Will ability to strike be inhibited by Supreme Court?

[Thebrownblob]

You

Tough guy Sean is either confused or purposely trying to deceive. The case really has nothing to do with the right to strike. It is about interpretation of current law (NLRA) covering striking workers and responsibility of damage caused by strikers.

Supreme Court leans toward concrete company in lawsuit over alleged strike damage

The court heard arguments on whether unions can be held responsible for damage from a strike — in this case, concrete loaded onto trucks that the company alleges was rendered useless when workers walked off the job.

www.nbcnews.com

As with most things, you have to be able to read between the lines and see what’s actually going on.
This case refers to a concrete company that went on strike, and the drivers left the concrete mixing in the back of the truck and it hardened the company had to dispose of it. The company wants to sue the union. This has broad implications, because if a company can sue the union for loss of money why couldn’t UPS sue because their packages are not getting delivered or they’re spoiling if it’s food or medical items? In your rush to judge the intention of the international president you missed the whole point.

 

[Wally]

You

as with most things, you have to be able to read between the lines and see what’s actually going on.
This case refers to a concrete company that went on strike, and the drivers left the concrete mixing in the back of the truck and it hardened the company had to dispose of it. The company wants to sue the union. This has broad implications, because if a company can sue you for loss of money why couldn’t UPS sue because their packages are not getting delivered or they’re spoiling if it’s food or medical items? In your rush to judge the intention of the international president you missed the whole point.

I only read the union side of the argument in reporting. I have a feeling more was involved.

Again. The case has nothing that interferes with your right to strike. Go on strike, behave, cya.

 

[Thebrownblob]

I only read the union side of the argument in reporting. I have a feeling more was involved.

Again. The case has nothing that interferes with you right to strike. Go on strike, behave, cya.

Do you think setting a strike deadline and those guys walking off the job because their trucks were full of concrete is not behaving? Should they have stayed working? They were on strike the company knew they were going on strike, if you actually read the article, you would see many of the justices have a problem with this particular case because it doesn’t differentiate between purposeful destruction and the loss of money due to the strike that is normal. Nope this is just a cleverly, disguised way for the company to manipulate unions from not striking for fear of being sued out of existence. I would love to hear your opinion on how the concrete drivers were not “behaving”? Should be fun to hear.

 

[Wally]

Do you think setting a strike deadline and those guys walking off the job because their trucks were full of concrete is not behaving? Should they have stayed working? They were on strike the company knew they were going on strike, if you actually read the article, you would see many of the justices have a problem with this particular case because it doesn’t differentiate between purposeful destruction and the loss of money due to the strike that is normal. Nope this is just a cleverly, disguised way for the company to manipulate unions from not striking for fear of being sued out of existence. I would love to hear your opinion on how the concrete drivers were not “behaving”? Should be fun to hear.

The company claimed union reps let them fill the trucks with concrete, then stopped working. Should they have done that?

Case was tossed out citing section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. This case will settle that interpretation.

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

 

[Thebrownblob]

The company claimed union reps let them fill the trucks with concrete, then stopped working. Should they have done that?

Case was tossed out citing section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. This case will settle that interpretation.

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

The company claimed union reps let them fill the trucks with concrete, then stopped working. Should they have done that?

Case was tossed out citing section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. This case will settle that interpretation.

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

“Further complicating matters, the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint after the state court ruling, charging the company with unfair labor practices and saying that the drivers’ actions were “arguably protected.”

Again, I see you take the side of the company L O L. Shawn is 100% right on this. You should stick to what you’re good at ,being the king of puns not labor law.

 

[Wally]

“Further complicating matters, the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint after the state court ruling, charging the company with unfair labor practices and saying that the drivers’ actions were “arguably protected.”

Again, I see you take the side of the company L O L. Shawn is 100% right on this. You should stick to what you’re good at ,being the king of puns not labor law.

Bottom line is: If Glazier wins this case, will unions still have the right to strike?

 

[Thebrownblob]

Bottom line is: If Glazier wins this case, will unions still have the right to strike?

They may have a right, but they might not have the ability.

“If that happens, it would be a tremendous blow to workers. One important reason the Garmon process exists is that it shields unions from lawsuits that could drain their finances and discourage workers from exercising their right to strike — after all, that right means very little if well-moneyed employers can bombard unions with lawsuits the union cannot afford to litigate.”

 

[Wally]

They may have a right, but they might not have the ability.

“If that happens, it would be a tremendous blow to workers. One important reason the Garmon process exists is that it shields unions from lawsuits that could drain their finances and discourage workers from exercising their right to strike — after all, that right means very little if well-moneyed employers can bombard unions with lawsuits the union cannot afford to litigate.”

Lawsuits for what?

 

[Thebrownblob]

Lawsuits for what?

Out the Wazoo. How many labor lawsuits have you been involved in the company’s loves frivolous lawsuits. They can afford them local unions and the international cannot.

So you can clearly see Sean has every reason and obligation to fight this.

 

[Over70irregs]

View attachment 414102

At least he is getting ahead of any confusion and letting people know where he stands.

 

[Wally]

Out the Wazoo. How many labor lawsuits have you been involved in the company’s loves frivolous lawsuits. They can afford them local unions and the international cannot.

So you can clearly see Sean has every reason and obligation to fight this.

Don't damage property during a strike. Problem solved.

Things like 4 flat tires on a scab run has to be totally independent.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Don't damage property during a strike. Problem solved.

Things like 4 flat tires on a scab run has to be totally independent.

You can try to spin any way you want, clearly, neither side knows if they actually damaged anything or not, or if it was just in the course of an actual strike. Someone like you would allow giant corporations to litigate every single labor action. And the company know full well what they are doing and so do you. They did not set their trucks on fire. They did not drive them over a cliff. They actually kept the mixers running so management had enough time to figure out something else to do.


But regardless of that, back to your original, made up premise Sean O’Brien definitely should be fighting this, and he’s absolutely right. He’s not being a tough guy. He’s being a smart leader on this.

 

[nWo]

 

[Wally]

Supreme Court leans toward concrete company in lawsuit over alleged strike damage

The court heard arguments on whether unions can be held responsible for damage from a strike — in this case, concrete loaded onto trucks that the company alleges was rendered useless when workers walked off the job.

www.nbcnews.com

Joe Biden-Democrat

Based on questions of the justices during the oral argument, it appears the court will say that the Washington Supreme Court was wrong to dismiss the lawsuit. It could however be a narrow ruling adopting the middle-ground position taken by the Biden administration.

That could mean that even though the lawsuit is revived, it could be put on hold until the National Labor Relations Board, which handles labor conflicts, finishes its own investigation into whether the strike action and the alleged damage was an activity protected by federal labor law.

 

[Brown Down]

@Wally there is a big difference in having the right to strike and it being useful. if they allow this do you think they will put in stipulations that it has to be property damage? I think not. it will be put in as damage in general. UPS would 100% sue the union over a strike because packages didnt get delivered.. That has huge implications.

 

[Thebrownblob]

@Wally there is a big difference in having the right to strike and it being useful. if they allow this do you think they will put in stipulations that it has to be property damage? I think not. it will be put in as damage in general. UPS would 100% sue the union over a strike because packages didnt get delivered.. That has huge implications.

Indeed

 

[Wally]

@Wally there is a big difference in having the right to strike and it being useful. if they allow this do you think they will put in stipulations that it has to be property damage? I think not. it will be put in as damage in general. UPS would 100% sue the union over a strike because packages didnt get delivered.. That has huge implications.

Joe Biden has your back. Not sure what his plan was. But NBC suggested this may end up using his plan.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Joe Biden has your back. Not sure what his plan was. But NBC suggested this may end up using his plan.

Doubtful anyone has our back.

 

[Wally]

Doubtful anyone has our back.

Sean does. He supported the railroad workers didn't he?

 

[542thruNthru]

Sean does. He supported the railroad workers didn't he?

Didn't you vote for Sean?