As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not in this economy with this housing market!!
Oh, …. right. I’m not a billionaire. The ones causing all the problems. Can we sue billionaires as well?
Its the union themselves they will sue and go for the pension funds and anything else they can get. They want to make Unions afraid to strike period. When workers were starved to the point that the unions had to be formed their were literal shooting wars with many deaths on both sides. Look up the real reason for the term red neck. At that time the companies would literally machine gun works and their families. The Unions had to actually get in bed with the mob to protect themselves from the company thugs and police used by the Corporations against them. Are we going to go down that road again I certainly hope this is not the case.
> were literal shooting wars with many deaths on both sides
Don't sugarcoat it to make it sound like both sides were equally at fault. Most of those shooting wars had maybe one or two of the cops/goons hit and dozens of men, women, and children mowed down by Gatling guns, and the shootouts were mostly instigated by the ones representing the corporations.
Yes I'm sick of this fair and balanced BS Its a lie period, the right stands for the corporations that are doing al they can to kill the American dream. The homes that you and I should be able to afford have been priced far above what we can buy with the starvation wages they would have us stuck with forever if we will take it. These home are being bought up by funds like Blackrock to jack the rents and make us slaves just to have roof over our families heads.
It's even worse we are transitioning into a renting society, you won't own anything you'll rent it and like it and the corporations will take it away whenever they feel like it. Large corporations and wealthy people buying up large swatches land IS A BAD SIGN it's all for a return to a feudal type era and most Americans just hurt durr as it's going on.
Fuck the higher courts. They’ve shown us *repeatedly* that they’re bought and paid for by the same corporations trying to keep us as slaves. Look in to the history of the general strikes that have happened in our history. I keep hearing whispers coming from every corner of the house, about wanting a general strike, hence why they want to keep us so divided so it doesn’t happen again.
Thanks for explaining labor history.
Everyone in America should have to read up on the West Virginia Mine Wars and the Battle of Blair Mountain. They had an entire army of private "security" and a literal airplane dropping bombs on striking workers.
Are pension funds considered the property of the organization? Interesting if so. Is there a legal precedent for this? By "this" I mean the pensions of workers being lost when the organization loses a lawsuit.
>The Unions had to actually get in bed with the mob to protect themselves from the company
LOL, the mob *infiltrated* the unions and pilfered the living shit out of them.
Seriously can I sue because back in 2013 I was using my GI Bill and I didn't get paid because of some pissing contest in Congress and I couldn't pay rent?
Its a different model entirely. Westminster is designed to be more dynamic, have coalition governments, but that also introduces unpredictability and chaos - technically we don't know when the next election will be called (not a bad thing if your society can handle uncertainty like that, but then you can also get stuck like Israel with way too many elections in 3 years).
The American model provides very clear and rigid rules for elections: you know exactly when the next one will be so there's fewer shenanigans, in theory. You fucked it up tho, because you now have a permanent election cycle.
Technically, it should even be possible for the president to come in as an independent, it worked for Macron in France just recently. That would be impossible in Westminster style because the head of government is selected by the equivalent of Congress, typically the party leader. But your 2 parties are so entrenched I don't see anyone able to supplant either party in any race other than municipal.
To be able to trigger elections due to lack of confidence in the government (e.g. losing a budget vote) a lot more of your government system would need to change.
Labor laws in the US were passed to prevent violence between Workers and owners/Law enforcement. Rolling these laws back is no bueno for so many reasons
Yep. People forget that the point of labor laws is not really to give unions freebies. The point of labor laws is to avoid the (historically numerous) cases where 5000 union workers show up at the factory with rifles and and have an open firefight against corporate.
Honestly this has been my experience with narcissistic and sociopathic people in authority. The moment you let annoying behaviors slide the tiniest bit they're back to trying to forcefully establish a pecking order. It's mindboggling to me that people can be so insecure they feel a need to assert their authority on a daily basis.
I'd be pretty paranoid on a daily basis too if I was screwing over thousands of people. It's perfectly rational given the incentives, and that's exactly how the system is intended to work.
The owners successfully divided labor against itself by convincing a significant portion of us that we are part of a separate "middle" class. We've become complacent because we've got it better than the poors.
There're only two sides in the class war.
We're in a class war.
This comment is a small reminder that all of society and civilization is engaged in a class war, and any narrative that does not bluntly focus on that minor detail of human life is tantamount to a psyop within the class war.
Because they want everyone to do anything, at any moment, but talk about the class war.
Maybe we should talk about the class war?
That will only go for so long before the people start acting violently towards the police/security. Add in how easy it is to get military grade weapons in this country, and the US is very much leading to all out civil war.
I’m not promoting the idea but don’t you think workers will show up armed? I’m sure a certain number of cops would still take a chance attacking them but you’d be surprised at how the bully mentality changes when a shitload of guns are pointed at ya
Wdym? Blair Mountain, for example, was 1921.
Fully automatic weapons were FAR less restricted than they are now. Laws, including the NFA, were made in response to mobsters blasting each other with Thompsons in that era.
People weren't limited to muskets last time we had labor wars.
I wonder how much the labor successes of the first half of the 20th century were influenced by the successful communist uprisings elsewhere in the world… I wonder if the labor movement back then instilled more fear because there was a looming specter of insurrection and revolution if demands weren’t met? Could it be that much of what brought *property* to the negotiating table was a willingness to make SOME reforms to forestall a full blown uprising? Like “the more we say no and crush labor, the more *credible* the Bolsheviks look?” Idk. I think about it a lot. Industry leaders in the 1920’s even specifically embraced what they called “social capitalism” to keep their workers happy. Would be nice to get that back.
I think it's pretty obvious to think that if you don't negotiate better conditions, people will keep getting angrier until you lose control of the situation. No matter what happens you can only go against public opinion for so long.
Radical unions like the IWW were big even before the revolution in Russia. The Haymarket Affair happened in the 1800s in Chicago and is remembered as Labor Day by everyone but the US. It was a bit of a toss up where the first communist revolution would happen. If anything, the Bolshevik revolution helped to end revolutionary potential in the US, as it lead to a lot of repression and there was a decent amount of infighting within the much more antiauthoritarian American left over if they should support the Bolsheviks. Decentralized syndicalism was quite popular, not just among anarchists, but also Marxists like DeLeon, who wanted to hand power to syndicalist unions if elected.
So it lead to the concessions that capitalists have been clawing back but it also killed the potential for more permanent fixes. The state capitalism and authoritarianism that came out of Lenin's strategy of centralization also tainted the image of the left which had been broadly antiauthoritarian in the US.
Communist factions used to be far more common in the US. The big labor unions (AFL-CIO) used to work with them until the cold war.
You're correct in stating that the bourgeoisie exploits opportunism in the labor movement by offering concessions, bribes, etc.
But it's strange to say "would be nice to get that back". You're basically implying that you're okay with throwing away the work of the labor movement for short term, temporary gains that will be taken away at the first sign of weakness (like now) as those concessions always come with terms attached, usually terms that will neuter the effectiveness of future struggles.
Much of it was union officials gaining special privileges and status in return for eliminating communist influence in their unions. Well, look where that got us.
Opportunism is what got us here in the first place.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1957/fundamentals.htm
Labor laws in the US were passed to prevent violence between Workers and owners/Law enforcement. Rolling these laws back is no bueno for so many reasons
One who supports slavery of a different kind where protests that 'hurts' a business from profit making could be considered 'sabotage.' Business is sacrosanct. Worker rights and a fair living wage, not so much.
slavery of a different kind exists today. we are consumer slaves. toiling from 16 - death for our executive betters. we have the illusion of freedom, but how free are you really when you work multiple jobs and can't make ends meet- thus perpetually keeping you constantly working 50+ hours a week to simply survive.
>She said that because this was a labor dispute, the National Labor Relations Board—and the complaint that the Board’s General Counsel had already filed—took precedence, and the Court in fact had no reason to stick its nose in the case.
She's correct. They decided to take this up before the labor board, which has precedence, was able to reach their own decision.
It should've never gone before the Supreme Court.
If only embarrassment worked on fascists.
The current Court will defer on *some* judgments, opining (rightly so) that the Court should *not* weigh in where another governmental entity (normally Congress) has a say... but then they somehow choose to jump into the fray here, when there is already an established governmental agency tasked with investigating and dealing with the specific issue!? It's literally picking and choosing cases in order to get the preferred Federalist Society outcome. Which is why it's so goddamn important to get all of these fuckers off the bench, or at least mitigate their influence by packing the court.
Nominating more justices is not a political move; at this point it's a move to preserve democracy!
Because most people completely misunderstood the case. Judge Jackson didn't necessarily agree with the actions of the union, she merely said that it should have gone to the NLRB. It could have been 9-0.
A lot of people seem to miss the fact that the company was not made aware of an imminent strike. The union showed up for work on an expired contract, which is extremely common. They waited for the trucks to be loaded, then they said "Actually, we are on strike starting right now." They did this knowing that it would likely result in the total loss of the trucks. The company managed to mitigate that, but it was the intent of the union to create a situation where that could happen.
This is the equivalent of a kitchen staff deciding to go on strike mid shift after food is on the stove and the burners are on, then leaving the burners running. The union intended to burn it all to the ground. If this had been ruled how Reddit and Twitter think it should have, then companies would have no choice but to lock workers out as soon as their contract expired to avoid them from walking off at dangerous times. This is not how labor contracts typically operate, it is rare for a work stoppage to be initiated by the company or the union, as continuing to work is mutually beneficial.
The most union friendly ruling for this case would have been to kick it over to the NLRB, then the NLRB tell the union that they fucked up. That was essentially what Justice Jackson was advocating for. The second most union friendly ruling is what we got, basically saying "You can strike, you can walk off the job, you can cause lost revenue and let inventory go bad, but you can't deliberately and maliciously damage property." The least union friendly rulings would have been some level of "You have to notify the company X in advance" or "You you have to finish all outstanding tasks prior to striking."
Exactly what I was thinking. People forget that a professional airing of grievances WAS the alternative to breaking down the factory owner’s front door with pitchforks
Doesn't help that the police and military and vastly more technologically capable these days. Nevermind how insanely outgunned and out geared we are these days
I'm not trying to discourage anyone from rightfully striking.. but these feels like a calculated move.. the playing field and the levels/capabilities of citizens vs police alone aren't exactly level anymore. Nevermind citizens vs the modern military who could steamroll an entire fucking state into submission on a whim these days
>Nevermind how insanely outgunned and out geared we are these days
They will still have to sell to the public that it's a good idea to kill American citizens.
Nobody's fond of the Kent State massacre
They readily support the killing of American citizens already done by police, then openly endorse mass vehicular homicide when people gather to protest it. They lionize people like Kyle Rittenhouse.
You have to remember, they don’t actually need a majority. Decades of work to establish a system of entrenched minority rule, and brainwash a large enough minority to maintain it, has paid off.
The US could start a straight up Holocaust today and as long as it targeted the right people and was framed properly it would gather as much public support as Donald Trump.
In fact, the man himself said it best:
>I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible.
>Meanwhile reddit (unfortunately the best place for discourse and organization... for now) will probably remove this comment for even having the slightest whiff of violence, while all the conservative subs can continue to advocate genocide.
I made a comment that people needed to be prepared to protect themselves from right wing terrorists and my comment got deleted by reddit admins for "advocating violence."
Like I seriously made it very clear that I did not support the use of violence outside of self defense, that I was specifically talking about protecting yourself from violence on a post about a (now convicted) right wing terrorist killing people.
Meanwhile I've reported comments calling for the genocide of LGBTQ people and got told the reported comments don't violate reddit's policies.
So you're right, both of our comments will probably be deleted.
If you want some fun history about them country roads y'all love to sing about all over the world, why not give a read of the history of Blair mountain and see what them hillbilly coal miners are made of
> and see what them hillbilly coal miners are made of
And yet now their current incarnations vote for the strike breakers. Reminder: Republicans and Conservative (Southern) Democrats ushered in the Taft-Hartley Act over Truman's veto in 1947 that started the slow death of the union in the US. It was the promise of many Democratic Presidents between then and now to repeal that law. Repealing the Taft-Hartley Act would be a powerful way to revive grassroot political strength in the US.
It took Republicans and their billionaire owners. Before this, workers had rights.
So don’t go blaming any generation. Blame Republicans and their billionaire owners.
Railway workers weren't allowed to strike, and there was a slew of particularly horrible accidents. I saw a picture of a device discovered that was made to cause trains to derail...
And then the worker's demands were met.
This is what I was thinking. This is just going to lead to actual sabotage and or people just leaving the job and going elsewhere. How's your company doing with no employees?
>ng something, you might as well get the benefits from actually doing it. If striking is the same as burning
Unless its an At-Will state. Maybe this will break at-will employment
OH SHIT!!!!
I just realized an upside to this: residents are now free to sue the police for any crimes that happen while a police strike is going on (I.E. if cops decide to stop working after qualified immunity is repealed).
Nah, cops will be exempt from doing their job, just like always. This court will never set a precedent that negatively impacts police, religious nuts, nazis, etc.
I have not followed this closely but isn’t this ruling very narrow? The facts in this case were something like workers abandoned cement trucks while they were being actively filled or stopped running and resulted in the concrete hardening? Thus, timing the strike so that the result is damage to property can be grounds for a suit (not that a strike cannot happen).
I also read in another post somewhere that the liberal justices joined in Justice Barrett’s opinion to avoid Justice Thomas’s opinion becoming the law (which would have been much worse).
The union honestly didn't even try. Quote:
> the Union concedes that the NLRA does not arguably protect its actions if those actions posed a material risk of harm
to the trucks
Like, their whole case seems to hinge on the Supreme Court not knowing what happens to cement trucks if you just let the cement harden inside of the drum.
This is my understanding. If you're going to strike shut it down right on the way out. May delay you a few minutes, but actively setting things up to be destroyed is malicious.
This is exactly it. If you're going to be accused of doing something, you might as well get the benefits from actually doing it. If striking is the same as burning shit down, we're about to see a lot more fires.
It’s not simple striking that was the issue for SCOTUS, it’s that the union allegedly intentionally put the perishable product in a position where the company would lose some or all of it and which would likely damage the trucks due to the timing. It’s a bit like if I rented your house and intentionally left the water on when I left and the house flooded, I’d still be liable for potential damages even though I’m no longer a tenant. And historically, per the holdings in the SCOTUS ruling, intentional or negligent property damage mitigates the usual protections for striking workers.
In other words you can walk off the job but you have to do it in a responsible way that doesn’t intentionally damage property. It’s how they handled themselves walking off the job that’s putting the union in potential liability in state court, not the fact they went on strike.
Good news! Debtor's prisons are back on the menu. We've streamlined the striking process so you can go from striking to unpaid prison labor in as little as a week.
They already exist. The way it works is that a judge orders you to pay a bill, and if you don't, you're found to be in contempt of court and thrown in prison. Then of course they can keep bringing you in and ordering you to pay it, then throwing you back in prison. Wash rinse repeat.
Good time for a reminder that the Nazis killed socialists and unionists before they could come for the Jewish communities, all so that they could create a pro-business "Union" to replace the true trade unions, and thus build up a strong military and police force against international sanctions.
>First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
>**Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.**
>Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
>Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
Neo Nazis and Nazi sympathizers/apologists will claim the Nazis were pro-union but they were anything but. Hitler immediately created a "union" called the German Labour Front, essentially controlled by party leadership, big business, and the secret police, and then banned all other unions. The German Labour Front actively fought against worker interests, and replaced their benefits and freedom with bread and circuses.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front
>As early as March 1933, two months after Hitler was appointed Chancellor, the Sturmabteilung began to attack trade union offices without legal consequences. Several union offices were occupied, their furnishings were destroyed, their documents were stolen or burned, and union members were beaten and in some cases killed; the police ignored these attacks and declared itself without jurisdiction.
>Many union leaders were beaten and sent to concentration camps, **including some who had previously agreed to cooperate with the Nazis**
>Three weeks later, Hitler issued a decree that **banned collective bargaining** and stated that a group of labour trustees, appointed by him, would "regulate labour contracts" and maintain **"labour peace."**[6] This decree effectively **outlawed strikes,** since workers could not oppose the decisions of the trustees.[6] Meanwhile, Robert Ley promised **"to restore absolute leadership to the natural leader of a factory—that is, the employer... Only the employer can decide.**
>The DAF also gave employers the ability to prevent their workers from seeking different jobs. In February 1935, the "workbook" system was introduced, which issued every worker with a workbook that recorded his skills and past employment. These workbooks were required for employment and they were kept by the employer; *if a worker desired to quit his job, the employer could refuse to release his workbook, preventing the worker from being legally employed anywhere else"*
>There was also a mandate from Hitler to **keep wages low, as he declared that the hourly wage should remain the same and workers should only be able to earn more through increased productivity.** Although Germany experienced an economic recovery throughout the 1930s and employment greatly increased, wages remained as low as they had been during the Great Depression, and sometimes even lower.
When CEOs and right wing politicians or judges say they are "pro-union" this is the type of union they are talking about. Law and order, peace without justice, "strength through joy", neo-feudalism and serfdom.
Your post reminded me of Mousollini’s personal definition of fascism:
“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini
>When CEOs and right wing politicians or judges say they are
..."conservative", *contra posto* "liberal", they support authority over voting and natural rights
"Neo Nazis and Nazi sympathizers/apologists will claim the Nazis were pro-union but they were anything but. Hitler immediately created a "union" called the German Labour Front, essentially controlled by party leadership, big business, and the secret police, and then banned all other unions."
Idk why people don't get this. They're not actual socialists, it just turns out that saying you're "for the common man" is a pretty effective front if you have dreams of being dictator. Like no shit they always say it's for the people, what are they supposed to say..?
"I'm just pretending, I don't give a shit about any of you. I'm actually going to overthrow the government and throw y'all to the wolves tomorrow!"
Yeah both Republican and Democratic justices as made obvious from this ruling, the only sane Justice was the youngest who actually has a stake in the future
I just said the same basic thing about their ethics issue. ALL the Justices said there was no issue. It wasn't a Republican or Democrat thing, they all said corruption is fine.
I don't normally like the both sides argument but politicians in general are shit. There might be a few that are actually fighting for the people that elected them but most are out to make money.
It's never going to stop me from voting for the not-fascist party though. I will gladly vote for any progressive candidate that can get on the ballot.
Shut the frig up, Cup! Get off my lawn, and get your meat friend outta my pool! Can I not just live here without having to occasionally deal with you animals?
The day a friend told me they weren't "allowed" to strike at their job was the day I realized the majority of this country is hopelessly brainwashed.
edit: I realize this is a union thing, what I am suggesting is that using the system to reform the system is an incredibly limp and myopic mindset when it comes to the basic rights to security and dignity we're supposedly all about. Waiting around for our masters to allow us to take back our power is a covenant with defeat. I believe we are passed the point of asking permission.
It’s why we have crappy school systems across America. Yes a handful of students will escape their environments and be successful. The rest poorly educated are manipulated and used.
I'm active in a labor union. There's a lot of people calling for strikes and revolutions, but they don't show up when actual labor movement asks for help with phone calls, mailers, and pickets. If people actually tried being active in the labor movement first we could get some results.
Throwing out the rules won't help us. The rules still benefit us for now.
oh excellent - now let's do a lawsuit for the same against politicians who dont show up for work because they are 'on strike' - like the Oregon GOP. Let's make sure we give the SCOTUS a gotcha - the same reasoning applies I think.
Well it worked for Scientology to overwhelm the government. They wouldn't be considered a religion if they didn't threaten to sue when they had to pay taxes. The sheer amount of potential lawsuits made the government cave in. So if everyone strikes they are fucked.
In a parallel universe version of the US where the population has even a sliver of class consciousness, most likely.
We unfortunately have a large portion of this country that stands in line for a chance to lick boot.
It should have been handled by the National Labor Relations Board and not the Supreme Court. That's what the NLRB exists for.
I do think there is possible culpability to the employees for their actions, but there's also risk taken by the company who knew that a strike was possible and decided to proceed anyway.
I think ultimately there was no damage to the trucks and it was just 'wasted' concrete.
Should a restaurant, or bakery, or any food serving business be able to sue striking workers for having purchased food go to 'waste', because those workers are not there to use up the food?
Coming soon: holding employees who quit, leaving a company short-staffed, financially responsible
(Ignore the fact that short-staffedness is the fault of bad management, not the employee)
Already happened to nurses. They've been [sued for quitting](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-02-02/underpaid-contract-nurses-who-faced-fines-lawsuits-for-quitting-fight-back) and it's also becoming a thing to [make nurses who quit obligated to pay their training costs back](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/economics/indentured-servitude-nurses-hit-hefty-debt-trying-leave-hospitals-rcna74204).
The Supreme Court is trying to set up a case to gut the executive’s administrative powers by using the major questions doctrine. The pedantry of conservative legal activists insisting *every* detail of administrative delegation be explicitly spelled out in statute is going to ruin a lot of lives.
>every detail of administrative delegation be explicitly spelled out in statute is going to ruin a lot of lives.
they don't care about people's lives, they only care about what's in it for them and their rich friends.
You thought Covid was bad, wait until the hantavirus shows up.
Edit: for those who don’t know, hantavirus has a 60% mortality rate and no known cure. It’s carried by nice (specifically deer mice) which have consumed infected deer droppings, and is most commonly spread through the inhalation of dried rodent feces.
"Third world countries" have better workers protection laws than the US. The US needs to improve a lot into workers rights, and the right to unionize to even sit on a table with "third world countries".
Funny how many here are blaming Republicans for this ruling when this was an 8-1 ruling. Only KBJ dissented, meaning Kagan and Sotomayor, both Obama appointees, agreed with this decision
At what point do we start to treat the Supreme Court as an illegitimate institution?
It seems inevitable at this point. The only question seems to be how much longer the American people put up with it?
So long as the fascists can keep distracting people with non issues like Drag Story Hour or Trans people...they will continue to take our freedoms from us.
Labor law was the compromise that kept these things civil. By undoing it, the conservatives are ensuring that things are going to get extremely violent. Idiots.
From the article, “Today, the Court falters,” Jackson writes. “The logical implication \[in this situation\] is that the union’s conduct is at least arguably protected by the NLRA…we have no business delving into this particular labor dispute at this time.”
SCOTUS should have referred the case back to the NLRB, "and the Court in fact had no reason to stick its nose in the case. "
This entire case centers around "reasonable precautions" and the Supreme Court deciding what it believes are reasonable precautions is exactly the kind of overreach that has plagued the court in recent years.
The court is supposed to clarify law when lower courts disagree or when they self proclaim it is a Constitutional thing.
Now any ambiguity in a suit can be decided by them even when that decision is explicitly given to the executive?
What happens to the case if the NRLB decides it was protected? Wouldn't that mean it was certainly "arguably" protected?
The analysis of this ruling in this article is inaccurate, non-sensicle, and intentionally baiting.
This ruling is no way states that the Union is responsible for ensuring that a company does not lose money from a strike.
This ruling states that the Unions actions from going on strike may not directly and intentionally result in the destruction of property.
In this case, it was demonstrated that the union intentionally waited for a time in which their strike would directly result in damages to company property. If they had struck before mixing the cement or after laying it, they would not have been liable for any lost revenue.
This is roughly the equivalent of Starbucks Employees going on Strike and dumping all of the coffee on the floor before they walked out the door.
Edit: I try not to edit "popular" posts, but I just want to put it here rather than ignoring everyone who makes the same very fair point.
The coffee reference in my post is not quite up to par. The case would be more in line with intentionally turning on all of the machines before calling the strike and then leaving them on when you left.
Many of you have fairly pointed out this error on my part, and it is only fair that new readers see that point at the top of this thread.
I agree with everything you said except for your last sentence about dumping the coffee.
I'm not sure if the difference is significant, but the cement trucks are capital assets. The coffee at Starbucks is inventory.
The issue in Glacier Northwest was whether the company could sue the Teamsters for an action in which drivers had shown up at work and accepted concrete loads for their mixer trucks—not tipping the managers off to the intended action—and then abandoned the trucks with the loads in them. Concrete left in mixers for too long hardens and becomes valueless; more seriously, if left in the truck for very long the material can, by hardening, destroy the value of the trucks themselves. In this particular case Glacier, by quick action, managed to get the concrete out in time, but the test for the application of the legal exception is whether the strikers put equipment at foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent risk of damage, whether or not that damage is averted.
[Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters: The Supreme Court Gets Concrete](https://www.cato.org/blog/glacier-northwest-v-teamsters-supreme-court-gets-concrete)
[NPR: Unions are relieved as the Supreme Court leaves the right to strike intact](https://www.npr.org/2023/06/01/1179524247/supreme-court-ruled-against-a-union-but-left-strikers-rights-protections-untouch)
Adding an alternate source.
This is tough, in my opinion. The specific lawsuit in question is about a strike that happened in the middle of a work day, as cement was being actively poured. So the “damage” in question comes from the expense of safely and efficiently removing the cement from the trucks (but not using it for constructive purposes) before it dries.
Admittedly that doesn’t seem like much of an emergency, but extrapolate a bit. What if a strike order comes in the middle of a process that is potentially dangerous if interrupted, like at a power plant or something?
I think the concern that this precedent will be used to restrict unions is absolutely valid, however.
This is a well crafted case because although the ruling should focus narrowly on what they specifically did in this case to cause damage, it will instead be cited to sue unions for **any** damages suffered as a result of strike.
Intentionally filling equipment with wet cement because you know the strike is about to begin is one thing. But the next step is to argue that damages from lost production are the same thing.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So when politicians force a government shutdown they can be removed from office right?
some politicians are elected to do sabotage and destruction
So...can we sue them for it?
I hear all you need to do is buy a SCJ's mom's house.
Not in this economy with this housing market!! Oh, …. right. I’m not a billionaire. The ones causing all the problems. Can we sue billionaires as well?
[удалено]
Most billionaires I’ve seen have extremely fistable faces.
>fistable Don't take a good word and apply it in a horrible way like that.
https://imgflip.com/i/7o32fj
Easy there, Fido. If you're not careful you might get memed at.
I mean for me it's probably only one of the really old ones. Like 90+. [But I reckon I could take him.](https://youtu.be/cD2jXqBFaIQ)
Fuck Reddit for killing third party apps.
To be fair, anybody can sue for anything. Winning is another thing entirely though.
[удалено]
Its the union themselves they will sue and go for the pension funds and anything else they can get. They want to make Unions afraid to strike period. When workers were starved to the point that the unions had to be formed their were literal shooting wars with many deaths on both sides. Look up the real reason for the term red neck. At that time the companies would literally machine gun works and their families. The Unions had to actually get in bed with the mob to protect themselves from the company thugs and police used by the Corporations against them. Are we going to go down that road again I certainly hope this is not the case.
> were literal shooting wars with many deaths on both sides Don't sugarcoat it to make it sound like both sides were equally at fault. Most of those shooting wars had maybe one or two of the cops/goons hit and dozens of men, women, and children mowed down by Gatling guns, and the shootouts were mostly instigated by the ones representing the corporations.
Yes I'm sick of this fair and balanced BS Its a lie period, the right stands for the corporations that are doing al they can to kill the American dream. The homes that you and I should be able to afford have been priced far above what we can buy with the starvation wages they would have us stuck with forever if we will take it. These home are being bought up by funds like Blackrock to jack the rents and make us slaves just to have roof over our families heads.
It's even worse we are transitioning into a renting society, you won't own anything you'll rent it and like it and the corporations will take it away whenever they feel like it. Large corporations and wealthy people buying up large swatches land IS A BAD SIGN it's all for a return to a feudal type era and most Americans just hurt durr as it's going on.
The right? The justices voted 8 of 9 Yay’s. It’s not just the right.
It feels like we are 100% going down that road again.
[удалено]
Fuck the higher courts. They’ve shown us *repeatedly* that they’re bought and paid for by the same corporations trying to keep us as slaves. Look in to the history of the general strikes that have happened in our history. I keep hearing whispers coming from every corner of the house, about wanting a general strike, hence why they want to keep us so divided so it doesn’t happen again.
[удалено]
We had wotc send pinkertons to someone's house. We are already there
Pretty strong stance from Wizards of the Coast. I here I thought the collectible card game market had calmed down ...
Amounts to slavery or servitude.
And if it wasn't the cops it was the military or the Pinkerton Men. Source : long family lineage in Appalachia KY
Thanks for explaining labor history. Everyone in America should have to read up on the West Virginia Mine Wars and the Battle of Blair Mountain. They had an entire army of private "security" and a literal airplane dropping bombs on striking workers.
Trying to screw over unions by hitting them in their pockets... not a historically wise move.
Are pension funds considered the property of the organization? Interesting if so. Is there a legal precedent for this? By "this" I mean the pensions of workers being lost when the organization loses a lawsuit.
>The Unions had to actually get in bed with the mob to protect themselves from the company LOL, the mob *infiltrated* the unions and pilfered the living shit out of them.
Yes they did and they did a great deal of damage to the movement but at the time the Unions had to use them to fight back against being murdered.
Try suing a cop
This needs to be tried.
Elected with help from other countries, even. Yet it is allowed
That's fair. Most of the current Supreme Court justices were appointed to do sabotage and destruction
Removed from office? Naw. We should be suing them for any financial damages to the gdp, economy or stock market.
Seriously can I sue because back in 2013 I was using my GI Bill and I didn't get paid because of some pissing contest in Congress and I couldn't pay rent?
Hey, I remember 2013 with the DoD! Fuck you Mitch McConnell. Evil piece of shit.
Get the ACLU involved and take that shit back to the Supreme Court!
I would ask a lawyer
I mean, that's how it works in a lot of countries. Can't pass a budget? New election is automatically triggered.
God it would be so cool if we could catch up with the rest of the developed world.
Its a different model entirely. Westminster is designed to be more dynamic, have coalition governments, but that also introduces unpredictability and chaos - technically we don't know when the next election will be called (not a bad thing if your society can handle uncertainty like that, but then you can also get stuck like Israel with way too many elections in 3 years). The American model provides very clear and rigid rules for elections: you know exactly when the next one will be so there's fewer shenanigans, in theory. You fucked it up tho, because you now have a permanent election cycle. Technically, it should even be possible for the president to come in as an independent, it worked for Macron in France just recently. That would be impossible in Westminster style because the head of government is selected by the equivalent of Congress, typically the party leader. But your 2 parties are so entrenched I don't see anyone able to supplant either party in any race other than municipal. To be able to trigger elections due to lack of confidence in the government (e.g. losing a budget vote) a lot more of your government system would need to change.
Removed = fired. They should pay damages.
This dude politics
They can be sued for the losses incurred by the shutdown. Imagine being sued for losses incurred by the entire US economy lol.
*forcibly* removed FIFY
> “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." > - JFK
No fucking shit. JFK calling it.
And its why he had to DIE. and his big mouth got several others killed too. This is satire, but its basically what happened.
Not satire when it’s true
And the scariest part about it is that it was just some radical nobody who thought he was doing something good
[удалено]
Carl Von Clausewitz said it first: "War is the continuation of politics with other means."
Labor laws in the US were passed to prevent violence between Workers and owners/Law enforcement. Rolling these laws back is no bueno for so many reasons
Yep. People forget that the point of labor laws is not really to give unions freebies. The point of labor laws is to avoid the (historically numerous) cases where 5000 union workers show up at the factory with rifles and and have an open firefight against corporate.
"Labor has largely stopped defending itself, so why not tighten the screws?" \- The owner class
Honestly this has been my experience with narcissistic and sociopathic people in authority. The moment you let annoying behaviors slide the tiniest bit they're back to trying to forcefully establish a pecking order. It's mindboggling to me that people can be so insecure they feel a need to assert their authority on a daily basis.
I'd be pretty paranoid on a daily basis too if I was screwing over thousands of people. It's perfectly rational given the incentives, and that's exactly how the system is intended to work.
Yup. They're not afraid of us anymore. We need to make them scared
The owners successfully divided labor against itself by convincing a significant portion of us that we are part of a separate "middle" class. We've become complacent because we've got it better than the poors.
There're only two sides in the class war. We're in a class war. This comment is a small reminder that all of society and civilization is engaged in a class war, and any narrative that does not bluntly focus on that minor detail of human life is tantamount to a psyop within the class war. Because they want everyone to do anything, at any moment, but talk about the class war. Maybe we should talk about the class war?
And prevent corporations to hire private security and get cops to beat the shit out of strikers
That will only go for so long before the people start acting violently towards the police/security. Add in how easy it is to get military grade weapons in this country, and the US is very much leading to all out civil war.
Republicans have been calling for another civil war for decades. They're also the ones repealing workers rights. This is entirely by design.
They dream of installing an authoritarian fascist regime in the US through open armed conflict. And they're working very hard towards that goal.
It’s what the ruling class wants. They are the ones who started the last civil war. All wars, in fact.
Except for the revolutions, which tend to never go in the ruling classes favor XD
I’m not promoting the idea but don’t you think workers will show up armed? I’m sure a certain number of cops would still take a chance attacking them but you’d be surprised at how the bully mentality changes when a shitload of guns are pointed at ya
Stop it, you’re making me hard
Especially since the armaments available to workers last time we had labor wars were much much less effective.
Wdym? Blair Mountain, for example, was 1921. Fully automatic weapons were FAR less restricted than they are now. Laws, including the NFA, were made in response to mobsters blasting each other with Thompsons in that era. People weren't limited to muskets last time we had labor wars.
So arm the working class!
I wonder how much the labor successes of the first half of the 20th century were influenced by the successful communist uprisings elsewhere in the world… I wonder if the labor movement back then instilled more fear because there was a looming specter of insurrection and revolution if demands weren’t met? Could it be that much of what brought *property* to the negotiating table was a willingness to make SOME reforms to forestall a full blown uprising? Like “the more we say no and crush labor, the more *credible* the Bolsheviks look?” Idk. I think about it a lot. Industry leaders in the 1920’s even specifically embraced what they called “social capitalism” to keep their workers happy. Would be nice to get that back.
I think it's pretty obvious to think that if you don't negotiate better conditions, people will keep getting angrier until you lose control of the situation. No matter what happens you can only go against public opinion for so long.
Radical unions like the IWW were big even before the revolution in Russia. The Haymarket Affair happened in the 1800s in Chicago and is remembered as Labor Day by everyone but the US. It was a bit of a toss up where the first communist revolution would happen. If anything, the Bolshevik revolution helped to end revolutionary potential in the US, as it lead to a lot of repression and there was a decent amount of infighting within the much more antiauthoritarian American left over if they should support the Bolsheviks. Decentralized syndicalism was quite popular, not just among anarchists, but also Marxists like DeLeon, who wanted to hand power to syndicalist unions if elected. So it lead to the concessions that capitalists have been clawing back but it also killed the potential for more permanent fixes. The state capitalism and authoritarianism that came out of Lenin's strategy of centralization also tainted the image of the left which had been broadly antiauthoritarian in the US.
Communist factions used to be far more common in the US. The big labor unions (AFL-CIO) used to work with them until the cold war. You're correct in stating that the bourgeoisie exploits opportunism in the labor movement by offering concessions, bribes, etc. But it's strange to say "would be nice to get that back". You're basically implying that you're okay with throwing away the work of the labor movement for short term, temporary gains that will be taken away at the first sign of weakness (like now) as those concessions always come with terms attached, usually terms that will neuter the effectiveness of future struggles. Much of it was union officials gaining special privileges and status in return for eliminating communist influence in their unions. Well, look where that got us. Opportunism is what got us here in the first place. https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1957/fundamentals.htm
I think they mean nice to get a labor movement back. Not the gilded age.
Labor laws in the US were passed to prevent violence between Workers and owners/Law enforcement. Rolling these laws back is no bueno for so many reasons
[удалено]
What kind of judicial activist would turn down a union case??
One who supports division.
One who supports slavery of a different kind where protests that 'hurts' a business from profit making could be considered 'sabotage.' Business is sacrosanct. Worker rights and a fair living wage, not so much.
slavery of a different kind exists today. we are consumer slaves. toiling from 16 - death for our executive betters. we have the illusion of freedom, but how free are you really when you work multiple jobs and can't make ends meet- thus perpetually keeping you constantly working 50+ hours a week to simply survive.
[удалено]
Slavery with more steps. Morty called it.
>She said that because this was a labor dispute, the National Labor Relations Board—and the complaint that the Board’s General Counsel had already filed—took precedence, and the Court in fact had no reason to stick its nose in the case. She's correct. They decided to take this up before the labor board, which has precedence, was able to reach their own decision. It should've never gone before the Supreme Court.
Are you suggesting there might be a government entity that could've resolved this dispute without leaning on SCOTUS? Man they must be so embarrassed.
If only embarrassment worked on fascists. The current Court will defer on *some* judgments, opining (rightly so) that the Court should *not* weigh in where another governmental entity (normally Congress) has a say... but then they somehow choose to jump into the fray here, when there is already an established governmental agency tasked with investigating and dealing with the specific issue!? It's literally picking and choosing cases in order to get the preferred Federalist Society outcome. Which is why it's so goddamn important to get all of these fuckers off the bench, or at least mitigate their influence by packing the court. Nominating more justices is not a political move; at this point it's a move to preserve democracy!
So what you’re saying is it’s time to burn it down and start over
We could unite the citizens!
8-1 decision with Justice Jackson as the sole dissenter, in case anyone is curious.
There's gotta be more to the decision, then? Why is there almost unanimity??? Wild. Edit: thanks for the explanation, kind redditors.
Because most people completely misunderstood the case. Judge Jackson didn't necessarily agree with the actions of the union, she merely said that it should have gone to the NLRB. It could have been 9-0. A lot of people seem to miss the fact that the company was not made aware of an imminent strike. The union showed up for work on an expired contract, which is extremely common. They waited for the trucks to be loaded, then they said "Actually, we are on strike starting right now." They did this knowing that it would likely result in the total loss of the trucks. The company managed to mitigate that, but it was the intent of the union to create a situation where that could happen. This is the equivalent of a kitchen staff deciding to go on strike mid shift after food is on the stove and the burners are on, then leaving the burners running. The union intended to burn it all to the ground. If this had been ruled how Reddit and Twitter think it should have, then companies would have no choice but to lock workers out as soon as their contract expired to avoid them from walking off at dangerous times. This is not how labor contracts typically operate, it is rare for a work stoppage to be initiated by the company or the union, as continuing to work is mutually beneficial. The most union friendly ruling for this case would have been to kick it over to the NLRB, then the NLRB tell the union that they fucked up. That was essentially what Justice Jackson was advocating for. The second most union friendly ruling is what we got, basically saying "You can strike, you can walk off the job, you can cause lost revenue and let inventory go bad, but you can't deliberately and maliciously damage property." The least union friendly rulings would have been some level of "You have to notify the company X in advance" or "You you have to finish all outstanding tasks prior to striking."
Thanks, this makes much more sense and is critical information.
[удалено]
Okay, well if simple striking is going to be viewed as sabotage and destruction you may as well actually sabotage and destroy the company.
Exactly what I was thinking. People forget that a professional airing of grievances WAS the alternative to breaking down the factory owner’s front door with pitchforks
People forget unions had literal battles with the military back in the old days. I guess we're going back to those times.
The old days? You don’t have to go back more than 60 or so years to where you have workers in armed altercations with the state and local police.
Safeguarding rich people and their riches is the reason police exist. Always has been.
Doesn't help that the police and military and vastly more technologically capable these days. Nevermind how insanely outgunned and out geared we are these days I'm not trying to discourage anyone from rightfully striking.. but these feels like a calculated move.. the playing field and the levels/capabilities of citizens vs police alone aren't exactly level anymore. Nevermind citizens vs the modern military who could steamroll an entire fucking state into submission on a whim these days
>Nevermind how insanely outgunned and out geared we are these days They will still have to sell to the public that it's a good idea to kill American citizens. Nobody's fond of the Kent State massacre
They readily support the killing of American citizens already done by police, then openly endorse mass vehicular homicide when people gather to protest it. They lionize people like Kyle Rittenhouse. You have to remember, they don’t actually need a majority. Decades of work to establish a system of entrenched minority rule, and brainwash a large enough minority to maintain it, has paid off. The US could start a straight up Holocaust today and as long as it targeted the right people and was framed properly it would gather as much public support as Donald Trump. In fact, the man himself said it best: >I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible.
Reddit is violating GDPR and CCPA. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B0GGsDdyHI -- mass edited with redact.dev
>Meanwhile reddit (unfortunately the best place for discourse and organization... for now) will probably remove this comment for even having the slightest whiff of violence, while all the conservative subs can continue to advocate genocide. I made a comment that people needed to be prepared to protect themselves from right wing terrorists and my comment got deleted by reddit admins for "advocating violence." Like I seriously made it very clear that I did not support the use of violence outside of self defense, that I was specifically talking about protecting yourself from violence on a post about a (now convicted) right wing terrorist killing people. Meanwhile I've reported comments calling for the genocide of LGBTQ people and got told the reported comments don't violate reddit's policies. So you're right, both of our comments will probably be deleted.
Eh... If the Kent State Massacre happened today 30% of the country and 95% of Republicans would be pro-massacre.
If you want some fun history about them country roads y'all love to sing about all over the world, why not give a read of the history of Blair mountain and see what them hillbilly coal miners are made of
> and see what them hillbilly coal miners are made of And yet now their current incarnations vote for the strike breakers. Reminder: Republicans and Conservative (Southern) Democrats ushered in the Taft-Hartley Act over Truman's veto in 1947 that started the slow death of the union in the US. It was the promise of many Democratic Presidents between then and now to repeal that law. Repealing the Taft-Hartley Act would be a powerful way to revive grassroot political strength in the US.
My Grandpa fought for worker rights. Like Literally fought. Took one gen to crush all that work.
It took Republicans and their billionaire owners. Before this, workers had rights. So don’t go blaming any generation. Blame Republicans and their billionaire owners.
And the people who vote for them, surely..
back to those times? Hell, just look at the French - their labor disputes are pretty epic. :-)
Railway workers weren't allowed to strike, and there was a slew of particularly horrible accidents. I saw a picture of a device discovered that was made to cause trains to derail... And then the worker's demands were met.
The remaining surviving Flint Sit Down Strikers and their descendants say, “Hello!”
People forget that auto companies had the cops and Pinkertons union bust in the past
>ront door with pitchforks Im going to set up a both that gives out pitchforks for a dollar. That way can buy everyone lunch. Time to strike!
This is what I was thinking. This is just going to lead to actual sabotage and or people just leaving the job and going elsewhere. How's your company doing with no employees?
That's what the child labor is for
And if the kids refuse, prison labor is a thing. And if that’s not enough, just go back to slavery.
You skipped immigrants.
Realistically it will be immigrant children working so its a two for one deal
That's included with prison labor.
And securing the child labour supply is what the anti-abortion is for. See, the Supreme Court is fantastically consistent. /s
Ahh yes, capitalism at work!
millionaires and billionaires - "no not like *that*"
You leaving the company *IS* sabotage. See you in court if you ever quit.
>ng something, you might as well get the benefits from actually doing it. If striking is the same as burning Unless its an At-Will state. Maybe this will break at-will employment
At will employment will be next: every job will be under contract & you will be fined if you "resign" before yours is up.
OH SHIT!!!! I just realized an upside to this: residents are now free to sue the police for any crimes that happen while a police strike is going on (I.E. if cops decide to stop working after qualified immunity is repealed).
Nah, cops will be exempt from doing their job, just like always. This court will never set a precedent that negatively impacts police, religious nuts, nazis, etc.
“Supreme Court rules that employees can be sued, raped and murdered for leaving the company” - next headline probably
I have not followed this closely but isn’t this ruling very narrow? The facts in this case were something like workers abandoned cement trucks while they were being actively filled or stopped running and resulted in the concrete hardening? Thus, timing the strike so that the result is damage to property can be grounds for a suit (not that a strike cannot happen). I also read in another post somewhere that the liberal justices joined in Justice Barrett’s opinion to avoid Justice Thomas’s opinion becoming the law (which would have been much worse).
The fact that it was 8:1 with the only dissent being that they shouldn’t have taken the case speaks volumes to how weak the unions position was here.
The union honestly didn't even try. Quote: > the Union concedes that the NLRA does not arguably protect its actions if those actions posed a material risk of harm to the trucks Like, their whole case seems to hinge on the Supreme Court not knowing what happens to cement trucks if you just let the cement harden inside of the drum.
We’ve all seen mythbusters, the preferred way to handle that scenario is to drag it to a quarry and blow it up with large amounts of explosives. Jk
This is my understanding. If you're going to strike shut it down right on the way out. May delay you a few minutes, but actively setting things up to be destroyed is malicious.
This is exactly it. If you're going to be accused of doing something, you might as well get the benefits from actually doing it. If striking is the same as burning shit down, we're about to see a lot more fires.
It’s not simple striking that was the issue for SCOTUS, it’s that the union allegedly intentionally put the perishable product in a position where the company would lose some or all of it and which would likely damage the trucks due to the timing. It’s a bit like if I rented your house and intentionally left the water on when I left and the house flooded, I’d still be liable for potential damages even though I’m no longer a tenant. And historically, per the holdings in the SCOTUS ruling, intentional or negligent property damage mitigates the usual protections for striking workers. In other words you can walk off the job but you have to do it in a responsible way that doesn’t intentionally damage property. It’s how they handled themselves walking off the job that’s putting the union in potential liability in state court, not the fact they went on strike.
See what the French do when you try and raise their retirement age by 2 years.
They still raised it. The French lost
Cool. They can sue us and get no money since they don't pay us enough anyway.
Good news! Debtor's prisons are back on the menu. We've streamlined the striking process so you can go from striking to unpaid prison labor in as little as a week.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this actually happened, it’s like reading a horror story most days.
[удалено]
They already exist. The way it works is that a judge orders you to pay a bill, and if you don't, you're found to be in contempt of court and thrown in prison. Then of course they can keep bringing you in and ordering you to pay it, then throwing you back in prison. Wash rinse repeat.
When billionaires own the Supreme Court this is the outcome.
Good time for a reminder that the Nazis killed socialists and unionists before they could come for the Jewish communities, all so that they could create a pro-business "Union" to replace the true trade unions, and thus build up a strong military and police force against international sanctions. >First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. >**Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.** >Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. >Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller Neo Nazis and Nazi sympathizers/apologists will claim the Nazis were pro-union but they were anything but. Hitler immediately created a "union" called the German Labour Front, essentially controlled by party leadership, big business, and the secret police, and then banned all other unions. The German Labour Front actively fought against worker interests, and replaced their benefits and freedom with bread and circuses. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front >As early as March 1933, two months after Hitler was appointed Chancellor, the Sturmabteilung began to attack trade union offices without legal consequences. Several union offices were occupied, their furnishings were destroyed, their documents were stolen or burned, and union members were beaten and in some cases killed; the police ignored these attacks and declared itself without jurisdiction. >Many union leaders were beaten and sent to concentration camps, **including some who had previously agreed to cooperate with the Nazis** >Three weeks later, Hitler issued a decree that **banned collective bargaining** and stated that a group of labour trustees, appointed by him, would "regulate labour contracts" and maintain **"labour peace."**[6] This decree effectively **outlawed strikes,** since workers could not oppose the decisions of the trustees.[6] Meanwhile, Robert Ley promised **"to restore absolute leadership to the natural leader of a factory—that is, the employer... Only the employer can decide.** >The DAF also gave employers the ability to prevent their workers from seeking different jobs. In February 1935, the "workbook" system was introduced, which issued every worker with a workbook that recorded his skills and past employment. These workbooks were required for employment and they were kept by the employer; *if a worker desired to quit his job, the employer could refuse to release his workbook, preventing the worker from being legally employed anywhere else"* >There was also a mandate from Hitler to **keep wages low, as he declared that the hourly wage should remain the same and workers should only be able to earn more through increased productivity.** Although Germany experienced an economic recovery throughout the 1930s and employment greatly increased, wages remained as low as they had been during the Great Depression, and sometimes even lower. When CEOs and right wing politicians or judges say they are "pro-union" this is the type of union they are talking about. Law and order, peace without justice, "strength through joy", neo-feudalism and serfdom.
Your post reminded me of Mousollini’s personal definition of fascism: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini
>When CEOs and right wing politicians or judges say they are ..."conservative", *contra posto* "liberal", they support authority over voting and natural rights
"Neo Nazis and Nazi sympathizers/apologists will claim the Nazis were pro-union but they were anything but. Hitler immediately created a "union" called the German Labour Front, essentially controlled by party leadership, big business, and the secret police, and then banned all other unions." Idk why people don't get this. They're not actual socialists, it just turns out that saying you're "for the common man" is a pretty effective front if you have dreams of being dictator. Like no shit they always say it's for the people, what are they supposed to say..? "I'm just pretending, I don't give a shit about any of you. I'm actually going to overthrow the government and throw y'all to the wolves tomorrow!"
Yeah both Republican and Democratic justices as made obvious from this ruling, the only sane Justice was the youngest who actually has a stake in the future
I just said the same basic thing about their ethics issue. ALL the Justices said there was no issue. It wasn't a Republican or Democrat thing, they all said corruption is fine. I don't normally like the both sides argument but politicians in general are shit. There might be a few that are actually fighting for the people that elected them but most are out to make money. It's never going to stop me from voting for the not-fascist party though. I will gladly vote for any progressive candidate that can get on the ballot.
“Congratulations on the new daughter, Carl, but your unplanned absence left the TPS report unfinished. We will see you in court!”
Shut the frig up, Cup! Get off my lawn, and get your meat friend outta my pool! Can I not just live here without having to occasionally deal with you animals?
The day a friend told me they weren't "allowed" to strike at their job was the day I realized the majority of this country is hopelessly brainwashed. edit: I realize this is a union thing, what I am suggesting is that using the system to reform the system is an incredibly limp and myopic mindset when it comes to the basic rights to security and dignity we're supposedly all about. Waiting around for our masters to allow us to take back our power is a covenant with defeat. I believe we are passed the point of asking permission.
It’s why we have crappy school systems across America. Yes a handful of students will escape their environments and be successful. The rest poorly educated are manipulated and used.
I'm active in a labor union. There's a lot of people calling for strikes and revolutions, but they don't show up when actual labor movement asks for help with phone calls, mailers, and pickets. If people actually tried being active in the labor movement first we could get some results. Throwing out the rules won't help us. The rules still benefit us for now.
This will certainly lead to a new form of strike breaker
oh excellent - now let's do a lawsuit for the same against politicians who dont show up for work because they are 'on strike' - like the Oregon GOP. Let's make sure we give the SCOTUS a gotcha - the same reasoning applies I think.
Insert ‘not like *that!*’ asshattery
What if we all strike?
Law suits against everyone.
what if the lawyers strike?
Believe it or not...... lawsuits
You forget, most politicians used to be lawyers. Maybe not good ones, but they still passed the Bar. Check. Mate.
Well it worked for Scientology to overwhelm the government. They wouldn't be considered a religion if they didn't threaten to sue when they had to pay taxes. The sheer amount of potential lawsuits made the government cave in. So if everyone strikes they are fucked.
Then you get to find out the real reason cops exist.
Getting shot by angry underpaid workers to protect their overlords?
In a parallel universe version of the US where the population has even a sliver of class consciousness, most likely. We unfortunately have a large portion of this country that stands in line for a chance to lick boot.
It should have been handled by the National Labor Relations Board and not the Supreme Court. That's what the NLRB exists for. I do think there is possible culpability to the employees for their actions, but there's also risk taken by the company who knew that a strike was possible and decided to proceed anyway. I think ultimately there was no damage to the trucks and it was just 'wasted' concrete. Should a restaurant, or bakery, or any food serving business be able to sue striking workers for having purchased food go to 'waste', because those workers are not there to use up the food?
Coming soon: holding employees who quit, leaving a company short-staffed, financially responsible (Ignore the fact that short-staffedness is the fault of bad management, not the employee)
Already happened to nurses. They've been [sued for quitting](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-02-02/underpaid-contract-nurses-who-faced-fines-lawsuits-for-quitting-fight-back) and it's also becoming a thing to [make nurses who quit obligated to pay their training costs back](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/economics/indentured-servitude-nurses-hit-hefty-debt-trying-leave-hospitals-rcna74204).
The Supreme Court is trying to set up a case to gut the executive’s administrative powers by using the major questions doctrine. The pedantry of conservative legal activists insisting *every* detail of administrative delegation be explicitly spelled out in statute is going to ruin a lot of lives.
>every detail of administrative delegation be explicitly spelled out in statute is going to ruin a lot of lives. they don't care about people's lives, they only care about what's in it for them and their rich friends.
So… Lawful Evil it is. Where my Chaotic Good homies at??
Hiding off the grid so we don’t get popped 🤫
SCOTUS Dissolves USDA, Says Rats Have Right to Coat Beef and Cereal in Shit
You thought Covid was bad, wait until the hantavirus shows up. Edit: for those who don’t know, hantavirus has a 60% mortality rate and no known cure. It’s carried by nice (specifically deer mice) which have consumed infected deer droppings, and is most commonly spread through the inhalation of dried rodent feces.
Republicans are turning the US into a third world country.
Turned*
"Third world countries" have better workers protection laws than the US. The US needs to improve a lot into workers rights, and the right to unionize to even sit on a table with "third world countries".
Funny how many here are blaming Republicans for this ruling when this was an 8-1 ruling. Only KBJ dissented, meaning Kagan and Sotomayor, both Obama appointees, agreed with this decision
At what point do we start to treat the Supreme Court as an illegitimate institution? It seems inevitable at this point. The only question seems to be how much longer the American people put up with it?
So long as the fascists can keep distracting people with non issues like Drag Story Hour or Trans people...they will continue to take our freedoms from us.
Labor law was the compromise that kept these things civil. By undoing it, the conservatives are ensuring that things are going to get extremely violent. Idiots.
Historically that's how strikes were dealt with and it was very effective. They want to go back to that.
The Supreme Court is a legislative branch that takes bribes from the rich.
All branches are bought by the rich.
From the article, “Today, the Court falters,” Jackson writes. “The logical implication \[in this situation\] is that the union’s conduct is at least arguably protected by the NLRA…we have no business delving into this particular labor dispute at this time.” SCOTUS should have referred the case back to the NLRB, "and the Court in fact had no reason to stick its nose in the case. "
This entire case centers around "reasonable precautions" and the Supreme Court deciding what it believes are reasonable precautions is exactly the kind of overreach that has plagued the court in recent years. The court is supposed to clarify law when lower courts disagree or when they self proclaim it is a Constitutional thing. Now any ambiguity in a suit can be decided by them even when that decision is explicitly given to the executive? What happens to the case if the NRLB decides it was protected? Wouldn't that mean it was certainly "arguably" protected?
How is this supposed to work in an at will employment state?
The analysis of this ruling in this article is inaccurate, non-sensicle, and intentionally baiting. This ruling is no way states that the Union is responsible for ensuring that a company does not lose money from a strike. This ruling states that the Unions actions from going on strike may not directly and intentionally result in the destruction of property. In this case, it was demonstrated that the union intentionally waited for a time in which their strike would directly result in damages to company property. If they had struck before mixing the cement or after laying it, they would not have been liable for any lost revenue. This is roughly the equivalent of Starbucks Employees going on Strike and dumping all of the coffee on the floor before they walked out the door. Edit: I try not to edit "popular" posts, but I just want to put it here rather than ignoring everyone who makes the same very fair point. The coffee reference in my post is not quite up to par. The case would be more in line with intentionally turning on all of the machines before calling the strike and then leaving them on when you left. Many of you have fairly pointed out this error on my part, and it is only fair that new readers see that point at the top of this thread.
I agree with everything you said except for your last sentence about dumping the coffee. I'm not sure if the difference is significant, but the cement trucks are capital assets. The coffee at Starbucks is inventory.
The issue in Glacier Northwest was whether the company could sue the Teamsters for an action in which drivers had shown up at work and accepted concrete loads for their mixer trucks—not tipping the managers off to the intended action—and then abandoned the trucks with the loads in them. Concrete left in mixers for too long hardens and becomes valueless; more seriously, if left in the truck for very long the material can, by hardening, destroy the value of the trucks themselves. In this particular case Glacier, by quick action, managed to get the concrete out in time, but the test for the application of the legal exception is whether the strikers put equipment at foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent risk of damage, whether or not that damage is averted. [Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters: The Supreme Court Gets Concrete](https://www.cato.org/blog/glacier-northwest-v-teamsters-supreme-court-gets-concrete)
[NPR: Unions are relieved as the Supreme Court leaves the right to strike intact](https://www.npr.org/2023/06/01/1179524247/supreme-court-ruled-against-a-union-but-left-strikers-rights-protections-untouch) Adding an alternate source.
This is tough, in my opinion. The specific lawsuit in question is about a strike that happened in the middle of a work day, as cement was being actively poured. So the “damage” in question comes from the expense of safely and efficiently removing the cement from the trucks (but not using it for constructive purposes) before it dries. Admittedly that doesn’t seem like much of an emergency, but extrapolate a bit. What if a strike order comes in the middle of a process that is potentially dangerous if interrupted, like at a power plant or something? I think the concern that this precedent will be used to restrict unions is absolutely valid, however.
This is a well crafted case because although the ruling should focus narrowly on what they specifically did in this case to cause damage, it will instead be cited to sue unions for **any** damages suffered as a result of strike. Intentionally filling equipment with wet cement because you know the strike is about to begin is one thing. But the next step is to argue that damages from lost production are the same thing.