Glacier vs. Teamsters, is this something to worry about?

[bagelman]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1449.html

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/10/supreme-court-attack-on-unions-striking-workers-amazon.html

SCOTUS has agreed to hear this case which is about the ability for a business to sue unions for profit loss due to industrial action. The Washington State SC ruled in favor of the teamsters, who had been careful to keep cement trucks running to not cause any damage to industrial equipment or to force the company to pay for more cement. Glacier sued anyway because they lost money due to the strike occurring at all.

Could SCOTUS overturn the ruling and potential cripple industrial action in the US?

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

considering the makeup of the court, seems like a possibility. If it does, Dems *should* hit hard on it among working-class voters, but knowing the dems they'll probably completely ignore it

[Torie]

"Glacier also argues that the workers’ alleged strategic timing—striking in the morning after cement had already been mixed and before it was delivered—means they should be held liable for economic harm in the same way they would if they had committed acts of vandalism. If the court accepts this argument, the harm to the right to strike would stretch even farther. Would Papa John’s and Domino’s workers risk a lawsuit if they struck on Super Bowl Sunday? What if box store workers strike on Black Friday? Resort workers during spring break?"

This is the crux of the matter. Can a union time the strike to do the maximum economic damage to the company, entailing economic waste, or must they give some reasonable notice? Walking off in the middle of the work day is the exacerbating element here I think. So I don't think the pro union commentators analogy to Super Bowl Sunday works. Just give notice on Saturday that you are not showing up on Sunday, and while there will be lost sales, no wasted or spoiled food.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

considering the makeup of the court, seems like a possibility. If it does, Dems *should* hit hard on it among working-class voters, but knowing the dems they'll probably completely ignore it

All 6% of private sector workers who are members of unions (many of whom are involuntarily members in blue states without right to work) will be very owned by this decision. North Alabama voters will come out in droves for the teamsters union.

[sting in the rafters]

All 6% of private sector workers who are members of unions (many of whom are involuntarily members in blue states without right to work) will be very owned by this decision. North Alabama voters will come out in droves for the teamsters union.

1. You realize this decision impacts not only private-sector unions such as Teamsters or non AFL-CIO affiliates such as the SEIU, but also public-sector organizations affiliated with the AFL-CIO right? Furthermore, how can you view the unfettered ability to strike as only affecting currently unionized shops given A) CBAs overall lead to greater employee bargaining power as open shops subsequently raise compensation to deincentivize organization and B) these types of negotiating tactics stem the "open-door policy" of employers who seek to divide and conquer when labor disputes arise (you can argue this becomes a negative in some cases such as police unions but overall it's a massive net positive).

2. Lemme tell ya something and you listen to me good: My mom-mom has enjoyed a comfortable retirement thanks to her own teamsters' pension and my pop-pop's which he left her in his will. My dad's best friend was in Teamsters at DHL for 16 years and his retirement package is greater than my old man's NALC stipend from being at the post office for 26. So criticize their racially charged hiring practices and corrupt leadership all you want, but don't you dare ever suggest they don't take care of their own.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

All 6% of private sector workers who are members of unions (many of whom are involuntarily members in blue states without right to work) will be very owned by this decision. North Alabama voters will come out in droves for the teamsters union.

1. You realize this decision impacts not only private-sector unions such as Teamsters or non AFL-CIO affiliates such as the SEIU, but also public-sector organizations affiliated with the AFL-CIO right? Furthermore, how can you view the unfettered ability to strike as only affecting currently unionized shops given A) CBAs overall lead to greater employee bargaining power as open shops subsequently raise compensation to deincentivize organization and B) these types of negotiating tactics stem the "open-door policy" of employers who seek to divide and conquer when labor disputes arise (you can argue this becomes a negative in some cases such as police unions but overall it's a massive net positive).

2. Lemme tell ya something and you listen to me good: My mom-mom has enjoyed a comfortable retirement thanks to her own teamsters' pension and my pop-pop's which he left her in his will. My dad's best friend was in Teamsters at DHL for 16 years and his retirement package is greater than my old man's NALC stipend from being at the post office for 26. So criticize their racially charged hiring practices and corrupt leadership all you want, but don't you dare ever suggest they don't take care of their own.

1. Okay. Bump the number up to 10%, congrats.

2. Oh, I would never suggest the teamsters don't take care of their own. I'd just suggest that they're corrupt, extortionary organizations that rely on government force to take away freedom.

[sting in the rafters]

All 6% of private sector workers who are members of unions (many of whom are involuntarily members in blue states without right to work) will be very owned by this decision. North Alabama voters will come out in droves for the teamsters union.

1. You realize this decision impacts not only private-sector unions such as Teamsters or non AFL-CIO affiliates such as the SEIU, but also public-sector organizations affiliated with the AFL-CIO right? Furthermore, how can you view the unfettered ability to strike as only affecting currently unionized shops given A) CBAs overall lead to greater employee bargaining power as open shops subsequently raise compensation to deincentivize organization and B) these types of negotiating tactics stem the "open-door policy" of employers who seek to divide and conquer when labor disputes arise (you can argue this becomes a negative in some cases such as police unions but overall it's a massive net positive).

2. Lemme tell ya something and you listen to me good: My mom-mom has enjoyed a comfortable retirement thanks to her own teamsters' pension and my pop-pop's which he left her in his will. My dad's best friend was in Teamsters at DHL for 16 years and his retirement package is greater than my old man's NALC stipend from being at the post office for 26. So criticize their racially charged hiring practices and corrupt leadership all you want, but don't you dare ever suggest they don't take care of their own.

1. Okay. Bump the number up to 10%, congrats.

2. Oh, I would never suggest the teamsters don't take care of their own. I'd just suggest that they're corrupt, extortionary organizations that rely on government force to take away freedom.

1. Again, non-unionized employees depend on the same prevailing wage requirements set in trade CBAs. Likewise there exists substantial research that areas with greater unionization drives up buying power for all workers as it becomes a bargaining chip among managerial considerations when setting pay in open shops. It's rather disingenuous to imply this court ruling only affects currently organized laborers, and the description of "relying on government force" is rather ironic given the history of federal institutions suppressing union activity

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency)

[Dr. MB]

All 6% of private sector workers who are members of unions (many of whom are involuntarily members in blue states without right to work) will be very owned by this decision. North Alabama voters will come out in droves for the teamsters union.

1. You realize this decision impacts not only private-sector unions such as Teamsters or non AFL-CIO affiliates such as the SEIU, but also public-sector organizations affiliated with the AFL-CIO right? Furthermore, how can you view the unfettered ability to strike as only affecting currently unionized shops given A) CBAs overall lead to greater employee bargaining power as open shops subsequently raise compensation to deincentivize organization and B) these types of negotiating tactics stem the "open-door policy" of employers who seek to divide and conquer when labor disputes arise (you can argue this becomes a negative in some cases such as police unions but overall it's a massive net positive).

2. Lemme tell ya something and you listen to me good: My mom-mom has enjoyed a comfortable retirement thanks to her own teamsters' pension and my pop-pop's which he left her in his will. My dad's best friend was in Teamsters at DHL for 16 years and his retirement package is greater than my old man's NALC stipend from being at the post office for 26. So criticize their racially charged hiring practices and corrupt leadership all you want, but don't you dare ever suggest they don't take care of their own.

1. Okay. Bump the number up to 10%, congrats.

2. Oh, I would never suggest the teamsters don't take care of their own. I'd just suggest that they're corrupt, extortionary organizations that rely on government force to take away freedom.

Why does freedom only apply to business owners and management?