Supreme Court smacks down U.S. union workers' right to strike with 8-1 decision

"smacks down U.S. union workers' right to strike"

Your interpretation is quite amateurish

If only cunt Judge Ginsberg had stood down so Obama could have appointed a not going to die Supreme Court Justice, none of this would have happened. But she was a selfish cunt.

R1 Thank you Sean Hannity.

R3 Not even close

Not a controversial decision.

R5 Why would you say that ?

Because it was not a decision on the underlying merits of the case. It was a question of whether federal labor law prevented a state court from hearing a particular cause of action. 8 justices agreed that the law did not limit state actions in this particular instance. The end..

so we have to go back to work?

Good.

The teamsters are the laziest and most corrupt union of all. Truckers and rail workers are mostly trump loving morons, so fuck them.

SCOTUS and the "sanctity of life" crowd strikes again! The rights of a load of wet cement are far more important and supersedes the rights of human beings.

By "human beings", r10, do you mean the human inside the mother or do you mean the mother herself?

The union deliberately tried to damage the trucks by leaving the cement in them. Property destruction is absolutely not part of a right to strike and there would be no reason not to allow the company to seek fair compensation for it in state court. An 8-1 decision firmly settles that.

striking and trying to make a point does not include damaging what doesn't belong to them. It was wrong in every way.

This is just the beginning. Employers will now cry "losses and damages" for every strike called, and sue the union and the workers. This country is doomed.

By "human beings", [R10], do you mean the human inside the mother or do you mean the mother herself?

Given the makeup of this SCOTUS, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they determined the load of wet cement had even more rights than the sacrosanct human fetus. With these clowns, $$$$$$ money talks, chumps, including a fetus, walk.

I am not a scab- I'm a Strikebreaker!

It’s pretty much settled law, per the Supreme Court, that fetuses and semi-automatic guns have more rights in America than actual living human beings.

[quote]Supreme Court smacks down U.S. union workers' right to strike

That's not true, OP. Nowhere does this article state that the right to strike has been eliminated.

As far as the strike goes, I understand the company's frustration, but if they had any forewarning that a strike would take place, they should have been ready. This lawsuit will open up the floodgates. Any employer or customer who has been "damaged" whether through lack of access to a product, or hitting the company in the pocketbook, could potentially sue. This will become a game of "nitpicks", trying to find some way to sue labor unions and the working class.

This was a very much a bad facts make bad law case. You can’t leave wet concrete in a truck in the middle of a job as it will set and destroy the truck. Just like an ambulance driver shouldn’t be able to freely walk off the job on the way to the hospital. The Court just said the company could at least bring their claim for damages to the trucks in state court not that the workers couldn’t strike.

[quote] Any employer or customer who has been "damaged" whether through lack of access to a product, or hitting the company in the pocketbook, could potentially sue.

This was actual damages, and it will be same definition in state court that it is for any other, non-strike, situation. The state law hasn’t changed.

R18 I never said 'eliminated' - I said 'smacks down'. They have weakened the power of the union and strengthened the power of the employer in contract negotiations, by allowing the employer to sue.

[quote]As far as the strike goes, I understand the company's frustration, but if they had any forewarning that a strike would take place, they should have been ready.

Where does it say they were not forewarned ?

R12 R13 R18

"The union says that when the workers returned the trucks, the cement was wet, and that they left the drums on the trucks rotating, meaning it would not immediately congeal. It was the company’s decision to remove the concrete and then break it up once it hardened, the union says."

So the union workers did take precautions in not making the wet cement congeal. Once they left the trucks with the employer, the employer made the decision to destroy their own product. Union workers did not destroy their cement.

Girls, girls. You miss the point. The merits, or the facts of their case if you will, are still to be determined by a state trial court. That’s no slam dunk. But the FLRA does not bar the claim from proceeding—that is all.

The wheels of justice grind slowly…as always.

R23 I can't disagree with Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, when she argues the courts (state and US Supreme) should not have gotten involved at all. This was a matter to be settled within the state labor boards. Courts should not intercede, and this sets a horrible precedent :

"By ruling in favor of the company, the court "inserts itself into this conflict, proceeding to opine on the propriety of the union's strike activity," despite not being the best place to weigh the facts, she wrote.

"This case is Exhibit A as to why the board — and not the courts — should ordinarily take the first crack at resolving contentious, fact-bound labor disputes of this nature," she added."

^ fair argument —but it did not carry the day. Well-written dissents are important; they often come back into focus as majority points of view down the road. The law is a work in constant progress (or regression, in some cases).