SCOTUS Rules Companies Can Sue Striking Workers for 'Sabotage' and 'Destruction,' Misses Entire Point of Striking

Zeedox

Resident Canadian
Dec 1, 2020
8,935
7,020
113
Canada's Ocean Playground

Eight of the nine Supreme Court justices voted in favor of the company. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the opinion. Only Justice Jackson, the newest addition to the court appointed by Joe Biden last year, voted in dissent. She said that because this was a labor dispute, the National Labor Relations Board—and the complaint that the Board’s General Counsel had already filed—took precedence, and the Court in fact had no reason to stick its nose in the case.

SCOTUS, these days, sticks it's nose into whatever the bribers want it to - the constitution be damned.
 
And here we go again: It was the RIGHT call and yes, SCOTUS had the right to weigh in. In fact, they were asked to after the State Supreme Court rendered its bogus decision.

You can't be protected by a union when that union intentionally, with malice aforethought, destroys company equipment.

Here's what happened because I'm sure that you never bothered to check it out:

The union workers went in on the day in question like they were going to work as usual. They planned this entire thing. They went it, let the company fill up their trucks with concrete one by one and then headed out as if they were going to deliver it.

After the company had filled up numerous trucks, the union gave the signal and everybody drove their trucks back to the factory lot and got out and left them there full of concrete.

It cost the company countless thousands of dollars.

If you're going to strike, strike. Meet up first thing that morning with your signs and the company will know instantly that nothing at all is getting done that day or any other until an agreement is reached.

I support that fully.

But don't intentionally plan ahead of time to destroy as much company property in the process to "make them pay" or you WILL have to pay for it.

Every justice but one voted yes on it. Rightly so.

Edit to add:

What if a union of cooks decided to walk out and leave all the ovens and fryers turned on full blast and they overheated and caught the building on fire?

What if a union of doctors decided to cut everybody scheduled for surgery that day open and THEN walk out?

What if a pilots union decided to get the aircraft up to 10,000 feet, then go on strike and bail out?

It's called accountability and responsibility. Unions usually live up to that. This one clearly did not and they deserve everything that happens to them because of what they did. It was a bullshit thing to do and they knew it.
 
Last edited:
That was the decision they got - union pays. But you're missing the point of the dissent. The point is it should have waited until after the labour board as the dissenter said. This ruling just made the labour board obsolete because they can be over-ruled by the court at anytime.


This just paves the way for SCOTUS to help get rid all those pesky government oversight (FAA, FDA, FCC, ATF, etc) departments by pre-ruling on existing cases.
 
Again. You're now leaving the Federal Labor Relations board with no teeth when push comes to shove - it's very short-sighted.
When it comes to someone DESTROYING PROPERTY ON PURPOSE then they SHOULDN'T.

That you of all people would think it's perfectly OK to let people get away with blatant destruction of property is beyond me. I guess you would also think that Qualified Immunity should have protected all those cops, right?

Of course not. THEN you think they should have to answer for their wrongdoing.

This is absolutely no different. Strikes happen all the time without people intentionally fucking up the company's equipment that they work for.
 
I didn't say they should get away with blatant destruction. I never disagreed that they should pay - they should.
BUT, it's already before the Nat Labor Relations Board (who has clear jurisdiction) so why not wait for that decision first? I'm pretty confident the NLRB would have come to the same conclusion.

The only reason to intervene is to start to castrate the FLRB board for future decisions which may be unpalatable to corporation america, thereby starting a trail to castrate other government agencies who enforce regulations that cost money.
 
Because a civil case against individual actions has nothing in the god damned world to do with a labor relations board any more than a cop's individual actions has to do with a departmental policy.

They are two completely separate things.