|Not official use.|
In this case, testimony established that the employer hired replacement workers "to teach the strikers and the Union a lesson" and to avoid future strikes. Apparently (as of Tuesday), that's bad; or an "independent unlawful purpose" to use the technical term. The dissent argued that just as the NLRA protects the employees' "economic weapon" to go on strike, so too does it protect the employer's economic weapon to hire replacements. What's a good and lawful reason for hiring permanent replacements? Try, "the legitimate business purpose of allowing the employer to protect and continue his operations during a strike."
How will every single deposition in these cases go from this day forward?
Attorney: Why did you replace the strikers?
Employer: For the legitimate business purpose of allowing us to protect and continue our operations during a strike, of course!
Attorney: You weren't trying to teach the union a lesson or prevent future strikes?
Employer: Goodness no. Even though they're trying to inflict economic harm on us as a bargaining tactic, we would never have any intention of inflicting economic harm on them to prevent future strikes. That would be wrong.Some others have weighed in on this case. From employer-side, Jon Hyman's You have the right to replace striking workers, right? And, from the employee side, On Labor's Ben Sachs with Some Sanity on Striker Replacements.