>


Biden can step in like he did against the railroad workers?

That's not really what happened.
Of course they would. This is the perfect opportunity for them to effectively outlaw strikes without a single piece of legislation. >


Of course they would.

The Masons like everything built with concrete: 
roads, buildings, statutes, and the brains of the conservative majority of the SCOTUS. >


When truck drivers walked off the job, the company says some of the concrete already in the process of being delivered was rendered useless. Drivers returned trucks to the company’s facility, some of which had partial or full loads on board. As a result of the strike, concrete hardened in the trucks and had to be broken up before it could be removed, the company says.

Let's use a different example.
Let's say you work at McDonald's as a line cook. In the middle of a shift, you're going to strike for better wages. So, you walk out. You don't take anything with you - you leave all the company property where it is. But... you were in the middle of cooking some burgers. And now, those burgers are burned and unusable.
This case is McDonald's suing the line-workers union for burger damages.
On the surface - I don't see how the union is responsible at all for anything here. Generally speaking - employees are not held responsible for carelessness in the execution of their duties. You can fire them for the carelessness - but you can't sue them for damages and win.
Allowing that would open the door for employers to sue individual employees over basic spillage during the course of business. Which would be disastrous to the economy. Imagine a bartender getting sued by a bar for dropping a bottle of Absolut during a shift.
If SCOTUS overturns Washington's decision - it's going to be a bad road for workers. >

The only difference is employees can be held liable for damages if the carelessness was intentional, which is what the company is arguing in this case.  If the workers planned on striking at a time where it would cause damages to the company, then the company can argue that they are liable.
I don't see how in any world the UNION can be held responsible, though.  They should be forced to pursue the damages individually against the employees. >

Name a job where you can schedule a strike that doesn't cause damage to the company. The entire point of a strike is to inflict lost revenue through the cessation of regular business, and to show the owners how much they actually need their laborers to get anything done. >

Loss of revenue is not really the same as material damage, though.  There's a difference between your line cooks leaving in the middle of their shift and costing the company all the revenue from unserved customers, versus leaving all the raw hamburgers out to rot in the middle of the kitchen, for example.
Regardless, in any sane world, if you had a group of employees who did this same thing absent it being a strike, the company would have to pursue remediation against each one individually.  Suing the union is just the company trying to reach into deeper pockets. >

You can't tell a worker "you can't go on strike until you have completed X task." If employers could do they they would make the required task list impossible to achieve so nobody could ever go on strike.
You can put reasonable things like 'turn off the stove,' but not unreasonable things like 'spend an hour cleaning the frier.'
The question in this specific case is 'is it reasonable to expect the drivers to empty their trucks before they leave?' I'm not a cement truck driver but I'm pretty sure emptying a cement truck takes a lot more work than turning a stove off. And they couldn't exactly just dump the cement anywhere, that'd cause more trouble than leaving it in the truck. Their options would be to what, work the whole day? >

Wait are you telling me that management didn't know how to operate the machinery and took no action to address the trucks? 
Seems to me Management didn't have business continuity planning in place.  Heck the workers should be paid more for the job they do since they have unique knowledge and basically run the business for management who can't do much of anything.
If management can't handle the trucks then maybe they have no idea what the job entails. >

"intentional destruction of property". The company was told they were going to strike ahead of time, did nothing to plan, had drivers and workers out, then complain of the damage. >

The idea that striking workers are responsible for the business' losses during a strike is a tacit admission that workers CREATE the company's value, not owners.
Capitalism is companies punishing you for voluntarily withdrawing your labor. True clown shit, saying you're for individual liberty and still caping for capitalism. >

When the fuck is this country going to wake up and stop voting for the GOP! 🤦🏻 >

Depending on how things work out, it may be at a time when the GOP no longer needs their vote. >

The illegitimate supreme court strikes again. >

The supreme court is traditionally pro-corporate. This should not surprise us. >

It doesn't surprise me, but it sure pisses me off. >

Wait a conservative court that leans toward the corporation? Well now I am just shocked! If only we could have foreseen such a thing. >

Don't kid yourself, even liberal courts love siding with corporations. >

Solidarity! >

Gonna be a shocked Pikachu face when the People have had enough of this nonsense >

In case the company loses, maybe Biden can step in like he did against the railroad workers?