US Supreme Court hands defeat to organized labor in truckers strike case

I think this a great ruling. Unions tend to strategically plan their strikes to potentially put companies at financial risk, that gives them the upper hand in bargaining. But when calling a strike that actually causes financial harm, that’s when the union should be held accountable.

The lone dissenting opinion came from the person who can’t define what a woman is.

 

the ruling does not diminish the right to strike per the ruling, but the trucker's strike was that it caused great harm to the company because they strike at the most inopportune time with some having to return to the origin of the load and dumped it there or simply just dumped the load in which the company was responsible for. And per the NLRA, if a union does strike, it must give notice to the company and strike at a time when is does not impact the company or its operations in any significant way. this is why most strikes occur at midnight on a certain day with the company being given due warning a day or two before.

 

Unions are akin to the Mafia these days.. Here in my state thousands of welders "Unions" work the smaller six inch gas lines. Their favorite strangle hold is to dog'it until project deadline reaches critical mass and then they wildcat strike! They know damn well the company will quickly start losing money every day the project fails to meet contract guidlines..

It's nothing short of extortion.

 

I agree unions should damage property but I will have to read the ruling to see how they applied the law though.

 

Apparently your employer has a right to your labor. Didn’t we fight a war to stop that in America?

 

Some geniuses won't be happy till we're all in chains.

 

Better give your two weeks notice, or your employer can sue you

 

I have a good one for you. At my last job I was hired right after a new union contract was agreed to. It's almost 400 pages and comes in book form and a searchable .pdf file. In that contract many things are specific and many things are vague, but throughout the contract is the word 'expectation.' On top of that, every year a document comes out called Tech Expectations, it's usually about 6 or 7 pages long and every supervisor had to read it to their techs, plus the techs had it emailed to them and had to digitally sign it.

Now here comes the good part. Tech Expectations covers all the daily stuff the techs are supposed to do, one of them is making sure if they're not physically in their vehicles that the engine is turned off and the doors and bins are locked. Because the the extreme heat here in the summer, plus this place is pretty safe, some techs would leave their trucks running with the AC on. If a supervisor caught them they'd probably tell them to turn off the truck and lock it. But there are times when the truck in running and unlocked and the tech is no where to be seen and that's when the tech gets written up.

Now here comes the really, really good part. So the tech gets written up and the union tries to fight it and guess what their argument is? Their argument is an expectation is not a requirement. I called BS on them when they did this, they filed their grievances but never took it to arbitration because if they lost then it's cemented in stone that an expectation is a requirement.

I spoke to one of the women who was involved in negotiating that contract many times because I often needed clarification on a vague article. I did ask her why the negotiators chose the word expectation instead of requirement and she said the word expectation was less intimidating.

 

An employer has a right not to have his equipment damaged by union people.

 

I was in a cushy union job for 30 years beginning in the 1970s and I voted Republican the entire time, What do you think was wrong with me?

 

I don't have a good or bad general opinion of unions really. I will likely never join one, but I am also never likely to work in manufacturing or as a laborer. I know someone whose job was saved by the union in a plant because they forgot to change codes on some machine when they changed what they were producing and that was considered theft by the employer as a tiny portion of their wages is connected to what product they are running. I also know someone who basically is being screwed with the union's seal of approval because their contract has an "unless agreed upon by the union" exception to some things and the local union leaders tend to approve some changes to the detriment of some workers and not approve those changes as to others which has interjected a lot of racial tension into that place because the union leaders seem to defend workers of one race more vigorously than those from the other races. That person I know has a new job at a new non-unionized place they sought hard just to get away from the toxic mix of bad management and bad union leadership, but they just haven't started yet because they have to wait for some new machinery to be installed before onboarding the new hires.

As for the SCOTUS case, it sounds to be like those workers intentionally loaded up the concrete already knowing they were walking out, so I can't say that I wouldn't have ruled against them if it had been my call.

 

Apparently employees don't have the right to destroy company property when striking.

 

Um, they can still quit...

 

you had a license to be lazy?

 

They damaged it by not working lol

 

Destroy it by….not working? I thought it was gonna say they were throwing molotovs….not refusing to work.

 

They get issued a license as so as they start paying union dues.

 

Imagine your house is on fire, the firemen show up and ten minutes later they go on strike. Want more examples?

A respectful union would have told the company they were going on strike long before the cement trucks got loaded with cement. However, when labor disagreements occur, the news we most often hear is regarding the damage and violence the unions do to the company who puts food on their tables. I’m in the communications industry, the damage union members do is insane, they literally put peoples lives in danger.

 

I’m skeptical the strike was a surprise. Was the contract up? Was it a ULP strike?
What if they all quit that day? Would they still be liable?

 

I have some very ambivalent feelings about this ruling.

I am mostly opposed to lawsuits over questionable things that had indirect causes.

But on the other hand, it seems like an unfair dirty tactic used by unions.

Why can't the individuals be sued, why have to allow the group to be sued?

This seems like yet one more ruling that is going to contribute to lawsuits running amuck.

 

You realize that they intentionally waited until all of these concrete trucks were filled with fresh concrete?
That was no accident and you can't just stuff that toothpaste back in the tube

 

Should they have been forced to work? Maybe whipped if they won’t?

 

I oppose protecting unions. I believe company should have an absolute right to fire union members. Now if the union can convince enough of the available work force to unionize, then the company will have to deal with a union. But if not, too bad

 

And called Toby instead of kunta kente...

Are you going to pretend that they just chose to strike at the moment that all the concrete trucks are filled?

That's like a bunch of dairy workers going on strike as soon as they know that the holding tanks of the dairy are up to maximum capacity and that if they go on strike all of the product is going to be ruined.

Do you think it would be okay if your airline pilot went on strike in the middle of your flight at 30,000 ft?

Maybe you could bust out the whip and force him to keep flying...?

 

Very similar to the qualified immunity that protects most police officers.

I bet if we made police officers pay those settlements out of their own pocket they would be much less apt to stomp on people's rights just like these individual union members would have been much less apt to go on strike the moment after the concrete trucks had been filled, knowing full well that it was going to cost the company lots of money.