Forum: Author Hangout

More specifically, the Executive order at issue, a moratorium on deportations would definitely have an impact on how the Border Patrol does their work.

And they could use this also as a shield.

This is hypothetical, but say the BP detains somebody, and they follow some new rule and just let them go instead of detaining them. Then that person steal a car and drives into a crosswalk full of students and kills them. Then the agents could be held liable for not holding him when they had him. Just as a cop if a drunk driver is a buddy and lets them go, then he hit somebody else.

By forcing the agents to still follow set rules, this is protection for them. They detained the individual, they were then released by the Government at a detention facility. The "Individual" is taken out of the equation, and the only one to charge is the Government/organization, and not the individual Border Patrol members.

I bet the thinking is along those lines here. They want protection from being sued or thrown in jail, because technically they are being ordered to violate the law.

Then the agents could be held liable for not holding him when they had him. Just as a cop if a drunk driver is a buddy and lets them go, then he hit somebody else.

The police cannot hold a person because they might do something illegal in the future.

In your example, the police would be held accountable for releasing a drunk and allowing him to get behind the wheel and drive, not for releasing him. If the police decided to release him, the proper action would be to take away his keys before releasing him.

However, If a new policy required the Border Patrol to cease carrying weapons when on patrol, that would invoke the application of the above term in the contract, as would a policy change doing away with the Border Patrol as a group.

I would disagree. Immigration Policy addresses who may come into a country, not the enforcement of the policy.

I would want to see the exact wording in the contract for PotomacBob said "it is alleged". There is an immense amount of disinformation on the Internet and in the media.

While the enforcement of the policy may affect enforcement, by changing working conditions, a change in working conditions does not give a union the right to block a policy change. A contract between worker and employer does not stop an employer from making business decisions, such as: going out of business, closing or relocating a facility, changing the equipment used to perform manufacturing tasks, etc.

the government is bound by it.

I worked for a defense contractor. My company negotiated and signed a contract with the government to design a defense installation for detecting incoming missiles. About a month later the Government terminated the contract.

Government contracts have contract termination clauses. A contract with the Border Patrol can be terminated via the termination clause, thus it is not bound to the terms of the contract for the duration of the contract period.

A contract with the Border Patrol can be terminated via the termination clause, thus it is not bound to the terms of the contract for the duration of the contract period.

I haven't really read the posts, but a defense contract with a contractor is different than a labor contract with employees.

Government contracts normally contain the same basic boilerplate with the main difference being what is being the details of what is being acquired.

Government contracts normally contain the same basic boilerplate with the main difference being what is being the details of what is being acquired.

However, union contract, purchase contract, and development contract have different boilerplates with a lot of different base clauses.

Government contracts have contract termination clauses. A contract with the Border Patrol can be terminated via the termination clause, thus it is not bound to the terms of the contract for the duration of the contract period.

That depends on there being a termination cause. While design and purchasing contracts have termination clauses it's unusual for an employment or union contract to have an early termination clause, and the ones that do require the same payment as if the contract ran it's full term.

While the Democrats might screw over union coal miners there is no chance they will mess with govt. employee unions.

Probably true, except where it might interfere with one of the pet projects to become part of the single socialist world order.

AN unbiased political opinion?

ayep, an analysis based on observed fact over the last 5 years. Not being a US Citizen and not living in the USA I'm not affected by how much damage the US economy takes thanks to the policies of Pelosi and AOC etc as publicly announced by them during the last 5 years.

Over the last five years the Democrat Leadership have frequently said they want to do away with the Border Control, so damaging the unions involved in the Border Control won't worry them. Nor will union anger at them doing away with any union members in the public service who do not immediately and public support their agenda. Again, all is in line with their stated attitudes, policies, and behaviours of the last few years.

The proper time to stab an ally in the back is when you no longer need them, not while you are still counting on their help to win.

That's normal thinking, but we've not seen any normal thinking from Pelosi, Biden, AOC, et al during the last 4 plus years.

If this administration believes that a union contract interferes with their ability to govern and can prevail in court, they can demand to negotiate a new contract.

However, in that case they can be forced to payout a significant fortune to buyout the existing contract.

The court could find the terms of the contract violate the law, in which case the court can declare the contract invalid.
I've a niece who practices business law.

If a contract violate law that existed at the time the contract was written it is voided, it declared invalid as it wasn't a legal contract. However, if the contract violates a law that comes into being after the contract is signed, then the contract has to be carried out as is, or if it's unlawful to continue it must be paid out in full.

Mind you, how the courts deal with will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

There's also the point of the law in the jurisdiction of where the contract was signed as what can be a legal contract in state A may be unlawful in state B but still be binding due to having been signed in state A.

The biggest issue is that the person who made the deal with the union did not have the authority to make the deal. It was not the head of ICE that signed it but the acting deputy secretary Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II.

That will depend on what his duties and responsibilities were at the time. I very much doubt he would've signed it if the position didn't have the authority to do so. It is extremely rare for the head of a government organisation to be signing any contract other than major purchase or development contracts. That's why they have positions like that of Deputy Secretary where one will have the authority to organise purchase of goods and sign the contracts for that and another will organise the employment activities and sign the contracts for that.

edit to add: They may argue he didn't have the authority because he was acting, if that's the case then they're sure to lose because the reason you appoint a person to a job as acting in it is so you have someone in the job to exercise the authorities of the job that others can't exercise. If there were no powers or authorities to exercise you leave the job empty and consider doing away with it.