Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCompa, Lance A.
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-17T17:14:20Z
dc.date.available2020-11-17T17:14:20Z
dc.date.issued2006-07-01
dc.identifier.other669876
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1813/74910
dc.description.abstract[Excerpt] United States labor law on workers' right to strike meets international human rights standards—up to a point. The law does not ban strikes in the private sector. Unlike many countries that nominally allow strikes but create onerous procedural obstacles (Mexico is a prime example), the United States, aside from modest notice requirements, lets workers decide to strike. In a handful of states, public-sector workers can strike. So far, so good. But beyond this point, U.S. labor law and practice deviate from international standards. In the public sector, most strikes are prohibited even with no threat to public health or safety (the main proviso developed by the International Labor Organization). In the private sector, employers' power to permanently replace workers who exercise the right to strike effectively nullifies that right.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.rightsRequired Publisher Statement: The article originally appeared in Volume 10, Issue 1 of Perspectives on Work, Copyright 2006, Labor and Employment Relations Association, Champaign, IL.
dc.subjectUnited States
dc.subjectlabor law
dc.subjectInternational Labor Organization
dc.subjectILO
dc.subjectAFL-CIO
dc.titleStriker Replacements: A Human Rights Perspective
dc.typearticle
dc.description.legacydownloadsCompa31_Striker_Replacements_Human_rights_perspective.pdf: 706 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020.
local.authorAffiliationCompa, Lance A.: lac24@cornell.edu Cornell University ILR School


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Statistics