Using the courts to undercut union power

[dcsmart]

Lee Sustar looks at the court order banning an LA teachers' strike last week in the context of the long history of anti-union judges intervening in labor struggles

THE JUDGE who barred a one-day strike by Los Angeles teachers May 15 cited student safety as a primary concern.

In reality, Los Angeles County Superior Judge James Chalfant was acting on behalf of powerful political forces that want to break United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA). And by issuing a restraining order against the union--including threats of fines that would bankrupt it--Chalfant was following in a long American tradition of using "injunction judges" and other government intervention against workers' democratic right to strike.

By the late 19th century, the anti-strike injunction was already commonplace, as U.S. workers struggled to organize militant and effective labor organizations. The great railroad workers' uprising of 1877, the bitter fight for the eight-hour day in the 1880s and the dramatic Pullman rail strike of 1894 were all met with state repression. Strikebreaking by state militias--the forerunners of today's National Guard--was commonplace.

Invariably, the justification for these crackdowns was that the strikers were lawbreakers. And if there was no law on the books specifically banning a job action, there was always a judge--local, state or federal--who was happy to issue a restraining order barring workers from walking out. This scenario was so commonplace that workers called it "government by injunction."

THE MOST notorious "injunction judge" was William Howard Taft, a Republican who went on to be elected president of the United States in 1908 and appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1921.
Text

FULL ARTICLE
http://socialistworker.org/2009/05/21/using-courts-undercut-union-po

There is a lot of information in the article above and some suggested reading. The posted clips above do not really do the article justice.

[TimesSquareCowboy]

1. Injunctions were issued for violations of anti-trust law believe it or not.

The first real labor legislation prohibited judges from issuing injunctions against workers under antitrust law. Obviously, judges have continued to find reasons to issue injunctions under other laws.

[happyslug]

2. In the Colonial period, injunctions were rare, only in the 1800s did they become common

One of the reason was under the Common Law Courts at law could NOT grant injunctions (Only money Judgments and determination of who owned what property). Injunctions was reserved to Courts of Equity (Which, under the Common Law was a separate and independent court System). In the Colonial period, only Pennsylvania had a Court of Equity (And then only for a brief time period, it was abolished by the Revolution). The main reason fro this lack of Courts of Equity was the fact such courts had long been a source of abuse in England, much more hated then the Courts of Law that could only take your money.

Now, the lack of a Court of Equity caused some problems, mostly how do you get someone to do something he had contracted for and any money Judgment would be inadequate? Thus in the early 1800s your saw more and more State Courts of Law adopting the powers of the Courts of Equity in such situations. Some states even formed Courts of Equity (Which were tied in with the growth of Corporations). Today in almost every state (I have questions as to Delaware) the Courts of Common Pleas not only have the full power of the Courts of law, but the Courts of Equity.

In the Federal sphere, the Federal Courts NEVER had a Court of Equity, but quickly adopted its power, but was limited by Federal Law to Federal Issues. The issuing of Court Orders by Federal Judges started with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which several Congressmen said at the time also prohibited unions as restraints on trade (The Clayton Act of 1914 was intended to end the use of the Sherman Anti-trust Act as an Anti-union act).

The key here is the Federal Courts have no power, independent of Federal Law passed by Congress, to issue any injunction. While the Courts are issuing the Court Orders, it is the Federal Law, as passed by Congress, that gave the Courts that power. In most states, the State Legislature have adopted similar rules, i.e. granting the power of Injunction relief in various situations (And in addition the Courts of law have adopted the rules of the Courts of Equity when the Courts of Law saw the Need).

One of the problem with the above is the chief check on the Courts of Equity was that is was Church Related i.e. It Judges were NOT called Judges, but Chancellors, AND its chief rule was to get Equity one must be willing to do Equity (and its second rule was injunction were to be denied if an adequate remedy at law existed, i.e. money damages). When Statute gave Injunctions power to the Court, these two rules were ignored, only the statute granting the power was considered (And often the Statute was written to make sure this was the result, for the last thing Corporate America wanted was having to treat its workers "equitable". Thus the Chancellors, while under the cover of looking to be fair, it effect was design to be fair only to Corporate America.

My point is that Injunction relief has always been needed (Which is why the Courts of Equity were first formed) but the abuse of that power has been a constant. Thus the Clayton Act was to check the Power granted and abused by the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Similar checks are needed when that power is abused.

[Wednesdays]

3. K&R

:kick: