News

23655 readers

2954 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

118

Supreme Court, siding with Starbucks, makes it harder for NLRB to win court orders in labor disputes (apnews.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for the federal government to win court orders when it suspects a company of interfering in unionization campaigns in a case that stemmed from a labor dispute with Starbucks.

The justices tightened the standards for when a federal court should issue an order to protect the jobs of workers during a union organizing campaign.

The court rejected a rule that some courts had applied to orders sought by the National Labor Relations Board in favor of a higher threshold, sought by Starbucks, that must be met in most other fights over court orders, or injunctions.

The NLRB had argued that the National Labor Relations Act, the law that governs the agency, has for more than 75 years allowed courts to grant temporary injunctions if they find requests “just and proper.” The agency said the law doesn’t require it to prove other factors and was intended to limit the role of the courts.

The case began in February 2022, when Starbucks fired seven workers who were trying to unionize their Tennessee store. The NLRB obtained a court order forcing the company to rehire the workers while the case wound its way through the agency’s administrative proceedings. Such proceedings can take up to two years.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 42 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

This is a pretty bad headline. SCOTUS held that precedent stands and an already-existing four-prong test must be applied to the NLRB's requests for TRO in such matters.

It's less a "makes it harder" and more a "allows the current status quo, wherein it is hard to obtain a TRO, to remain."

EDIT: Of note, the "irreparable harm" standard is well established and quite standard and the decision was unanimous. Opinion here

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That’s a fair point. I thought it was best just to copy and paste the headline, but you’re right.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

No no, you didn't do anything wrong; I think it's best to copy the exact headline from the publication, too. I just disagree with the choice the headline editor at the Associate Press made, here. Thanks for your post.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago

This was quite a wonderful way to handle a miscommunication and I was glad to witness it.

Thanks for restoring some hope that the fediverse is capable of handling such issues with respect and courtesy.