Anyone notice the supremes ruling 8-1 yesterday on companies can sue striking workers.

[Duncanpup]

To every union member who votes God dam republican you caused this shit it all started with Fucking Raygun.
Up next Kids for Coal mines. I’ve told my boys 18 & 19 after college immigrate to Norway their aunt Liz’s one sister has lived in Norway well right after Liz and i married.
Being teamster it’s all black and white to me I get on the members that vote repig I let them know they’re dumb as bag of hammers. I even told them it is sad Hinckley was a shit shot that’s my opinion. Yet it is a fight for what we have left in this country as middle class and that is a fact.

[multigraincracker]

1. Like the chickens voting for

Colonel Sanders.

[Duncanpup]

2. Exactly Multigraincracker.

[3Hotdogs]

3. thing is, 8-1, it wasn't just the Repuke votes on the court.

Do you know the basis for their ruling?

[mopinko]

5. see my reply below.

[mopinko]

4. i read the about ruling and it's a bit complicated.

tho, also not rly. sabotage and vandalism are illegal already.
they left the concrete in the trucks when they struck. they did leave them running. the company could have found someone to dump it, and wash out the trucks. i know management is stupid and lazy, but there must have been someone who saw what was happening and knew what it meant.

i’m pretty sure those drivers laughed all the way home at the mess they made. let’s b honest.
it’s not like they just left tools to rust in the rain. 1 of the tweets i read said those were $300k/truck. they knew they were likely to lose at least 1 or 2.
i would likely have done the same. but i think ppl r blowing this up out of proportion. lawsuits like this r expensive. i dont think they’re gonna start suing every time there’s a strike.
i could just b thinking like it’s still the before times, and this could b the start of something. but i think this was a very unusual sitch.

[SunSeeker]

10. This encourages malicious suits by companies against unions.

Like you said, vandalism is already illegal. Why did SCOTUS need to rule on this?

[mopinko]

17. well, it is a bit fuzzy.

as others note, it doesnt take a genius or a lot of muscle to dump the truck. it does take someone to move the truck, tho. i can see a teamster’s shop where no one w/o the right card is gonna touch that truck. i mean, the industry is such that ppl dont just do a job they dont have the training for. i cant see a concrete co where no one in management was ever a driver, tho.

hard to say how long they had to dump the trucks. if they’d already been sitting on a job site for a while, they might have been ready to turn when they pulled in the yard. they might have had an hour, or they might have had zero time.

again, i have no doubt they laughed all the way home. they knew what they were doing. causing that kind of damage is not a good negotiating tactic. imho, the union movement headed the wrong way when they got in bed w the mob. they might never have gotten off the ground w/o the violence, but it’s time to walk that shit back.

[SunSeeker]

46. Are you saying "the mob" caused the destruction to the cement trucks?

Come on, the union movement did not get in bed with the mob, that is a right wing talking point. The union movement took "a wrong turn" when it gave up after Reagan broke the PATCO strike.

[mopinko]

55. no. i'm saying violence and breaking shit is not good for the union movement.

and no, it isnt a talking point. i was in the biz in chi, in the late 70’s. before raygun. this is shit i heard from ppl i knew. we went on strike. i was young, and i had older guys take me aside, and let me know what would happen if i crossed, tho they hoped i wouldnt get my then pretty face messed w.

heard plenty of tales from chitown old 1s, which, even w the large grain of salt i took them w, did not endear the brotherhood to me. btn the old stories, and the way i and other women were treated, how my black brothers were treated, i got a different perspective on the union. loved my job, my pay, my bennies, and didnt even mind paying my dues.
but the thugs i saw, even back then, turned my stomach.

[SunSeeker]

59. This isn't the 1970s. Unions, what's left of them, are pretty by the book now.

"this is shit i heard from ppl i knew" doesn't mean it actually happened.

[stopdiggin]

43. because a lower court had ruled that

the company could not sue in state court (because?, covered by federal agency and bargaining? yada, yada) - for acts that were clearly intended to cause damages and property loss.

The fact that this was an 8-1 ruling, is a fairly clear indication that nobody was impressed by the lower courts rationale. Protecting unions is one thing ... Giving cover to deliberate destruction ...

[SunSeeker]

45. Deliberate destruction is already illegal. Why was this ruling necessary? nt

[stopdiggin]

57. because a lower court

had made a ruling (determined to be erroneous) that the company could not sue.

[Delmette2.0]

6. Just like Citizens United there was not advance news reports in advance.

The supreme court didn't want protesters on their steps again.

Once again big business is protected and employees are screwed.

[Evolve Dammit]

22. good point about this being on radar. A hush docket.

[Joinfortmill]

7. Amen to that

[Bluethroughu]

8. I was complaining about this the other day in a thread.

The ruling creates a indentured servitude for all workers, if you strike, quit or what the boss says costs the company money, a company will sue workers.

Unions are a group of workers united for common wages, benefits, and safety negotiations in contracts. Unions warn companies when stale negotiations that they will strike if they can't come to an agreement on grievances or wage, benefits, and safety.

The concrete company could have dumped the trucks. Hot loads happen all day long every day. This is nothing new in concrete construction.

Now look forward to workers being told they can't leave because it will cost the company money, or workers didn't do this right or not enough and cost the company money.

It was a terrible ruling and Justice Brown-Jackson agrees, because she voted against it.

[SunSeeker]

11. Exactly. Justice Brown-Jackson was the only one who saw reality.

I'm really disappointed in Kagan and Sotomayor on this.

[Bluethroughu]

14. I think like most people not knowledgeable in construction,

may think this was a big deal, but those trucks had an hour to be unloaded...and there are plenty of workers at the plant to do it, and if there wasn't they could have called in a couple guys. This is anti-worker legislation to take us back a hundred years of fighting for workers rights.

It is just like all previous legislation Citizen United, Buckley, and now this...wrong way decision for the citizens of this country. The Supreme Court has really removed us from a century of progress. It cost the oligarchs a pitence.

[mopinko]

18. do we know that?

if those trucks were already sitting on a job for an hour, it might have been ready to set when they pulled in the yard.

[Bluethroughu]

24. The Union is not going to sabotage equipment they are going to need to make a pay check

After a strike. Striking is only a means of allowing the employer to feel some of the stress the workers do when the employer won't come to the table on serious issues such as contracts, safety, or pay grievances.

This was a hard fought battle out there, and I remember many articles being written about the workers negotiations with that company in the news.

I'm part of a family with 50 years of ownership in a concrete company. It's like a factory job the equipment and the workers do the samething everyday and the process has not changed much in 70 years. A few more electronics added to make it easier to use the equipment for layman is about all.

You do have management teams near or on-site at all times along with many other ground workers. Hot loads are not a big deal, all day every day in the business of concrete.

These workers walked off the job at the plant, not a remote jobsite. That could be construed differently, possibly.

[mopinko]

37. according to the ruling, they had to construct bunkers to take the load.

seems there r environmental regs about where they could dump the loads.
yes, every day trucks come back w concrete to dump. tho mostly if it’s not a lot, it gets dumped on the job.
but 16 full truckloads is not something u can just dump in the parking lot.

[Bluethroughu]

38. They sell and use those bunkers, and when they dump hot loads

they reuse that concrete by breaking it up for gravel or sub-base.

All I'm saying is this company had notice of a strike but they pushed forward with the work planned instead of putting a pen to paper the night before so EVERYONE could breath easy and do their jobs.

I see this ruling be a abused in the future to be the new JUDICIAL STRIKE BREAKER, because just shooting workers doesn't have the same optics it once had, but it will bleed the unions of workers dry....or that's the hope.

We've gone back a century in workers rights with this ruling.

The fight is on, and I'll be in it. Union strong!

[SunSeeker]

48. Exactly. This basically allows SLAPP suits against unions.

Unions don't have the litigation budgets of companies. The companies will use litigation to bleed the unions dry. Even a patently meritless lawsuit takes at least $40k in attorneys fees to get rid of with a demurrer/motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment.

[MayReasonRule]

40. ...pleased that today's decision... doesn't change labor law and leaves the right to strike intact.

Stanford Law School Professor William Gould, National Labor Relations Board Former Chairman
"Virtually every strike is based on timing that will hurt the employer, there was great concern that the court would rule broadly to limit the rights of strikers. But that didn't happen."

At first glance, the Supreme Court did seem poised to issue a decision more damaging to unions. Thursday's ruling followed three earlier decisions against labor in the last five years, including one that reversed a 40-year-old precedent. And the truckers' case posed the possibility that the court would overturn another longstanding precedent dating back nearly 70 years. So labor feared the worst: a decision that would hollow out the right to strike. Thursday's decision, however, was a narrow ruling that generally left strike protections intact.

For nearly 70 years, the Supreme Court has said that federal law gives the Board the authority to decide labor disputes as long as the conduct is even arguably protected or prohibited under the federal labor law.

The business community was gunning for, and hoping to eliminate, that rule. But it didn't get its way. This was a case of winning a relatively minor battle but losing the war. The high court did not overturn or otherwise disturb its longstanding rule giving the NLRB broad authority in labor disputes, leaving unions free to time when they will strike.

At the same time, the court's majority decided the case in favor of the company in a very fact specific way. The court ultimately said the union's conduct in this particular case posed a serious and foreseeable risk of harm to Glacier's trucks, and because of this intentional harm, the case should not have been dismissed by the state supreme court

There are 27 cases still to be decided by the court, as it enters what is usually the final month of the court term. And many of those cases will be highly controversial. In Thursday's case, though, the court, quite deliberately took a pass. If there is to be a major retreat on long-guaranteed labor rights, it will not be this term, and labor leaders were relieved.

"We are pleased that today's decision ... doesn't change labor law and leaves the right to strike intact," said Mary Kay Henry, president of the 2 million member Service Employees International Union.

[SunSeeker]

51. SEIU needs to get a backbone. Telling us "it could have been worse" is pitiful.

I worked in an office where the clerical workers were represented by SEIU, while the rest of us had a different union. SEUI always caved. I guess the ghost of PATCO continued to scare SEIU.

[MayReasonRule]

56. Might That Be An Outlier? Or Is It Part And Parcel Of Their Pattern And Practice?

I have no real way to measure the veracity of the sources of "public information" other than to source as carefully as possible from the information at hand, and quote from those sources.

Otherwise I generally hesitate to articulate for fear that I may deviate from the true course of rectitude.

Your comments lend credence towards further investigation into the organizations that were quoted.
Thank you for sharing your personal experience within the subject matter at hand.

What would you suggest might be worthy of further investigation when looking into the respective organizations quoted within my text?

[SunSeeker]

47. I agree. nt

[mountain grammy]

25. She is the voice of reason on this Court

Actually sees the trees in the forest.

[jaxexpat]

12. People just don't get how the "middle class" doesn't exist without collective bargaining.

There was never even such a thing until workers had some determination over their wages. Every concept or opinion to the contrary is incomplete and simply wrong. Blaming unions for any of the nation's problems is an intentionally misguided excuse for logic. Any philosophy which undermines the power of democratically organized labor unionization serves to perpetuate the societal stagnancy of unchecked inherited wealth, ultimately a return to feudalism.

I don't know the particulars of this USSC ruling but I'm guessing there's one outraged justice.

........Okay, so it was the concrete truck thing. It's baloney. Any moron can dump a load of concrete before it sets up. Was management afraid they'd get their hands dirty? Obviously, management was trying to break the union and it looks like the USSC bought into their scheme.

[Bluethroughu]

15. This exactly!

This ruling will cost the workers of this country a century of progress for workers rights.

[The Jungle 1]

13. I worked in union shops for 35 years. I am a solid liberal Democratic voter

The malicious action of these union drivers gives all unions a black eye.
Our unions have a messing problem. The right has sold the public on the idea we are corrupt, thugs.
There was a time when companies would hire strike breakers and beat employees. I believe those days are over and we need to sit at the table. No we are not on equal footing with corporate America but it is better than nothing. We need unions and we need unions to grow again. In my opinion this union should not have allowed all unions to get this black eye.
They messed up and got caught.

[Bluethroughu]

16. The management team had plenty of time to unload the trucks.

Hot loads in concrete trucks happen all day everyday. It was a purposeful action to not mitigate and sue. Companies are warned of strikes before they happen, but the company thought since we have a majority of Right wing stooges on the court, "let's give it a try".

We have 9 people that most likely never walked out on a construction site and wouldn't know how easy it is to dump the load from a truck. The site management could have done that alone.

Justice Jackson-Brown understood what this ruling represents for all workers' future. Garbage lawsuits and threats by employers.

[The Jungle 1]

19. Site management did unload the trucks.

The company did mitigate the damage. Your statement is false and adds swelling to the black eye.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said:
She pointed particularly to the fact striking workers “abandoned fully loaded trucks” of cement “without telling anyone,” a move that could have destroyed the trucks had they not been unloaded in time by non-striking workers at the company, Glacier Northwest.
Further she wrote:
Because “the union took affirmative steps to endanger Glacier’s property,” rather than “reasonable precautions to mitigate the risk,” the conduct at issue is arguably “not protected by the” National Labor Relations Act, Barrett wrote.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/01/politics/labor-strike-supreme-court-cement-company-glacier-teamsters/index.html

We cannot expect the courts to protect us when we act like this. The vote was 8 to 1. This is not and example of right wing stooges. Although there are plenty of other examples.
We need unions and we must clean up our image. It is critical to the future of unions that we stop this kind of action.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

34. Piss on Coathanger Barrett; she's dead wrong, as is this ruling.

[MayReasonRule]

41. Labor Leaders Are Relieved This Doesn't Change Labor Law And Leaves The Right To Strike Intact

Stanford Law School Professor William Gould, National Labor Relations Board Former Chairman

"Virtually every strike is based on timing that will hurt the employer, there was great concern that the court would rule broadly to limit the rights of strikers. But that didn't happen."

At first glance, the Supreme Court did seem poised to issue a decision more damaging to unions. Thursday's ruling followed three earlier decisions against labor in the last five years, including one that reversed a 40-year-old precedent. And the truckers' case posed the possibility that the court would overturn another longstanding precedent dating back nearly 70 years. So labor feared the worst: a decision that would hollow out the right to strike. Thursday's decision, however, was a narrow ruling that generally left strike protections intact.

For nearly 70 years, the Supreme Court has said that federal law gives the Board the authority to decide labor disputes as long as the conduct is even arguably protected or prohibited under the federal labor law.

The business community was gunning for, and hoping to eliminate, that rule. But it didn't get its way. This was a case of winning a relatively minor battle but losing the war. The high court did not overturn or otherwise disturb its longstanding rule giving the NLRB broad authority in labor disputes, leaving unions free to time when they will strike.

At the same time, the court's majority decided the case in favor of the company in a very fact specific way. The court ultimately said the union's conduct in this particular case posed a serious and foreseeable risk of harm to Glacier's trucks, and because of this intentional harm, the case should not have been dismissed by the state supreme court

There are 27 cases still to be decided by the court, as it enters what is usually the final month of the court term. And many of those cases will be highly controversial. In Thursday's case, though, the court, quite deliberately took a pass. If there is to be a major retreat on long-guaranteed labor rights, it will not be this term, and labor leaders were relieved.

"We are pleased that today's decision ... doesn't change labor law and leaves the right to strike intact," said Mary Kay Henry, president of the 2 million member Service Employees International Union.

[SunSeeker]

49. They didn't abandon fully loaded trucks without telling anyone. Glacier knew they were on strike.

Amy Coney Barrett has a nasty habit of misstating the facts.

[The Jungle 1]

28. This is a complicated issue and we won part of it.

"Virtually every strike is based on timing that will hurt the employer," said Stanford Law School professor William Gould, a former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, and there was "great concern that the court would rule broadly to limit the rights of strikers. "But that didn't happen," he noted in an interview with NPR.
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/01/1179524247/supreme-court-ruled-against-a-union-but-left-strikers-rights-protections-untouch

Our unions were relived the court didn't touch the right to strike. This could have way worse.
I will say again our image of corrupt thugs is not a good look.

[mopinko]

39. imho, the union movement lost a lot of steam

when they let the mob in. breaking knees can b effective. but you shouldnt have to fear your own union.
had an instructor as an apprentice carpenter that was also a business agent. had a small plane. during a strike he flew around to houses under construction to see who was crossing the picket line. when he caught them, they got their asses kicked.
not talkin big jobs here. talkin 1-2 guys doin rehabs and stick houses. mostly working for home owners.
he thought this was a hilarious story. but i’m pretty sure every one of us walked out that day wondering what we’d got ourselves into.

timing a strike to be disruptive is 1 thing. timing it to do max damage is another.
they laughed all the way home. u r right. not a good look.

[MayReasonRule]

42. You're On Point. Thank You For Your Voice Of Reason!

May reason rule.

[OnlinePoker]

20. Here's the actual ruling

No trucks were damaged. The lawsuit was over the lost concrete. Non-striking employees had to scramble to find build environmentally safe bunkers to pour the concrete into which was then useless. The way it reads, the Teamsters knew there was a heavy load of trucks that day and waited until they were all loaded and on the road before calling the strike and then the drivers just returned to the depot without emptying their loads.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf

[mopinko]

31. thanks. that's helpful.

i have to say i’d have voted w the majority. it sounds like they timed the strike to do max damage to the company. that’s not necessary. an unannounced strike like this is dirty pool, imho.

i spent some time in construction long ago. part of my job was watching over concrete pours. trust me, they also cost the construction companies a lot of money, too.

[localroger]

21. This isn't about the strike, it's about the vandalism

You want to strike, you just don't show up for work. This union decided to create chaos and expense for the employer by walking off leaving every job half-finished and setting concrete in the very expensive trucks. That creates a bad look for every other union that might want to try to make a point. I'm sure it felt very satisfying for them to screw the boss that way but it's now how you do things if you actually want to improve your world.

[Pacifist Patriot]

27. I should have seen your reply first. I pointed out the same thing.

This wasn't the blow to labor most seem to assume.

[jaxexpat]

32. The acceptance of unions lies in management's respect for its power.

Management has the option of welcoming the help of their cooperative unionized workforce or creating a resentful workforce and hostile workplace. Yes, this means that in negotiations, the owner must buy into an open book policy of management. When there are secrets there is mistrust and misuse. Kneecapping labor is never a sound practice. It is short-sighted and a harbinger of failure. Backing a union into a corner based on misinformation spells doom for any company seeking long term viability. Union mandates are inevitable and every clash with management must be resolved in the sunshine of honest bargaining. Progressivism is premised the idea that the best choices are those which bring the best outcome for all concerned.

At some point, management dared the union to go against them in a material fashion. Management or ownership or both disrespected the union and got what they should have expected. Apparently, some of our "liberal" justices have been breathing the rarified air of their ivory towers a bit too long.

[SunSeeker]

50. Vandalism is already illegal. Why did Glacier need this ruling? nt

[mountain grammy]

23. My granddaughters range from 16 to 22

All five of them. Smart as whips. I've encouraged them to find opportunities elsewhere. Both sons are union and both were active in their locals, but the trump mindset has changed everything. Working people putting fear and predjudice ahead of solidarity for better working conditions. Greed and hate sell. Everyday both sons face co workers (brothers) who somehow think the "company" is on their side and give a shit about them when the only reason they're earning a good living with a pension plan and excellent medical benefits is because they are union. They've lost sight of the history of fighting for fairness, respect and dignity.

[Bluethroughu]

30. I'm on the side of the Union!

Which side are you on boy, which side are you on?

I have Pete's record!

Natalie Merchant does an awesome cover.

[Deuxcents]

54. I'm CWA retired and proud

When Raegan went after the flight controllers, every Union, coast to coast should have shut it all down. I know we were calling for that but by not standing in solidarity, we gave up too much.

[Pacifist Patriot]

26. Important distinction needs to be made though. The ruling was not about suing employees FOR striking

The ruling allowed the company to sue the union for the destruction of company property. In this particular case, that is what happened. The strike was timed to make the product useless and potentially damage the trucks. If the drivers had finished active deliveries and then gone on strike, this would never have been a case at all.

[mopinko]

35. if they'd announced the strike, they'd have been fine.

i think this is what they call a wild cat strike. if they’d have just not reported that day, there would b no problem.

i knew these ppl. they laughed all the way home.

[SunSeeker]

53. You do not know these people. Please stop defaming these workers.

Nobody laughs when they strike. It is a serious, life altering decision. Workers do not do it lightly, not in today's world.

[Bluethroughu]

36. The company knew the union was going to strike, they

Didn't have a day of work any different than any other day, pouring concrete. They had a strike planned because the company wouldn't negotiate with them. They didn't finish the job because that's what happens when you strike.

This ruling will be the beginning of the judicial strike breakers bleeding unions and workers dry! Workers will be afraid to assert their collective power because not only could they lose their job, but they can be sued for damages a company says they caused.

Poor ruling in my opinion and Justice Brown-Jackson could see this case for what it is and will become.

Corporations are persons, ball of tissues are persons but persons working to support families and themselves are now owned by corporations, judicial proxy. This ruling will be abused.

[stopdiggin]

44. questioning this

there seems to be some pointed disagreement on what the company knew and when. (the company knew it was loading trucks that would never make it to the work site that day? why?)

[SunSeeker]

52. SCOTUS should not be making a ruling based on disputed facts.

They basically accepted one side's version of the story over the other. Figuring out what the facts are is the job of the trial court. SCOTUS' job is to interpret the law.

[stopdiggin]

58. disputed on THIS site

Last edited Mon Jun 5, 2023, 10:40 AM - Edit history (1)

I question whether the 'company' would have loaded up a full fleet of trucks with redi-mix - if they in fact knew that those trucks were never going to reach their destination. Leading very strongly to a conclusion that they were not aware of an eminent walk out. That is the disputed question I point to.

nothing to do with the Supremes.
(Whose ruling did in fact turn on point of law - that being lower court's ruling that company could not sue for deliberate destruction - federal jurisdiction, and yada, yada - to which the high court responded, "WRONG.".)

[mopinko]

60. do u know how much 16 truck of concrete cost?

i agree. there’s no way they loaded those trucks if they had announced they were going to strike that day.

[stopdiggin]

61. yep. this was a big ol' giant FU

with a deliberate aim of causing damage and financial loss ...

And I, for one, (no matter being a die hard union supporter), just don't buy into that kind of crap. And - not too terribly upset that they found a court that kinda' saw it in the same light.

[3auld6phart]

29. Jesus H

A “bunch of overated, unelected D & R lawyers making and dictating the rules
the rest of the country has to
live by. That is really fucking weird& damn scary.

[Farmer-Rick]

33. And they use Christian dogma as science

They ignore facts and reality to push their whims, obsessions and unscientific medical opinions.

So, I do suspect them of having preconceived notions against workers, the middle class and minorities.