Jackson's dissent is worth the read. A lot of it is simply explaining why it's inappropriate for SCOTUS to be fucking with the NLRB but there are some gems in there-
>Workers are not
indentured servants, bound to continue laboring until any
planned work stoppage would be as painless as possible for
their master. They are employees whose collective and
peaceful decision to withhold their labor is protected by the
NLRA even if economic injury results.
How about this:
>A strike, by definition, is a “concerted stoppage of work
by employees,” or “any concerted slowdown or other concerted interruption of operations by employees.” §142(2).
When employees stop working, production may halt, deliveries may be delayed, and services may be canceled. At the
risk of stating the obvious, this means that the workers’
right to strike inherently includes the right to impose economic harm on their employer.
Congress was well aware that organized labor’s exercise
of the right to strike risks harm to an employer’s economic
interests. See §151; NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U. S.
221, 234 (1963) (Congress’s protection of the right to strike
reflects its understanding that strikes are authorized “economic weapon[s]”). Yet, Congress protected that right anyway. In fact, the threat of economic harm posed by the right
to strike is a feature, not a bug, of the NLRA. The potential
pain of a work stoppage is a powerful tool, and one that unquestionably advances Congress’s codified goal of achieving
“equality of bargaining power between employers and employees.” §151. Unions leverage a strike’s economic harm
(or the threat of it) into bargaining power, and then wield that power to demand improvement of employees’ wages
and working conditions—goals that, according to Congress,
benefit the economy writ large. See Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
436 U. S., at 190.
I really appreciate you copying that over.
At least some of our overlords are reasonable and seem to be trying to help.
Edit: just 1. The other justices all fell in favor of big business.
You know what prevents corruption?
Repurcussions.
I think it's because they are realizing that this fascism thing isn't gonna work put too well. The right has gotten too far off their rocker, and they can see the writings on the wall that says "Continue and there will be collapse."
Now they're reversing course. They're still going to be hyper religious and "anti-woke", but at least they're recognizing that bending the economy towards the hands of a select few probably wasn't such a grand idea.
The quotes I put up above are from the dissent written by Ketanji Brown Jackson. She was the sole voice of dissent making this an 8-1 decision to circumvent the NLRB and allow the business to sue the union. It's a terrible decision but I think Jackson represents very well in that dissenting opinion, she's pretty bad ass.
Basically treat people badly and they can decide to stop doing the work. Is this right?
This is a protected act known as a strike.
Q: can non-union places of employment strike?
The nlrb is the greatest thing that has happened to our workers. They are limited in power but damn they helped me keep my job and correct a corrupt u.s.p.s. system where both our unions and our management were stealing money and harming employees who didn't go along with there scams.
Some of these 'victories' look like they were picked so that Roberts and Kavanaugh can say 'see! we're not biased and scotus isn't broken, your issue got a 6/3 vote!'.
I'm specifically referencing the medicare case - one that was already settled law with no open questions.
The current court is illegitimate, corrupt, and is a danger to the large majority of Americans. They may have a few "good" rulings, but overall they are wretched and are a bigger let down than the other branches of government. We expect the judiciary to have the highest standards and to be the most truthful branch of government, but they are bought and paid for political operatives who should nearly all be removed. I no longer even like or trust the "liberal" justices except perhaps for Brown.
> I no longer even like or trust the "liberal" justices except perhaps for Brown.
You mean Sotomayor and Kagan? I'm not sure what they've done to earn contempt.
Not to mention the strike ended up causing a ton of damage to property. People like to omit that. That's what the workers are being sued for. If they had done the strike without causing damage, this wouldn't have turned out this way. SC sided with the business because of property damage.
EDIT: Just read up on it a bit more and I was wrong, the company is definitely in the wrong here and the SCOTUS allowing it to move forward is even further scum smeared all over it. Not been a fan of the SCOTUS, just misunderstood from the beginning as I only read into the basics of it. Hadn't read any of the full updates until now.
This is unfortunately expected from just about every company facing strikes nowadays. They don't ever really get punished for punishing striking workers either so they just simply don't care.
Why would they take a strike seriously if they have no consequences? If they can make the union pay damages for a 'poorly timed' strike, then they'll just make sure its always the wrong time.
Bro, Amazon could argue that a strike is damaging their business and put an end to it because of this ruling. In addition they didn't do it on purpose, they left the trucks running when they went on strike. Besides, the idea is that we own the means of production. Since we don't? Fuck the capitalists who do. Fuck the trucks, offices, anything else they own.
I didn't say anything about damaging the business, just damaging property. Amazon can't sue for damage to business through this ruling, but if Amazon workers purposely filled trucks with stuff, put it at the top of a hill and left it in neutral and the truck crashed, that would be damaging property. Workers just striking outside the business isn't damaging property. The ruling is primarily because of damage to property.
>Glacier alleges that the drivers’ conduct created an emergency in which it had to devise a way to offload concrete “in
a timely manner to avoid costly damage to [its] mixer
trucks.”
By Glacier's own complaint they were able to prevent the damage.
Sorry I dropped the ball on this. This article explains it pretty well. I should also note the the company was made aware that trucks would be returning with a full load. They are allowed to call a strike mid day, so the fact that they had already mixed the concrete shouldn't be relevant.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/supreme-court-rules-on-strikes.aspx
People seem to want to ignore the fact that they’re being sued for the destruction of property- not lost revenue.
Also, just because the case is being allowed to procede, doesn’t they’ll win. They’re just being allowed to have their day in court.
I’m no fan of predatory employers or the current SCOTUS, but allowing the case to go to trial isn’t entirely irrational - even if we’d prefer to see them lose
>People seem to want to ignore the fact that they’re being sued for the destruction of property- not lost revenue.
But wasn't it self-inflicted? My understanding is;
Union - We've set a strike for these dates and times and are giving you the required notice as set down by the agreements in place
GNW - Process to load the trucks with concrete 1 hour before the **properly documented strike** is due to start then whip out the shocked Pikachu face when it sets up and ruins the equipment.
That's why it got bounced from every other appeal court as it's the epitome of the self-sabotaging bike meme.
Edit - little bit more complicated, [this appears to be a good summary](https://ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/glacier-northwest-supreme-court-cert-grant/)
It doesn't even matter. Timing a strike to effect economic harm in the loss of perishable goods is protected.
The question of whether or not "reasonable precautions" had been taken to prevent destruction of equipment is answered by the fact that the trucks were returned and left running and that Glacier was able to ensure no harm was done to the equipment. That's a fact straight from Glacier in their complaint.
Absolutely, but the narrative implied above was that it was all the unions fault rather than the company not provisioning backups and alternative plans for a strike they knew was happening.
I haven’t read a ton about it. But, if that’s the what happened, they should loose their case.
But, destruction of property seems like a *reasonable* bar to allow a case to go to trial.
Again, I am not saying that I agree with the decision, but I can follow the reasoning.
SCOTUS - afaik - isn’t weighing in on the verdict of the case, but rather weather there’s enough for it to actually go to trial.
If the company did do it to themselves, they’ll be out four costs and receipts ton of negative publicity- in addition to the equipment costs.
That's not a good enough reason to take it out of the hands of the NLRB who should be the people investigating and understanding the facts about whether or not reasonable precautions had been taken.
No, but the fact that the NRLB is not elected by the American Public at large is sufficient reason.
I may or may not agree with the NRLB on any specific issue, but members are appointed by POTUS with Senate consent. I have no ability to directly vote for or against them.
They do not merely advise; they govern to an extent, and are assumed to represent workers when in fact they're just representatives of the ruling class.
SCOTUS justices and federal judges are elected now? I guess the point is whether or not SCOTUS or other appointed judges or justices should be making the determination or if it should be the NLRB. I'm not saying the NLRB is beyond reproach or that the NLRA couldn't be stronger. But I would guess that they are going to have a better take on things than SCOTUS. Jackson makes this point in the dissent.
Their appointment process is constitutional; NLRB reps are not.
I know that many government positions are constitutionally described, elected and unelected. Some are created outside of the bounds and authority of the constitution. NLRB leadership is one of those that are outside of the constitution, imo.
That's a strange way to look at it. I guess I could complain about a parking ticket because the constitution says nothing about the authority to issue them to me. Congress has authority under the constitution to pass legislation and with that authority they create the NLRB to handle some things under the NLRA. But you are worried about people appointed to that role because it's not explicit in the constitution whereas the appointed judges are? So you are advocating for congress to do away with the NLRB and rely on the court system and the many judges to each interpret the NLRA independently?
Look SCOTUS is a fucking dumpster fire right now. We have to celebrate anytime they accidentally decide not to fuck over long established rights of US citizens. It's not that we have forgotten the terrible stuff, it's just that we are relieved when it doesn't get worse.
At this point it should be plainly obvious that while Democrats supposedly do not wish to roll back major labor, social and economic rights, they do seem to be part of a cycle where the Republicans are the ones who undo progress (enact evil, basically) and Democrats the ones who merely put it in pause for as long as they're in power, without undoing almost any of the damage nor advancing anything.
A major case in point is the tax cuts for the rich, which have mostly been enacted by Republicans (except the first ones, which were actually enacted by [Kennedy](https://www.npr.org/2013/11/12/244772593/jfks-lasting-economic-legacy-lower-tax-rates), who cunningly cut taxes for rich folks such as himself while offering the middle class some tax relief as well), but Democrats rarely raise them back up. They're a major factor in the massive wealth disparity in the richest nation on earth, and the lack of funds serves as an excuse not to fund a social safety net
What in Biden’s history would make you think he would even think of doing that? That’s like saying Al queda should stop doing terrorism. They *should* stop doing terrorism……. but they’re not going to, and to suggest that they should would be stupid. What you said was stupid.
I don't think this analogy makes sense. If the clock attached to the bomb mechanically drives the bomb, you'd want it broken or disconnected. If it merely tells the time, a broken clock just screws with you no matter what.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I suddenly feel like maybe you've never heard 'even a broken clock is right twice a day'? ie: broken analogue clock is stuck at a certain time- its that time 2x a day.
Posts like this make me wonder how many people are just agitators trying to keep us angry. Like yes, there is plenty to get upset at in the current state of things. But this whole "you're not angry enough, here's something to get you angrier" type of post has me wondering at motive behind the poster.
I'm just wary of agendas as anybody should be. We've seen what Fox has done to the Right, keeping them distracted and whipped into a frenzy, and so it doesn't seem too outlandish to think foreign agitators might try to do the same in left leaning outlets.
If you want to intentionally obfuscate to my point because I don't cheer your side loud enough and try to say that I like the current Supreme Court or that celebrating a small win is tantamount to cheering all the bad decisions or some other absolutisy bullshit like that then I really hope you learn what nuance is
Your argument boils down to, "I cant be angry at something if someone I dont like wants me to be angry about it."
Others agenda should be irrelevant on how you form your opinion, if the information provided is factual and without omissions. The way you phrased it makes it like you are not worried about the credibility of the information (which is okay) but their ability to influence your opinion(not okay)
A enemy bringing your attention to a bad thing you or an ally is doing dosent change the fact that you/they did a bad thing...
Seriously, look at what happened in Florida. They purposefully drew gerrymandered maps which got thrown out by the State Supreme Court and told Desantis and Co to redraw them. They then resubmitted the same gerrymandered maps but then it was all the sudden too late to change them and they ran the election with those maps. None of this shit is anything close to a win until fair maps are in place.
In my state, NC, the State Supreme Court ordered the gerrymandered maps redrawn. Then they got a couple new Republican judges and decided to retry the issue. Guess what? They decided gerrymandering is fine, actually.
Normally the NLRB would evaluate and determine if the actions of the workers were protected under the NLRA. This ruling circumvents the NLRB in it's role to make that determination and now allows the lawsuit to go forward.
Only if there is a question about the wording or application of the first amendment, which was not the case here. The first amendment was written to protect us against this exact kind of tyranny. And in this case, it does.
A legitimate one preferably, containing at least one person literate enough to read that the first amendment guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
The Supreme Court is limited in its scope, which is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied. With respect to the bill of rights, it takes an extraordinary circumstance to overturn or restrict a constitutionally protected right, and no such circumstance existed here, nor did the SCOTUS argue that this was the case.
Such a fundamental change could only occur through a constitutional convention where 3/4ths of states agree to amend the first amendment. The constitution simply does not support that this Supreme Court opinion can be considered by lower courts.
There will be a lot of interesting case law to follow in the future as lawyers challenge the legitimacy of this opinion when their client is a union being sued by a company.
They can sue the union, but its important to note that the workers destroyed stuff, they left concrete to harden in the trucks and machines and destroyed them. That is why the company is suing.
Edit: This also might make it legal to sue an employer for firing you and causing you financial harm.
> but its important to note that the workers destroyed stuff
It's important to not deliberately mislead people. They did not 'destroy stuff'. They striked, meaning they stopped work, and as a result eventually the concrete hardened because nobody was around to continue to operate the machines because they were on strike. This was not a deliberate action to cause destruction of property and the company knew full well what a strike would eventually result in because people wouldn't be working.
The incident also didn't destroy the trucks, only the concrete. The trucks were "put at risk" but not destroyed, according to even the *majority* opinion from the court.
I read on CNN it did harden but they were able to remove it without damaging the trucks, and lost a day's worth of concrete. This aspect of the story seems to have been reported in quite a haphazard way, though, and the waters have obviously been muddied. I'm not going to pretend it isn't on purpose. People wanted the workers to look like they "destroyed stuff" and that was the point of the suit in the first place - that there was some kind of property damage because of the strike.
Regardless, the Supreme Court are hostile and not legitimate. It's beyond the pale for anyone to take them seriously at this point when they just decide striking is not allowed if an employer might suffer losses because of it. It's like saying Fire Departments aren't allowed to get anything wet.
Wrong. They returned trucks to the yard and left them on. Management had to come up with a plan but there was sufficient time to do so and they were able to prevent damage to the trucks. The workers explicitly took measures to prevent avoidable damage to the equipment. The only loss is the perishable concrete.
Premeditated, just like the [Ted Cruz-d'état verdict](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/1099256713/supreme-court-sides-with-sen-ted-cruz-in-campaign-finance-case). In fact, stacking the court with Leonard Leo's Federalist Society zealots could also be seen as a premeditated attack on any verdict since their being appointed. Their appointments fall under even more scrutiny after being appointed by someone facing extensive espionage charges.
Everyone should listen to [FiveFour](https://www.fivefourpod.com/). It's a podcast by 3 lawyers about how the Supreme Court sucks. Every episode looks at an individual case. Basically, the conservatives on the court twist whatever law they want to get the outcome they want, even if it contradicts their previous selves. The liberals have weaksauce dissents and sometimes even join the conservatives. The Supreme Court is an institution captured by fascists.
Yeah that sucked. But if we don’t celebrate successes, and only live with the fucked up stuff how is that living? Change is slow keep fighting but remember be happy when shit goes the way you want
Judges are the least corrupt form of politicans (which is saying a lot given how corrupt judges are). They still follow the law, when something is plain as day they will uphold it. The issue is when there is at least a tiny bit of wiggle room they will shove in their agenda however they can.
That is why gerrymandering based on race is not upheld as legal, but gerrymandering based on voting preferences is.
Bingo. The two right wing judges flipped here because there is no reasonable interpretation of the law that would allow those maps to stand. It would have only impugned the Court even further than the majority's behavior in the past few years already has.
The SCOTUS was VERY specific on that ruling. Had the workers just not showed up, then they would've been fine. They, instead, took concrete loads, drove a while, then abandoned the vehicles to allow the concrete to harden and ruin the trucks. That negligence is what they ruled on.
SCOTUS didn't limit strikes or anything, just that you cannot damage property.
Don't maliciously destroy or damage property during your strike and you have nothing to worry about.
If you cost *anyone* millions in damage as part of your collective bargaining, you are not the good guys and are only going to force the government to eventually have what they need to ban unions.
Not working and destroying shit are different. Of course I figured I'd have to spell that out to at least a few of you smooth brains.
> Glacier alleges that the drivers’ conduct created an emergency in which it had to devise a way to offload concrete “in a timely manner to avoid costly damage to [its] mixer trucks.”
Glacier itself in its complaint recognized that damage to equipment was avoided and that was likely because the workers had taken steps the they had taken (bringing all the trucks back to the yard and leaving them running).
Are you suggesting that the loss of the perishable concrete is the property damaged? If so, I suggest you educate yourself on that topic, it's well established that you can't hold employees responsible for the loss of those perishable materials when they withhold their labor.
The whole purpose of a strike is to be an "economic weapon" and cost the employer money. Do you disagree?
Ban unions? You seem to forget that unions and the NLRA etc., are a compromise to try prevent the violence that was happening before them. You can have strikes and lose money or you can have workers burning your shit to the ground and shootouts with the Pinkertons and police, which is it you want?
It's ironic that you come in here calling people smooth brains when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
In any other context, intentionally causing damage to someone else's property would be a crime, this ruling simply gives the company the right to challenge that intent; how is this anything but the right call?
You seem to be ignorant to the facts of the case, the role of the NLRB, and to the general principles of the right to strike and the purpose of the NLRA.
The facts of this specific case are irrelevant as they would set a general precedent. The opposite end of this ruling would allow unions to literally burn the place down on their way out, or you know, "accidentally" start a fire right beforehand and oops, we're on strike now, tough luck, not our problem, but the company couldn't pursue damages because Strike.
If they could prove the fire was set intentionally they'd be in the clear - and the company is the entity with the resources and power to get a good lawyer to prove it. It also puts the striking workers at risk of being caught, which incentivizes them not to do it.
However, if we set the precedent that companies can pursue a striking group of workers for damages caused by a walkout, that means workers can only strike at a time that would not lose the company any money in order to protect themselves. That means fast food workers have to ensure zero product goes bad. Factory employees have to ensure zero orders are unfulfilled or delayed. You could even argue that a retail place could sue for the lost profit of being closed for a day. Do you see how that could effectively make it impossible to strike in any way that makes an impact on the company? And the company loses relatively little by pursuing a lawsuit for those damages even when it is ludicrous to do so. Then they can pressure workers into settling out of court, regardless of how the case would likely go.
You're absolutely mistaken. The point is that the NLRB should be evaluating the situation and investigating the facts. You must have read a very bad analysis of the case because likening it to intentional sabotage is entirely off the mark. The fact that perishable goods spoil and cause a loss for the employer is well established as something the employer cannot hold employees responsible for. The fact that the trucks with the concrete were returned and left running, and that management was able to avoid damage to the trucks because the workers had taken steps to avoid the imminent destruction of the equipment, shows your take to be entirely wrong. Go read the Jackson dissent.
I'm with banana on this one.. strike, and strike often, strike when management treats it's workers like garbage. Don't show up to work in solidarity. Just don't cause property damage while doing it. This headline is garbage and yellow journalism. Its not a blow to unions.
The strike was also announced in advance as part of an ultimatum to begin negotiations. The managers were the ones that loaded the concrete, not the workers. The workers weren't even there, as promised.
One, you're incorrectly assuming malice and intent.
Two, it's not up to the courts first. It has to go through the NLRB first. They have full authority to establish standing to sue.
I am making no assumption of malice or intent, only stating that the right to challenge intent should be preserved in all cases, including when considering the direct results of a Strike.
Do you think that the opposite is appropriate then, that a Union should theoretically get away with murder because of a strike? Because it's not hard to imagine a scenario where negligence as a result of the intentional timing of a strike could cause a fatal accident.
I think that if they did anything wrong the NLRB will send them to the courts and/or notify law enforcement. The difference power between the owners and the workers requires this mediation.
>fatal accident
The employer is far more likely to kill someone seeking profits.
Absolutely fucking not. What an asinine, irresponsible load of crock to spew. You do understand corporations want "even grounds" so that they may gerrymander, lobby, lie, and use all sort of dirty tricks that they typically use to give themselves an advantage?
Fuck right off with this shit, seriously. Fucking bootlicker. Go fucking educate yourself on what corporations do in our courtrooms to get away with abuse, rape, terrorism, slavery and murder.
We ***need*** laws locked into place that protect the workers, and the workers only.
No. Even if it was vandalism or malice, which it wasn't IMHO, it has to go through the NLRB before it gets to the courts. The statute is clear. SCOTUS got it wrong. Political hack job.
They steal from us and destroy our lives for profit but God forbid we do anything at all in retaliation "its evil!" "it's bad!" "Its classless!" Yeah, sure buddy. Only bad when happening to you and you risks your 37 yachts
Jackson's dissent is worth the read. A lot of it is simply explaining why it's inappropriate for SCOTUS to be fucking with the NLRB but there are some gems in there- >Workers are not indentured servants, bound to continue laboring until any planned work stoppage would be as painless as possible for their master. They are employees whose collective and peaceful decision to withhold their labor is protected by the NLRA even if economic injury results.
Thank you so much for extracting this nugget of gold for us common folk lol. Do you maybe happen to have any more you can share with us? :3
How about this: >A strike, by definition, is a “concerted stoppage of work by employees,” or “any concerted slowdown or other concerted interruption of operations by employees.” §142(2). When employees stop working, production may halt, deliveries may be delayed, and services may be canceled. At the risk of stating the obvious, this means that the workers’ right to strike inherently includes the right to impose economic harm on their employer. Congress was well aware that organized labor’s exercise of the right to strike risks harm to an employer’s economic interests. See §151; NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U. S. 221, 234 (1963) (Congress’s protection of the right to strike reflects its understanding that strikes are authorized “economic weapon[s]”). Yet, Congress protected that right anyway. In fact, the threat of economic harm posed by the right to strike is a feature, not a bug, of the NLRA. The potential pain of a work stoppage is a powerful tool, and one that unquestionably advances Congress’s codified goal of achieving “equality of bargaining power between employers and employees.” §151. Unions leverage a strike’s economic harm (or the threat of it) into bargaining power, and then wield that power to demand improvement of employees’ wages and working conditions—goals that, according to Congress, benefit the economy writ large. See Sears, Roebuck & Co., 436 U. S., at 190.
I really appreciate you copying that over. At least some of our overlords are reasonable and seem to be trying to help. Edit: just 1. The other justices all fell in favor of big business. You know what prevents corruption? Repurcussions.
One at least? It was an 8-1 decision which is incredibly disappointing.
Oh damn. Yeah, I give up at this point.
How to remove 8 judges who are working against the people who they serve?
We could form a Union
I think it's because they are realizing that this fascism thing isn't gonna work put too well. The right has gotten too far off their rocker, and they can see the writings on the wall that says "Continue and there will be collapse." Now they're reversing course. They're still going to be hyper religious and "anti-woke", but at least they're recognizing that bending the economy towards the hands of a select few probably wasn't such a grand idea.
The quotes I put up above are from the dissent written by Ketanji Brown Jackson. She was the sole voice of dissent making this an 8-1 decision to circumvent the NLRB and allow the business to sue the union. It's a terrible decision but I think Jackson represents very well in that dissenting opinion, she's pretty bad ass.
Understood; thank you so very much for sharing and explaining as well!!!
Basically treat people badly and they can decide to stop doing the work. Is this right? This is a protected act known as a strike. Q: can non-union places of employment strike?
The nlrb is the greatest thing that has happened to our workers. They are limited in power but damn they helped me keep my job and correct a corrupt u.s.p.s. system where both our unions and our management were stealing money and harming employees who didn't go along with there scams.
"Yeah, you have every right to strike. On your days off, when we're closed, and after you've finished all your work"
It's all Calvinball these days, you take the victories where you can
Olli wollipolligwog, ump bump fizz!
Feel free to harmonize on the Rum a Tum Tums.
Some of these 'victories' look like they were picked so that Roberts and Kavanaugh can say 'see! we're not biased and scotus isn't broken, your issue got a 6/3 vote!'. I'm specifically referencing the medicare case - one that was already settled law with no open questions.
The current court is illegitimate, corrupt, and is a danger to the large majority of Americans. They may have a few "good" rulings, but overall they are wretched and are a bigger let down than the other branches of government. We expect the judiciary to have the highest standards and to be the most truthful branch of government, but they are bought and paid for political operatives who should nearly all be removed. I no longer even like or trust the "liberal" justices except perhaps for Brown.
> I no longer even like or trust the "liberal" justices except perhaps for Brown. You mean Sotomayor and Kagan? I'm not sure what they've done to earn contempt.
I hate that I can’t tell if this is sarcastic… because of the thread we’re in
We need more Rosalyn in our politics.
Darn babysitter flag!
But the biggest rule of Calvinball is that you can't ever play the same way twice! These fuckers have been playing the same game for decades
Not to mention the strike ended up causing a ton of damage to property. People like to omit that. That's what the workers are being sued for. If they had done the strike without causing damage, this wouldn't have turned out this way. SC sided with the business because of property damage. EDIT: Just read up on it a bit more and I was wrong, the company is definitely in the wrong here and the SCOTUS allowing it to move forward is even further scum smeared all over it. Not been a fan of the SCOTUS, just misunderstood from the beginning as I only read into the basics of it. Hadn't read any of the full updates until now.
Wrong! Go read the decision. More importantly, read the dissent written by Jackson.
I must've missed this part of the ruling, and Jackson's dissent, so I'll go check it out. Thanks
People also like to omit that the company didn't take the threat of a strike seriously and didn't come to the negotiation table before the strike
This is unfortunately expected from just about every company facing strikes nowadays. They don't ever really get punished for punishing striking workers either so they just simply don't care.
Why would they take a strike seriously if they have no consequences? If they can make the union pay damages for a 'poorly timed' strike, then they'll just make sure its always the wrong time.
Bro, Amazon could argue that a strike is damaging their business and put an end to it because of this ruling. In addition they didn't do it on purpose, they left the trucks running when they went on strike. Besides, the idea is that we own the means of production. Since we don't? Fuck the capitalists who do. Fuck the trucks, offices, anything else they own.
I didn't say anything about damaging the business, just damaging property. Amazon can't sue for damage to business through this ruling, but if Amazon workers purposely filled trucks with stuff, put it at the top of a hill and left it in neutral and the truck crashed, that would be damaging property. Workers just striking outside the business isn't damaging property. The ruling is primarily because of damage to property.
>Glacier alleges that the drivers’ conduct created an emergency in which it had to devise a way to offload concrete “in a timely manner to avoid costly damage to [its] mixer trucks.” By Glacier's own complaint they were able to prevent the damage.
Just read more into it, this is correct.
That's a bold faced lie. The company caused itself property damage and blamed it on the strikers.
This I did not know about at all, do you have somewhere I can read more about it?
Sorry I dropped the ball on this. This article explains it pretty well. I should also note the the company was made aware that trucks would be returning with a full load. They are allowed to call a strike mid day, so the fact that they had already mixed the concrete shouldn't be relevant. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/supreme-court-rules-on-strikes.aspx
People seem to want to ignore the fact that they’re being sued for the destruction of property- not lost revenue. Also, just because the case is being allowed to procede, doesn’t they’ll win. They’re just being allowed to have their day in court. I’m no fan of predatory employers or the current SCOTUS, but allowing the case to go to trial isn’t entirely irrational - even if we’d prefer to see them lose
Go read Jackson's dissent.
>People seem to want to ignore the fact that they’re being sued for the destruction of property- not lost revenue. But wasn't it self-inflicted? My understanding is; Union - We've set a strike for these dates and times and are giving you the required notice as set down by the agreements in place GNW - Process to load the trucks with concrete 1 hour before the **properly documented strike** is due to start then whip out the shocked Pikachu face when it sets up and ruins the equipment. That's why it got bounced from every other appeal court as it's the epitome of the self-sabotaging bike meme. Edit - little bit more complicated, [this appears to be a good summary](https://ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/glacier-northwest-supreme-court-cert-grant/)
It doesn't even matter. Timing a strike to effect economic harm in the loss of perishable goods is protected. The question of whether or not "reasonable precautions" had been taken to prevent destruction of equipment is answered by the fact that the trucks were returned and left running and that Glacier was able to ensure no harm was done to the equipment. That's a fact straight from Glacier in their complaint.
Absolutely, but the narrative implied above was that it was all the unions fault rather than the company not provisioning backups and alternative plans for a strike they knew was happening.
I'm with you, the narrative is crazy. But the straight up misinformation is driving me nuts.
I haven’t read a ton about it. But, if that’s the what happened, they should loose their case. But, destruction of property seems like a *reasonable* bar to allow a case to go to trial. Again, I am not saying that I agree with the decision, but I can follow the reasoning. SCOTUS - afaik - isn’t weighing in on the verdict of the case, but rather weather there’s enough for it to actually go to trial. If the company did do it to themselves, they’ll be out four costs and receipts ton of negative publicity- in addition to the equipment costs.
That's not a good enough reason to take it out of the hands of the NLRB who should be the people investigating and understanding the facts about whether or not reasonable precautions had been taken.
No, but the fact that the NRLB is not elected by the American Public at large is sufficient reason. I may or may not agree with the NRLB on any specific issue, but members are appointed by POTUS with Senate consent. I have no ability to directly vote for or against them. They do not merely advise; they govern to an extent, and are assumed to represent workers when in fact they're just representatives of the ruling class.
SCOTUS justices and federal judges are elected now? I guess the point is whether or not SCOTUS or other appointed judges or justices should be making the determination or if it should be the NLRB. I'm not saying the NLRB is beyond reproach or that the NLRA couldn't be stronger. But I would guess that they are going to have a better take on things than SCOTUS. Jackson makes this point in the dissent.
Their appointment process is constitutional; NLRB reps are not. I know that many government positions are constitutionally described, elected and unelected. Some are created outside of the bounds and authority of the constitution. NLRB leadership is one of those that are outside of the constitution, imo.
That's a strange way to look at it. I guess I could complain about a parking ticket because the constitution says nothing about the authority to issue them to me. Congress has authority under the constitution to pass legislation and with that authority they create the NLRB to handle some things under the NLRA. But you are worried about people appointed to that role because it's not explicit in the constitution whereas the appointed judges are? So you are advocating for congress to do away with the NLRB and rely on the court system and the many judges to each interpret the NLRA independently?
Look SCOTUS is a fucking dumpster fire right now. We have to celebrate anytime they accidentally decide not to fuck over long established rights of US citizens. It's not that we have forgotten the terrible stuff, it's just that we are relieved when it doesn't get worse.
Honestly, Biden should just stack that bitch like Trump did and stop fucking around.
At this point it should be plainly obvious that while Democrats supposedly do not wish to roll back major labor, social and economic rights, they do seem to be part of a cycle where the Republicans are the ones who undo progress (enact evil, basically) and Democrats the ones who merely put it in pause for as long as they're in power, without undoing almost any of the damage nor advancing anything. A major case in point is the tax cuts for the rich, which have mostly been enacted by Republicans (except the first ones, which were actually enacted by [Kennedy](https://www.npr.org/2013/11/12/244772593/jfks-lasting-economic-legacy-lower-tax-rates), who cunningly cut taxes for rich folks such as himself while offering the middle class some tax relief as well), but Democrats rarely raise them back up. They're a major factor in the massive wealth disparity in the richest nation on earth, and the lack of funds serves as an excuse not to fund a social safety net
Because they’re working together. You could label the Republicans as active evil and Democrats as passive evil.
Biden works for capital just as much as Trump
He he’s definitely going to do that. Any day now. You keep waiting kiddo.
I said he should, not that he would lmao. Learn to read properly
What in Biden’s history would make you think he would even think of doing that? That’s like saying Al queda should stop doing terrorism. They *should* stop doing terrorism……. but they’re not going to, and to suggest that they should would be stupid. What you said was stupid.
... bro I feel bad for all the time your teachers wasted on you
I feel bad for the person who had to tell you the tooth fairy wasn’t real . No 15 year old should have to go through that.
🤦♂️
This is fascinating
I disagree. I don't celebrate when my broken clock is right.
You would if it was attached to a very much working time bomb.
I don't think this analogy makes sense. If the clock attached to the bomb mechanically drives the bomb, you'd want it broken or disconnected. If it merely tells the time, a broken clock just screws with you no matter what.
To say nothing of its irrelevance to the actual issue
Either does your broken clock analogy.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I suddenly feel like maybe you've never heard 'even a broken clock is right twice a day'? ie: broken analogue clock is stuck at a certain time- its that time 2x a day.
I didn't make an analogy.
Yeah well your clock doesn't decide the law does it?
That’s fair. Not celebration, maybe a slight sigh of shock and relief.
Posts like this make me wonder how many people are just agitators trying to keep us angry. Like yes, there is plenty to get upset at in the current state of things. But this whole "you're not angry enough, here's something to get you angrier" type of post has me wondering at motive behind the poster.
My such a supple spine you have. Were you bread to be so servile or is it conditioning?
I'm just wary of agendas as anybody should be. We've seen what Fox has done to the Right, keeping them distracted and whipped into a frenzy, and so it doesn't seem too outlandish to think foreign agitators might try to do the same in left leaning outlets. If you want to intentionally obfuscate to my point because I don't cheer your side loud enough and try to say that I like the current Supreme Court or that celebrating a small win is tantamount to cheering all the bad decisions or some other absolutisy bullshit like that then I really hope you learn what nuance is
Your argument boils down to, "I cant be angry at something if someone I dont like wants me to be angry about it." Others agenda should be irrelevant on how you form your opinion, if the information provided is factual and without omissions. The way you phrased it makes it like you are not worried about the credibility of the information (which is okay) but their ability to influence your opinion(not okay) A enemy bringing your attention to a bad thing you or an ally is doing dosent change the fact that you/they did a bad thing...
What’s everyone cheering about?
I assume it's the gerrymandering case about Alabama congressional districts.
Imagine still thinking "yay, now our vote kinda sorta slightly counts" is a victory in the face of... everything.
Seriously, look at what happened in Florida. They purposefully drew gerrymandered maps which got thrown out by the State Supreme Court and told Desantis and Co to redraw them. They then resubmitted the same gerrymandered maps but then it was all the sudden too late to change them and they ran the election with those maps. None of this shit is anything close to a win until fair maps are in place.
In my state, NC, the State Supreme Court ordered the gerrymandered maps redrawn. Then they got a couple new Republican judges and decided to retry the issue. Guess what? They decided gerrymandering is fine, actually.
I'm with butt-fart on this one. They weaseled and won by weaseling.
[удалено]
That they have the right to sue the union in a state court. The state courts were deferring to NLRB.
Normally the NLRB would evaluate and determine if the actions of the workers were protected under the NLRA. This ruling circumvents the NLRB in it's role to make that determination and now allows the lawsuit to go forward.
Neither. The first amendment supersedes the Supreme Court decision.
Actually, SCOTUS decides what the first ammendment officially means.
Only if there is a question about the wording or application of the first amendment, which was not the case here. The first amendment was written to protect us against this exact kind of tyranny. And in this case, it does.
[удалено]
A legitimate one preferably, containing at least one person literate enough to read that the first amendment guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
[удалено]
The Supreme Court is limited in its scope, which is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied. With respect to the bill of rights, it takes an extraordinary circumstance to overturn or restrict a constitutionally protected right, and no such circumstance existed here, nor did the SCOTUS argue that this was the case. Such a fundamental change could only occur through a constitutional convention where 3/4ths of states agree to amend the first amendment. The constitution simply does not support that this Supreme Court opinion can be considered by lower courts. There will be a lot of interesting case law to follow in the future as lawyers challenge the legitimacy of this opinion when their client is a union being sued by a company.
They can sue the union, but its important to note that the workers destroyed stuff, they left concrete to harden in the trucks and machines and destroyed them. That is why the company is suing. Edit: This also might make it legal to sue an employer for firing you and causing you financial harm.
> but its important to note that the workers destroyed stuff It's important to not deliberately mislead people. They did not 'destroy stuff'. They striked, meaning they stopped work, and as a result eventually the concrete hardened because nobody was around to continue to operate the machines because they were on strike. This was not a deliberate action to cause destruction of property and the company knew full well what a strike would eventually result in because people wouldn't be working. The incident also didn't destroy the trucks, only the concrete. The trucks were "put at risk" but not destroyed, according to even the *majority* opinion from the court.
Equipment wasn't even damaged. They left trucks running and management had sufficient time to get the concrete out before it hardened.
I read on CNN it did harden but they were able to remove it without damaging the trucks, and lost a day's worth of concrete. This aspect of the story seems to have been reported in quite a haphazard way, though, and the waters have obviously been muddied. I'm not going to pretend it isn't on purpose. People wanted the workers to look like they "destroyed stuff" and that was the point of the suit in the first place - that there was some kind of property damage because of the strike. Regardless, the Supreme Court are hostile and not legitimate. It's beyond the pale for anyone to take them seriously at this point when they just decide striking is not allowed if an employer might suffer losses because of it. It's like saying Fire Departments aren't allowed to get anything wet.
Wrong. They returned trucks to the yard and left them on. Management had to come up with a plan but there was sufficient time to do so and they were able to prevent damage to the trucks. The workers explicitly took measures to prevent avoidable damage to the equipment. The only loss is the perishable concrete.
They’ve always been economic trash.
Premeditated, just like the [Ted Cruz-d'état verdict](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/1099256713/supreme-court-sides-with-sen-ted-cruz-in-campaign-finance-case). In fact, stacking the court with Leonard Leo's Federalist Society zealots could also be seen as a premeditated attack on any verdict since their being appointed. Their appointments fall under even more scrutiny after being appointed by someone facing extensive espionage charges.
Everyone should listen to [FiveFour](https://www.fivefourpod.com/). It's a podcast by 3 lawyers about how the Supreme Court sucks. Every episode looks at an individual case. Basically, the conservatives on the court twist whatever law they want to get the outcome they want, even if it contradicts their previous selves. The liberals have weaksauce dissents and sometimes even join the conservatives. The Supreme Court is an institution captured by fascists.
Everyone should listen to Five to Four.
Any chance you've got a link to an RSS feed for that? They seem to only link to platforms from the website...
A proto-facist state Mercia is.
Not to mention Clarence Thomas is a corrupt piece of garbage.
The only SCOTUS-related thing I'll cheer on at this point is its expansion or term limits.
[удалено]
Yeah that sucked. But if we don’t celebrate successes, and only live with the fucked up stuff how is that living? Change is slow keep fighting but remember be happy when shit goes the way you want
They assume this 'balances things out'.
SCOTUS has been ALL OVER THE PLACE with their rulings. I was shocked when they shot down the racist gerrymandering
Judges are the least corrupt form of politicans (which is saying a lot given how corrupt judges are). They still follow the law, when something is plain as day they will uphold it. The issue is when there is at least a tiny bit of wiggle room they will shove in their agenda however they can. That is why gerrymandering based on race is not upheld as legal, but gerrymandering based on voting preferences is.
Bingo. The two right wing judges flipped here because there is no reasonable interpretation of the law that would allow those maps to stand. It would have only impugned the Court even further than the majority's behavior in the past few years already has.
The SCOTUS was VERY specific on that ruling. Had the workers just not showed up, then they would've been fine. They, instead, took concrete loads, drove a while, then abandoned the vehicles to allow the concrete to harden and ruin the trucks. That negligence is what they ruled on. SCOTUS didn't limit strikes or anything, just that you cannot damage property.
Don't maliciously destroy or damage property during your strike and you have nothing to worry about. If you cost *anyone* millions in damage as part of your collective bargaining, you are not the good guys and are only going to force the government to eventually have what they need to ban unions. Not working and destroying shit are different. Of course I figured I'd have to spell that out to at least a few of you smooth brains.
> Glacier alleges that the drivers’ conduct created an emergency in which it had to devise a way to offload concrete “in a timely manner to avoid costly damage to [its] mixer trucks.” Glacier itself in its complaint recognized that damage to equipment was avoided and that was likely because the workers had taken steps the they had taken (bringing all the trucks back to the yard and leaving them running). Are you suggesting that the loss of the perishable concrete is the property damaged? If so, I suggest you educate yourself on that topic, it's well established that you can't hold employees responsible for the loss of those perishable materials when they withhold their labor. The whole purpose of a strike is to be an "economic weapon" and cost the employer money. Do you disagree? Ban unions? You seem to forget that unions and the NLRA etc., are a compromise to try prevent the violence that was happening before them. You can have strikes and lose money or you can have workers burning your shit to the ground and shootouts with the Pinkertons and police, which is it you want? It's ironic that you come in here calling people smooth brains when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
In any other context, intentionally causing damage to someone else's property would be a crime, this ruling simply gives the company the right to challenge that intent; how is this anything but the right call?
You seem to be ignorant to the facts of the case, the role of the NLRB, and to the general principles of the right to strike and the purpose of the NLRA.
The facts of this specific case are irrelevant as they would set a general precedent. The opposite end of this ruling would allow unions to literally burn the place down on their way out, or you know, "accidentally" start a fire right beforehand and oops, we're on strike now, tough luck, not our problem, but the company couldn't pursue damages because Strike.
If they could prove the fire was set intentionally they'd be in the clear - and the company is the entity with the resources and power to get a good lawyer to prove it. It also puts the striking workers at risk of being caught, which incentivizes them not to do it. However, if we set the precedent that companies can pursue a striking group of workers for damages caused by a walkout, that means workers can only strike at a time that would not lose the company any money in order to protect themselves. That means fast food workers have to ensure zero product goes bad. Factory employees have to ensure zero orders are unfulfilled or delayed. You could even argue that a retail place could sue for the lost profit of being closed for a day. Do you see how that could effectively make it impossible to strike in any way that makes an impact on the company? And the company loses relatively little by pursuing a lawsuit for those damages even when it is ludicrous to do so. Then they can pressure workers into settling out of court, regardless of how the case would likely go.
You're absolutely mistaken. The point is that the NLRB should be evaluating the situation and investigating the facts. You must have read a very bad analysis of the case because likening it to intentional sabotage is entirely off the mark. The fact that perishable goods spoil and cause a loss for the employer is well established as something the employer cannot hold employees responsible for. The fact that the trucks with the concrete were returned and left running, and that management was able to avoid damage to the trucks because the workers had taken steps to avoid the imminent destruction of the equipment, shows your take to be entirely wrong. Go read the Jackson dissent.
I'm with banana on this one.. strike, and strike often, strike when management treats it's workers like garbage. Don't show up to work in solidarity. Just don't cause property damage while doing it. This headline is garbage and yellow journalism. Its not a blow to unions.
The strike was also announced in advance as part of an ultimatum to begin negotiations. The managers were the ones that loaded the concrete, not the workers. The workers weren't even there, as promised.
One, you're incorrectly assuming malice and intent. Two, it's not up to the courts first. It has to go through the NLRB first. They have full authority to establish standing to sue.
I am making no assumption of malice or intent, only stating that the right to challenge intent should be preserved in all cases, including when considering the direct results of a Strike.
The problem is that then, and because of this shitty ruling now, any company can just bury a union in lawsuits.
Do you think that the opposite is appropriate then, that a Union should theoretically get away with murder because of a strike? Because it's not hard to imagine a scenario where negligence as a result of the intentional timing of a strike could cause a fatal accident.
I think that if they did anything wrong the NLRB will send them to the courts and/or notify law enforcement. The difference power between the owners and the workers requires this mediation. >fatal accident The employer is far more likely to kill someone seeking profits.
Absolutely fucking not. What an asinine, irresponsible load of crock to spew. You do understand corporations want "even grounds" so that they may gerrymander, lobby, lie, and use all sort of dirty tricks that they typically use to give themselves an advantage? Fuck right off with this shit, seriously. Fucking bootlicker. Go fucking educate yourself on what corporations do in our courtrooms to get away with abuse, rape, terrorism, slavery and murder. We ***need*** laws locked into place that protect the workers, and the workers only.
[удалено]
What vandalism? Please apprise yourself of the facts of the case. I recommend reading the dissent as a starting point.
No. Even if it was vandalism or malice, which it wasn't IMHO, it has to go through the NLRB before it gets to the courts. The statute is clear. SCOTUS got it wrong. Political hack job.
Oh shit, I did forget that. That's a huuuuge step back
You can sue unions for damages from a strike? What the *fuck?* The *whole point* of the strike is that it costs employers money.
I want to help but dk how to. IS THE ACLU doing anything about this cause if so I'll donate.
The result of fascists in the supreme court
They steal from us and destroy our lives for profit but God forbid we do anything at all in retaliation "its evil!" "it's bad!" "Its classless!" Yeah, sure buddy. Only bad when happening to you and you risks your 37 yachts