I was looking for a solid debate on this issue, you seemed incapable or unwilling to answer the most basic form of my question.
Perhaps you missed this (you know, being blinded by your anger and all), which I took the time to write in my previous post:
I imagine the skeletal outline of their position goes something like this: (1) 11 U.S.C. 1113 lays out steps we had to follow to toss out a CBA; (2) The court found we followed those steps; (3) Therefore we can reject the CBA; (4) 11 U.S.C. 1113 does not refer to a right to strike if the steps are followed, but rather Congress recognized that a bankrupt employer is in a precarious position and so, consistent with other principles of reorganizational bankruptcy, a debtor has special ability to get out of contractual obligations; (5) notwithstanding point # 4, Congress also recognized that for public policy reasons, CBAs deserve more protection than other executory contracts in bankruptcy and so it enacted Section 1113 to provide special protections for employees, making it harder for a debtor to reject labor contracts than it is for the debtor to reject other executory contracts (for example, with vendors); (6) these additional protections serve to adequately protect employees while still balancing the goals of a reorganizational bankruptcy and therefore should supersede other laws while the company is in bankruptcy.
If that doesn't address what you were asking, I guess I didn't understand you.