Supreme Court to hear case dealing with strikes

[Brown Down]

MSN

www.msn.com

article says enough. If this gets a pass stikes will lose almost all of their teeth with the threat of a lawsuit.

 

[I have been lurking]

 

[100%]

MSN

www.msn.com

article says enough. If this gets a pass stikes will lose almost all of their teeth with the threat of a lawsuit.

This is a nothing burger. The lawsuit would not prevent a strike.

 

[oldngray]

How could it be an attack if the Supreme Court merely agrees to hear the case?

 

[Fido]

You can’t stop protest. Wouldn’t it fall under a constitutional right for freedom of speech? It’s just blue collar vs employer.

 

[Brown Down]

I said if they hear and agree. It's something to keep an eye on.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

You can’t stop protest. Wouldn’t it fall under a constitutional right for freedom of speech? It’s just blue collar vs employer.

It's about vandalism restitution.

The strike is federally protected, but even if the NLRB determined it was illegal destruction of property, they don't have legal authority to award damages to the company.

 

[Gabba]

it's disturbing alright. can't say i have a lot of faith in this supreme court on this issue. even less faith in this court than the one that ruled that amazon can force workers to stand in line off the clock.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

it's disturbing alright. can't say i have a lot of faith in this supreme court on this issue.

Faith in them to do what?

 

[Gabba]

Faith in them to do what?

to prohibit the company and all companies to put insurmountable obstacles for striking workers.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

to prohibit the company and all companies to put insurmountable obstacles for striking workers.

So you think penalties for destruction of property are an insurmountable obstacle?

 

[Wally]

Lol, Slate trying to get some midterm votes? This case has zero to do with the right to strike.

This case is to seek a ruling on the National Labor Relations Act. Specifically, does the NLRA stop any damage claims against a union that during the course of a labor dispute, intentionally damages stuff that don't belong to them?

 

[Gabba]

So you think penalties for destruction of property are an insurmountable obstacle?

I guess you didn't read the article. they didn't destroy property, in fact they did the opposite, they could've turned off their trucks and stopped the mixers which would've caused the cement to set inside the mixers destroying the cement itself and the mixers but they idled the trucks instead so that wouldn't happen.

here's the relevant text if you or anyone else is too lazy to click a mouse and read:

When the strike began, all the striking drivers left their trucks running so the cement in them wouldn’t dry out; turning off the ignition would not only have rendered the cement unusable, but also permanently damaged the trucks.

The company managed to empty the cement out of the trucks, and there was no harm to the vehicles or premises. But the company had made no contingency plans for back-up staffing, so it lost money because it had to dispose of the cement itself. Glacier sued the union in state court for damages based on the loss of the cement.

yes if UPS was allowed to do this, sue the union for the "lost" revenue during the strike it would represent an insurmountable obstacle.

 

[Wally]

I guess you didn't read the article. they didn't destroy property, in fact they did the opposite, they could've turned off their trucks and stopped the mixers which would've caused the concrete to set inside the mixers destroying the concrete itself and the mixers but they idled the trucks instead so that wouldn't happen.

We only heard one side in that cement truck story, and that from Slate.

 

[Gabba]

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

yes if UPS was allowed to do this, sue the union for the "lost" revenue during the strike it would represent an insurmountable obstacle.

That's not what this case is about.
Not sure how you got confused.

Oh wait, you're reading trash like slate.com, that explains it. Carry on.

 

[Wally]

Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters Local Union No. 174, 471 P.3d 880 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters Local Union No. 174, 471 P.3d 880, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[Wally]

So the court will decide if the NLRA protects the union from liability due to inflicting damage by calling a strike.

Anyone recall the last time we went on strike? Did anyone on the clock finish their shifts?

 

[I have NOT been lurking]

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[Wally]

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

8-1 speaks loudly.

Go on strike, behave.