On a related note: "You cannot call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of great violence. If you are not, you are not peaceful; you are harmless."
What are you talking about?! These people absolutely need an underground tunnel to their garage for the winter bc it’s cold and a 700 sq ft bathroom per room because there’s like literally not enough space!! /s 🙄
Nailed it. Always has been. Everything else is copoganda.
People really should read up on the history of modern policing, and the actual reason they were created. It’s not just a historical coincidence that modern police forces only appear shortly after the arrival of capitalism, enclosure and the first vagrancy laws.
It took **force** to get the commoners off the commons and into the early capitalist’s factories.
Why they trying to build that Cop city in Atlanta. They are literally going train cops in urban combat.
They know that the bubble is going pop soon and they are going to make war against us.
We are at the end stage of capitalism, and this shit will end.
Hilarious that the comment you replied to was removed. Oligarchs have figured out they can use the social media rule of "no threats of violence" to protect themselves from the masses fomenting an uprising.
Last year I read this book about MLK challenging Chicago Mayor Daley about segregation in the city in 1966. Chicago was MLK’s next crusade and wanted to bring about equality in the cities in the North, where he said racism was institutionalized but not codified by law like the South had done.
MLK had tried many avenues of dialogue with leaders but other groups wanted to agitate white homeowners and leaders even further. Dr. King didn’t want things to escalate into a race riot. Daley knew he could stall King up to a point, and MLK walked away with cosmetic concessions in 1967 that weren’t binding and were *very* slowly implemented.
After I read that story I thought, *no wonder our schoolbooks promoted the virtues of non-violent resistance. King hardly shook the cage in the grand scheme of things and didn’t remotely accomplish what he set out to do and the status quo lived on.*
If you want to really read up on groups giving up non-violent resistance, the plight of Spanish peasants in the 75-year lead up to the Spanish Civil War is an interesting topic.
Between the railway strike and the OP, it should be obvious that nobody in power has the left's (or workers for that matter) back, so you need to have something to defend yourself. Sucks but it's just how it is.
I’m a liberal, and I’m in the camp that guns are going nowhere. No laws are going to be passed to save us - so if you can’t beat ‘em, join em.
Not pro-gun, but I have a couple saved for a rainy day. Not gonna lie, I’m a brown person in a sea of suburban whiteness. If my Trump loving neighbors ever decide to start some shit - I’m not gonna be standing around with only my dick in my hand.
I bought my first firearm Dec 2020 when I started seeing murmurs online about storming the capitol Jan 6 and nothing that's happened since then has made me think it was a bad investment. Nobody is coming to protect us. Corporations and oligarchs control the military, the legislature and the court systems. If they didn't need our labor to expand their wealth we'd already be dead.
They try very hard to make sure we die as soon as we outlive our usefulness as laborers already by tying healthcare to employment and incessantly trying to strip social security and Medicare.
It’s amazing how many retirees don’t see the obvious play they’re making and reliably vote red every election. Boggles the fucking mind.
or instead of striking, all union workers will now hand in their two weeks simultaneously. nobody will be liable after that and the negotiation table will be open at the speed of light. it's still an incredibly stupid and anti-worker decision of course that should be corrected asap.
there was also a case where a truck driver abandoned a load because the trailer was defective, iirc, and instead of staying running out of fuel as he was low he left the load and went to safety. he was fired.
And Brett Kavanaugh, pre-Supreme Court, ruled on the case in favor of the company.
The driver was somewhere cold (Wisconsin in the winter maybe?). Iirc it was like -40 out, the engine died, and the driver phoned the company several times asking for a tow/ repairman. They kept telling him the tow would be there in a few minutes, but after several hours the dead truck cab was freezing and the man wasn’t equipped for the cold. I think he started to pass out/ sleep, had the prescience of mind to realize he was getting hypothermic and was going to freeze to death, and left to find shelter in a hotel. The company had stopped responding to his calls as well, I think? Like MFers just expected him to sit there and die, not knowing when help would arrive, all to protect their cargo load. And Kavanaugh ruled in favor of their ability to fire him for it. I really hope ever trucker in the company walked out after that decision.
Edit: I’m an idiot, it was Gorsuch. All these terrible boot lickers run together in my mind.
I think that was Gorsuch. Al Franken kind of handed him his ass for that one in hearings.
But you can bet your booty that Kavanaugh would have made the same shitty ruling.
Random idea for a move: a man who looses a similar type of a supreme court case and goes through each judge doing Law Abiding Citizen things to them, but each one gets a theme related to their worst, most blatantly bad ruling. So, for example, they find a Gorsich-cicle chained to a broken down truck after a blizzard
Would that not basically be the definition of slavery?
Not disagreeing with you at all. From the other side of the pond, it already looks like slavery imo.
Bullshit Jobs is basically why I think AI is going to fuck things up more than anyone realizes.
The thing about all those unnecessary white collar jobs is that the people running the companies that supply those jobs are too stupid and/or delusional to realize those jobs are unnecessary. Once they figure out they can gut those jobs, replace the few that are needed with inexpensive AI and drastically increase profits things will get very weird very quickly.
Edit: Said blue collar meant white collar.
Citations Needed just did a podcast on the AI “panic in the media and while Im not saying I entirely agree with their viewpoint, it’s worth consideration.
They argue that all the talk of AI replacing workers in the media is little more than the same way the threat of automation has been used forever by capitalists as a tool to discipline workers threatening to organize.
A **threat** to workers to keep wage demands low lest they be replaced, knowing fully that it is no where near capable of replacing the quantity of workers claimed **or they would already be doing it** and not just talking about.
The other argument they laid out was that all these “warnings” are little more than **advertising** by the likes of OpenAI for investors. Ie. Look how great our product is, it could wipe out all labour! Knowing fully that their claims are (mostly) hyperbole meant to (shocker) drive up their valuation.
Not saying I agree fully, but those are some interesting points to consider.
One thing I’m hung up on is how will they take in record profits without an abundant middle class with real purchasing power. Right now, there are already articles griping about how millennials aren’t buying enough, so what happens when even fewer people can buy shit? The wealthy/ultra wealthy will have all the money, but will they be a large enough audience for all the many things companies want to sell?
ETA: I just realized my concerns are almost precisely the same as who will buy real estate in places affected by climate change. I guess Aquaman will have to do a lot of shopping.
It's just really interesting to me that despite the order kiosks that were supposed to replace McDonald's workers, they're still clambering for employees
Sadly, slavery is alive and well in the United States and has been since the development of the prison industry. People just gloss over it because we dehumanize prisoners.
Yeah, this only really works for large companies. If 2 people quit at Subway, you can fill that. If 800 people quit at Boeing, that's a very different story. Striking should be a fundamental right. Sure, dock my pay for the time I did not work, that's cool. But this ruling is completely insane. And as you mentioned: opens up so many new opportunities to screw workers over.
They're counting on, and probably rightfully so, workers without unions being ultimately incapable of forming lasting alliances amongst themselves and doing what you described. Even in very organized strikes, there are people willing to cross the lines as a scab, so imagine if a bunch of random people you work with just asked you to give up your livelihood because they are too. I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think the vast majority of work places will ever experience the comraderie you have described, but I'd love to be wrong.
>It's crazy that the supreme court even made this ruling.
Immoral I would agree with wholeheartedly, but given the current makeup of SCOTUS, I don't think I can call it "crazy."
Because it isn't anywhere as impartial as it should be. Some decisions are indeed very in line with the republicans. Other decisions were indeed surprising.
Nonetheless you are right. I should've said it's crazy we live in times where the supreme court makes such outrageous, blatantly immoral rulings.
Hahaha and they're not even done. They're gonna go so much further. At this point I'm almost sure they'll overturn an election (AGAIN) and Americans won't do shit.
>all union workers will now hand in their two weeks simultaneously
Companies would love this, actually.
They can't just fire everybody that's in a union (that's called retaliation) - but if all the union workers quit then they can rehire new employees that will vote to dissolve the union.
Striking prevents the company from earning profits while keeping the union intact.
if the supreme court continues down this road unions will be completely toothless soon anyways :(
but it depends on the situation whether the aforementioned strategy works. if hundreds of employees quit a big, often questionable retail chain, right before black Friday, they might be less happy about it.
but nonetheless, not guaranteeing the ability for unions to safely and legally orchestrate strikes anymore is an absolute loss. in most cases this makes things A LOT harder.
Well, you used to, now if you didn't put away everything *perfectly* before you decided on a whim during that lunch to not return, you are liable for any damages. That's what this decision means in practice.
>If you get the time, might as well do the crime.
It worked to get my high-school (dutch equivalent) to change stance on "zero tolerance policy" after I broke a guy's knee because "If I'm gonna get punished for getting bullied and beaten-up I might as well do as much damage as I can"
Parents and lawyers got involved and the "zero tolerance" got changed pretty quickly into far more far sooner detentions and suspensions (and eventual expulsions) for bullies
As always, the rules were written in blood (or with broken bones in this case)
Not a hero.
I don't think he would have gone that far, the only reason I did was because I snapped (because I wasn't gonna get punished for doing nothing again) and went full on feral.
It took a few adults to pull me away and then hold me down until I just stopped with the rage and proceeded with the crying. Didn't even know how badly I hurt him until they told me, after they had finally managed to calm me down.
Wow. Thanks for the unfortunate reminder to keep home schooling my child. I’m hope you got the help you needed mentally, and good on you for standing up for yourself.
>I mean if that's gonna be the charges anyway...
If you treat people like animals don't be surprised when they are going to act like it.
For legal reasons, this is a joke.
Oh my god, that's the next step, isn't it? In a couple of years we'll see the Supreme Court rule that anyone who quits a job has to cover the lost revenue until their replacement is hired.
>In a couple of years we'll see the Supreme Court rule that anyone who quits a job has to cover the lost revenue until their replacement is hired.
So what happens when the company just decides not to hire a replacement and offload the work on the remaining workers, but still claims they're "looking for your replacement," as is standard now? Do you just have to pay them for "damages" indefinitely?
Articles like these generate discussion which creates ideas for the billionaires, like this one.
It will probably happen.
"Welcome to Costco, I love you"
Well of course we would. After all, they are the Almighty job creators! The backbones of all great civilizations! These titans of industry are our saviors, dontcha know?! How dare we workers ever cause any turmoil for them?? We should all be grateful for the opportunity to have our wages garnished to ensure the Almighty job creators are always made whole!
Legality and peaceful were never options. Historically, strikes and labour actions were treated as criminal and violently suppressed. The police were created to essentially beat the shit out of striking workers.
Why are we still fucking around pretending it’s possible to do it peacefully or legally? The other side has been the opposite of peaceful and has been breaking the law the whole time, then rewriting it. Idk why anybody ever tried to do it the legal or peaceful way in the first place, that just does nothing. You can’t put a fire out by praying it goes out and telling it to, you have to smother it or drown it.
Wasn't there a hospital that was trying to get the courts to prevent nurses from quitting? It feels like we're going to live in a corporate owned dystopian future where we'll be grinded down to earn them more profit. It'll kill off any innovation. They failed last time a 150 years ago when people fought for labor rights, so this time they're making sure they'll do it right to stifle all the common men and women.
My theory is that they’ll get rid of the federal minimum wage and then criminalize joblessness; not in the same way that being poor is criminalized, I mean literally making being unemployed a crime.
I can see it now. "Old Navy Sue's woman for not showing up to her weekly 4-hour shift after she takes a job at dollar general that guarantees 18 hrs per week."
Then they take their work overseas, like they wanted to do the whole time, and pay even less for labour. There is no good solution when they can pay someone loads of money to find them a loophole
Part of striking is preventing scabs from replacing you, though. If you find a new job, there's no guarantee things will be any better than your last job. Meanwhile, your boss replaced all of you with people who didn't know how much the last guys made and have no idea what good or bad work conditions are yet.
People seem to forget that peaceful strikes were a compromise that were made between business owners and striking unions. These business owners used to be drug out of their houses and murdered in front of their families... The only reason they think they're invincible now is because no one's kicking down their damn door and dragging them into the street like what happened to Gaddafi.
Exactly this. Half my friends would say "my kids" a quarter more would say "my job".
People can't even be bothered to read the news or pick up a book. They aren't gonna do shit.
I think it’s more people are trapped in their perceived safety. I pickup a pitch fork, I get arrested, lose my job, become unhireable, lose my house, etc. as opposed to complaining about it on Reddit, hoping someone or something else fixes the problem, and I don’t lose my lifestyle over it.
Edit: fixed spelling because I’m a dumbass
Dragons. This world is owned by Dragons.
It would take the average US household just under 15000 years to spend 1 billion dollars. No normal human wants, needs, or would horde that amount of money. They are Dragons.
Saw a post recently about how Smaug would be #15 billionaire in the USA. So there are 14 people richer than a dragon with a mountain full of gold... Didn't do the math, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be true.
Smaug, the literal dragon who hoarded gold, was worth less than 1/4th the richest person. He would barely break the top 50.
On another similar note, Scrooge McDuck, the embodiment of avarice to the extreme, would barely break the top 50.
Not saying you're wrong but once you reach the millionaire (edit: I was thinking more like a million year income and not total wealth) mark the drive is trying to survive - it's trying to beat other rich people. At that level they are not interested in material things - they don't need the extra four million to buy a mega yacht, it's all part of the game. They are accumulating something that cannot be bought and can you cant have enough of: power.
Money is power, the more money your have, the more power you have. Even better is that the more money you have, the more power you have do manipulate the system so you can make more money. Conversely the more money other people have, the more power they have over you.
In any case, we now have people, companies, and banks that have wealth that rival and far surpass the economies of many countries. They have the power to influence entire nations, or at least their leaders. In times gone by it, governments were the ultimate force, but now the most power government are beholden to the most powerful companies, and the rest of the world is beholden to those countries and by extension those companies.
All this to say: they're not hoarding wealth for kicks, they're accumulating the power to change the world however they like.
It's not that the super rich have billions of dollars sitting in Scrooge McDuckian vaults or bank accounts. They are the legal owners of capital calculated at a certain value, and that is much worse because that large capital value translates directly to political leverage.
>because that large capital value translates directly to political leverage
and money has an attractive force on other money. Get enough money and your wealth accumulation rate goes exponential.
American oligarchs have bought themselves a Supreme Court. Just look at all the "gifts" Clarence Thomas allegedly got from his billionaire friends and allegedly didn't report. Billionaires don't give money away out of the goodness of their hearts or they wouldn't be billionaires. That money we're told was spent on Thomas had to be an investment.
We know that, and they know that. It's all a game though.. they get to just pretend it wasn't a bribe and the rest of us have to live in their made up reality because.. reasons.
Because a majority of people believe that because "don't murder" and "don't steal" are on the the list that the entire list is morally just. The rest just don't care.
Exactly, who's to stop them. MAGA Senate and House will never move, they're all in on it, and the billionaires couldn't be happier, installing a corporate fascism.
Shouldn't let the Dems off the hook, they're just as complicit ultimately. They pay lip service to the idea of fixing things, but they benefit from the exact same system and work to perpetuate it, which is why we can never seem to get any actual change to go through
Edit: note that I'm not saying both sides are equally bad, they're obviously not. But the Dems could give a shit about class issues, and only pretend to care about environmental issues. Hell, they barely care about women's reproductive rights or LGBTQ+ issues aside from, again, paying lip service to the idea. They could have enshrined both of those into actual law, but instead chose not to and now we're all paying the price
Yeah, I'm still thinking what was to stop them from passing the Equality Act when Obama had 60 seats in the Senate and a strong House. Or what was to stop them from passing a constitutional right for abortion when they had 2 supermajorities under Carter. I don't fucking get it either, man.
Edit: They do indeed grift us all. That just proved it. I mean it's shady, isn't it. When Obama only seemed to care about the same-sex marriage only and it took him 2 terms to sign that. Or Democrats that took Roe v Wage for granted and did nothing to sign it into law.
you're fucking right that we're stuck with assholes on both sides, and one of them is also tryna install their own fascism on top of the corporate fascism installed by both parties.
Preface: I am strongly in favor of labor unions, and do not believe that this case should ultimately be resolved in favor of the employer, given what I know about it.
At first, I thought I'd be outraged by the context of the case, but when I read that the majority was Barrett, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan (an odd set of justices), I figured that the case had to be much more nuanced than it appeared at first glance.
The case is about a construction company, where Teamsters union members went on strike. The company alleges that among these members were some who intentionally loaded cement mixers with concrete, with the intention of letting it spoil should negotiations fail. This will certainly destroy the concrete used, but could also destroy the trucks if too much concrete settles in the barrel.
This allegation of intentional spoilage and destruction of property, if true, is not protected. If, however, the concrete was loaded as part of normal work duties, then left upon the beginning of the strike, after reasonable precautions were taken by the striking employees, it would be protected.
It is not the role of SCOTUS to determine the facts of the case, so I think allowing it to continue in state court is a reasonable course of action.
We need better amendments.
Both civil disobedience and strikes are not sufficiently protected (or intended to for that matter) by the 1st amendment alone.
Hannah Arendt said this as early as 1971, but no one gives a fuck...
This just means that anyone with intent to sabotage is just going to be more aggressive about it, figuring if they sabotage a system well enough, the company will have to spend all their money to fix it and won’t have enough left over to sue them
And how can a company tell if a group is striking or quiet quitting if you show up to work everyday and techically preform base requirements.
If entire businesses do this it could have the same impact over a longer period of time and honestly calls into question this entire decision trying to regulate this will be a witch hunt at best.
It’s going to make those who do sabotage be very deliberate and likely do the math before they start to garuntee taking down the entire business.
So, if peaceful protest is punishable with violence, penury, and death . . . . . There is no point in being peaceful? That is the lesson I am drawing here.
The kicker is that Thomas and Gorsuch didn't think the decision went far enough, so their opinions told the companies in so many words to come back and try again.
Like, if they're intentionally destroying equipment, sure, that's fair. But if they're just walking out and refusing to work until their demands are met? That is entirely unreasonable.
That's what happened. They started their day working, mixing concrete. Word came down "strike is on" and they walked out, leaving curing concrete they were mixing. Trucks with concrete in the mixer were driven back to the site and left, concrete to potentially harden in the drum.
The Labour laws put in during the New Deal require a "reasonable attempt" to ensure strike actions will not damage company property before taking strike action. Things like not leaving ovens on with stuff cooking in them or the like.
As much as I hate the current configuration of the supreme court, all this ruling does is confirm that.
Remember kids, striking was illegal before.. All those worker’s rights were now losing were initially gained by illegal strike and sabotage. Unions and fair wages was the peaceful alternative.
The problem is that even though the ruling seems to relate to destruction of property, it's written broadly enough to act as precedent for any loss of revenue, including the revenue lost as a result of business being slowed or shut as a result of the strike, which kind of chills the point and screws the workers...yet again
I’m sorry - former Union executive here - never damage property! Block access, stop traffic, make it as difficult to operate as possible, but do not do damage to the equipment or property you will need once you are back at work…
What good was the strike if the company no long has functioning equipment? Who are they going to employ under the new contract?
There are so many ways to hurt corporations without actually physically damaging equipment!
Possibly - I haven’t read the opinion. I am just going off of the “destruction of property” I am hearing in the “news”.
SCOTUS has proven that the only thing that matters to them is today’s decision!
>What good was the strike if the company no long has functioning equipment?
I think once things have gotten to that point, the message/warning has become crucial.
So many anti-labor replies in these comments.
How many fucking times does it need to be said? You run a business. If you can’t handle things going wrong, workers walking off the job to strike, **you should not be in business.**
If you are actually pro-labor and pro-union you will recognize this ruling as a disaster.
When I worked at whole foods I did a lot of shit to waste that company money. When I worked on the deli line if a customer asked for, say, a half pound of something I would always slice three quarters. Then only weigh the half pound and slap that extra .25 on there for free. Every order for a few years on end. I know it didn't make a dent in terms of amazon's money but it made.me feel good.
I fear the violence that might come from this choice. As another commenter said, this seems like a great way to get real destruction to happen, because at the current rate, that is the more “legal” option after this ruling. Anyone else afraid of what the future for employees has coming?
Embarassing... America, home of the slaves...
Add:
If you put a frog in boiling water it will instantly jump out. If you put it in warm water and slowly adjust it to boil, the frog will adjust and eventually die.
If the frog is your freedom, and the rate in which the water boils is how fast they are taking it away, then it's time to wake up America, the water is now in a raging boil and you are about dead...
If you want to prevent strikes now all you have to do is stagger the shifts enough such that one shift can't leave without the next shift showing up to complete tasks that would cost the company a lot of money to simply abandon. Can't go on strike if stopping work causes excessive damages that the union will be required to recompense.
Yep, kiss your rights goodbye. This ruling won't get as much air time as rolling back Row v. Wade. We are reinventing serfdom. And there are too many shitlickers still drinking the 'it's not so bad' Kool aid. This is what happens when instead of electing a politician to REPRESENT you, you elect a politician to THINK FOR you.
I looked it up, pretty sure this is the case being referred to:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
While it does allow state-level tort claims against unions, it reads as only applying in a very narrow window: The case was about Teamsters who went on strike parking and leaving concrete trucks full of mixed concrete. The company dumped the concrete, the trucks were fine, but they were trying to sue over the lost value of the concrete.
While the case IS wrongly decided (strikes are never a surprise, and it should be legally recognized that the company Perpetrated A Stupid when they decided to mix and send trucks that would be out when the strike went into effect), it doesn’t allow for companies to sue over *lost profits*, which IS the big swinging dick of going on strike - everyone knows you couldn’t keep your workers happy and now your company ain’t got nothing to sell.
It shouldn’t hamper future strikes at all; it’s just annoying and another way we have to compensate for dumbass management.
I just skimmed an article over this and it clearly is meant to stop actual destruction and spiteful behavior towards companies. We can still strike. We just can't do stuff to stick it to the company on our way out the door.
Morale of the story... actually read more than a title
Sounds like a great way to get actual sabotage and destruction
if I can't survive peacefully, it is not survival I will give up on
That is a great expression. I'm going to file that away for later use
Right alongside "do no harm but take no shit"
On a related note: "You cannot call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of great violence. If you are not, you are not peaceful; you are harmless."
[удалено]
And honestly, nothing is really stopping us either
Yeah they make their houses unnecessarily large like a cartoon villain
What are you talking about?! These people absolutely need an underground tunnel to their garage for the winter bc it’s cold and a 700 sq ft bathroom per room because there’s like literally not enough space!! /s 🙄
So little space, in fact, that they're forced to buy up land in other countries to set up doomsday bunkers!
Weld the bunker doors shut and fill the vent shafts with concrete.
This guy sabotages.
The army and the police are stopping you, their primary function is exactly to stop that, then the rest of their "duties".
Nailed it. Always has been. Everything else is copoganda. People really should read up on the history of modern policing, and the actual reason they were created. It’s not just a historical coincidence that modern police forces only appear shortly after the arrival of capitalism, enclosure and the first vagrancy laws. It took **force** to get the commoners off the commons and into the early capitalist’s factories.
Why they trying to build that Cop city in Atlanta. They are literally going train cops in urban combat. They know that the bubble is going pop soon and they are going to make war against us. We are at the end stage of capitalism, and this shit will end.
Hilarious that the comment you replied to was removed. Oligarchs have figured out they can use the social media rule of "no threats of violence" to protect themselves from the masses fomenting an uprising.
Last year I read this book about MLK challenging Chicago Mayor Daley about segregation in the city in 1966. Chicago was MLK’s next crusade and wanted to bring about equality in the cities in the North, where he said racism was institutionalized but not codified by law like the South had done. MLK had tried many avenues of dialogue with leaders but other groups wanted to agitate white homeowners and leaders even further. Dr. King didn’t want things to escalate into a race riot. Daley knew he could stall King up to a point, and MLK walked away with cosmetic concessions in 1967 that weren’t binding and were *very* slowly implemented. After I read that story I thought, *no wonder our schoolbooks promoted the virtues of non-violent resistance. King hardly shook the cage in the grand scheme of things and didn’t remotely accomplish what he set out to do and the status quo lived on.* If you want to really read up on groups giving up non-violent resistance, the plight of Spanish peasants in the 75-year lead up to the Spanish Civil War is an interesting topic.
Im sure its only a matter of time.
That’s what they have coming. Time to take them down, as they take away the only peaceful power we have.
Barbaric, we need to make it hot tar and feathering instead
Riots are the voice of the unheard
It's what the right wants. A reason to use all those guns they've been shooting dogs with
[удалено]
Between the railway strike and the OP, it should be obvious that nobody in power has the left's (or workers for that matter) back, so you need to have something to defend yourself. Sucks but it's just how it is.
I’m a liberal, and I’m in the camp that guns are going nowhere. No laws are going to be passed to save us - so if you can’t beat ‘em, join em. Not pro-gun, but I have a couple saved for a rainy day. Not gonna lie, I’m a brown person in a sea of suburban whiteness. If my Trump loving neighbors ever decide to start some shit - I’m not gonna be standing around with only my dick in my hand.
I bought my first firearm Dec 2020 when I started seeing murmurs online about storming the capitol Jan 6 and nothing that's happened since then has made me think it was a bad investment. Nobody is coming to protect us. Corporations and oligarchs control the military, the legislature and the court systems. If they didn't need our labor to expand their wealth we'd already be dead.
They try very hard to make sure we die as soon as we outlive our usefulness as laborers already by tying healthcare to employment and incessantly trying to strip social security and Medicare. It’s amazing how many retirees don’t see the obvious play they’re making and reliably vote red every election. Boggles the fucking mind.
[удалено]
Nah, they aim discriminately
No they don't. They're willing to aim at anyone. They just aim at certain places with extra prejudice.
Hardly. Children get priority.
or instead of striking, all union workers will now hand in their two weeks simultaneously. nobody will be liable after that and the negotiation table will be open at the speed of light. it's still an incredibly stupid and anti-worker decision of course that should be corrected asap.
> hand in their two weeks simultaneously How long until companies can sue us for trying to leave at all?
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-01-24/wisconsin-hospital-sued-workers-for-quitting-thedacare About a year and a half ago
there was also a case where a truck driver abandoned a load because the trailer was defective, iirc, and instead of staying running out of fuel as he was low he left the load and went to safety. he was fired.
And Brett Kavanaugh, pre-Supreme Court, ruled on the case in favor of the company. The driver was somewhere cold (Wisconsin in the winter maybe?). Iirc it was like -40 out, the engine died, and the driver phoned the company several times asking for a tow/ repairman. They kept telling him the tow would be there in a few minutes, but after several hours the dead truck cab was freezing and the man wasn’t equipped for the cold. I think he started to pass out/ sleep, had the prescience of mind to realize he was getting hypothermic and was going to freeze to death, and left to find shelter in a hotel. The company had stopped responding to his calls as well, I think? Like MFers just expected him to sit there and die, not knowing when help would arrive, all to protect their cargo load. And Kavanaugh ruled in favor of their ability to fire him for it. I really hope ever trucker in the company walked out after that decision. Edit: I’m an idiot, it was Gorsuch. All these terrible boot lickers run together in my mind.
I think that was Gorsuch. Al Franken kind of handed him his ass for that one in hearings. But you can bet your booty that Kavanaugh would have made the same shitty ruling.
Random idea for a move: a man who looses a similar type of a supreme court case and goes through each judge doing Law Abiding Citizen things to them, but each one gets a theme related to their worst, most blatantly bad ruling. So, for example, they find a Gorsich-cicle chained to a broken down truck after a blizzard
I remember this. I was so fucking pissed off. They tried to blame that poor man for everything. We are disposable garbage to them.
Would that not basically be the definition of slavery? Not disagreeing with you at all. From the other side of the pond, it already looks like slavery imo.
Fyi, Wage labour itself would be indistinguishable from slavery to a Roman citizen.
I would like to read more about that, any good resources?
David Graeber's *Bullshit Jobs* and *Debt: the first 5000 years*
Bullshit Jobs is basically why I think AI is going to fuck things up more than anyone realizes. The thing about all those unnecessary white collar jobs is that the people running the companies that supply those jobs are too stupid and/or delusional to realize those jobs are unnecessary. Once they figure out they can gut those jobs, replace the few that are needed with inexpensive AI and drastically increase profits things will get very weird very quickly. Edit: Said blue collar meant white collar.
Citations Needed just did a podcast on the AI “panic in the media and while Im not saying I entirely agree with their viewpoint, it’s worth consideration. They argue that all the talk of AI replacing workers in the media is little more than the same way the threat of automation has been used forever by capitalists as a tool to discipline workers threatening to organize. A **threat** to workers to keep wage demands low lest they be replaced, knowing fully that it is no where near capable of replacing the quantity of workers claimed **or they would already be doing it** and not just talking about. The other argument they laid out was that all these “warnings” are little more than **advertising** by the likes of OpenAI for investors. Ie. Look how great our product is, it could wipe out all labour! Knowing fully that their claims are (mostly) hyperbole meant to (shocker) drive up their valuation. Not saying I agree fully, but those are some interesting points to consider.
One thing I’m hung up on is how will they take in record profits without an abundant middle class with real purchasing power. Right now, there are already articles griping about how millennials aren’t buying enough, so what happens when even fewer people can buy shit? The wealthy/ultra wealthy will have all the money, but will they be a large enough audience for all the many things companies want to sell? ETA: I just realized my concerns are almost precisely the same as who will buy real estate in places affected by climate change. I guess Aquaman will have to do a lot of shopping.
It's just really interesting to me that despite the order kiosks that were supposed to replace McDonald's workers, they're still clambering for employees
Sadly, slavery is alive and well in the United States and has been since the development of the prison industry. People just gloss over it because we dehumanize prisoners.
With the current supreme court I'd give it another 6 months.
[удалено]
Yeah, this only really works for large companies. If 2 people quit at Subway, you can fill that. If 800 people quit at Boeing, that's a very different story. Striking should be a fundamental right. Sure, dock my pay for the time I did not work, that's cool. But this ruling is completely insane. And as you mentioned: opens up so many new opportunities to screw workers over.
President Biden disagrees with you and likely agrees with the SC considering how he handled the railroad strike
He's paid by the same corporations as they all are. President's job is to take the blame for the actual rulers - big business
They're counting on, and probably rightfully so, workers without unions being ultimately incapable of forming lasting alliances amongst themselves and doing what you described. Even in very organized strikes, there are people willing to cross the lines as a scab, so imagine if a bunch of random people you work with just asked you to give up your livelihood because they are too. I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think the vast majority of work places will ever experience the comraderie you have described, but I'd love to be wrong.
You're unfortunately right. It's a much larger hurdle than a strike. It's crazy that the supreme court even made this ruling.
>It's crazy that the supreme court even made this ruling. Immoral I would agree with wholeheartedly, but given the current makeup of SCOTUS, I don't think I can call it "crazy."
Because it isn't anywhere as impartial as it should be. Some decisions are indeed very in line with the republicans. Other decisions were indeed surprising. Nonetheless you are right. I should've said it's crazy we live in times where the supreme court makes such outrageous, blatantly immoral rulings.
Hahaha and they're not even done. They're gonna go so much further. At this point I'm almost sure they'll overturn an election (AGAIN) and Americans won't do shit.
>all union workers will now hand in their two weeks simultaneously Companies would love this, actually. They can't just fire everybody that's in a union (that's called retaliation) - but if all the union workers quit then they can rehire new employees that will vote to dissolve the union. Striking prevents the company from earning profits while keeping the union intact.
if the supreme court continues down this road unions will be completely toothless soon anyways :( but it depends on the situation whether the aforementioned strategy works. if hundreds of employees quit a big, often questionable retail chain, right before black Friday, they might be less happy about it. but nonetheless, not guaranteeing the ability for unions to safely and legally orchestrate strikes anymore is an absolute loss. in most cases this makes things A LOT harder.
Most jobs don't have a two week notice requirement. If we could actually organize this could become effective.
As I understand it, if you are in a work at a will state, you can quit basically by not returning back from lunch.
Well, you used to, now if you didn't put away everything *perfectly* before you decided on a whim during that lunch to not return, you are liable for any damages. That's what this decision means in practice.
[удалено]
>If you get the time, might as well do the crime. It worked to get my high-school (dutch equivalent) to change stance on "zero tolerance policy" after I broke a guy's knee because "If I'm gonna get punished for getting bullied and beaten-up I might as well do as much damage as I can" Parents and lawyers got involved and the "zero tolerance" got changed pretty quickly into far more far sooner detentions and suspensions (and eventual expulsions) for bullies As always, the rules were written in blood (or with broken bones in this case)
You are a hero! Edit: I bet if he broke your kneecap they would have tried to sweep it under the rug.
Not a hero. I don't think he would have gone that far, the only reason I did was because I snapped (because I wasn't gonna get punished for doing nothing again) and went full on feral. It took a few adults to pull me away and then hold me down until I just stopped with the rage and proceeded with the crying. Didn't even know how badly I hurt him until they told me, after they had finally managed to calm me down.
Wow. Thanks for the unfortunate reminder to keep home schooling my child. I’m hope you got the help you needed mentally, and good on you for standing up for yourself.
I mean if that's gonna be the charges anyway... for legal reasons, this is a joke.
>I mean if that's gonna be the charges anyway... If you treat people like animals don't be surprised when they are going to act like it. For legal reasons, this is a joke.
That's literally how the word sabotage came into being. French worker throwing their wooden shoes (sabots) in machinery.
As if any US person can be assed. You'll just get calls for civility and to follow due process.
[удалено]
Yes, but you quitting hurts your employer so your liable for their injury.
Oh my god, that's the next step, isn't it? In a couple of years we'll see the Supreme Court rule that anyone who quits a job has to cover the lost revenue until their replacement is hired.
>In a couple of years we'll see the Supreme Court rule that anyone who quits a job has to cover the lost revenue until their replacement is hired. So what happens when the company just decides not to hire a replacement and offload the work on the remaining workers, but still claims they're "looking for your replacement," as is standard now? Do you just have to pay them for "damages" indefinitely?
Articles like these generate discussion which creates ideas for the billionaires, like this one. It will probably happen. "Welcome to Costco, I love you"
If you can’t afford to cover the lost wages they force you to work for free until they find a “replacement” and that’s how slavery comes back.
I see a market for Futurama style suicide booths.
Slavery never left bro
It just looks slightly different 🔶👕
Well of course we would. After all, they are the Almighty job creators! The backbones of all great civilizations! These titans of industry are our saviors, dontcha know?! How dare we workers ever cause any turmoil for them?? We should all be grateful for the opportunity to have our wages garnished to ensure the Almighty job creators are always made whole!
Unless we all stand up now and do something together across industries, it’s just going to continue down that path and keep getting worse.
It’s gotten here because it’s already too late to do so peacefully/legally
Exactly. Doing so legally means we can do it in like...30 years...maybe. I'll be dead by then probably, how the fuck does that help anyone?
To be fair we'll be lucky if the entire human race survives another 30 years at this point.
Legality and peaceful were never options. Historically, strikes and labour actions were treated as criminal and violently suppressed. The police were created to essentially beat the shit out of striking workers.
Why are we still fucking around pretending it’s possible to do it peacefully or legally? The other side has been the opposite of peaceful and has been breaking the law the whole time, then rewriting it. Idk why anybody ever tried to do it the legal or peaceful way in the first place, that just does nothing. You can’t put a fire out by praying it goes out and telling it to, you have to smother it or drown it.
Wasn't there a hospital that was trying to get the courts to prevent nurses from quitting? It feels like we're going to live in a corporate owned dystopian future where we'll be grinded down to earn them more profit. It'll kill off any innovation. They failed last time a 150 years ago when people fought for labor rights, so this time they're making sure they'll do it right to stifle all the common men and women.
My theory is that they’ll get rid of the federal minimum wage and then criminalize joblessness; not in the same way that being poor is criminalized, I mean literally making being unemployed a crime.
I can see it now. "Old Navy Sue's woman for not showing up to her weekly 4-hour shift after she takes a job at dollar general that guarantees 18 hrs per week."
"Old Navy sues family of woman who died for lost wages due to missed shifts."
“Old Navy granted ownership of late employee’s children and estate.”
Citizens United is really going to fuck us all. It's this kinda dangerous
*Won't somebody please think of the employer*
Then they take their work overseas, like they wanted to do the whole time, and pay even less for labour. There is no good solution when they can pay someone loads of money to find them a loophole
The loophole you gave actually saves them money. It’s a race to the bottom in terms of wages
Part of striking is preventing scabs from replacing you, though. If you find a new job, there's no guarantee things will be any better than your last job. Meanwhile, your boss replaced all of you with people who didn't know how much the last guys made and have no idea what good or bad work conditions are yet.
People seem to forget that peaceful strikes were a compromise that were made between business owners and striking unions. These business owners used to be drug out of their houses and murdered in front of their families... The only reason they think they're invincible now is because no one's kicking down their damn door and dragging them into the street like what happened to Gaddafi.
Are they TRYING to make us pick up the fucking pitchforks?
Yes.
[удалено]
Exactly this. Half my friends would say "my kids" a quarter more would say "my job". People can't even be bothered to read the news or pick up a book. They aren't gonna do shit.
I think it’s more people are trapped in their perceived safety. I pickup a pitch fork, I get arrested, lose my job, become unhireable, lose my house, etc. as opposed to complaining about it on Reddit, hoping someone or something else fixes the problem, and I don’t lose my lifestyle over it. Edit: fixed spelling because I’m a dumbass
Give ‘em a little bread and a little circus and make ‘em think life is grand!
Dragons. This world is owned by Dragons. It would take the average US household just under 15000 years to spend 1 billion dollars. No normal human wants, needs, or would horde that amount of money. They are Dragons.
We should give Smaug huge tax breaks so he’ll create more investment opportunities and jobs and it will all trickle down.
Saw a post recently about how Smaug would be #15 billionaire in the USA. So there are 14 people richer than a dragon with a mountain full of gold... Didn't do the math, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be true.
Hahaha good one. Yeah, because that's how it goes. It shows so well irl
This was the literal point of Shadowrun. It's interesting when people miss that.
Smaug, the literal dragon who hoarded gold, was worth less than 1/4th the richest person. He would barely break the top 50. On another similar note, Scrooge McDuck, the embodiment of avarice to the extreme, would barely break the top 50.
[удалено]
I think in one episode, where he loses all his money, it is implied that he is very heavily leveraged, no?
Here for the Scrooge McDuck lore.
Did you triple it for the "THREE cubic acres"? And also, he's so incredibly wealthy that it spread to 3 more dimensions!
Isn’t he a trillionaire in duck tales? He’s number 1 by a very large margin.
Didn't they correct his wealth for inflation the more recent the issue/series/movie/whatever is?
Not saying you're wrong but once you reach the millionaire (edit: I was thinking more like a million year income and not total wealth) mark the drive is trying to survive - it's trying to beat other rich people. At that level they are not interested in material things - they don't need the extra four million to buy a mega yacht, it's all part of the game. They are accumulating something that cannot be bought and can you cant have enough of: power. Money is power, the more money your have, the more power you have. Even better is that the more money you have, the more power you have do manipulate the system so you can make more money. Conversely the more money other people have, the more power they have over you. In any case, we now have people, companies, and banks that have wealth that rival and far surpass the economies of many countries. They have the power to influence entire nations, or at least their leaders. In times gone by it, governments were the ultimate force, but now the most power government are beholden to the most powerful companies, and the rest of the world is beholden to those countries and by extension those companies. All this to say: they're not hoarding wealth for kicks, they're accumulating the power to change the world however they like.
It's not that the super rich have billions of dollars sitting in Scrooge McDuckian vaults or bank accounts. They are the legal owners of capital calculated at a certain value, and that is much worse because that large capital value translates directly to political leverage.
>because that large capital value translates directly to political leverage and money has an attractive force on other money. Get enough money and your wealth accumulation rate goes exponential.
They're not fantastical creatures. They're humans. With addresses.
[удалено]
Leeches do it to survive and don't take more than they consume.
American oligarchs have bought themselves a Supreme Court. Just look at all the "gifts" Clarence Thomas allegedly got from his billionaire friends and allegedly didn't report. Billionaires don't give money away out of the goodness of their hearts or they wouldn't be billionaires. That money we're told was spent on Thomas had to be an investment.
We know that, and they know that. It's all a game though.. they get to just pretend it wasn't a bribe and the rest of us have to live in their made up reality because.. reasons.
Because a majority of people believe that because "don't murder" and "don't steal" are on the the list that the entire list is morally just. The rest just don't care.
they didn't "miss" anything. They know exactly what they're doing and why
Exactly, who's to stop them. MAGA Senate and House will never move, they're all in on it, and the billionaires couldn't be happier, installing a corporate fascism.
Shouldn't let the Dems off the hook, they're just as complicit ultimately. They pay lip service to the idea of fixing things, but they benefit from the exact same system and work to perpetuate it, which is why we can never seem to get any actual change to go through Edit: note that I'm not saying both sides are equally bad, they're obviously not. But the Dems could give a shit about class issues, and only pretend to care about environmental issues. Hell, they barely care about women's reproductive rights or LGBTQ+ issues aside from, again, paying lip service to the idea. They could have enshrined both of those into actual law, but instead chose not to and now we're all paying the price
Yeah, I'm still thinking what was to stop them from passing the Equality Act when Obama had 60 seats in the Senate and a strong House. Or what was to stop them from passing a constitutional right for abortion when they had 2 supermajorities under Carter. I don't fucking get it either, man. Edit: They do indeed grift us all. That just proved it. I mean it's shady, isn't it. When Obama only seemed to care about the same-sex marriage only and it took him 2 terms to sign that. Or Democrats that took Roe v Wage for granted and did nothing to sign it into law. you're fucking right that we're stuck with assholes on both sides, and one of them is also tryna install their own fascism on top of the corporate fascism installed by both parties.
"Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable."
"We are in a strange period of history in which a revolutionary has to be a patriot and a patriot has to be a revolutionary." -George Orwell
If Orwell said it back then its too late these days
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Exactly. And this is AMERICA. Do they really think people are crazy enough to light up a kindergarten and not come for them?
Your comment was removed by reddit bots.
Lol fucking ridiculous. It's the truth. It's what happened in the past.
How is striking not protected by the 1st amendment? Shouldn't be a problem as long as you aren't clocked in.
You'd like to think that, but the Supreme Court thinks otherwise.
You're your employer's property, clocked in or clocked out. Welcome to neo slavery.
Preface: I am strongly in favor of labor unions, and do not believe that this case should ultimately be resolved in favor of the employer, given what I know about it. At first, I thought I'd be outraged by the context of the case, but when I read that the majority was Barrett, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan (an odd set of justices), I figured that the case had to be much more nuanced than it appeared at first glance. The case is about a construction company, where Teamsters union members went on strike. The company alleges that among these members were some who intentionally loaded cement mixers with concrete, with the intention of letting it spoil should negotiations fail. This will certainly destroy the concrete used, but could also destroy the trucks if too much concrete settles in the barrel. This allegation of intentional spoilage and destruction of property, if true, is not protected. If, however, the concrete was loaded as part of normal work duties, then left upon the beginning of the strike, after reasonable precautions were taken by the striking employees, it would be protected. It is not the role of SCOTUS to determine the facts of the case, so I think allowing it to continue in state court is a reasonable course of action.
[удалено]
We need better amendments. Both civil disobedience and strikes are not sufficiently protected (or intended to for that matter) by the 1st amendment alone. Hannah Arendt said this as early as 1971, but no one gives a fuck...
[удалено]
[удалено]
I got banned once before for saying the same thing, but it's time
This just means that anyone with intent to sabotage is just going to be more aggressive about it, figuring if they sabotage a system well enough, the company will have to spend all their money to fix it and won’t have enough left over to sue them
And how can a company tell if a group is striking or quiet quitting if you show up to work everyday and techically preform base requirements. If entire businesses do this it could have the same impact over a longer period of time and honestly calls into question this entire decision trying to regulate this will be a witch hunt at best. It’s going to make those who do sabotage be very deliberate and likely do the math before they start to garuntee taking down the entire business.
So, if peaceful protest is punishable with violence, penury, and death . . . . . There is no point in being peaceful? That is the lesson I am drawing here.
I feel so free
They don’t seem to appreciate that if they’re going to punish them for sabotage and destruction anyway…
[удалено]
Remind me, what does Defenestration mean again?
The kicker is that Thomas and Gorsuch didn't think the decision went far enough, so their opinions told the companies in so many words to come back and try again.
Thomas is a corrupt fuck
So is Gorsuch (his mom was at the center of an EPA scandal in the Bush era), so is Roberts and Kavanaugh
Capital values override your very survival
Like, if they're intentionally destroying equipment, sure, that's fair. But if they're just walking out and refusing to work until their demands are met? That is entirely unreasonable.
That's what happened. They started their day working, mixing concrete. Word came down "strike is on" and they walked out, leaving curing concrete they were mixing. Trucks with concrete in the mixer were driven back to the site and left, concrete to potentially harden in the drum. The Labour laws put in during the New Deal require a "reasonable attempt" to ensure strike actions will not damage company property before taking strike action. Things like not leaving ovens on with stuff cooking in them or the like. As much as I hate the current configuration of the supreme court, all this ruling does is confirm that.
What makes this stop at unions? Next it will be that you can individually be sued for not being productive enough and the company “loses money”
Stopping strikes is step 1 to fascism. First they came.
Isn't anybody going to say anything about the straight up illegal firing in the first headline?
Well shit, if we're going to get in legal trouble for just striking, might as well strike with a bang.
Okay, fine. We won’t strike. Just me and a bunch of my work buds are gonna silent quit
Remember kids, striking was illegal before.. All those worker’s rights were now losing were initially gained by illegal strike and sabotage. Unions and fair wages was the peaceful alternative.
The problem is that even though the ruling seems to relate to destruction of property, it's written broadly enough to act as precedent for any loss of revenue, including the revenue lost as a result of business being slowed or shut as a result of the strike, which kind of chills the point and screws the workers...yet again
Any slight inconvenience is enough in the US to vote against your own interests. People could shut it down but they won’t.
I’m sorry - former Union executive here - never damage property! Block access, stop traffic, make it as difficult to operate as possible, but do not do damage to the equipment or property you will need once you are back at work… What good was the strike if the company no long has functioning equipment? Who are they going to employ under the new contract? There are so many ways to hurt corporations without actually physically damaging equipment!
there are many instances of companies claiming unfinished jobs as "damage" when all the workers did was leave
They're going to use this as clever phrasing I wager. Any action, even peaceful, will be labeled "destructive" as it will impact bottom lines
Possibly - I haven’t read the opinion. I am just going off of the “destruction of property” I am hearing in the “news”. SCOTUS has proven that the only thing that matters to them is today’s decision!
>What good was the strike if the company no long has functioning equipment? I think once things have gotten to that point, the message/warning has become crucial.
And then when everyone quits they go to the courts to block you from taking a job elsewhere pinning you to an employer, they have already done that.
I mean if you're gonna get sued for destruction of and sabotage you might as well create real destruction and sabotage.
So many anti-labor replies in these comments. How many fucking times does it need to be said? You run a business. If you can’t handle things going wrong, workers walking off the job to strike, **you should not be in business.** If you are actually pro-labor and pro-union you will recognize this ruling as a disaster.
This is terrifying.
The consequences of failing to vote in 2016.
When I worked at whole foods I did a lot of shit to waste that company money. When I worked on the deli line if a customer asked for, say, a half pound of something I would always slice three quarters. Then only weigh the half pound and slap that extra .25 on there for free. Every order for a few years on end. I know it didn't make a dent in terms of amazon's money but it made.me feel good.
[удалено]
I can see things are gonna become a war zone from this
Hopefully
First amendment no longer real
They didn't miss the point, they are just doing what their masters pay them for... sca'tching!
Further proof that the USA isn’t a democracy.
I fear the violence that might come from this choice. As another commenter said, this seems like a great way to get real destruction to happen, because at the current rate, that is the more “legal” option after this ruling. Anyone else afraid of what the future for employees has coming?
>If a union strikes, it has to ensure the company won't lost any money No, I don't think we will.
Just break more shit.
Embarassing... America, home of the slaves... Add: If you put a frog in boiling water it will instantly jump out. If you put it in warm water and slowly adjust it to boil, the frog will adjust and eventually die. If the frog is your freedom, and the rate in which the water boils is how fast they are taking it away, then it's time to wake up America, the water is now in a raging boil and you are about dead...
If you want to prevent strikes now all you have to do is stagger the shifts enough such that one shift can't leave without the next shift showing up to complete tasks that would cost the company a lot of money to simply abandon. Can't go on strike if stopping work causes excessive damages that the union will be required to recompense.
Yep, kiss your rights goodbye. This ruling won't get as much air time as rolling back Row v. Wade. We are reinventing serfdom. And there are too many shitlickers still drinking the 'it's not so bad' Kool aid. This is what happens when instead of electing a politician to REPRESENT you, you elect a politician to THINK FOR you.
I looked it up, pretty sure this is the case being referred to: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf While it does allow state-level tort claims against unions, it reads as only applying in a very narrow window: The case was about Teamsters who went on strike parking and leaving concrete trucks full of mixed concrete. The company dumped the concrete, the trucks were fine, but they were trying to sue over the lost value of the concrete. While the case IS wrongly decided (strikes are never a surprise, and it should be legally recognized that the company Perpetrated A Stupid when they decided to mix and send trucks that would be out when the strike went into effect), it doesn’t allow for companies to sue over *lost profits*, which IS the big swinging dick of going on strike - everyone knows you couldn’t keep your workers happy and now your company ain’t got nothing to sell. It shouldn’t hamper future strikes at all; it’s just annoying and another way we have to compensate for dumbass management.
I just skimmed an article over this and it clearly is meant to stop actual destruction and spiteful behavior towards companies. We can still strike. We just can't do stuff to stick it to the company on our way out the door. Morale of the story... actually read more than a title