Amendment would lock out locked out workers from benefits
March 12, 2013 at 7:00 pm in The Dickinson Press
BISMARCK Locked out employees would not receive unemployment benefits under an amendment added Monday to a state Job Service bill. Continue Reading
The legislative body this year seems to be one of the most unfriendly sessions to North Dakotans.
This is a rection to the State Supreme Court saying Crystal Sugar workers have the right to unemployment.
Cut the taxes for oil companies and provide less to the citizens of ND.
Reduce funding to help on roads, childcare,flood control etc.
Want to be “Governor” Carlson has his own agenda.
I have been a conservative Republican for most of my 62 years but this is now rediculous.
Like or Dislike:
11 
12
well said B S ….
Like or Dislike:
4 
11
B S the North Dakota Supreme Court was interpreting a statute drafted by the Legislature, it didn’t determine that there was an inherent right to unemployment (I am not sure if that is what your post was implying). The Legislature has indicated that it intended the legislation to exclude locked out workers from unemployment benefits. Apparently the law was not properly drafted and when read by the North Dakota Supreme Court has an application contrary to the intent of the Legislature. The Legislature is now simply correcting a law that it believes is being interpreted contrary to their intent. Regardless of what side of the issue you may be on, I don’t see a problem with the Legislature correcting the law so it is applied as they had originally intended. This isn’t a change of what the Legislature had previously intended, it is a correction of poor drafting in the original enactment.
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
While it does seem reactionary, I think questioning the court’s decision is about common sense as much as anything else. They based their decision on the fact that the employees were “willing to work, but were prevented from doing so”. They may have been “willing” to work, but that willingness depended upon doing so on THEIR terms. the company didn’t “prevent” them from working…..until the employees rejected the contract offers.
If anyone not “represented” does the exact same thing, (i.e. can’t/won’t come to terms with what the employer is offering at annual review/wage negotiation time), is THAT employer required to continue talks and make more offers UNTIL the employee is satisfied? Of course not. So then what happens? The employer finds someone else to do the job, and the employee moves on. Does the Supreme Court then decide the State owes unemployment benefits to that employee? Once again…of course not.
How is this different? Union supporters will of course point out that it’s different because the employees were “locked out” of *their* jobs. But in my scenario, the employer most certainly wouldn’t welcome their employee back and allow them to continue working until something could be agreed upon. Once the employer had offered as much as they were going to offer….that would be it. It would be over.
Unions DEMAND processes are in place that REQUIRE companies to take actions such as lock outs instead of what would occur elsewhere….such as an immediate parting of ways between the employer and employee WHEN as agreement can’t be reached DURING NEGOTIATIONS.
Expecting unemployment compensation after *essentially* asking for the lock out, seems pretty silly.
This union knew the timeline. The company knew the timeline. One party in the negotiation process went in prepared, the other….not so much.
Like or Dislike:
16 
4