In that case, the strike is unecessary; breaches of contract should be handled by a court. If you sign a contract saying you will work x hours a week for y amount of pay, and the company gives you less, you should be able to go to court over it. If you have the necessary documents, it will be an open and shut case.

So yes, an improvement would be creating a court specifically for dealing with this kind of behaviour.

Quote:So agreeing to terms that would cause an even larger long term lose is a good idea for a business?

No, and I'm not 100% read up on this case, but it seems to me that a mining company would be wealthy enough to meet whatever demands they had without losing any revenue. I doubt the union asked the company for a ridiculous wage increase. If they did though, getting fired is the union's fault.

Why do we need an extra court for this, especially if it's open and shut? Not looking to create more bureaucracy are we? In the interim, what are the plaintiffs to do (their incomes have been illegally curtailed, is the defendant culpable for these damages as well?)

(Union contracts can and are broken when the deciding body feels that the loss incurred by breaking them is lesser than the loss that will be incurred by honoring them. Similarly, there is no employment contract that an individual cannot bow out of. Businesses routinely break contracts with each other for precisely the same reasons. It's easier for a larger, better funded body to litigate a smaller, lesser funded body than it is for the situation to occur in reverse, nothing is ever open and shut unless one side is dismally underfunded, if both sides can afford to litigate it becomes legal MAD, etc etc etc)

The African National Congress has been ruling in south africa for 18 years. The recent rise of unemployment aswell as the widening gap between rich and poor will end the royalty check the ANC had for being the party of Nelson Mandela.
One of the biggest fails in South African history was the "commision for truth and amnesty", wich gave amnesty to those who were guilty of human rights violations during the apartheid regime. This absolutly stupid process wich so many regard as a "wonderfull example of bringing peace to a divided nation" was absolute horseshit!
No nation can flurish as a democracy after recently putting down a dictatorship, without putting the criminals of the former regime on trial! Just like the structures and dellinquents of the Pinochete regime, franco fashism, italian fashism, serb nationalism, hungarian fashism and stasi beaucracy still spook arround in todays Chile, Spain, Italy, Serbia, Hungary and Germany and constantly keep resurfing and showing their ugly face in sociaty, after these nations chose "amnesty" over the rule of law or didn`t hold trials for up to 20 years, South Africa will suffer from individuals and structures left by apartheid wich benefited the former ruling regime and wich continues to do so by not taking to trial those who gained their wealth through crimes against humanity.

(October 8, 2012 at 9:54 am)Rhythm Wrote: Why do we need an extra court for this, especially if it's open and shut? Not looking to create more bureaucracy are we?

No, but clearly a single court for handling these cases would be better, since cases could be sorted out quickly. The last thing that should happen is a case being delayed due to the lack of a judge or a backlog of cases.

Quote:In the interim, what are the plaintiffs to do (their incomes have been illegally curtailed, is the defendant culpable for these damages as well?)

Ideally, this would be a quick case to solve, but yes, of course if the company went back on the workers' contracts, then the company owes them their salaries as well as expenses that were accrued as a result of their actions (though a separate review board should have to approve expenses so that people can't try to get the company to pay for obvious luxury items).

(October 8, 2012 at 4:25 am)Tiberius Wrote: No, and I'm not 100% read up on this case, but it seems to me that a mining company would be wealthy enough to meet whatever demands they had without losing any revenue. I doubt the union asked the company for a ridiculous wage increase. If they did though, getting fired is the union's fault.

Exactly.

I doubt the workers are asking for more than safe working conditions and a decent living wage. If the company won't agree to that then what choice, other than violence, do they have other than strike?

(October 8, 2012 at 7:00 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No, but clearly a single court for handling these cases would be better, since cases could be sorted out quickly. The last thing that should happen is a case being delayed due to the lack of a judge or a backlog of cases.

Well, aside from the obvious tinkering of lawyers on both sides, I'd have to agree, justice should be swift.

Quote:Ideally, this would be a quick case to solve, but yes, of course if the company went back on the workers' contracts, then the company owes them their salaries as well as expenses that were accrued as a result of their actions (though a separate review board should have to approve expenses so that people can't try to get the company to pay for obvious luxury items).

Let's say "quick" is two weeks. That's beyond reasonable isn;t it? If we could get something like this sorted out, slammed through all the paces and handled in two weeks I'd sing a hail mary...and again I agree on all counts.. However, during those two weeks....the employees wont be working, correct? Sounds like a strike. Surely we wouldn't want to suggest that they be forced (or coerced) into involuntary labor. Similarly I cant imagine a scenario in which a company is forced to renegotiate a lawful contract with a union.

(October 7, 2012 at 8:48 pm)Tiberius Wrote: My opinion on this is mixed. I don't think workers should have a right to "strike"; it goes against the entire point of signing a contract.

How do you know. Some contracts are written with a clause that means you do not have to follow the letter of the contract-

for instance

Any loopholes are effectively made invalid by this clause: "Atheist Forums reserves the right to enforce the following rules as the staff sees fit. This disclaimer is for the sake of allowing the spirit of the rules to trump any literal interpretation of the rules."

Consequently the strikers only have to operate within the spirit of the contract.

(October 9, 2012 at 1:40 am)Rhythm Wrote: Let's say "quick" is two weeks. That's beyond reasonable isn;t it? If we could get something like this sorted out, slammed through all the paces and handled in two weeks I'd sing a hail mary...and again I agree on all counts.. However, during those two weeks....the employees wont be working, correct? Sounds like a strike. Surely we wouldn't want to suggest that they be forced (or coerced) into involuntary labor. Similarly I cant imagine a scenario in which a company is forced to renegotiate a lawful contract with a union.

To me, a strike is choosing not to work despite your contractual obligation to do so. In this country, people strike because they want more money or more benefits, despite them signing contracts which set their salaries at certain levels. This is a different case, where the company is the one in breach of a contract, and as such, the workers have no legal obligation to work. Essentially, contract law should work like this:

If a contract is agreed upon, and the worker violates their contract, the company is within their rights to fire the worker.
If a contract is agreed upon, and the company violates that contract, the worker is within their rights to refuse to work.

In the first instance, the worker is under a contractual obligation to work, and by choosing to not work, is striking. In the second instance, the worker is under no contractual obligation to work (since the company have effectively negated the contract), and thus their choice not to work is not a strike.

(October 9, 2012 at 5:48 am)jonb Wrote: How do you know. Some contracts are written with a clause that means you do not have to follow the letter of the contract-

for instance

Any loopholes are effectively made invalid by this clause: "Atheist Forums reserves the right to enforce the following rules as the staff sees fit. This disclaimer is for the sake of allowing the spirit of the rules to trump any literal interpretation of the rules."

Consequently the strikers only have to operate within the spirit of the contract.

Comparing an informally written set of rules against a formally written (and legally binding) document isn't really a fair comparison. A contract usually is several pages long, simply to ensure that there can be no doubt about what the terms of the contract is, and so that nobody can interpret the "spirit" of the contract in any other way than that in which it is written.

Unless you can give me an actual example of a contract with such a clause, I don't believe you have a valid point.

(October 9, 2012 at 1:46 pm)Tiberius Wrote: To me, a strike is choosing not to work despite your contractual obligation to do so.

Any contractual obligation of labor [here] which the laborer cannot terminate at any time is unlawful. I think that's a good way to handle labor. I suppose we could mince words over the specifics of either side of the rest of your post but it "all flows from here" in this instance, for me.

(October 9, 2012 at 1:46 pm)Tiberius Wrote: To me, a strike is choosing not to work despite your contractual obligation to do so. In this country, people strike because they want more money or more benefits, despite them signing contracts which set their salaries at certain levels.

That is not the way it usually works on this side of the pond. Take for example the recent teacher's strike in Chicago. They were striking between contracts. Their old contract had run its term and expired, and they had been unable to agree to terms on a new contract with the city. The result was there was no contract in place when the school year began. The teachers elected not to come to work (a decision that resulted in them not being paid by the city) until the two sides agreed to terms. Once an informal agreement had been reached between the two sides the teachers returned to work before the formal contract had been signed.

In this case the main point of contention wasn't even compensation. It was a change the city wanted tying the teacher's performance evaluation to student performance. Something that I can't really blame the teachers for not wanting as you can't teach a child that doesn't want to learn no matter how good you are.