Chicago Teachers Strike Illegal but continues
 

This strike has a great deal of similarities to the pending strike at AA.


And can perhaps shed some light on what could happen if a strike occurs.


Go and get 'em AA Brothers and Sisters ....











CHICAGO (AP) — The Chicago teachers union decided Sunday to continue its weeklong strike, extending an acrimonious standoff with Mayor Rahm Emanuel over teacher evaluations and job security provisions central to the debate over the future of public education across the United States.




Emanuel said he would seek a court order to end the strike, which he said is illegal under state law.


Union delegates declined to formally vote on a proposed contract settlement worked out over the weekend with officials from the nation's third largest school district. Schools will remain closed Monday.


Union president Karen Lewis said teachers want the opportunity to continue to discuss the offer that is on the table.




"Our members are not happy," Lewis said. "They want to know if there is anything more they can get."


he added: "They feel rushed."


She said the union's delegates will meet again Tuesday, and the soonest classes are likely to resume is Wednesday.


We felt more comfortable being able to take back what's on the table and let our constituents look at it and digest it. We can have a much better decision come Tuesday," said Dean Refakes, a physical education teacher at Gompers Elementary School and a delegate.


Emanuel said the issues teachers are striking over are "deemed by state law to be non-strikable."




"This was a strike of choice and is now a delay of choice that is wrong for our children," he said in a written statement.


The walkout, the first in Chicago in 25 years, had instantly canceled classes for 350,000 students who just returned from summer vacation and forced tens of thousands of parents to find alternatives for idle children, including many whose neighborhoods have been wracked by gang violence in recent months.


The walkout was the first for a major American city in at least six years. And it drew national attention because it posed a high-profile test for teachers unions, which have seen their political influence threatened by a growing reform movement. Unions have pushed back against efforts to expand charter schools, bring in private companies to help with failing schools and link teacher evaluations to student test scores.


The strike carried political implications, too, raising the risk of a protracted labor battle in President Barack Obama's hometown at the height of the fall campaign, with a prominent Democratic mayor and Obama's former chief of staff squarely in the middle. Emanuel's forceful demands for reform had angered the teachers last year as the cash-strapped city began bargaining with a number of unions.


The teachers walked out Sept. 10 after months of tense contract talks that for a time appeared to be headed toward a peaceful resolution.


Emanuel and the union agreed in July on a deal to implement a longer school day with a plan to hire back 477 teachers who had been laid off rather than pay regular teachers more to work longer hours. That raised hopes the contract would be settled before the start of fall classes, but bargaining stalled on other issues.


Emanuel decried the teachers' decision to leave classrooms, calling the walkout unnecessary and a "strike of choice."

Actually, not really.. As far as similarities go. The Railway Labor Act changes the whole game. With the 3 members of the NMB appointed by the President of the US, it is highly unlikely that any large airline group will be *allowed* to strike. In an election year? My opinion is that it is virtually impossible.

Now, I think that this is completely wrong, but I am guessing that a very high court would have to declare it illegal or unconstitutional before it changes.

Airline strikes would represent a poor reflection on the US economy, which equals bad press for the President, who has *direct control* over the process if he wants to use it.

I am just curious, but what do all you guys think? I think that an airline like, say, Spirit would be allowed to strike, but AA? I don't think so.

(Just to be clear, before anybody starts hating me: yes, I think you guys should absolutely strike, if the labor practices of management are unfair or even just unacceptable. I think it is a crime that the Executive branch of the government takes away *any* negotiation tool, especially the one that actually worries airline management!)

Just because the little runt says its an illegal strike does not make it so.......you need to get your facts straight and the assertions of a biased and self-interested politician aren't fact. :rolleyes:

I've heard a local judge has refused to entertain that argument in court and tossed it. It has little to do with the situation at AA anyway.

Isn't our current president supposed to be the champion of organized labor. He certainly draws a good deal of support from there. Now his former Chief of Staff is going to court to stop a strike by organized labor. Haven't heard any gnashing of teeth from the Whitehouse or media on that. If he were to block a strike by any airline, that would be a bit of a conundrum for him. Of course, if this happens after the election should he be reelected, he doesn't have to care.

Rahm's main supporters were the illinois unions, it's funny how he's having the same problems as Wisconsin now!

You've heard wrong. The court hears the case wednseday morning if the strike is not called off today.

Today's assignment: Seal deal with Chicago teachers - chicagotribune.com

Ok, but certifying the strike as illegal is premature. At this point it's just what one side is doing for their interests.

Interesting idea. The way I see it, this country was founded on the idea of preserving INDIVIDUAL rights. This means preserving both the employee's rights and the business owner's rights. In a purely capitalist system (Laissez-faire capitalism), the law would not take ANY side on the issues of labor disputes at all. If a union (group of employees) strong armed a company into doing something, that was their right however, on the other side of the coin, if the company decided to fire employees for being part of a strong arm, that was their right as well.

At various points in history, management had the upper legal hand and at other points, the employees had the upper legal hand but for the most part, Nobody had any legal "protection" under law because the idea was to preserve EVERYONE's individual right to engage in business stuff (again, for the most part). This was until the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 was passed. When this act was passed during the New Deal, under the NLRB, management now had a legal obligation to negotiate a contract with a duly chosen union instead of being able to fire who ever they wanted and replace them with cheaper labor.

Although this may seem like a good thing for the majority, this was a huge detriment to a business owner because they HAD to negotiate. Instead of being able to hire anyone they pleased, they were FORCED (by legal hand) to deal with these people. So really, with this act in place, the business owners were the one's whose rights the government was "taking away."

So, if you look at it that way, the fact that unions must be "allowed" to strike by the NLRB puts a check against the legal strong hold a union has on the employer. This and other concepts like requiring a "cooling off period" and allowing the government to step in during unionized labor disputes were provisions in the Taft-Harley Act of 1947 which scaled back the amount of legal "protection" unions and union members had against an employer.

Law in History of Labor Unions

Just remember...when Reagan fired the ATC guys, it was because it would have caused something more catastrophic with ALL of aviation, not to mention they were Gov't workers...AA is not. The Chicago teachers are Gov't workers, AA is not. Do you see where this going?

Strike away APA guys! I've got my box of popcorn ready.