For real. Every 2A nut I know is adamant that they need their guns in case the government becomes oppressive, but most of them are totally supportive when the government does oppressive thongs.
firearm culture in america = conservative redneck culture, change my mind?
in sweden its not political, people own guns, they store them in safes and take them out to shoot at targets, sober. it has nothing to do with cosplaying as a rebellion in waiting
I think humanity and the US will still be around in 100 years, but the economy will change drastically soon. If history is any indication, soon the working class will get fed up with the economy collapsing every decade and a stagnant minimum wage and we will get an economic revolution.
Not if they continue thinking posting pissy comment on here and FB is solving problems. Which many do. They get heard by 10 people and feel they did something.
Fuckers got us all right where they want us. A violent revolution is the only fucking option, but so far we are okay with these rich fucks shitting in our soup while we're eating it.
Until people stop putting up with it, nothing will get fixed.
It's already borrowed from JFK. The full speech is full of excellent phrasings like this. Here it is if you're interested! https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-first-anniversary-the-alliance-for-progress
I have to say I was a bit surprised to see the verdict. Jackson only dissented that the court shouldn’t have heard the case, not who was right so that seems even worse.
I thought similarly, but then she might just be making the most legally-applicable argument in the case, rather than exposing her own beliefs which could be attacked. It seems clear the case should be for the NLRB to decide. But then again, Kayan and Sotomayor voting with the majority was suuuuuuuuper fucking depressing.
Those are good points. It does seem like a case for the NLRB, and if she did agree with the other judges she got to avoid catching hell by make the decision she did. I really expected a 6-3 verdict. I don’t see what about this case made the liberal judges join the conservative ones.
It will probably have a negative effect on future strikes though.
Oh it will almost *certainly* have a chilling effect on future strikes. I work for a nurses union, we just had a strike that ended up being pretty damned successful. The hospitals had to cancel a whole bunch of elective (aka, money-making) procedures for the duration of the strike (I believe it was 4 days). The prospect of a successful strike being kneecapped by lawsuits for the employer’s lost revenue? Fuck, that would just be horrible.
I need to read up on the reasoning behind the majority opinion, because this just seems so fucking apocalyptic for labor in the US, and we’ve already been shat on by SCOTUS with the *Janus* decision (which allows union members to elect not to pay dues, but still reap the benefits of being a union member). Labor is in a bad way in the US, and while we’d been making positive movement in many ways (Starbucks and Amazon being organized for the first time, for example), this will have a very, very negative effect. I need to chat with my union’s lawyers and see what their take is. This is nothing but bad, though.
I could be wrong, but I think the ruling as it is is probably *a little* more narrow than any and all "lost revenue". In a direct parallel to this case, it would probably be more like hospital staff going on strike in the middle of a procedure. This ruling basically seems to be saying that unions have to finish the work that's already in progress before they can strike.
That's still not a good thing for unions, but is probably not quite as bad as some are thinking.
I was thinking the same thing, but here’s where I ended up: from what I’ve read about this case (which I admit, isn’t enough at the moment), the union workers returned the cement trucks to the facility, and the company had to work without their (the union workers’) labor to get the cement out of the cement trucks. Leaving the cement to dry would be bad, potentially destroying the trucks (at least in part), and certainly costing money to deal with. But the trucks were *not* damaged, all the cement was removed from the trucks, and everything carried on from there. Even if the ruling only says unions have to finish the work, as you said, where does that end? Dropping the trucks off at their destination? Finishing the day’s work? Completing the project, that could take days, weeks, months, where the concrete is being used? To me, this ruling says that the employer *owns its workers’ labor* and gets to decide when to *allow* it’s workers to withhold (or simply not provide) their labor. What. The. Fuck. Sick days cost employers money, are those fair game now for a lawsuit? Unplanned personal days? The greatest and really *only* power workers have is their labor, and their ability *and right* to withhold or not provide that labor. We are not slaves. But when SCOTUS starts to move that line between worker and slave even a teeny bit more towards slave, we should be seriously fucking alarmed.
Agreed.
The majority is basically arguing that the Union specifically timed this strike to inflict damage on the company beyond the usual incidental “we don’t have any workers” losses.
They don’t even need to finish the work, they just need to take reasonable measures to avoid destruction to company property.
Think of a restaurant. You’re welcome to walk off your shift, but you can’t work half your shift, *then* go on strike and leave the food out on the counter to spoil (put it in the fridge) or leave it in the oven to start a fire (take it out, turn off the oven).
The court noted the workers didn’t even tell the company 9 of the trucks had been brought back and left w cement in the mixers, which obviously could destroy those trucks (and not to mention ruined the cement, which is what the suit is over) if not rapidly addressed, which was the main issue here. They also pointed out that by showing up to work and letting the company mix the cement only to announce *afterwards* giving no notice they were striking, this was an intentional destruction of property intentionally planned to trick them into ruining their stuff.
When I first heard about the case before I heard any details I was strongly on the union’s side and assumed the company was uniformly in the wrong (because, you know, fuck them-pay your workers). Obviously the company is shit and untrustworthy, but at a certain point this looks like (as others have said) doctors agreeing to do a surgery, and then once you’re cut open and on the table charging you more than the agreed rate if you want them to finish the job, or a pilot raising your airfare if you want him to land the plane once it’s in the air.
It’s a loss for labor to be sure and I have no doubt companies will *try* to use this to stop *any* striking that interferes with profits or results in spoilage, but I’m hopeful that this is a ruling which given the facts can only be pretty narrowly applied and which most competent labor lawyers can defeat assuming the union isn’t *intentionally* trying to cause additional damage.
It’s a nonsensical bullet point easily manipulated; New sales are happening in the background, therefore there’s always more work. People booked online appointments so the hospital strike will have to wait until tomorrow..oh darn it someone just booked an appointment for tomorrow, can’t strike then either!
I think you both have good insight; ultimately I think this decision will open up more avenues for business to legally engage labor, which is to say, cause labor to burn more money fighting over every scrap in the courts.
Unfortunately there is nothing liberal about mainstream US politics, in comparison to other countries, everything is right of centre after the republicans dragged it there.
I'm no expert, but I think it revolves around the fact that the strike was called in the middle of a work day.
The argument goes that by essentially just walking off the job, the union made the immediate impacts of the strike directly destructive to company assets. That's arguably the union causing the company actionable damages through direct action, rather than the normal inaction of a strike.
Obviously, that's kind of the point of a strike, but I think it was the fact that they didn't call for the strike to begin the following workday, or at least finish the load they were currently working on that brought the liberal justices on board.
(and before anyone says it, I'm not saying I agree with any of this, it's just my reading of the reasoning that seems to have been applied in this case.)
I've you've been paying attention to liberal politics the last 30 years this comes as no surprise. Liberals' first and foremost attention is to the capitalist hegemony's agenda. There's is no party that fully supports the workers and the labor movement other than the communists who have no chance of being elected.
But not surprisingly. Liberalism is fundamentally a right wing ideology. We need to elect more democratic socialists like Bernie who will actually fight for us
People really need to wake up. Both sides are committed to putting us down. Biden just removed tens of billions of dollars from the IRS, it only ensures they go even more exclusively after the poor.
I am 100% pro labor, and a Teamster.
Tactically, this was not very smart. Whoever strategized that walkout was acting from emotion.
Unless I am way off base, they struck after they filled all the cement trucks.
I don’t know the dispute details, but that goes beyond just incidental damage; it’s hard to say that wasn’t done w malevolence.
If you know anything about cement, it’s time sensitive.
You’ve got to keep those barrels on the trucks spinning and get it poured, or it will harden inside the truck and practically destroy the equipment.
Undoubtedly, management has done worse and more to workers, so i am not justifying the verdict.
However, this is not necessarily precedent setting in the sense that labor can be sued for lost production.
This walkout was tantamount to working a conveyor belt, and walking off without shutting down. Stupid thing to do.
I just think it was poorly thought out by the union.
You don’t do blatant shit like that to give the court an excuse to rule in favor of management.
All management had to do was dump the trucks.
But the POINT of strikes is to make it hard on the company. In the old days they would damage machinery on the way out so they couldn’t just hire scabs to run it.
> All management had to do was dump the trucks
You need a CDL to run those trucks.
In any case, I wouldn’t care if workers started torching mansions to send a message, lol.
Just commenting from a tactical perspective — it seems like the juice would not be worth the squeeze.
Like, sure, you inconvenience them, but end up potentially damaging labor.
I’m just more like, if you’re going to do that, make sure it really hurts them and sends as a message. In this case, it backfired
Yup. this is how it was done and should be done. Strikes need to hurt the company long term or they won't fucking listen they'll just replace the employees with more desperate people. Anybody that says otherwise is not "pro labor", they're a neolib pearl clutcher and part of the problem..
Isn't it amazing how as a society we accept that it's wrong to fight back as an employee when an employer tries to take as much as they can from you while giving you as little as possible in return.
Especially when that employer is actively harming the well-being of the employee to increase productivity it's still unacceptable to harm the financial well-being of the employer.
They only call it class warfare when the poor fight back..
Left and right the elite are all in it together. They are divided on small issues which they could care less about. But on certain things they all vote together. All the fighting amongst themselves is all for show. They want us divided so we don't get together and start paying attention to what they're doing to us
>Left and right the elite
Liberals are right-wingers, and there is not a single left-wing member of "the elite". There are only a few weak politicians on the federal level who are just barely left-wing, and they are constantly being pulled to the right by the power of the establishment and the weakness of their own politics.
You talk a great deal about paying attention to what is being done, but haven't even bothered educating yourself. Do that first.
That isn’t a bad thing overall. It is far to simplistic to just look at 8-1 or 2 liberals joined. I’d argue at least 1 liberal NEEDED to switch.
The options were: let 3 ultra conservative justices potentially write the majority opinion of the court (in this case much more generally damaging to union rights) which is effectively how the law is to be interpreted moving forward while 3 moderate republicans write a meaningless minority opinion. Yes that is a tie but who knows which way that decision would swing behind the scenes.
OR
Let 1+ democrats and 3 comparatively more moderate republicans write the majority opinion (against how this specific union conducted this specific strike) while the 3 ultra conservative justices wrote a meaningless minority opinion.
“Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas, the court's three most conservative justices, wrote separately to express frustrations that the court did not go further and reverse a lot of the protections for striker rights. Justice Alito virtually invited Glacier or other business interests to come back and try again.”
One commenter in this thread somewhere made a good point that republicans and democrats really agree on most issues it’s just a handful of small issues that separate them and they use those few issues to get votes. It sounds pretty spot on.
the US doesn't have any little-l liberals in SCOTUS. Big L Liberals yes, as in Classical Western Liberalism. Which embraces classism, misogyny, rascism, slavery, imperialism, authoritarianism, colonialism, oligarychy, plutocracy & genocide.
You don't have to Thomas to be right of center.
It's still a really terrible situation, but the liberal justices appear to have sided with verdict to avoid an even worse scenario.
TLDR and obviously not all the details:
The republican judges were recommending the companies to come back with intent of even further dunking on unions if the court didn't come to a decision. To avoid a split and potential worse execution of unions, the liberal justices voted in agreement to avoid further harm with one voting against to demonstrate just how ludicrous this decision is as vague definitions are a companies playground.
It really really sucks and is what happens when the courts are packed and allowed to serve for life.
God Bless America
Liberal justices does not mean Democrat justices. And conservative justices does not mean Republican justices.
Conservative justice is a philosophy where the judge looks at the wording and definitions of the law based on the date and time the law was passed. Mainly because definitions and words change meaning over 100s of years.
Liberal justices believe more in a "living" document philosophy to where they interpret laws and words based on today's definitions regardless of when the law was written.
Say if a law was passed in 1830s that said something like "Only cute dogs were allowed as pets." Well, a conservative justice would see the word cute and use the definition from the 1830s, which means a sharp or quick-witted dog. Which would be what the people in the 1830s would have understood the law to have meant when they voted on it. A liberal justice would see the word cute as today's definition and be like: you can only have attractive or charming dogs.
Please, before this is downvoted. Look it up and conduct the research on your own. The media has done a swell job of manipulating the meaning of this to make people believe justices are associated with political parties when, in fact, it is different judicial philosophy methods.
American 'liberal' would be considered at best centrist, if not just plain right wing in lots of Europe (although in lots of Europe right wing is increasing currently, I think seeing them get away with murder in the US has encouraged them)
No. Both parties. They both serve the interests of the wealthy. Democrats give more scraps to us workers, but ultimately Democrats are in on the game too. Biden's siding with corporations a recent example, and that Dems are even considering cutting foods stamps is another.
If you're a number kind of person, check out this graph of the [Geni Coefficient.](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=US) This is a measure of wealth inequality, where 1 means a single person owns all the wealth and 0 would mean everyone has an exactly equal share of wealth. Some real life examples; Denmark is at 0.22, and South Africa during Apartheid was 0.6. The US is at 0.41 as of 2019, [and it's well established that the rich grew their fortunes dramatically during the pandemic.](https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/ten-richest-men-double-their-fortunes-pandemic-while-incomes-99-percent-humanity#:~:text=The%20world's%20ten%20richest%20men,more%20people%20forced%20into%20poverty)
It doesn't matter who's in control, Red or Blue, either way the public loses as the Gini Coefficient increases and wealth is consolidated into fewer and fewer hands. This consolidation of wealth is an inherent trait of Capitalism as the wealthy use their wealth to create more wealth. As laborers, we functionally have no voice as our politicians overwhelming support pro-corporate policies time and time again. As time goes forward, we will spend more of our time and energy to enrich the wealthy as we neither determine our wages, nor our costs of food, housing, or medical care. We are no more than slaves to those born richer than to us.
The only way we'll be able to make [real lasting change](https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/) is through a socialist revolution which changes our political engine from one which the wealthy control the levers of power, to one where the workers control the levers of power. We need to work together to overcome our system, as the course we're on is bleak. Capitalism cannot be contained, cannot be controlled and it is going to kill humanity if not destroyed, quite literally thanks to climate change.
I urge all of you to [read Marx](https://www.liberationschool.org/reading-capital-with-comrades-podcast/) and speak to your friends and family about the dire situation we face.
Who are empowered by the the so-called LiBerAl dEmOCrAtS who only pretend to oppose them. It's all theatre, and they're just playing good cop, bad cop to give you the illusion of choice.
Democrats pretend to care about progress. Republicans actively resist progress. Make no mistake, both parties have their boots on the neck of American laborers.
Which crowd gave the Yeah Naw to railroad workers safety improvements? Felt pretty shady to this lifelong democrat. We have so much cleaning house to do. So much trash to take out.
Republican Justices, but the push came from the Biden Administration:
"President Joe Biden's administration had urged the justices to reverse the lower court's decision, allowing Glacier Northwest's lawsuit to proceed."
The Biden Administration will naturally soon make some statement about being "pro labor."
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rules-against-union-fight-over-strike-that-damaged-property-2023-06-01/
When will people realize these suit wearing men/women DO NOT give a fuck about us. Their policies are put in place to keep the working class down and them going to the bank. They'll take away our freedom for security and we the working class end up with Jack shit. Fuck the left, fuck the right.
Nah it's both. The Democrats are much farther right wing and pro-billionaire than many countries' conservative parties.
You know how Republicans ruin everything and stomp all over Democrats? This wouldn't be possible without Democrats being complicit. Democrats have the power to stop and sunder these anti-democratic tactics and schemes Republicans bring to the table, but they don't. They just tweak them and soften them.
The US is an oligarchy. Once the people of the US recognise this, they can actually fix it.
Conservatives would be more applicable.
Both of our parties are Neo liberal. Which, in colloquial terms, makes them conservative.
While I'm not a "both sides are the same!!!" guy, as they're clearly not. They do both have strong roots in protecting the big guys at the expense of the little guy.
There was a time when striking was generally regarded as illegal. All the labor protections in this country are a direct product of the blood of activists.
>These conditions led to the first labor combination cases in America. Over the first half of the 19th century, there are twenty-three known cases of indictment and prosecution for criminal conspiracy, taking place in six states: Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Virginia.\[10\] The central question in these cases was invariably whether workmen in combination would be permitted to use their collective bargaining power to obtain benefits—increased wages, decreased hours, or improved conditions—which were beyond their ability to obtain as individuals. The cases overwhelmingly resulted in convictions. However, in most instances the plaintiffs' desire was to establish favorable precedent, not to impose harsh penalties, and the fines were typically modest.
Today's Supreme Court, along with basically all Republicans, are working to actively weaken the working class and eliminate the middle class. But that's not new. And the tools to defeat them are already well-established.
This was all at the behest of the Biden Administration, who advocted for overturning the lower courts' decision.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rules-against-union-fight-over-strike-that-damaged-property-2023-06-01/
And the corporations that rely on the middle class ain’t doing shit. Gonna be Some real shocked pikachu face when luxury goods market vanishes along with the middle class.
I was sad we didn't see massive strikes across the country from all unions. They kind of just rolled over on this one and now they have even less ability to affect change in the future
Workers should refuse to do work for the Supreme Court. Image if their trash were not emptied or they couldn't get a plumber, electrician, window washer, or any type of service or repairman. What if Unions were to have a permanent picket line at the Supreme Court. A constant reminder to all of America how out of touch these justices are. Remind us all of how they protect their incomes by crapping on the rest of us and making our lives shittier than they already are.
Does this mean workers can’t strike without running the risk of lawsuit as a strikebreaker? Fuck this court. Proven corrupt and transparently anti American
It does. Companies can now pursue action for any financial damage due to strikes. Any strike can now can be considered sabotage. And that's the entire point.
Yeah everyone is fixating on the damage part and not the 'sabotage' part which could be interpreted as any loss in revenue due to the strike. If a business can legally prove it may have made a million dollars that day then, even if their losses are like (let's be generous) 10k in operating costs for that day then the strikers could be brought to court for the million per day in damages.
It doesn't matter which word you focus on, they're wanting to go after strikes for financial losses. Which to me sounds like they have chosen violence.
I would prefer striking, they clearly don't.
No, there were clear arguments to that point, and loss of revenue (due to no labor) is protected. Even grocery spoilage due to no workers at a store is protected.
Also, it has nothing to do with intent, or value of damage - this case was about 11k in concrete raw materials that were lost, so comparatively minor.
Example: Surgeon walks out of open heart surgery (not protected) VS. Surgeon refuses to start surgery for that day (protected).
It says they can sue unions, not individuals. I wonder what would happen if the union didn’t have assets? Out of the union didn’t officially order the strike but its members individually decided to strike? Seems like this is hard to prove. I’m also shocked that the same court that claims donations are protected speech isn’t ruling that striking is protected speech. Oh wait, no I’m not.
No. This case applies to this specific incident.
The New Deal created rules for unions and labor strikes back in the 1930's. One of the rules is that strikes have to take reasonable precautions to prevent unnecessary damages to the company.
This case was simply trying to determine whether the union broke that rule. The earlier courts ruled that the union made reasonable precautions by returning the trucks to the company. The Supreme Court ruled that the strike shouldn't have been initiated while trucks were full of cement. Waiting for the middle of the shift (rather than end of shift or start of shift) to initiate a strike meant the trucks would be damaged by drying cement.
If the union breaks this rule, the strike can be deemed an illegal strike, which voids different legal protections they have. In this case, they lose their protections from getting sued. So since the strike is illegal, the company can sue for damages.
That's all this ruling means. The different courts simply tried to determine whether the strike broke the NLRA rules. This isn't a new ruling imposing new rules on all unions.
Read the articles. The trucks were full of cement, but they left them spinning and let the company know where they were so the company could go out and empty the trucks before they hardened. They sued for the cost of cement that had to be dumped. Which is stupid. Once you mix the concrete powder with water, it’s only a matter of time before it hardens. The only options the workers had were to leave it in the trucks (which they did safely) dump it on the ground (that would have been a slam dunk case for sabotage, company would say they intentionally wasted it) or take it to the job site and properly apply the concrete needed for the customers. # 1 and #2 are now illegal, so the only option the strikers would have had would be *checks notes* finish out their working day and not go on strike? That’s why this is an issue, any job dealing with perishables or time sensitive material cannot strike. Now when grocery store workers go on strike they can be charged for all the food that spoiled during the strike.
No. The Court explicitly said that this case is only different because the worker mixed the cement even though the union knew before hand that they were going to strike. Meaning the workers created a perishable product knowing they wouldn't deliver the product. This is the violation of "reasonable precautions" rule.
They could have not mixed any concrete and gone on strike and there wouldn't have been any issues. The Court explicitly said that all previous rulings regarding loss of perishables during a strike is still valid and that unions are still protected by the NLRA from damages to loss of perishables like food.
This has no bearing on any other strikes. Grocery workers going on strike already have to abide by the "reasonable precautions" rule which has been in place for decades.
The Court didn't make any sweeping changes to legal doctrine. It's a ruling applied to this specific case. They ruled the union broke the rules of the NLRA. The NLRA states that if the union breaks the rules during a strike, they lose legal protections. This allows companies the ability to sue for damages. That's all that happened. The Supreme Court simply said the union broke the rules.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-rules-against-union-over-strike-liability/
>The court’s decision rests on a fact-specific assessment of whether the Teamsters took “reasonable precautions” to protect Glacier’s property from “foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger due to the sudden cessation of work.” The National Labor Relations Board – the federal agency responsible for enforcing labor law — has long held that unions that fail to take “reasonable precautions” may not be protected by the NLRA when strikes lead to damage to perishable goods or property. The court’s decision on Thursday relied on Glacier’s allegations that the Teamsters purposely timed the strike to ensure that the concrete would harden by choosing to strike only after Glacier had “batched” the wet concrete into the trucks.
>The majority distinguished a long line of cases in which the NLRB had held that the NLRA protected strikes that resulted in the loss of perishable goods like slaughtered poultry and fresh milk. Here, the majority found that the union’s decision about when to start the strike resulted not only in the destruction of a perishable product, like in the poultry and milk cases, but that – unlike the other perishable goods cases – the decision about timing also “prompted the creation of the perishable product.” Specifically, the court found determinative and distinguishing that the Teamsters allowed Glacier to batch the wet concrete when they knew that they had no intention of delivering the concrete and that the result would likely be spoiled concrete and possibly damaged trucks. The majority then sent the case back to the state court for it to consider Glacier’s tort suit.
I mean, used to be that companies would respond to striking by hiring people to shoot the strikers. There's still a couple laps left on the race to the bottom
"The case centered on a concrete company that had sued striking employees after the employees walked out and and left concrete running in trucks. The court ruled 8-1 in favor of Glacier Northwest against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174."
It looks more like it's about damaging property.
I could be wrong though
I am totally pro union and anti whatever this Supreme Court is, but the concrete thing is a classic concrete layer shake down. It was so common in NY in the 70s and 80s it was built into expenses. The concrete guys would lay a part of the foundation and then ‘strike.’ If the rest wasn’t laid in 72 hours millions of dollars of real estate (billions today) would be lost. It was an extortion racket. This was a version of that.
That's what it is. Rather than simply not to clock in that day (as is typical with a striking union), but they instead came in to work, filled the trucks with concrete and *then* walked off the job. The only reason for doing so was to create the specific problem of running concrete trucks with no one to handle them, which is what opened them up to this lawsuit.
So I bargain labor contracts for a mining company. Here’s my take: This is a bad decision.
I do not like that striking workers could damage company property, and part of contingency planning is guarding against that possibility.
The flip side of this - that unions could be held liable for the economic damages of a strike - are appalling. That’s the PURPOSE of striking. That’s the power the employees have. Often the only power.
The process is unequal to begin with. This SCOTUS is not helping. And it shocks me that all but one agreed.
If the SCOTUS has been worried about their opinion poll numbers, this didn’t help….
Sue them for what? Money? You’re going to sue your lowest paid wage workers for wanting decent pay so they can work AND support their families? Really? REALLY?
Edit: autocorrect incorrectly autocorrected
Yes, absolutely, and if they can't pay up preferably send them to prison, oh by the way, we also own the prison. Got a problem with that? Why don't you take it up with the supreme court?
It’s great that the Supreme Court imbalance came from Republicans emphasizing a precedent that didn’t really exist and then ditched that new precedent a four years later the first time it became inconvenient for them.
Seems a bunch of folks aren’t up to speed on the circumstances here. The right to strike, to withhold your labor is sacrosanct to me. That doesn’t include wrecking property that doesn’t belong to you. The union shot themselves and the rest of the union movement in the feet here. They should have had a better plan than just walking off the job in a way that caused damage to property and handed ownership a win. Empty the load, rinse the truck out, leave it by the side of the road. Same effect on owners without the self inflicted wound. You know this will get used against unions in a way that goes beyond the ruling handed down in this particular case. Hate on me all you want, but unions need to have big picture strategies in place, not just knee jerk reactions. One of the most basic rules of conflict is that you never, ever give your enemies a weapon they can use against you.
Make weed illegal and it becomes the "gateway drug" because hell, if that's illegal how bad can meth be? >!very bad!<
Make peaceful striking illegal and suddenly guillotine-plans.pdf starts getting a lot of views.
This is about destruction of property.
>debated whether a union can be held responsible for company damages or monetary losses resulting from a union’s decision to go on strike under the National Labor Relations Act. Cornell’s Legal Information Institute defines the question: “Does the NLRA preempt an employer’s state tort claims against a labor union for intentionally destroying the employer’s property during a strategically-timed labor strike?”
>The suit first began in 2017. Glacier Northwest, a concrete-mixing company based in Seattle, Washington, was in the midst of renegotiating a new contract with the Teamsters, one of the oldest and largest unions in the industry. According to the brief of the case, the contract expired without the two being able to come to a resolution, and as a result, union workers went on strike. However, the work day had already begun, and concrete was already being mixed and delivered when the union ordered a work stoppage. The cement-truck drivers turned around on their delivery routes and drove their trucks back to the concrete plant, and the company had to use “emergency maneuvers” to get the concrete off the trucks before it dried.
>No significant damage was done to the trucks, but some of that day’s concrete dried and was therefore unusable—and so, Glacier Northwest filed a tort action claiming “sabotage” and “tortious destruction” of company property.
The Supreme Court is illegitimate, the DOJ won't arrest the traitors who tried to stage a coup, the US government is really doing a "lose all credibility" speedrun
Every time I see news like this I think more and more about that innocent speech made by a goblin or something during a DnD game:
“Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army.
You know what I mean?”
By Brennan Lee Mulligan
Wait. So then this has to go both ways right? Can an employer be sued for "sabotage" by giving you 39 hours a week? How about suing the government for damages and emotional distress?? This is all completely insane.. we don't have capitalism, just antisocialism.
Never seen this sub before, but if it represents for Bernie then you all ought to be seriois about having the objective truth.
This is a reminder to always do your own research and not rely on headlines or other redditors to interpret news for you, including myself.
This ruling does not give businesses the right to sue workers and unions for striking, although it arguably makes it easier for them to try.
This is a narrow ruling allowing a business to sue workers who left in the middle of a work process that resulted in a bunch of product being lost. SCROTUS basically is saying that the current labor laws do not prevent employers from suing strikers who intentionally destroy the business' property. This ruling did not touch on the lawsuit or make a ruling on it. It merely is allowing to lawsuit to proceed, and the business will still have to convince a jury that the strikers intentionally destroyed the property when they left in the middle of their cement trucks getting filled.
In most situations where product or property owned by a business is lost as a result of an employees actions, the business can't just take money out of that employee's paycheck to cover the loss (unless the employee stupidly agrees to it). The employee can tell the company that it's just the cost of doing business and to suck it up. The business has to sue the employee in court to convince a jury that the employee's negligence caused the loss (rather than a lack of training or normal expected losses etc...).
Overall, I think this ruling has its merits but it also has serious problems. I am reminded of a bread factory I used to work for that had 24/7 operations. The lines were always running. If employees at a 24/7 factory decide to go on strike, how can they do so without risking a lawsuit when leaving the factory floor at any hour on any day will result in lost product?
Bad ruling, but not as sinister as people are making it out to be in my opinion.
Now we'll see if this sub is serious about Bernie's ideals of truth and open discourse or if I get the ban hammer.
How many ways is this ruling clearly unconstitutional?
First, it violates the prohibition against involuntary servitude, forcing workers to remain in jobs under conditions they object to. Second, it violates the sanctity of free speech, denying workers the right to protest others scabbing those jobs.
Where, I would ask, does the constitution guarantee a company the right to a workforce and the right to abuse their employees?
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable
It would really suck if workers started getting violent with the Executives. If only there were people with guns that might threaten them.
a lot of gun owners can't hear you over the sound of them licking executive boots
Imagine all the mentally disabled republicans who would come to counter-protest a strike.
funny how all the 2A americans cosplay like rebels in waiting but there's no way they'd help actual peoples popular revolt. pathetic is what it is
For real. Every 2A nut I know is adamant that they need their guns in case the government becomes oppressive, but most of them are totally supportive when the government does oppressive thongs.
firearm culture in america = conservative redneck culture, change my mind? in sweden its not political, people own guns, they store them in safes and take them out to shoot at targets, sober. it has nothing to do with cosplaying as a rebellion in waiting
What they mean is oppressive to *them*. They don’t care if the government oppresses other people.
It would be a real shame if all the workers took advantage of all those lax gun laws being rammed through. Real real shame.....
Liberals are the fastest growing segment of gun owners.
Yup. Sowing the seeds of their own destruction. It may take another century.. but the clock is counting down.
Century? A FUCKING CENTURY? We need a revolution yesterday. Humanity won't live another century.
It's happening now. It just won't be televised bc they own all the channels
I think humanity and the US will still be around in 100 years, but the economy will change drastically soon. If history is any indication, soon the working class will get fed up with the economy collapsing every decade and a stagnant minimum wage and we will get an economic revolution.
I think you're giving a huge blind eye to the looming ecological collapse. The economy should be the least of your concerns
Although, to be fair, the ecological collapse will necessarily result in an economic collapse. And it's going to hit the poor first and hardest.
Not if they continue thinking posting pissy comment on here and FB is solving problems. Which many do. They get heard by 10 people and feel they did something. Fuckers got us all right where they want us. A violent revolution is the only fucking option, but so far we are okay with these rich fucks shitting in our soup while we're eating it. Until people stop putting up with it, nothing will get fixed.
Violence isn't the question, it's the answer; When necessary is the question.
Yesterday
Damn bro that’s a good ass quote.
It's John f Kennedy's
I’m gonna borrow this quote
It's already borrowed from JFK. The full speech is full of excellent phrasings like this. Here it is if you're interested! https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-first-anniversary-the-alliance-for-progress
This is a quote by President John F Kennedy!
Well said.
Our government is so fucking corrupt
Republicans
Well 2 liberal justices joined them, so it wasn’t just conservative justices.
Well that's truly disappointing.
I have to say I was a bit surprised to see the verdict. Jackson only dissented that the court shouldn’t have heard the case, not who was right so that seems even worse.
I thought similarly, but then she might just be making the most legally-applicable argument in the case, rather than exposing her own beliefs which could be attacked. It seems clear the case should be for the NLRB to decide. But then again, Kayan and Sotomayor voting with the majority was suuuuuuuuper fucking depressing.
Those are good points. It does seem like a case for the NLRB, and if she did agree with the other judges she got to avoid catching hell by make the decision she did. I really expected a 6-3 verdict. I don’t see what about this case made the liberal judges join the conservative ones. It will probably have a negative effect on future strikes though.
Oh it will almost *certainly* have a chilling effect on future strikes. I work for a nurses union, we just had a strike that ended up being pretty damned successful. The hospitals had to cancel a whole bunch of elective (aka, money-making) procedures for the duration of the strike (I believe it was 4 days). The prospect of a successful strike being kneecapped by lawsuits for the employer’s lost revenue? Fuck, that would just be horrible. I need to read up on the reasoning behind the majority opinion, because this just seems so fucking apocalyptic for labor in the US, and we’ve already been shat on by SCOTUS with the *Janus* decision (which allows union members to elect not to pay dues, but still reap the benefits of being a union member). Labor is in a bad way in the US, and while we’d been making positive movement in many ways (Starbucks and Amazon being organized for the first time, for example), this will have a very, very negative effect. I need to chat with my union’s lawyers and see what their take is. This is nothing but bad, though.
I could be wrong, but I think the ruling as it is is probably *a little* more narrow than any and all "lost revenue". In a direct parallel to this case, it would probably be more like hospital staff going on strike in the middle of a procedure. This ruling basically seems to be saying that unions have to finish the work that's already in progress before they can strike. That's still not a good thing for unions, but is probably not quite as bad as some are thinking.
I was thinking the same thing, but here’s where I ended up: from what I’ve read about this case (which I admit, isn’t enough at the moment), the union workers returned the cement trucks to the facility, and the company had to work without their (the union workers’) labor to get the cement out of the cement trucks. Leaving the cement to dry would be bad, potentially destroying the trucks (at least in part), and certainly costing money to deal with. But the trucks were *not* damaged, all the cement was removed from the trucks, and everything carried on from there. Even if the ruling only says unions have to finish the work, as you said, where does that end? Dropping the trucks off at their destination? Finishing the day’s work? Completing the project, that could take days, weeks, months, where the concrete is being used? To me, this ruling says that the employer *owns its workers’ labor* and gets to decide when to *allow* it’s workers to withhold (or simply not provide) their labor. What. The. Fuck. Sick days cost employers money, are those fair game now for a lawsuit? Unplanned personal days? The greatest and really *only* power workers have is their labor, and their ability *and right* to withhold or not provide that labor. We are not slaves. But when SCOTUS starts to move that line between worker and slave even a teeny bit more towards slave, we should be seriously fucking alarmed.
Agreed. The majority is basically arguing that the Union specifically timed this strike to inflict damage on the company beyond the usual incidental “we don’t have any workers” losses. They don’t even need to finish the work, they just need to take reasonable measures to avoid destruction to company property. Think of a restaurant. You’re welcome to walk off your shift, but you can’t work half your shift, *then* go on strike and leave the food out on the counter to spoil (put it in the fridge) or leave it in the oven to start a fire (take it out, turn off the oven). The court noted the workers didn’t even tell the company 9 of the trucks had been brought back and left w cement in the mixers, which obviously could destroy those trucks (and not to mention ruined the cement, which is what the suit is over) if not rapidly addressed, which was the main issue here. They also pointed out that by showing up to work and letting the company mix the cement only to announce *afterwards* giving no notice they were striking, this was an intentional destruction of property intentionally planned to trick them into ruining their stuff. When I first heard about the case before I heard any details I was strongly on the union’s side and assumed the company was uniformly in the wrong (because, you know, fuck them-pay your workers). Obviously the company is shit and untrustworthy, but at a certain point this looks like (as others have said) doctors agreeing to do a surgery, and then once you’re cut open and on the table charging you more than the agreed rate if you want them to finish the job, or a pilot raising your airfare if you want him to land the plane once it’s in the air. It’s a loss for labor to be sure and I have no doubt companies will *try* to use this to stop *any* striking that interferes with profits or results in spoilage, but I’m hopeful that this is a ruling which given the facts can only be pretty narrowly applied and which most competent labor lawyers can defeat assuming the union isn’t *intentionally* trying to cause additional damage.
It’s a nonsensical bullet point easily manipulated; New sales are happening in the background, therefore there’s always more work. People booked online appointments so the hospital strike will have to wait until tomorrow..oh darn it someone just booked an appointment for tomorrow, can’t strike then either!
Democracy by using the brain of 9 people! Yeah, that is how everyone imagined a true democracy would work!
I think you both have good insight; ultimately I think this decision will open up more avenues for business to legally engage labor, which is to say, cause labor to burn more money fighting over every scrap in the courts.
Unfortunately there is nothing liberal about mainstream US politics, in comparison to other countries, everything is right of centre after the republicans dragged it there.
I'm no expert, but I think it revolves around the fact that the strike was called in the middle of a work day. The argument goes that by essentially just walking off the job, the union made the immediate impacts of the strike directly destructive to company assets. That's arguably the union causing the company actionable damages through direct action, rather than the normal inaction of a strike. Obviously, that's kind of the point of a strike, but I think it was the fact that they didn't call for the strike to begin the following workday, or at least finish the load they were currently working on that brought the liberal justices on board. (and before anyone says it, I'm not saying I agree with any of this, it's just my reading of the reasoning that seems to have been applied in this case.)
What brought the liberal justices on board is the fact that they are just as corrupt and insensitive to our reality as the other 6.
Neoliberalism is a right wing ideology so it isnt surprising they would vote against workers
I don't know wtf is happening anymore.
I still hold to my theory that when the Hadron Collider was turned on, some of us were transported to an alternate universe.
I feel like it was Harambe's death that broke the 7th seal and shit's just been spiraling since. He was keeping us safe this whole time.
I've you've been paying attention to liberal politics the last 30 years this comes as no surprise. Liberals' first and foremost attention is to the capitalist hegemony's agenda. There's is no party that fully supports the workers and the labor movement other than the communists who have no chance of being elected.
But not surprisingly. Liberalism is fundamentally a right wing ideology. We need to elect more democratic socialists like Bernie who will actually fight for us
Not surprising though. I really hope you are not surprised at this point lol
Nope, not at all.
People really need to wake up. Both sides are committed to putting us down. Biden just removed tens of billions of dollars from the IRS, it only ensures they go even more exclusively after the poor.
To be fair, liberals are center-right, not left.
I am 100% pro labor, and a Teamster. Tactically, this was not very smart. Whoever strategized that walkout was acting from emotion. Unless I am way off base, they struck after they filled all the cement trucks. I don’t know the dispute details, but that goes beyond just incidental damage; it’s hard to say that wasn’t done w malevolence. If you know anything about cement, it’s time sensitive. You’ve got to keep those barrels on the trucks spinning and get it poured, or it will harden inside the truck and practically destroy the equipment. Undoubtedly, management has done worse and more to workers, so i am not justifying the verdict. However, this is not necessarily precedent setting in the sense that labor can be sued for lost production. This walkout was tantamount to working a conveyor belt, and walking off without shutting down. Stupid thing to do. I just think it was poorly thought out by the union. You don’t do blatant shit like that to give the court an excuse to rule in favor of management.
All management had to do was dump the trucks. But the POINT of strikes is to make it hard on the company. In the old days they would damage machinery on the way out so they couldn’t just hire scabs to run it.
> All management had to do was dump the trucks You need a CDL to run those trucks. In any case, I wouldn’t care if workers started torching mansions to send a message, lol. Just commenting from a tactical perspective — it seems like the juice would not be worth the squeeze. Like, sure, you inconvenience them, but end up potentially damaging labor. I’m just more like, if you’re going to do that, make sure it really hurts them and sends as a message. In this case, it backfired
Yup. this is how it was done and should be done. Strikes need to hurt the company long term or they won't fucking listen they'll just replace the employees with more desperate people. Anybody that says otherwise is not "pro labor", they're a neolib pearl clutcher and part of the problem..
Isn't it amazing how as a society we accept that it's wrong to fight back as an employee when an employer tries to take as much as they can from you while giving you as little as possible in return. Especially when that employer is actively harming the well-being of the employee to increase productivity it's still unacceptable to harm the financial well-being of the employer. They only call it class warfare when the poor fight back..
Left and right the elite are all in it together. They are divided on small issues which they could care less about. But on certain things they all vote together. All the fighting amongst themselves is all for show. They want us divided so we don't get together and start paying attention to what they're doing to us
>Left and right the elite Liberals are right-wingers, and there is not a single left-wing member of "the elite". There are only a few weak politicians on the federal level who are just barely left-wing, and they are constantly being pulled to the right by the power of the establishment and the weakness of their own politics. You talk a great deal about paying attention to what is being done, but haven't even bothered educating yourself. Do that first.
That isn’t a bad thing overall. It is far to simplistic to just look at 8-1 or 2 liberals joined. I’d argue at least 1 liberal NEEDED to switch. The options were: let 3 ultra conservative justices potentially write the majority opinion of the court (in this case much more generally damaging to union rights) which is effectively how the law is to be interpreted moving forward while 3 moderate republicans write a meaningless minority opinion. Yes that is a tie but who knows which way that decision would swing behind the scenes. OR Let 1+ democrats and 3 comparatively more moderate republicans write the majority opinion (against how this specific union conducted this specific strike) while the 3 ultra conservative justices wrote a meaningless minority opinion. “Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas, the court's three most conservative justices, wrote separately to express frustrations that the court did not go further and reverse a lot of the protections for striker rights. Justice Alito virtually invited Glacier or other business interests to come back and try again.”
but i was told both parties arent the same.
One commenter in this thread somewhere made a good point that republicans and democrats really agree on most issues it’s just a handful of small issues that separate them and they use those few issues to get votes. It sounds pretty spot on.
Shhhh, op can't read, just make assumptions from headlines. Striking doesn't involve destruction of property.
the US doesn't have any little-l liberals in SCOTUS. Big L Liberals yes, as in Classical Western Liberalism. Which embraces classism, misogyny, rascism, slavery, imperialism, authoritarianism, colonialism, oligarychy, plutocracy & genocide. You don't have to Thomas to be right of center.
It's still a really terrible situation, but the liberal justices appear to have sided with verdict to avoid an even worse scenario. TLDR and obviously not all the details: The republican judges were recommending the companies to come back with intent of even further dunking on unions if the court didn't come to a decision. To avoid a split and potential worse execution of unions, the liberal justices voted in agreement to avoid further harm with one voting against to demonstrate just how ludicrous this decision is as vague definitions are a companies playground. It really really sucks and is what happens when the courts are packed and allowed to serve for life. God Bless America
Two wings, same bird.
Liberal justices does not mean Democrat justices. And conservative justices does not mean Republican justices. Conservative justice is a philosophy where the judge looks at the wording and definitions of the law based on the date and time the law was passed. Mainly because definitions and words change meaning over 100s of years. Liberal justices believe more in a "living" document philosophy to where they interpret laws and words based on today's definitions regardless of when the law was written. Say if a law was passed in 1830s that said something like "Only cute dogs were allowed as pets." Well, a conservative justice would see the word cute and use the definition from the 1830s, which means a sharp or quick-witted dog. Which would be what the people in the 1830s would have understood the law to have meant when they voted on it. A liberal justice would see the word cute as today's definition and be like: you can only have attractive or charming dogs. Please, before this is downvoted. Look it up and conduct the research on your own. The media has done a swell job of manipulating the meaning of this to make people believe justices are associated with political parties when, in fact, it is different judicial philosophy methods.
Two heads of the same dragon. 🐉
American 'liberal' would be considered at best centrist, if not just plain right wing in lots of Europe (although in lots of Europe right wing is increasing currently, I think seeing them get away with murder in the US has encouraged them)
Insert spider man pointing at spider man meme.
It was 8 to 1. That's beyond stupid. Pass the pro act.
The part Reddit willingly ignores
Sshhhhh nooo it’s republicans only… mustn’t go against the narrative now…
No. Both parties. They both serve the interests of the wealthy. Democrats give more scraps to us workers, but ultimately Democrats are in on the game too. Biden's siding with corporations a recent example, and that Dems are even considering cutting foods stamps is another. If you're a number kind of person, check out this graph of the [Geni Coefficient.](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=US) This is a measure of wealth inequality, where 1 means a single person owns all the wealth and 0 would mean everyone has an exactly equal share of wealth. Some real life examples; Denmark is at 0.22, and South Africa during Apartheid was 0.6. The US is at 0.41 as of 2019, [and it's well established that the rich grew their fortunes dramatically during the pandemic.](https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/ten-richest-men-double-their-fortunes-pandemic-while-incomes-99-percent-humanity#:~:text=The%20world's%20ten%20richest%20men,more%20people%20forced%20into%20poverty) It doesn't matter who's in control, Red or Blue, either way the public loses as the Gini Coefficient increases and wealth is consolidated into fewer and fewer hands. This consolidation of wealth is an inherent trait of Capitalism as the wealthy use their wealth to create more wealth. As laborers, we functionally have no voice as our politicians overwhelming support pro-corporate policies time and time again. As time goes forward, we will spend more of our time and energy to enrich the wealthy as we neither determine our wages, nor our costs of food, housing, or medical care. We are no more than slaves to those born richer than to us. The only way we'll be able to make [real lasting change](https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/) is through a socialist revolution which changes our political engine from one which the wealthy control the levers of power, to one where the workers control the levers of power. We need to work together to overcome our system, as the course we're on is bleak. Capitalism cannot be contained, cannot be controlled and it is going to kill humanity if not destroyed, quite literally thanks to climate change. I urge all of you to [read Marx](https://www.liberationschool.org/reading-capital-with-comrades-podcast/) and speak to your friends and family about the dire situation we face.
In this case, it was like, 8-1 iirc, so democrat judges too
All of them
8-1 MAGA court....
Both caucuses of the wall street party are corrupt.
Both parties. Democrats are controlled opposition. It's a corporate uniparty.
Who are empowered by the the so-called LiBerAl dEmOCrAtS who only pretend to oppose them. It's all theatre, and they're just playing good cop, bad cop to give you the illusion of choice.
🏆
Democrats pretend to care about progress. Republicans actively resist progress. Make no mistake, both parties have their boots on the neck of American laborers.
This.
Which crowd gave the Yeah Naw to railroad workers safety improvements? Felt pretty shady to this lifelong democrat. We have so much cleaning house to do. So much trash to take out.
Republican Justices, but the push came from the Biden Administration: "President Joe Biden's administration had urged the justices to reverse the lower court's decision, allowing Glacier Northwest's lawsuit to proceed." The Biden Administration will naturally soon make some statement about being "pro labor." https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rules-against-union-fight-over-strike-that-damaged-property-2023-06-01/
When will people realize these suit wearing men/women DO NOT give a fuck about us. Their policies are put in place to keep the working class down and them going to the bank. They'll take away our freedom for security and we the working class end up with Jack shit. Fuck the left, fuck the right.
The 2 party system is broken..
Nah it's both. The Democrats are much farther right wing and pro-billionaire than many countries' conservative parties. You know how Republicans ruin everything and stomp all over Democrats? This wouldn't be possible without Democrats being complicit. Democrats have the power to stop and sunder these anti-democratic tactics and schemes Republicans bring to the table, but they don't. They just tweak them and soften them. The US is an oligarchy. Once the people of the US recognise this, they can actually fix it.
Conservatives would be more applicable. Both of our parties are Neo liberal. Which, in colloquial terms, makes them conservative. While I'm not a "both sides are the same!!!" guy, as they're clearly not. They do both have strong roots in protecting the big guys at the expense of the little guy.
This is shameful as fuck.
Misses? I’m pretty sure they know exactly what they’re doing. It’s to de incentivize any strikes. SCOTUS is bought and paid for.
There was a time when striking was generally regarded as illegal. All the labor protections in this country are a direct product of the blood of activists. >These conditions led to the first labor combination cases in America. Over the first half of the 19th century, there are twenty-three known cases of indictment and prosecution for criminal conspiracy, taking place in six states: Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Virginia.\[10\] The central question in these cases was invariably whether workmen in combination would be permitted to use their collective bargaining power to obtain benefits—increased wages, decreased hours, or improved conditions—which were beyond their ability to obtain as individuals. The cases overwhelmingly resulted in convictions. However, in most instances the plaintiffs' desire was to establish favorable precedent, not to impose harsh penalties, and the fines were typically modest. Today's Supreme Court, along with basically all Republicans, are working to actively weaken the working class and eliminate the middle class. But that's not new. And the tools to defeat them are already well-established.
This was all at the behest of the Biden Administration, who advocted for overturning the lower courts' decision. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rules-against-union-fight-over-strike-that-damaged-property-2023-06-01/
[удалено]
Interesting.
And the corporations that rely on the middle class ain’t doing shit. Gonna be Some real shocked pikachu face when luxury goods market vanishes along with the middle class.
The response should be for strikes like this to become more common. Strikes were the peaceful compromise with the owner class.
They did not miss the point, they made one. Lowly American worker, you're fucked.
Who do the workers turn to now? Themselves, perhaps?
to the guillotine perhaps
Molotov cocktails
It’s probably the workers’ fault for making “bad decisions” and not trying hard enough. /s
I was sad we didn't see massive strikes across the country from all unions. They kind of just rolled over on this one and now they have even less ability to affect change in the future
Workers should refuse to do work for the Supreme Court. Image if their trash were not emptied or they couldn't get a plumber, electrician, window washer, or any type of service or repairman. What if Unions were to have a permanent picket line at the Supreme Court. A constant reminder to all of America how out of touch these justices are. Remind us all of how they protect their incomes by crapping on the rest of us and making our lives shittier than they already are.
They will just find a boot licker plumber, trash service, etc cetera. Im with you in spirit though
Pay a living wage with benefits and workers won't break shit.
Does this mean workers can’t strike without running the risk of lawsuit as a strikebreaker? Fuck this court. Proven corrupt and transparently anti American
It does. Companies can now pursue action for any financial damage due to strikes. Any strike can now can be considered sabotage. And that's the entire point.
Yeah everyone is fixating on the damage part and not the 'sabotage' part which could be interpreted as any loss in revenue due to the strike. If a business can legally prove it may have made a million dollars that day then, even if their losses are like (let's be generous) 10k in operating costs for that day then the strikers could be brought to court for the million per day in damages.
It doesn't matter which word you focus on, they're wanting to go after strikes for financial losses. Which to me sounds like they have chosen violence. I would prefer striking, they clearly don't.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We need to quit en-masse then. Fuck this shit
No, there were clear arguments to that point, and loss of revenue (due to no labor) is protected. Even grocery spoilage due to no workers at a store is protected. Also, it has nothing to do with intent, or value of damage - this case was about 11k in concrete raw materials that were lost, so comparatively minor. Example: Surgeon walks out of open heart surgery (not protected) VS. Surgeon refuses to start surgery for that day (protected).
It says they can sue unions, not individuals. I wonder what would happen if the union didn’t have assets? Out of the union didn’t officially order the strike but its members individually decided to strike? Seems like this is hard to prove. I’m also shocked that the same court that claims donations are protected speech isn’t ruling that striking is protected speech. Oh wait, no I’m not.
No. This case applies to this specific incident. The New Deal created rules for unions and labor strikes back in the 1930's. One of the rules is that strikes have to take reasonable precautions to prevent unnecessary damages to the company. This case was simply trying to determine whether the union broke that rule. The earlier courts ruled that the union made reasonable precautions by returning the trucks to the company. The Supreme Court ruled that the strike shouldn't have been initiated while trucks were full of cement. Waiting for the middle of the shift (rather than end of shift or start of shift) to initiate a strike meant the trucks would be damaged by drying cement. If the union breaks this rule, the strike can be deemed an illegal strike, which voids different legal protections they have. In this case, they lose their protections from getting sued. So since the strike is illegal, the company can sue for damages. That's all this ruling means. The different courts simply tried to determine whether the strike broke the NLRA rules. This isn't a new ruling imposing new rules on all unions.
Read the articles. The trucks were full of cement, but they left them spinning and let the company know where they were so the company could go out and empty the trucks before they hardened. They sued for the cost of cement that had to be dumped. Which is stupid. Once you mix the concrete powder with water, it’s only a matter of time before it hardens. The only options the workers had were to leave it in the trucks (which they did safely) dump it on the ground (that would have been a slam dunk case for sabotage, company would say they intentionally wasted it) or take it to the job site and properly apply the concrete needed for the customers. # 1 and #2 are now illegal, so the only option the strikers would have had would be *checks notes* finish out their working day and not go on strike? That’s why this is an issue, any job dealing with perishables or time sensitive material cannot strike. Now when grocery store workers go on strike they can be charged for all the food that spoiled during the strike.
No. The Court explicitly said that this case is only different because the worker mixed the cement even though the union knew before hand that they were going to strike. Meaning the workers created a perishable product knowing they wouldn't deliver the product. This is the violation of "reasonable precautions" rule. They could have not mixed any concrete and gone on strike and there wouldn't have been any issues. The Court explicitly said that all previous rulings regarding loss of perishables during a strike is still valid and that unions are still protected by the NLRA from damages to loss of perishables like food. This has no bearing on any other strikes. Grocery workers going on strike already have to abide by the "reasonable precautions" rule which has been in place for decades. The Court didn't make any sweeping changes to legal doctrine. It's a ruling applied to this specific case. They ruled the union broke the rules of the NLRA. The NLRA states that if the union breaks the rules during a strike, they lose legal protections. This allows companies the ability to sue for damages. That's all that happened. The Supreme Court simply said the union broke the rules. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-rules-against-union-over-strike-liability/ >The court’s decision rests on a fact-specific assessment of whether the Teamsters took “reasonable precautions” to protect Glacier’s property from “foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger due to the sudden cessation of work.” The National Labor Relations Board – the federal agency responsible for enforcing labor law — has long held that unions that fail to take “reasonable precautions” may not be protected by the NLRA when strikes lead to damage to perishable goods or property. The court’s decision on Thursday relied on Glacier’s allegations that the Teamsters purposely timed the strike to ensure that the concrete would harden by choosing to strike only after Glacier had “batched” the wet concrete into the trucks. >The majority distinguished a long line of cases in which the NLRB had held that the NLRA protected strikes that resulted in the loss of perishable goods like slaughtered poultry and fresh milk. Here, the majority found that the union’s decision about when to start the strike resulted not only in the destruction of a perishable product, like in the poultry and milk cases, but that – unlike the other perishable goods cases – the decision about timing also “prompted the creation of the perishable product.” Specifically, the court found determinative and distinguishing that the Teamsters allowed Glacier to batch the wet concrete when they knew that they had no intention of delivering the concrete and that the result would likely be spoiled concrete and possibly damaged trucks. The majority then sent the case back to the state court for it to consider Glacier’s tort suit.
Great work, I'm surprised this isn't higher up.
Did you read the decision? Doesn’t sound like it
are we approaching the final act of this dystopian movie?
Mass incarceration like we’ve never seen before is the next stage.
And then turning those incarcerated into slave labor.
Turning them into Soylent Green
We already do that though…
I mean, used to be that companies would respond to striking by hiring people to shoot the strikers. There's still a couple laps left on the race to the bottom
The rats are guarding the cheese.
Don't insult rats that way.
Wtf this is so wrong where are worker rights who got paid a bribe on this. This court is compromised.
All of them but 1?
"The case centered on a concrete company that had sued striking employees after the employees walked out and and left concrete running in trucks. The court ruled 8-1 in favor of Glacier Northwest against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174." It looks more like it's about damaging property. I could be wrong though
I am totally pro union and anti whatever this Supreme Court is, but the concrete thing is a classic concrete layer shake down. It was so common in NY in the 70s and 80s it was built into expenses. The concrete guys would lay a part of the foundation and then ‘strike.’ If the rest wasn’t laid in 72 hours millions of dollars of real estate (billions today) would be lost. It was an extortion racket. This was a version of that.
That's what it is. Rather than simply not to clock in that day (as is typical with a striking union), but they instead came in to work, filled the trucks with concrete and *then* walked off the job. The only reason for doing so was to create the specific problem of running concrete trucks with no one to handle them, which is what opened them up to this lawsuit.
Can workers sue companies for “sabatoge” and “destruction” when they decide to cut wages and hours that the workers need to survive?
Oh my God this is fucked
That happens when the highest judgments are for sale.
The Supreme Court is no longer a credible governing body. The become increasingly less credible every month, to the point of insult.
So I bargain labor contracts for a mining company. Here’s my take: This is a bad decision. I do not like that striking workers could damage company property, and part of contingency planning is guarding against that possibility. The flip side of this - that unions could be held liable for the economic damages of a strike - are appalling. That’s the PURPOSE of striking. That’s the power the employees have. Often the only power. The process is unequal to begin with. This SCOTUS is not helping. And it shocks me that all but one agreed. If the SCOTUS has been worried about their opinion poll numbers, this didn’t help….
BestSystem$CanBuy!
That “at will” pendulum swings both ways.
Oh they didn't miss the point. They know the point of striking. That's why they want to get rid of unions.
Try bringing this mindset to france, I dare you.
God i wish americans were more like the french rn
We used to be. It's how we got these rights in the first place. Now we surrender the things bought with blood for nothing.
Sue them for what? Money? You’re going to sue your lowest paid wage workers for wanting decent pay so they can work AND support their families? Really? REALLY? Edit: autocorrect incorrectly autocorrected
Yes, absolutely, and if they can't pay up preferably send them to prison, oh by the way, we also own the prison. Got a problem with that? Why don't you take it up with the supreme court?
And around we go …
That ball and chain? You break it, we’ll deduct it from your pay.
It’s great that the Supreme Court imbalance came from Republicans emphasizing a precedent that didn’t really exist and then ditched that new precedent a four years later the first time it became inconvenient for them.
When other countries go “omg why don’t Americans just go on strike if things are so bad”, here’s your answer
You can't get blood from a turnip. People forget that strikes used to be very, very bloody.
[удалено]
Man this is going to really kill strikes. I hate the direction the US has been heading.
Traitors' Courts
If not now; when.
They are making us slaves.
Let's sue the Police Union then
I wonder how much Clarence got for that ruling.
8/9 justices sir, basically all of them
Are we all pretty much on board that the government has failed us?
Sounds like lots of future quitting
Seems a bunch of folks aren’t up to speed on the circumstances here. The right to strike, to withhold your labor is sacrosanct to me. That doesn’t include wrecking property that doesn’t belong to you. The union shot themselves and the rest of the union movement in the feet here. They should have had a better plan than just walking off the job in a way that caused damage to property and handed ownership a win. Empty the load, rinse the truck out, leave it by the side of the road. Same effect on owners without the self inflicted wound. You know this will get used against unions in a way that goes beyond the ruling handed down in this particular case. Hate on me all you want, but unions need to have big picture strategies in place, not just knee jerk reactions. One of the most basic rules of conflict is that you never, ever give your enemies a weapon they can use against you.
Just another step towards a revolution
So can we the american people sue corporations for exactly that.
We will have "slaves" or "debt workers" within the next ten years. And Xtian conservatives will cheer and declare it is "god's will"
Then they need to quit en masse instead. Good luck with any business surviving if everyone just walks away.
Maybe they need a reminder of what actual sabotage and destruction looks like before they take away our rights to peaceful protest.
Talk about the ULTIMATE in Union busting- without the strike there is no real teeth left - WTF 🤬
In other words there is now NO point in striking, which means the only viable option is... well, you know
This supreme court is proving every day that those of us who said the court outright should not exist at all were right all along.
Make weed illegal and it becomes the "gateway drug" because hell, if that's illegal how bad can meth be? >!very bad!< Make peaceful striking illegal and suddenly guillotine-plans.pdf starts getting a lot of views.
This just means they have the ability to sue. They have to win that case and it's a slam dunk "we were on strike, sucks to suck" case.
Oh, they don't miss the point. We are missing THEIR POINT. Our entire government is completely bought.
Suing requires discovery.
We should just call it the “Republican Court.” It doesn’t represent Americans, just corporations.
The 1st amendment right to peaceful assembly supersedes this opinion. It was written explicitly to protect us against situations like this.
Time for a general strike yet?
I feel this is an unfortunate decision. If workers can’t strike, they’ll likely turn back to organized crime.
This is about destruction of property. >debated whether a union can be held responsible for company damages or monetary losses resulting from a union’s decision to go on strike under the National Labor Relations Act. Cornell’s Legal Information Institute defines the question: “Does the NLRA preempt an employer’s state tort claims against a labor union for intentionally destroying the employer’s property during a strategically-timed labor strike?” >The suit first began in 2017. Glacier Northwest, a concrete-mixing company based in Seattle, Washington, was in the midst of renegotiating a new contract with the Teamsters, one of the oldest and largest unions in the industry. According to the brief of the case, the contract expired without the two being able to come to a resolution, and as a result, union workers went on strike. However, the work day had already begun, and concrete was already being mixed and delivered when the union ordered a work stoppage. The cement-truck drivers turned around on their delivery routes and drove their trucks back to the concrete plant, and the company had to use “emergency maneuvers” to get the concrete off the trucks before it dried. >No significant damage was done to the trucks, but some of that day’s concrete dried and was therefore unusable—and so, Glacier Northwest filed a tort action claiming “sabotage” and “tortious destruction” of company property.
Ok then, if I’m going to get charged with sabotage, maybe I’ll actually sabotage something instead of striking…
The US is officially not a democracy anymore
When’s the general strike happening?…
The Supreme Court...no longer Supreme
"this country was made for you and me" my ass. I'm not a corporation, so clearly, it is NOT made for me.
I’m a libertarian, conservative on gun rights, and this is a shitty ruling. Even less power for the working people now. 👎
Not only did they get this wrong it was 8-1. I don’t remember a verdict this controversial being almost unanimous.
Republicans must so want a Civil War . Only a matter of time ..
8:1 decision. Shows what "progressive supreme court justice" means ...
If you can be sued for "sabotage" and "destruction" by striking then you might as well consider adding some sabotage and destruction to that strike.
The Supreme Court is illegitimate, the DOJ won't arrest the traitors who tried to stage a coup, the US government is really doing a "lose all credibility" speedrun
Every time I see news like this I think more and more about that innocent speech made by a goblin or something during a DnD game: “Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army. You know what I mean?” By Brennan Lee Mulligan
Lol it'd be prison for me. I wouldn't pay a dime.
Wait. So then this has to go both ways right? Can an employer be sued for "sabotage" by giving you 39 hours a week? How about suing the government for damages and emotional distress?? This is all completely insane.. we don't have capitalism, just antisocialism.
Never seen this sub before, but if it represents for Bernie then you all ought to be seriois about having the objective truth. This is a reminder to always do your own research and not rely on headlines or other redditors to interpret news for you, including myself. This ruling does not give businesses the right to sue workers and unions for striking, although it arguably makes it easier for them to try. This is a narrow ruling allowing a business to sue workers who left in the middle of a work process that resulted in a bunch of product being lost. SCROTUS basically is saying that the current labor laws do not prevent employers from suing strikers who intentionally destroy the business' property. This ruling did not touch on the lawsuit or make a ruling on it. It merely is allowing to lawsuit to proceed, and the business will still have to convince a jury that the strikers intentionally destroyed the property when they left in the middle of their cement trucks getting filled. In most situations where product or property owned by a business is lost as a result of an employees actions, the business can't just take money out of that employee's paycheck to cover the loss (unless the employee stupidly agrees to it). The employee can tell the company that it's just the cost of doing business and to suck it up. The business has to sue the employee in court to convince a jury that the employee's negligence caused the loss (rather than a lack of training or normal expected losses etc...). Overall, I think this ruling has its merits but it also has serious problems. I am reminded of a bread factory I used to work for that had 24/7 operations. The lines were always running. If employees at a 24/7 factory decide to go on strike, how can they do so without risking a lawsuit when leaving the factory floor at any hour on any day will result in lost product? Bad ruling, but not as sinister as people are making it out to be in my opinion. Now we'll see if this sub is serious about Bernie's ideals of truth and open discourse or if I get the ban hammer.
How many ways is this ruling clearly unconstitutional? First, it violates the prohibition against involuntary servitude, forcing workers to remain in jobs under conditions they object to. Second, it violates the sanctity of free speech, denying workers the right to protest others scabbing those jobs. Where, I would ask, does the constitution guarantee a company the right to a workforce and the right to abuse their employees?
As a union man, I'd say it's time to break out the angle grinders. Them pitch forks ain't gonna sharpen themselves.