Commonwealth V. Hunt
Why do you think it was necessary to dissolve the relationship between criminal conspiracy and the labor movement? What was the relationship given by the court between criminal acts and employees rights to control their environment at work?
It was necessary to dissolve the relationship between criminal conspiracy and the labor movement in order to clarify the position that the refusal of the shoemakers to work for the employer who hired an employee that was not a member of their union was justified. It was necessary to dissolve this relationship in order to explain the view that the shoemakers were in a legal union that was aimed at achieving legal purposes hence eliminating any sense of guilt in their actions. This could make it easier for the position taken by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on the matter to be understood by both parties to the case and ensure that both parties are satisfied with the impartial verdict. Again, Beatty & Samuelson (2010) agree that dissolving this relationship was the only way to ensure that a just verdict is arrived at by the court by bringing out lawful and unlawful matters in the clearest manner possible. The distinction of the relationship was the fairest manner of justifying the verdict held by the court as the facts could be easily substantiated through the drawn distinction between criminal conspiracy and labor movement.
The court asserted a significant relationship between criminal acts and employees rights. It held that a criminal act consists of an unlawful agreement between two or more individuals with the aim of achieving an illegal purpose of promoting criminal acts. On the other hand, the court affirmed that employees rights are not unlawful as they give employees the power to achieve honorable purposes in their operations. Therefore, the relationship between criminal acts and employees was derived from the nature of the association and the lawfulness of their purpose.
Why do you think the court found that there was some good in organizing to affect the employers policies? Explain
The court found that there was some good in organizing to affect the policies of the employer because of various reasons. Notably, the court found it good because the association of the employees was a legal one with a lawful purpose. Halevi (2010) affirms that the association between the employees was aimed at protecting their rights and interests and ensuring that their matters were addressed in line with what they required for effective operations and work performance. The court found it good for them to organize to affect the policies of the employer as they were lawfully trying to protect their rights and interests. Therefore, the protection of the interest and rights of employees is a crucial aspect of their rights, Therefore it should be observed and respected to the latter in all employees engagements with the organization.
Additionally, the court found some good in organizing to affect the policies of the employer as the employer had not respected their rules of employment and working. According to the courts statement, it can be seen that the employer was bound by an agreement to ensure that only employees belonging to the union are employed into the company. However, the employer breached this pre-employment agreement by going ahead to hire a journeyman that was not part of their union. The court found some good in the matter as the employer had affected the position of the employees, which is indicative of enormous disrespect for the position of these employees in the organization. Therefore, it can be noted that the court found some good in organizing to affect the policies of the employer because of the employers breach of the agreement made with the current employees to recruit only members that belong to their union.
Do you agree with the courts analysis in this case? Explain.
I strongly agree with the courts analysis of the case. Several reasons justify my agreement with the courts analysis of the case. I agree with the analysis of the case, as the court was clear in defining all the matters related to the case before reaching the verdict. The court begun by the definition of a conspiracy asserting that it entails an agreement between two or more individuals with a view of achieving a criminal purpose. According to the case, anything that leads to a criminal purpose can be effectively dealt through indictment because of its sense of criminality. According to Tomlins (1993), courts effectiveness in the analysis of the case is also depicted through its clear distinction of the criminal acts and employees rights through unions. It affirms the view that the criminal acts lead to unlawful purposes while the purposes promoted by the rights of employees are always aimed at a lawful purpose. This differentiation makes the case clear as all facts are clearly analyzed and separated for understanding of each of the parties to the case. I also agree with the analysis entailing the agreement between the employer and the employees prior to their hiring. The court emphasizes that the employer was bound by the agreement to recruit only members that belong to the same union of the current employees, but the employer goes ahead to employ a journeyman hence breaching this agreement. This is a satisfactory argument to find the employees not guilty of the alleged offense. Therefore, I agree with this analysis as it takes into consideration all the facts and substantiates matters relating to the case in a manner that reflects a high sense of just ruling.