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

How many libs complained about the rioting, looting, arson, assaults, murders and other violence and damage during the summer of love?

If you noticed, most of the above occurred in areas where the mostly peaceful protesters didn’t live.

 

which means you are forced to work

 

which means you are forced to work

 

Forced? Of course not.

Walking out when leaving means damage to property can make you liable for the damaged property. There's always the option to walk out before that is possible. I think you're missing the latter, big time...lol

 

nope, it's the employer's responsibility to find replacement help

 

I don't think the workers should be allowed to damage the equipment. That should be considered as criminal property damage.

That said; Employers shouldn't be allowed to sue a union until after the NLB has certified the strike as legit.

Allowing them to do so is bass-ackwards and can create unnecessary anti-strike pressure.

 

True. But that doesn't relieve the striking employees from liability for damaged property because of the strike. It's rather simple to understand.

 

The equipment is damaged even if the strike isn't certified by the government.

 

they did not damage the property, they just did not finish the job

if the employer fails to get people out there to finish the job, that is on them

 

They cost the company money because the concrete was wasted.

They also cost the company money because the trucks had to be cleaned out.

That's called "damage to property".

Did you do ANY research into the events that brought this lawsuit to begin with?...

The drivers did what they did with the intention of damaging the company's property.

 

Seems to me the company made business decisions based on the employees commitment to coming to work like they do every day. If the company knew there wouldn’t be any employees they would have done things differently.

 

Right. Which is why I said that intentional property damage should be considered a criminal act, regardless of a strike.

My issue around the effects of the decision are for other unions who wish to strike and the use of this ability to sue prior to said certification as a way to intimidate strikers into not striking/ending a strike prior to its certification.

 

nope, the company's failure to do the job caused the damage

if they take a bat to company vehicle, agree with you, but this is not that

 

The damage to the equipment was intentional. Just as if they took a bat to the trucks

 

nope, they just decided to strike, the businesses job to get new workers out there or end the strike, they knew it was coming to this weeks and months in advance

 

Employers should be allowed to use heavy equipment to drop thousands of dollars worth of pennies on their employees car on payday?

That's how silly you sound.

 

Don't try to be logical with people who throw temper tantrums as adults.

 

You don’t have a right to someone else’s labor, no matter how many bad analogies you make up

 

So if they had all resigned instead of a strike, should they be financially liable?

 

Doubtful. They knew the job was coming up. They could have protected themselves from liability by walking out before the job started and before the concrete was mixed.

But, that isn't what they wanted to do. They intentionally damaged company property.

 

Employees don't have a right to damage private property.

 

So if they mixed it then resigned, then what? Prison? Forced labor?

 

And employers don’t have a right to their labor.

 

Nobody said they did.

That's a strawman your making up and applying it to every retort because you don't have a defense for damaging property.

 

Again withholding labor isn’t vandalism