<p>Chedva - I remember those newspaper strikes well, as well as the more recent ones in Detroit. I happen to represent 4 unions in the newspaper industry and have dealt with manning issues in numerous collective bargaining agreements over the years, including very difficult negotiations a year ago in which manning reductions were a major concern for both sides. In general, the genesis of manning issues flows from changes in technology. Manning rules which once made sense 20 years ago may not make sense today as advances in technology reduce the number of bodies required to perform particular jobs safely or effectively. These are never easy issues to resolve because of the very real hardship that job eliminations have on families, particularly where there is a paucity of comparable employment available elsewhere.</p>
<p>As to the lawsuit, I suspect that it is nothing more than a high visibility ploy designed to create publicity and force the union to commit resources to another “battlefront”. I doubt that the suit has any real legal viability. Under well established federal law, which preempts state law, the right to strike is protected and a union can not be held liable for damages resulting from a strike during contract negotiations once the existing contract has expired. State courts don’t even have jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. This was a tactic used by companies back in the 30’s and has long since been ruled to be a violation of federal law. It certainly will not promote a sensible return to the bargaining table, is going to distract the parties’ time, resources and energies, will harden positions and bodes ill for a resolution of this dispute in the near future.</p>