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

And apparently, the unions think that by killing a company, they will be better off.

 

thanks for sharing this, I don't want to derail the main thread, but yeah. Seem like some bullshit that the union pulled. And that's why I always view unions like a fire, really great if its in an oven or water heater, really bad if it gets out of control. But for every story I hear of some bullshit a union pulled, there are a thousand of what a corpo will do when you *don't* have that protection. Wage theft, denying disability claims, unsafe working environments etc etc. Its not perfect, but its better than the alternative. in the unions defense, its their *job* to use whatever argument they can to look out for their people, and shitty though the argument it is, it's just an argument, to defend the client as well as possible.

Now, I'm curious, how did things work out? FF to PM me.

 

So a concrete company has a right to not lose money, but we don’t have a right to medical care?

 

seems Republicans hate truckers

 

Republicans were less anti union then?

 

you can sue the city, not the firemen that decides not to work for whatever reason, in "right to work" states, don't you also have the "right to not work"

 

That is not what was said. The issue is that when the union employees went on strike the did it right after filling up the cement trucks and then just left the cement there to dry severely damaging property. Which cost the company money yes, but it wasn't money caused by economic loss, but by willful destruction of property. No one has a right to willfully destroy another's property. Its one thing to cause an economic loss. Quite another to destroy property. Just like you have a Right to peacefully protest, but you do not have the right to riot and destroy property. You have a right to quit any job, you do not have a right to quit the job while causing property damage.

This seriously is not that hard to understand. DON'T DESTROY OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY!!! How is that so hard to understand?

 

The ruling simply says a walk out can't cause damage to company property, create a safety hazard, cause the company to lose product un-necessarily, etc. It doesn't prohibit walk outs.

 

You don't have a right to destroy property.

In the case of Glacier, the drivers could have walked out before the concrete was produced, or after the concrete had been delivered.

Instead, they walked out knowing the damage it would cause to the company's equipment and product and that was intentional.

 

They also could have scheduled the walk before the concrete was produced. But, they walked out in the middle of a job, knowing the damage it could cause.

 

Kind of defeats the purpose of a strike, if it can only happen at "opportune" times to the company. Maybe the SC should make another ruling that companies can only lay off workers at times that are "opportune" to the worker. Oh, wait, THAT will never happen.

 

The purpose of a strike is to pressure the company to do something through economic loss through denial of workers. Causing damage to property is not economic loss through denial of workers. Causing property damage is causing direct costs through loss of property. No one has a Right to damage/destroy another person's property, EVEN for protests, which is all a strike is, a protest.

 

Evidently, like most Far Left wack jobs, she can't/won't define what private property rights are, either.

 

Leopards and spots...



"I'm shocked - SHOCKED! - to find the Teamsters behaving like a bunch of Mobsters in here!"

 

Topic line to the contrary, it's difficult to frame this as a blow to unionization or unions. It simply reiterates that sabotage is not condoned, whether done by a person or by a group of people.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

So they are forced to work? Or does the employer need to find a replacement

once an employee start a job, they are a slave and must finish the job or be sued?

 

No, they had plenty of opportunity to walk out before the concrete was mixed for the job.

In this case, the company didn't have time to find replacement drivers before a lot of damage was done to the equipment and lots of product was lost.

Once concrete is poured into the truck, it has to be offloaded in two hours.

Wanna strike? Don't intentionally do it in the middle of a job, causing millions in dollars of damage to equipment and lost product. It's called "a work ethic".

 

so once you do the time clock, your employer owns you until your shift is over and can sue you if you decide for whatever reason not to work?

the employer know the potential of a strike was gonna happen weeks if not months in advance - they should have had alternative plans

 

so once concrete is poured, they are slaves to the employer

 

This isn't the first time...

https://www.aier.org/article/unions...against-suits-for-deliberate-property-damage/

Unions have been protected from liability for damaged property for decades. It's time that ended.

 

That isn't what's being said. The ruling says you can't cause damage to company property as a result of a walk out.

That proves the union could have timed the walk out so that it wouldn't damage millions of dollars of property.

Besides, what was Glacier Ready Mix supposed to do? Fire all the union drivers and hire new drivers? Is that how you want the game to be played? Surely not.

 

Unless they walkout before the concrete is mixed, or after the job is completed.

 

If the walk out damaged property, yes, they can be sued and rightfully so.

 

When you ask how things worked out, were you referring to the union saying an expectation isn't a requirement? if so, I shot them down but that never stopped them from bringing up that argument every time a tech didn't follow company expectations.

My company recruited me because I had no idea how difficult the three locals in my footprint were, the insiders knew and stayed away. Each local has a president and you would think those presidents looked out for their members, but that wasn't always true. One president, the one who was a tech who worked out of the same building I did, would literally give me info on techs he didn't like so they could be fired, at other times he said he didn't want to defend techs he didn't like.

I could tell you some crazy stories about the union but the old timers who've been there for 40 or so years had some really insane stories.

Prior to taking that job I had never worked in a union or managed union employees. Prior to taking the job I was told that as union employees all the techs knew the rules and there was a contract that everyone had to abide by. They made it sound easy, but it wasn't. During my first year on the job the union presidents tried to take advantage of my lack of how things worked in a union environment. As I said earlier in this thread, many of the articles in the contract were intentionally vague so each side could interpret those articles in a way that benefited them. There were also things called local agreements which were exactly that, agreements made between management and specific locals due to unique circumstances and conditions in that local.

What the union did to me when I first started was come to me with an argument about a certain contract article that was vague, their argument made sense and I was inclined to agree with them. Then when I spoke to the supervisors and other management people I was given the companies interpretation of the article which was totally different than what the union argued. What the union was doing was setting a trap for me, which I walked into several times, and that caused problems. By getting me to see the union's side of a vague article, if I implemented what they wanted, then then I'm setting a precedent for the entire region covered by that contract which is no bueno. Also, implementing their interpretation of the article just once sets me up for a 'past practice' argument later on down the road should a similar issue arise regarding the same article. Yes, for the first 6 months or so on that job I was constantly worked on by the union using every underhanded and dishonest thing they could do in order to get the new guy, me, who had no past knowledge of the company, union, contract or local agreements, to set precedents that would impact many hundreds of techs and management covered by a regional contract that covered 5 states.

 

Why am I not surprised that those on the left find it completely acceptable to cause loss of property and damage to property, all of which isn't their property?