Court Affirms Ruling Against Airline Strike

[Omaha Steve]

Source: N Y TIMES

Court Affirms Ruling Against Airline Strike

By REUTERS
Published: March 30, 2007

Flight attendants at Northwest Airlines are not allowed to strike, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday, affirming a lower court ruling and lifting a cloud hanging over the bankrupt carrier.

The ruling, from the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, protects Northwest from a potentially devastating strike threatened by the workers after Northwest voided their labor contract last year with court permission.

It also seems to clear up a legal question about the rights of workers to take job actions against a bankrupt employer.

The appeals court agreed with Judge Victor Marrero of Federal District Court in New York, who said last year that Northwest’s flight attendants, represented by the Association of Flight Attendants, did not have the right to strike under the circumstances.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/business/30air.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Cooley Hurd]

1. A court packed with Reagan/Bush/Chimp appointees, no doubt...

:grr:

[laylah]

2. What a bunch of

horse pucky! Unions protect the worker...no wonder Raygun started busting them with overriding the '82 (?) air traffic controllers strike. Have to appease the corporations, ya know :mad: Bastards!

Jenn

[KamaAina]

3. Fun with Bankruptcy!

You already know you can get out from under all those pesky legacy obligations, like pensions 'n' healthcare 'n' stuff, just by declaring bankruptcy, right?

But now, you can use it to bust those damn commie pinko unions, too!

Remember, the repuke Congress only made it damn near impossible for real people to delare bankruptcy. Us corporations can still do it whenever we like!

:sarcasm:

[IChing]

4. What is this 1907 vs 2007?

Good grief this country has gone backwards.

[Dr.Phool]

5. Airlines are covered under the Railway Labor Act

Making it damn near impossible to strike. Especially curing this administration.

[Solo_in_MD]

6. Another M$M Puff piece

How about some background as to why, legal reasoning, precedents etc?

I HATE IT when they boot a story as badly as they do this one.