Originally Posted by wjcandee

I hesitate to talk about an issue where beliefs are so deeply held, but just for what it's worth, your argument conflates the question of whether ABX properly handled the D6 days (which ultimately was settled in favor of the Union) with the question of whether a strike was a permissible ("legal") response to the Union's grievance over the carrier's handling of the D6 day issue.

The strike was enjoined because the Court found probable success on the merits of ABX's claim that a strike wasn't permitted under those circumstances, and indeed reasoned in its written decision that "illegal" strikes under the RLA should be enjoined, and then proceeded to enjoin the strike.

Lawyers, in the best traditions of creativity, hair-splitting, and thin-salami-slicing, have put forward various spins to the effect that the Court never actually found the strike to be illegal. I understand those spins, but the reality is...Meh.

Different entirely is how the D6 day issue ultimately was resolved, with some significant success for the union, although not terribly far off of where the Carrier was in the DC negotiations that immediately-preceded the strike, IIRC. But whatever. A success is a success.