https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...crete-company-union-damages-dispute-rcna77242 This is an interesting case. I'd recommend reading the decision rather than news articles because news articles on SCOTUS decisions tend to be very hit or miss. You can read it here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf I've started reading it, but haven't finished analyzing for myself just yet. But, I understand enough to start a discussion to see where it goes. It's an 8-1 ruling with Justice Jackson being the lone dissent. There's a handful of opinions written for the majority, but ACB wrote the primary. The story is pretty basic overall. A cement company's contract expired with the local Teamster's union. In retaliation, the Teamsters showed up to work under false pretenses to mix concrete to get it into the trucks and then ditched the company with the concrete in the trucks knowing that it would destroy all of their trucks and ruin the concrete. They sued the union for intentionally sabotaging their business and costing them a lot of money. The State Supreme Court basically said the NLRB is a federal law and protects the right of a union to strike so their hands were tied. So it landed up at the federal Supreme Court where the justices decided that you can strike, but you can't maliciously sabotage your employer. They waited until a busy day of deliveries to strike after they loaded the trucks with the goal of ruining the trucks and spoiling the concrete. They thought federal law would protect them in doing so. Thankfully, the company managed to dump the concrete in what the court called an extraordinary effort which saved the trucks. But, they were still out the concrete and the cleanup. The vindictive Teamsters will be paying that bill.
To the contrary, if facts are as Corn Pop presents them (which is, unfortunately, not a given), then the Union clearly should be liable. It is shameful, they had even believed that they might be shielded from accountability, by the law, for such a brazenly malicious act. What common sense dictates, however, as far as fairness, is not all that is involved with a Supreme Court case; and, of course, Corn Pop has not laid out all the elements of law, involved here (nor would I expect him to). It just makes me wonder, on what basis, Jackson had predicated her dissent.
Hi, DEFinning. Thank you for a clearly-expressed precis of the ruling on the case. In simplest words, sabotage is not acceptable. Regards, stay safe 'n well.
Some more color and context. San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon found that if a union's actions are "arguably protected" by the National Labor Relations Act, then the NLRB is supposed to handle the case. This is what the Teamsters were arguing as part of their defense. They claim that their striking activity is arguably covered by the NLRA. Garmon is the primary case with precedent on this issue, but obviously the Supreme Court could override precedent if they choose. Justice Jackson agreed with the Teamsters and said the company's tort claim should be handled by the NLRB, which tends to give favorable decisions to unions. The company wants the tort claim to go forward in state court, where they have a better chance of success. It seems extremely likely the Teamsters will lose in state court based on the description of the case and the union will be paying for the damages they caused. The majority argues that the Court already said this "arguably protected" doctrine is "unusual." And, Justice Jackson's interpretation would extend the provisions of Garmon and the NLRA. The problem with Jackson's decision is that she ignores Bethany Medical Center and Janise Selbe which held that the right to strike is limited by the requirement that workers “take reasonable precautions to protect the employer’s plant, equipment, or products from foreseeable imminent danger due to sudden cessation of work.” Not only was this damage foreseeable, but the court found that it was also intentional. The majority believes this is less about the right to strike as it is about whether or not a union can be held liable in state court for the intentional destruction of property. Jackson says there should be redress in State courts. From the majority decision: Side notes: The union argues that since they left the trucks running, which kept the drums spinning, they gave the company a little extra time before the trucks would be destroyed. However, without their manpower, I can't see how the union believed that would have mattered. And, even if they managed to save the trucks they still would have had to spoil the concrete and dispose of it in a way that didn't cause an environmental disaster. The company is only asking for reimbursement for the loss of the concrete and disposal, which was intentional.
Okay concrete companies you heard the court, make your concrete batches the night before delivery so there will always be a load available and no one can ever strike.
Union Can Strike But They Can't Sabotage: Supreme Court 'Are striking workers protected when they deceive an employer into making inventory that they intend to ruin? Readers might be shocked that this is a live question, and on Thursday the Supreme Court said 8-1 that the answer is no. Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters is worth highlighting because it’s another example of the wild things unions believe they’re entitled to do.' Well, they are of the Left, and some of the Left thinks that they can burn down downtowns and drag people out of passing cars and beat them if they don't promptly make the statements they want them to make because 'silence is violence.' 'Glacier Northwest sells concrete in Washington state. The Teamsters intentionally called a work stoppage “when the Union knew that Glacier was in the midst of mixing substantial amounts of concrete, loading batches into ready-mix trucks, and making deliveries.” Sixteen truck drivers refused to complete their deliveries. Nine abandoned their trucks without a word, threatening damage if the concrete hardened inside.' 'What ensued, Justice Barrett continues, was “a mad scramble,” in which “over the course of five hours, nonstriking employees built special bunkers and managed to offload the concrete.” The trucks were saved, but the product was a loss, and Glacier sued the union in state court. ' Teamsters said that their act of deliberate sabotage was protected by law. Yet again, we see members of the Left making clearly false arguments, and then being outraged when they fail. They can't be this stupid. They have to know that these arguments are going to fail when they make them, so why do they engage in the conduct that forces them into making these stupid arguments? 8-1 the U.S. Supreme Court majority says that longstanding legal interpretation is that strikers must 'take ‘reasonable precautions’ to protect their employer’s property from foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger.” Walking away from a loaded concrete truck is something they all understood could cause a lot of damage. ACB, writing for the 8-1 majority pantsed them: '“Given the lifespan of wet concrete, Glacier could not batch it until a truck was ready to take it. So by reporting for duty and pretending as if they would deliver the concrete, the drivers prompted the creation of the perishable product. Then, they waited to walk off the job until the concrete was mixed and poured in the trucks.” Far from defending the alleged destruction, the Teamsters should be embarrassed by it.' I was embarrassed for them.
Well the teamsters Union is one of the most historically corrupt mobbed up unions of them all. So it's really not surprising.
You have 90 minutes to get the cement dumped after you've created it. You're not making any sense. If you support unions intentionally destroying their employer's property just say so.
In blow to unions, Supreme Court rules company can pursue strike damage claim It is hard to imagine why the nation needed the supreme court to defend against a strike becoming a riot. Is it not common sense?
The union caused physical damage. they shouldn't be able to hide behind retaliation law when it was them who retaliated against the property of their company. It doesn't surprise me that ms Jackson didn't get it. She's not a bright bulb.... More political than judicial... time will show us the error of Schumer forcing her onto the court.
While this specific case, involving what is rightly termed sabotage, shows union members at fault, the suppression of unions qua unions has been going on for many years in the United States of America. At bottom is the control of wages, one of the classic troika of land, labor and capital.. A 'philosophy' of wages, popular with those who align themselves with capitalists, is that wages are accurately set by the abilities of the workers. We see that expressed these days as, "If you wish to earn more, increase your skills." It pairs nicely with a dismissal of the importance of unions. There is, of course, another way of looking at this. Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . paid.
