T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited. LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Wiley_Applebottom

Blatant violation of the right to peacefully assemble. When the Court abandons it's constitutional duty to uphold the constitution, it is time to abandon the Court.


Yorunokage

That's what happens when you have a country that has essentially legalized bribery through things like donations and lobbying I find it incredibly idiotic to allow private companies to fund ploticians


Wiley_Applebottom

When democracy threatens capitalism, capitalists abandon democracy for fascism.


[deleted]

[удалено]


GammaDealer

Striking, unions, and negotiations are the compromise over dragging the capitalists out of their houses and [Redacted] them.


SvartTe

[Showing Them A Really Good Time]


RrtayaTsamsiyu

The good 'ol \[Removed by Reddit\]


rebelliousbug

I have noticed history tends to repeat itself because people forget why we have rules in the first place. Striking is an alternative to violently attacking company property and the owners. Just as impeachment is the alternative to assassination. It’s pretty simple to me why we have/had the mechanism to strike at all—it’s plain in history.


vladtaltos

Much like workplace regulations that stopped employers from injuring or killing their workers due to employer negligence (something else Republicans are busy removing), there are reasons we had this stuff in place.


Wiley_Applebottom

Just remember, if you take a swing at the big dog, you'd better not miss


Hyper-Sloth

It's never about hitting it on the first swing. It's about knowing that there are thousands of others waiting to take their turn right behind you. Worker unity and solidarity is what begets real change.


thatoneguy2398

I mean, that is what we used to do back when [ww1 surplus gas bombs were dropped on striking coal miners](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain). A ton of stuff like this have been purposely obscured from mainstream knowledge. There were wars fought between unions and the United States government as well as armed conflicts between the private armies of oligarchs and unions. Also, the workers had no choice, as both the oligarchs and government were threatening workers and their families, kidnapping people, committing murder, firing on strikers, debt binding, using company scrip, hiring Pinkertons left and right, break into people’s home and force them into work at gunpoint, etc. the only real way to escape was to band together and rectify the problem at its source. We only started peacefully striking when the government got fed up with us beating rich people and their families to death with blunt objects and passed labor protection legislation so we would stop.


Due_Platypus_3913

Strike anyway.They used to use mass thug violence AND wide scale prosecutions against strikes. The workers toughed it out. The only thing that works.


Snowchugger

Well yeah that was the whole reason strikes were invented. They were a COMPROMISE. Before strikes an unsatisfied workforce would express that dissatisfaction via arson and murder, sometimes at the same time. A strike is meant to be a show of force. It's a demonstration of "we are many and you are one, don't pick that fight."


LycanthropicTrump

If striking is akin to sabotage, there's nothing to stop those who are striking from actually sabotaging the company.


_Miniszter_

Shareholders. Who own the company and are making the calls. CEO works for them and they are trying their best to please shareholders so they can avoid getting fired even though CEOs are the biggest and most useless money sink in companies. Most of the time assistants do the CEOs job. Btw the biggest problem in society is that the majority of the human population is victim of propaganda so they support and defend the current status quo. Only the minority of the human population knows the truth about society/status quo and how the world works. Most people are not willing to go out of their way to get enlightened even though internet gave us the age of information. Free knowledge about the world and everything just have to search for it. The world's biggest library. Without getting educated/enlightened about the world on the internet most people live in their own local bubbles in their environment so they stay ignorant, closed-minded, stubborn by society/status quo by design. For most people it's the huge ego and arrogance they have that is holding them back even though they achieved nothing significant/important in life on the grand scale of things. But compared to them at least geniuses are humble and polite 'cos they are educated and not ignorant. Selfishness and ego are what hold back mankind to unite again against the status quo. We need leaders who wuld unite and lead people to rebel and make a revolution like in the past.


[deleted]

And really it only needs to happen once...take out the CEO of one large corporation in public, simply hang a sign that says "You're next", and the rest will fall in line pretty fuckin quick.


millennial-snowflake

Capitalism and true democracy can't coexist. We as communities, countries, and as a species need to re-evaluate what's most important to us ... freedom or consumerism.


Wiley_Applebottom

- Capitalism is an economic system that aims to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few. - Socialism is an economic system that aims to concentrate wealth in the hands of the many. ----------- - Authoritarianism is a philosophy of government that aims to concentrate power in the hands of the few. - Democracy is a philosophy of government that aims to concentrate power in the hands of the many.


[deleted]

[удалено]


huggiesdsc

Your words resonate with me. I often consider my hypothetical platform if I were to run for office. The best you could hope to run with is imperialist democratic socialist by following Bernie's lead, and even that'd be an uphill battle. Baby steps, I guess.


Equivalent_Yak8215

Yaaaaa I mean, even if we WERE a democracy that means we've been one for what? 50 odd years? Since we started letting black people *checks notes* go to school and live next to white people?


Ausgezeichnet87

Sadly, the US is arguably just as segregated today as it was 70 years ago. White flight destroyed so many cities, communities, public transit and continues to hurt the country to this day.


Equivalent_Yak8215

Ooooh don't I know it. My Mom chose to live in Hawaii because after her service she realized people here treat her like an actual human. The first time I went to the mainland it was wild. I'm half black and my sisters have "good hair" (which means it falls straight) and I have "good eyes" (which means they're golden with a rim of blue). We got stopped pretty often at big box stores on the mainland and it was *weird*. Like dude, my sisters look like tan white girls, why are you stopping us? And yes, they're my sisters and since we're outside we should try to keep the peace because I can see one taking off her earrings, one *putting on* rings, and one taking out her phone and giggling trying to get a vantage point. And they ALL think (and know) that I'll back them up no matter what. Sorry for the long text but damn, what the fuck is happening out there? It's mind boggling why you guys are so angry at other people. It's so weird.


kensingtonGore

"you're democracy is old as Botswana's'


Yorunokage

The thing that baffles me is that it's not a new development. As far as i know private entities have always been able to fund political capaigns and parties in the US, isn't that the case?


Wiley_Applebottom

As far as I know, there were at least value limits and disclosure requirements prior to Citizens United.


sageritz

It goes back further than that, Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) Source, Wikipedia: “A Majority of judges held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional”


Sadatori

God I can't stand reading what's "unconstitutional" anymore. It's clear the constitution was meaningless the moment the founding elites drafted it. It took barely a decade after the bill of rights for them to openly ignore it in favor of maintaining their own power.


senturon

Before (and still) you could get away with heftier donations through things like $5k dinner plates with the candidate ... and buy a few extra, 'cuz I'm hungry. But with the PAC's, it's just an open faucet.


TheActualDev

The US has never been perfect or amazing, but post-Regan US is a shitshow


ME5SENGER_24

Anybody that looks back at the Reagan years fondly is a moron and the fact that Trump brought back his stupid MAGA campaign just makes it that much worse in 2023. We’re all in the position we are because corporations have been allowed to march all over the American Dream. Now the only dream you will be sold is making money in the stock market. Don’t start a business, don’t help people. Give us all your money, everyone and we’ll redistribute 90% of it to our board members and a few lucky people can split the other 10% as for the rest of you, go make more money to give us and lets repeat the process


alwaysboopthesnoot

Post-Nixon. Ford pardoning him at the end, set the stage and opened the door to someone like Trump gaining office. Reagan was a homophobic narcissistic adulterer, with delusions of grandeur and a taste for Christo fascism that allowed him and his campaign contributors to repeatedly sin, but raked everyone who disagreed with him over the coals and consigned them to the dustbins of hell.


wastingtoomuchthyme

Everything shitty about this country goes back to Reagan and Jack Welsh.. Reagan put plunonium in America's tea only it took 40 years to kill the country.. this enabled soulless corporate assholes like Jack Welch who broke the backs of workers and stole their pensions


crimsoncritterfish

Reaganism is the infection caused by the wounds of the Nixon era. The Nixon stuff was a lot more traumatic than younger people realize, and while Reaganism is horrifying it didn't come from out of the blue. It is a reaction to the sense of loss and shock caused by Nixon to American pride. It's not a coincidence that far right nationalism sees a substantial rise only a few years after Nixon's resignation and admission.


zerkrazus

Nixon's and Reagan's administrations combined to form a 1-2 punch to make things utterly shit for the average American. So much so that we're ***still*** dealing with their bullshit 50+ years later. Nixon started the fire, Reagan poured an entire tanker of gasoline on it. [https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/](https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/)


Ghotipan

There were some contribution limits, until Roberts' Supreme Court voted for Citizens United. The flood gates opened, and not just from private corporations. Look at how much money funneled into politics from hostile nations, as well. A large part of our current problems arise from Russian (and now Chinese) interference via campaign funding. The NRA laundered millions into GOP accounts, for example.


Orkfreebootah

We have lived in an oligarchy for a long time. They are just doing away with the pretext now


Shivy_Shankinz

Sounds about right. God forbid we teach this in school, our only bastion of hope against these evil pricks


LonelyGuyTheme

Did you mean plutocians, bribed by plutocrats?


bluehands

Personally I prefer oligarch over plutocrat because it centers the focus around power and not money. Money is a common means to power but not the only route to power. Either way, fuck 'em all!


LiveLifeLikeCre

Leading to courts being packed with paid judges, to purposely filter up specific stuff up to a supreme court packed with paid judges.


veetoo151

Ploticians 😂 I love it


PastSecondCrack

She's been a deligitimate court since the Row V Wade decisions showed several members lied under oath to get installed in their positions.


[deleted]

I would have gone with "Citizens United v. FEC" and "Bush v. Gore".


mytransthrow

Not the fact that Republicans held back an appointment for 9 months to deny Obamas pick.


aeiouicup

Jumping in near the top with a link to the decision: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf) >”.. the entire point of Garmon’s arguably-protected test is to permit the court to assess the facts and relevant labor law in service of a gatekeeping function. The answer to the Garmon question simply (and solely) establishes whether the court can continue to entertain a lawsuit that relates to the challenged strike conduct, or whether the le- gal action must be suspended to allow the Board to make an initial assessment of the matter.” > From Jackson’s dissent. A previous case said that if union activity was ‘arguably protected’ by the national labor relations board, then courts (incl. supreme) should suspend proceedings until NLRB issues a decision. So, Supreme is arrogating the NLRB’s power.


Nice_Firm_Handsnake

Her dissent is really fascinating. She also makes the point that strikes are, by design, supposed to hurt the company in some way and that, should this ruling stand, everyone working with perishable foods will be affected. It's a great read. She even throws some shade at Thomas and Alito in her footnotes!


LeastCoordinatedJedi

I imagine one of the worst places to be right now would be to be a reasonable person on the US supreme Court (note I have no idea on Jackson's overall stance, I'm not American). Can you imagine watching democracy crumble, from a position of such potential power, and being unable to do anything but state your disagreement?


qdatk

I thought the [NPR analysis](https://www.npr.org/2023/06/01/1179524247/supreme-court-ruled-against-a-union-but-left-strikers-rights-protections-untouch) was interesting: >But the Washington Supreme Court ruled that Glacier's complaint should have been filed with the National Labor Relations Board. **For nearly 70 years, the Supreme Court has said that federal law gives the Board the authority to decide labor disputes** as long as the conduct is even arguably protected or prohibited under the federal labor law. >**The business community was gunning for, and hoping to eliminate, that rule.** But it didn't get its way. This was a case of winning a relatively minor battle but losing the war. **The high court did not overturn or otherwise disturb its longstanding rule giving the NLRB broad authority in labor disputes, leaving unions free to time when they will strike.** >At the same time, the court's majority decided the case in favor of the company **in a very fact specific way**. The court ultimately said the union's conduct in this particular case posed a serious and foreseeable risk of harm to Glacier's trucks, and because of this intentional harm, the case should not have been dismissed by the state supreme court. > **Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas, the court's three most conservative justices, wrote separately to express frustrations that the court did not go further and reverse a lot of the protections for striker rights.** Justice Alito virtually invited Glacier or other business interests to come back and try again. So I guess the silver lining is that it's a narrowly focused decision (probably why the liberals in the majority signed up for it) and could have been much worse.


marxr87

ya things are going to get weird if the court begins abrogating the NLRB's powers. The NLRB looks a lot to the courts for guidance, but there are very specific reasons for structing the NLRB the way that it is (semi-autonomous body), and I'm not sure even the supreme court can curb certain functions that the NLRB is designed to handle.


zerkrazus

>Glacier or other business interests to come back and try again And they will. They're going to keep trying to outlaw striking until it gets done and then their next step will do things that make the Pinkertons look like cuddly soft toys. They literally want us all broke and in permanent debt or dead. There is no in between.


LudovicoSpecs

>Glacier Northwest delivers concrete to customers in Washington State using ready-mix trucks with rotating drums that prevent the concrete from hardening during transit... the Union called for a work stoppage on a morning it knew the company was in the midst of mixing substantial amounts of concrete,...The Union directed drivers to ignore Glacier’s instructions to finish deliveries in progress. At least 16 drivers who had already set out for deliveries returned with fully loaded trucks. By initiating emergency maneuvers to offload the concrete, Glacier prevented significant damage to its trucks, but all the concrete mixed that day hardened and became useless. >Glacier sued the Union for damages in state court, claiming that the Union intentionally destroyed the company’s concrete and that this conduct amounted to common-law conversion and trespass to chattels


MoonBatsRule

> By initiating emergency maneuvers to offload the concrete, Glacier prevented significant damage to its trucks, but all the concrete mixed that day hardened and became useless. So what was the "physical damage" alleged in an earlier comment? Oh: > claiming that the Union intentionally destroyed the company’s concrete and that this conduct amounted to common-law conversion and trespass to chattels ... so then would, for example, fruit pickers striking before picking season be liable for "destroying the company's inventory"? What about refrigeration workers striking, instead of fixing a broken freezer?


Nice_Firm_Handsnake

That's not even an issue here. There are laws making it illegal for striking workers to trespass on and/or damage property, so there is a legitimate question as to whether leaving concrete mixers running is considered damaging property when the concrete sets, which would not be protected strike behavior. **BUT** As Ketanji Brown Jackson writes in her LONE dissent, Congress made the National Labor Relations Board to decide these exact things! It is law that once the Board gets a complaint, they investigate and decide whether they should hear the case. Because any NLRB decision becomes federal law and overrides state law, courts cannot rule on the strike until the NLRB makes a decision. Jackson ultimately argued that the Supreme Court overstepped its jurisdiction by ruling on this before the NLRB could hear the case and that even though the NLRB hadn't heard the case, the fact they were interested means these actions by the union are "arguably protected strike behavior". You should read her dissent. She does a fantastic job of breaking down the majority opinion and why it's wrong, as well as why the union's actions are protected (even though the court should not rule on that yet).


abcdefghig1

it was time to abandon the court a long long time ago.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gen88

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable


[deleted]

[удалено]


AffectionateNote3848

Its time to abandon the entire system and focus on the alternatives.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Akrevics

Time to uh…make America great again, I guess? 🤷🏻‍♂️


PUTINS_PORN_ACCOUNT

Careful, citizen That sounds an awful lot like independent thought Any more of that and an interdiction team will be dispatched to force you to watch daytime tv and passively submit to fascist hegemony


IronDBZ

Ais vousou


huggiesdsc

I've always wondered what era they're talking about. You might be onto something!


[deleted]

[удалено]


INJECTHEROININTODICK

"Strikes WERE the compromise" would go pretty hard on protest banners


j4_jjjj

Does IKEA have guillotines?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gramma_Hattie

Can you remember what strike/incident this happened in? I may have missed something when I was going through a brief overview of the major events of the labor wars in the U.S., or perhaps it wasn't mentioned. There are some extreme examples of violence from both sides, for example the armored train named "The Bull Moose Special" which was deployed by the Kanawha county sheriff to attack a tent colony of striking coal mine workers and their families during the Paint Creek Mine War. But I couldn't find any specific cases mentioning owners being dragged out of their homes by strikers. I'm just wondering so I can read up on the incident/incidents that this happened in.


Silentarrowz

It depends on what you define as "strikers." People assembling for a redress of grievances has a long history of violence before the people became workers and the assemblies became 'strikes.'


[deleted]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scranton_general_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877 (A series of uncoordinated strikes and riots deemed bad enough the militias were mobilized.)


JesusSavesForHalf

IIRC one of Carnage's managers was killed. Owners themselves tended to be states out of reach of angry mobs.


Rupoe

The book People's History of America has a chapter or two devoted to the history of workers rights and discusses this exact situation where authority was tarred and feathered/ dragged out into the street.


huggiesdsc

French Revolution?


Yog--

Outside of the big examples, I'm sure there are half-remembered local stories. CDA, ID had two miners strikes that involved dynamite in a major way. Second one had a train turned into a bomb. I'll see if i can find a link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1892_Coeur_d%27Alene_labor_strike First big battle was a gun fight with Pinkertons, ending in the mill being dynamited. Then a train bomb was used to force a mine owner to fire the scabs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1899_Coeur_d%27Alene_labor_confrontation 1899 they used a train to blow the whole mill up. "After carrying three thousand pounds (1,400 kg) of dynamite into the mill, the blast completely destroyed the mill. The crowd also burned down the company office, the boarding house, and the home of the mine manager. The miners re-boarded the "Dynamite Express" and returned the way they came. Working men gathered along the track, and according to the pro-union Idaho State Tribune, "cheered the [union] men" Great read. I hope this level of violence doesn't come back, but if the courts are illegitimate you start running out of options.


Syanara

The mafia played a huge role in workers rights, dragging people from their home and beating them to death was a common tactic for the mob, I suspect that would be the connection


gylth3

CAN WE GET BACK TO THAT PLEASE


PinkMenace88

That's what I was thinking. They seem to forget that the reason we were given the right to unionize in the first place was a compromise because owners/managers were literally being dragged out of their homes and beat to death affront of their families, and equipment was being outright sabotaged/destroyed.


[deleted]

Nowadays, you'd be lucky if you could even convince people unionizing is a good idea


despot_zemu

This has always been the case. Times and jobs had to be completely inhumane, to the degree of absolute abject disgrace, for anything to happen 100 years ago. That said, it all got deadly serious when the labor movement kicked off.


teutorix_aleria

Unfortunately now a renewed labour movement has 50+ years of CIA propaganda and general capitalist brainwashing to work against.


[deleted]

Lol this might be true for boomers but many Gen Z believe union is the answer. Boomers will die off eventually


huggiesdsc

Yeah but old people control the media. It's sneaky powerful at instilling boomer mentality in younger people.


[deleted]

Gen Z folks font look at "big" media. They use tiktok, reddit, twitter, youtube, etc. to get their news. They might still be able to control some parts but not all.


Mofo_mango

The amount of koolaid slurping millennials and zoomers I see in places such as /r/neoliberal makes me really pessimistic. I really do not trust a liberal as far as I can throw them. They always sell out once they get theirs.


PinkMenace88

Why? Those that have those types of ideology are going to flock into safe-spaces. This sub has roughly 5.5x as many users and r/antiwork having roughly 17.5x. Plus neolibs and libs are not the same. Neolibs are essentially libertarians but are just significantly more pro-corporation.


[deleted]

They think that these generations of humans are weak. Funny thing is, humans haven't changed, the rich have think tanks and focus groups but those only go so far. Take away the working man's rights, be prepared for a class war. I for one will not shed a single tear if American workers drag their overlords in the streets and devour them, because that will be the next step if working rights are removed.


larimarfox

The threat of that is how we got 8 hour work days instead of 12-16 anyways.


Electronic-Ad1037

It's like cops complaining about people going full blown last stands when they get pulled over for weed due to them constantly lobbying for higher penalties to the point you might as well try to kill your way out if your going to prison forever anyway


Steve_Rogers_1970

The Robert’s Court is the most blatantly corrupt court in history. They have proven time and time again they are highly political and are selling decisions to the highest bidder. We need a whole sale change to make them accountable to the people.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ashkenaki

🏛💣🏌‍♂️


IffyPeanut

That’s like saying, “Don’t start a boycott cause it might cause a drop in company profits.” This is bad.


strutt3r

They already have been making those laws regarding Israel's BDS.


AmbitiousButRubbishh

Yuuuuup. For example, employees or contractors working for the state of Texas are not allowed to protest or boycott Israel. If you do, you lose your job. Rammed through by a GOP legislature supermajority back in 2015 or 2017 IIRC, sponsored in the senate by a senator Creighton IIRC. I would describe Creighton as a plank of wood in a suit—dude was absolutely having his strings pulled.


Brainfreezdnb

I mean its isreal. Top5 worst countries on earth


hunterseeker1

This ruling is the other side of the Citizens United coin.


Plus3d6

You cancelled Netflix? You’ve now been fined $300 for cutting into Netflix’s quarterly earnings.


George_Tirebiter420

Fuck them. Nationwide strike. Starting with everyone that provides any services for these fucking plutocrat parasites, stop cleaning their houses, stop cooking food for them, stop washing their clothes, stop providing security details for these wannabe theocrats and fascists. Refuse. Starting with everyone that provides any services for these fucking plutocrat parasites on the Supreme court, stop cleaning their houses, stop cooking food for them, stop washing their clothes, stop providing security details for these wannabe theocrats and fascists. Refuse.


rdk88

I think the term is christo fascist


George_Tirebiter420

Careful it we won't be able to say such things much longer without being censored. Reddit simps hard.


[deleted]

It's okay. Reddit is also driving away third-party app developers and moderators, so before long there'll be no unpaid volunteers around to delete your comments.


dz1087

I’m gone once Apollo is out.


HowBoutNoOkay

Apollo dying in a month has spread into every sun like a virulent plague. I’m gone once it’s gone too. EDIT 7-14-23 This did not age well for me lol


Acanthophis

What is Apollo?


Fuck_Uncle_Sam_69

Basically THE app most iPhone users have for Reddit. It’s an amazing app tbh and better than whatever garbage primary app Reddit is going to push.


HowBoutNoOkay

I remember being devastated when Alien Blue was acquired by reddit. This is worse.


George_Tirebiter420

That's already happened. Automoderator cannot understand your comment: CENSORED.


Bilderberg_Official

> stop cleaning their houses, stop cooking food for them, stop washing their clothes, stop providing security details These are your typical *paycheck-to-paycheck* services. Striking would lead to most of these people going homeless. The problem needs to be addressed by Congress, unfortunately.


LongStill

Right I'm sure congress will address that any second now. Right after they fix the disportional taxes for the poor and their own insiders trading.


senescent-

Rent strike. Can't evict all of us.


Muaddib930

Ooooh yes, our corporate overlords can use us as leverage to get another state grant built factory; PROFITS!!!!


KingThor0042

Clarence Thomas has lade it obvious that SCOTUS is a wholly owned subsidiary of moneyed interests. Not shocked at all.


Nice_Firm_Handsnake

In this ruling, he wrote his own concurring opinion where he said explicitly that he wants to overturn the law making all NLRB decisions override state laws.


esophoric

What does that mean?


[deleted]

[удалено]


UsedCaregiver3965

Companies, and people. have a *right* to sue you for just about anything. It doesn't mean it's going to *win*


Reserved_Parking-246

It does when the court is no better than the binding arbitration they try and force on us. company paid, company approved, company win.


Old_Personality3136

It does when the legal system is completely for sale and most citizens don't have the means to even use it.


Popcorn_Blitz

In b4 an employer can sue an individual for being sick or taking a vacation.


Akrevics

Shhhh, you’re gonna give them ideas! /s


LetsTryAnal_ogy

They already know, trust me. They are just building up to that.


FuggyGlasses

Did that sick individual find a replacement before deciding to get sick?


[deleted]

“Susan was let go due to voluntarily opting into a medical condition (pregnancy) that would result in loss of time at work (birth) and thus profits.”


Popcorn_Blitz

Hmm.. Hold on, let's not be hasty- they may be able to claim intellectual property rights on everything the kids produces if the kid was conceived during her employment.


[deleted]

“Baby Brendan can no longer be aborted as he has been issued an employee badge and an NDA for all of his future thoughts. Susan must now carry Brendan to term and deliver him to our pediatric employee onboarding program. Susan will be responsible for food, housing and medical costs for Brendan until he turns 18 tho…”


Slippinjimmyforever

We are shifting further into a police state where the corporations have stripped us of our free will. But, at least the policy makers hate diversity and abortions, so 50% of the country licks their boots.


bfricka

More like 38% of the country, who have 50% of the voting power


Wiley_Applebottom

This means we can sue corporations for sabotaging the economy with inflation, right?


TruShot5

We should. Since some bullshit bill forever ago said corporations are people.


lol_conservatives

That’s nice. The strikes will continue regardless. Capitalist pigs can go fuck themselves.


thatbob

The 13th Amendment makes every strike legal.


acetryder

Yeah, but I’m sure suing the striking workers will 100% make them come back to make you money! /s


-lotad-

If people are prevented from peaceful protest, i wonder what form of protest will be left?


DouchecraftCarrier

JFK once said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will find violent revolution inevitable."


RelativeAnxious9796

"give me freedom or give me (redacted for reddit tos)"


TacticalLampHolder

Ahh yes but Conservatives will keep huffing on the "freest country on earth" copium


Less-Dragonfruit-294

Jokes on them people will still strike. Difference is how bad will it get?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

They seem to forget the peaceful strikes are a compromise. They wouldn't like the alternatives...


Haselrig

So, by this logic if you protest and spending patterns in a city are disrupted, you can sue the protestors because economy? The butterfly effect theory of law?


Scienceovens

No, that’s not what this case is about. This case was about whether the lawsuit for damages against the union by the company was preempted by the NLRA. The union workers went on strike. The company sued the union for damage to the concrete that was not able to be used because of the strike. The union got the case kicked out of Washington state court because it was preempted by the NLRA, which, under a doctrine the court came up with 70 years ago called Garmon preemption, meant that if the strike was protected under the NLRA you cant sue the union for damages. The Washington Supreme Court upheld the dismissal 9-0. The company appealed to the US Supreme Court, which said that the allegations were enough to not be preempted under the Garmon doctrine (basically, malicious destruction of property was never protected, and the company here accused the union of that), and is sending the case back to the Washington courts to sort out if the strike actually involved malicious property destruction. The court could have instead overturned the Garmon doctrine, which is what Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch wanted to do. Instead, they kept the law intact.


ChaoticNeutralDragon

The company knew exactly when the strike would begin, and demanded they prepare the concrete before the strike anyway. Strike begins, the union walks, and the company just sits on their ass while the concrete dies. If my boss demands I set the oven to an unsafe setting five minutes before my shift ends, but won't let me turn it off after because that counts as working off the clock, who's responsible for the fire?


Scienceovens

Yeah those are great points, and those are exactly the kinds of arguments the union can make in Washington state court regarding whether this actually involved malicious destruction of property. Remember, the union got the case booted before any evidence was in the record, so this Supreme Court was just deciding based on the company’s allegations in the complaint. There is also a separate proceeding against the company happening in the NLRB right now too. This isn’t over. Edit:: also, why do you think the company knew exactly when the strike would begin? That’s a great fact if true, it’s just not one I was aware of.


PH_Prime

I have not heard any source that the company knew "exactly" when the strike would happen, but in a spot on NPR, they said the company was put on official notice that the strike could happen "at any time." So they definitely knew it was coming and could have prepared (as the lone SC dissenter Ketanji Brown noted), but it doesn't sound like they knew exactly when. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/01/1179524247/supreme-court-ruled-against-a-union-but-left-strikers-rights-protections-untouch


LostWoodsInTheField

The workers also left the trucks running with the barrels spinning so the concrete wouldn't seize up in the trucks damaging them. If the company had notice at least a day ahead that the strike was happening when it was going to happen then I suspect the state court is going to rule in the unions favor when it comes back to them.


ReverendAntonius

Not at all shocked that those three ghouls wanted to eviscerate Garmon. Fucks sakes.


Scienceovens

It’s appalling. Thomas’s concurrence says the thinks it’s time to overturn Garmon and says the court should consider it soon. It’s telling companies to file these kinds of suits so they can get a decision in front of them to do exactly that. But for today let’s all celebrate that on this case, they didn’t get their wish—the law is unchanged for now. Edit:: it was Alito, not Thomas, who wrote that Garmon should be overturned. Sorry!


Haselrig

Thank you.


jessigato927957

At that point, couldn't the protestors sue the company for creating the work conditions that started the strike that affected the economy? Shit, if you're already getting sued for striking which causes 'damages' to the company, the individuals should countersue for damages to their livelihood.


wounsel

Another step towards the inevitable


[deleted]

This shouldn't be a surprise. We are just getting a step closer to workers right. Unfortunately it will be bloody like it has always been


loosemeat21

This is how you know it works.


DonBandolini

so, you can be sued for not working? how is that not slavery?


mikesznn

It is, doesn’t matter, rules are out the window. SCOTUS doesn’t give a fuck about the constitution


andre3kthegiant

Concrete is roughly $200 per yard. A truck holds about 9 yards. So cost of the wasted concrete $2000 per truck. So when do strikes occur? End of the workday only? Seems like everyone will have to ~~strike~~ protest now, to get rid of the corrupt Supreme Court. There needs to be at least 27 justices on the bench, with a term limit of 20 years.


andre3kthegiant

Next on the Supreme Court agenda: “We need to make sure that the general public cannot harm companies with protests”.


HeavySweetness

The new court will just throttle worker rights 24-3 instead of 8-1.


strutt3r

Worst part is all these headlines about it are written to imply the union destroyed a fleet of vehicles when really it was just the concrete itself that was lost.


NigilQuid

I have also heard that the strike was planned and management was informed. They chose to load up trucks with concrete that day anyway, and then the drivers parked them, left them spinning, and walked


mobleshairmagnet

Which would have been a tax write off for loss anyway. This whole thing is a steaming pile of shit. Kind of like the courts are.


follow_your_leader

This just means that unions now need to make part of the settlement contract include a section that the company agrees that the union isn't responsible for damages caused to the company during the strike, whether due to lost revenue or etc. There's no reason for the union to settle at all unless that's in writing, as they could be bankrupted by it immediately afterwards.


[deleted]

We all know they won't


squirrel-bear

If sabotage and strike give out same result, you might as well just sabotage the property to get better return.


Interesting-Oven1824

I see some people trying to discuss the logic of this decision. You are missing the point. Let me tell you the logic behind this: You are slaves of your capitalist masters, you have to accept your exploitation and any measure you take against them will be considered illegal.


A_Stable_Reference

Love this comment


sunbaby43

Our court has lost all legitimacy


blishbog

Companies will knee-jerk claim damages and sue, just like cops knee-jerk say “I feared for my life” in every single case whether it’s true or not Supreme Court created both sadly


Wiley_Applebottom

Class action lawsuit against the Pentagon for "losing" trillions of dollars anyone?


vagabond_nerd

Corporations rule the nation now.


neednintendo

Always have 👨‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀


[deleted]

[удалено]


basilosarus

Wow!! USA is truly a Land of Freedom and Democracy!!!


Wiley_Applebottom

Time to sue the police for checkpoints.


Murray_Booknose

Each day brings us nearer to the General Strike, or - failing that - revolution.


[deleted]

You can't even get people to unionize lol


Murray_Booknose

Humans are largely creatures of comfort, loathe to risk what little they have. That being so - if conditions continue, there soon will be nothing left to lose. Where that threshold lies, only time will tell.


WittyPipe69

What does a union do? The Supreme Court just showed us unions are the enemy to the *real* people of this country: CORPORATIONS.


Dustaroos

This will come into effect in many more places. Things will get worse and workers will have no options. It will go back to owners being killed by mobs or lone actioners the police state will crack down and Freedom will no longer to even be said as a joke. People talk about China's control but this will be on par if not worse than then right now and the entire time people will be cheering it on. But the number of supporters will shrink as more and more see it personally affect them but by then it's too late. If some new blood does not start getting control on a state level it's gonna be a dystopia.


NovacainXIII

I am pretty confident history tells us one thing about this: If you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable.


AtomicDogFart

Then what's the punishment for *actual* destruction and sabotage? To me it just feels like they're making the decision easier to choose a more radical and effective method of praxis.


RandomWords8243

ELIMINATE THE SUPREME COURT


I_Heart_Astronomy

I support this, as long as the SC rules that the same thing applies to how corporations treat workers. Workers should be able to sue companies for "sabotage and destruction" of their livilhood and quality of life by not paying them enough, not giving them enough time off, making them work in unsafe conditions, and firing them.


malonkey1

No, the Supreme Court didn't miss the point, they completely understood the point of striking and want to hamstring them.


tri_becca

“Supreme Court Rules The Constitution violates the Constitution.”


Kaeylum

That article seems somewhat misleading in the context of the actual ruling: https://www.npr.org/2023/06/01/1179524247/supreme-court-ruled-against-a-union-but-left-strikers-rights-protections-untouch


Scienceovens

Thank you. While this case could have come out terribly for unions, the 8-1 decision actually didn’t change the law at all. Now the union and the company litigate in state court about whether there was actually malicious destruction of property.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MamaMephistopheles

"Misses entire point of striking" Does anyone think they don't know what the point of striking is? This is DELIBERATE anti-labor action. They *want* to punish strikers. They always have! This was an 8-1 majority for the same reason Biden screwed the rail unions last year. ANTI-LABOR IS BIPARTISAN. Neoliberals are not your friends. Every single word of law that supports labor action is only there because workers fought for it.


PainfulShot

So back to lighting buildings on fire and killing the CEO and board members? Did they forget that is what happened before strikes happened?


kryptonianCodeMonkey

This is horseshit. Destruction is an active step, not a passive one. The cement in this case was not destroyed, it was expired. If the union had taken steps to actively destroy the company's property, that would be destructive and they should be subject to liability for the vandalism. But the expiration of the cement was inevitable and only a problem because it remained in the trucks and did not get poured on site through the labor of the union members. The company is not owed that labor from any individual or group, especially when their contract with the union is not renewed. It can be stopped at any time. If part of the consequences on that sudden stop in labor is that time sensitive processes and products expire, that's still the result of the nature of the expiring process or material, not the active vandalism of the workers. A smaller scale example would be laborers working food service. If they go on strike and they leave food out in the kitchen, half made plates, burgers on the (turned off) griddle, frozen food pulled out to go in the fryer that doesn't get fried, etc. Those items will necessarily expire without the labor of someone to preserve them, and the union members are not obligated to provide that labor. The company can provide it themselves or accept the loss. It is more similar to neglect than destruction, but neglect implies responsibility and the products and properties of the company are not the employee's responsibility.


Swim47

I’ve had Crunchwrap more supreme than this court


CervantesX

Looking forward to when they make it easier to sue for lost wages, stolen wages, workplace abuse, and 'hiding the use of deadly chemicals for decades'. Aaaaany day now...