and disingenuous.

Stop derailing from the fact that Republicans and the Supreme Court want to destroy unions.

Maybe more caffeine👊

1