|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 10 2023 12:45 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 10 2023 12:23 Gahlo wrote:
Both suck, next. Both? Is this just a pointless oneliner whataboutism or are you including Merrick Garland? As in I fully expect Republicans to use this as an opportunity to downplay Trump taking documents he shouldn't have. It's not whataboutism when there's a track record of "Yeah, well what about the Democrat doing it?" and then looking like a shocked Pikachu meme when I don't give "my guy" a pass for his shitty behavior.
It's definitely whataboutism. You may think it's reasonable, but that's undeniably still whataboutism.
I'm skeptical of this whole "pass" framing seeing how ultimately the "pass" that matters to a politician is your vote and pretty sure Biden's still getting those (or their equivalent from those outside the US) from all those claiming not to give him "passes" on his deplorability.
|
Biden and his team absolutely should have been more careful to make sure that 100% of all sensitive documents were properly returned in a timely fashion. (This acknowledgement is not something that Trump supporters were willing to make about Trump; they consistently made up excuses for why what Trump did was totally fine.)
The moment anyone suggests that what happened here with Biden and his team is equivalent to what happened with Trump and his team, we can point out a series of very obvious differences:
-Biden and his team immediately cooperated and took responsibility;
-Biden and his team proactively and voluntarily brought forth the documents;
-Biden and his team did not ignore or defy any subpoenas (they didn't even need to be subpoenaed);
-Biden didn't invent any nonsensical excuses about why he deserved to keep these files;
-Biden had fewer than 10 documents, compared to the hundreds taken by Trump;
-Biden's documents did not contain information as sensitive as Trump's.
-There was no criminal wrongdoing or obstruction by Biden, as opposed to Trump's situation:
"Bradley P. Moss, a national security lawyer, told Insider that so far this looks like a routine matter with no allegation of criminal wrongdoing. He contrasted what we know about the case with that being built against Trump, who held boxes of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort even after their return had been demanded by the National Archives.
"Biden's team did exactly what you're supposed to do," Moss said. "When you find improperly stored classified documents, you immediately notify the government — and you turn it over immediately."
Classified documents are routinely misplaced, and so far this looks to be a routine investigation, perhaps motivated in part by a desire by the Department of Justice to show it is impartial, Moss said. The nature of the investigation would change if the US attorney in charge of reviewing the documents, Matt Lausch, a Trump appointee, were to uncover any evidence that Biden or his staff misled the National Archives.
"The reason Donald Trump is in criminal jeopardy right now isn't just because of the documents being improperly stored. It was the obstruction," Moss said. "That is why it has gotten to the point it has, where we're looking at the real possibility of a criminal indictment.""
https://www.businessinsider.com/classified-documents-bidens-office-difference-trump-maralago-raid-2023-1
Here is another article about the situation, with Republicans already drawing false equivalences: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-center-classified-documents/
|
Heres something worth actually caring about instead of more of whatever you’re all currently fighting over!
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna64875
Supreme Court probably gonna deal a nasty blow to Workers Rights,
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated it would rule in favor of a concrete company in Washington state seeking to revive a lawsuit it filed against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters alleging that a strike damaged its product.
The legal question is whether the company, Glacier Northwest Inc., can sue the union for damages in state court over an August 2017 strike action when drivers walked off the job, allegedly leaving wet concrete to harden in their trucks.
They finished going after women and their next target is going to be making sure those nasty workers stay where they belong, under the boot heel of their executive overlords.
|
|
|
On January 11 2023 03:53 Zambrah wrote:Heres something worth actually caring about instead of more of whatever you’re all currently fighting over! https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna64875Supreme Court probably gonna deal a nasty blow to Workers Rights, Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated it would rule in favor of a concrete company in Washington state seeking to revive a lawsuit it filed against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters alleging that a strike damaged its product.
The legal question is whether the company, Glacier Northwest Inc., can sue the union for damages in state court over an August 2017 strike action when drivers walked off the job, allegedly leaving wet concrete to harden in their trucks. They finished going after women and their next target is going to be making sure those nasty workers stay where they belong, under the boot heel of their executive overlords.
Eh, not sure. Going on strike seems fine. Leaving wet concrete to dry in a truck and thereby fucking up the truck doesn't sound like a strike, though, that sounds like vandalism. Striking is not showing up for work, not showing up for just enough work to break equipment.
|
On January 11 2023 07:52 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 03:53 Zambrah wrote:Heres something worth actually caring about instead of more of whatever you’re all currently fighting over! https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna64875Supreme Court probably gonna deal a nasty blow to Workers Rights, WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated it would rule in favor of a concrete company in Washington state seeking to revive a lawsuit it filed against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters alleging that a strike damaged its product.
The legal question is whether the company, Glacier Northwest Inc., can sue the union for damages in state court over an August 2017 strike action when drivers walked off the job, allegedly leaving wet concrete to harden in their trucks. They finished going after women and their next target is going to be making sure those nasty workers stay where they belong, under the boot heel of their executive overlords. Eh, not sure. Going on strike seems fine. Leaving wet concrete to dry in a truck and thereby fucking up the truck doesn't sound like a strike, though, that sounds like vandalism. Striking is not showing up for work, not showing up for just enough work to break equipment.
I'd argue that they didn't vandalize it (like stabbing the tires or something) but simply didn't continue working and that's a meaningful difference. Expenses borne by ownership from not completing a job, maintaining equipment, etc are not supposed to be on striking workers.
That concrete trucks bear a particular maintenance expense when their workers strike during a shift does not change that.
|
On January 11 2023 08:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 07:52 Acrofales wrote:On January 11 2023 03:53 Zambrah wrote:Heres something worth actually caring about instead of more of whatever you’re all currently fighting over! https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna64875Supreme Court probably gonna deal a nasty blow to Workers Rights, WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated it would rule in favor of a concrete company in Washington state seeking to revive a lawsuit it filed against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters alleging that a strike damaged its product.
The legal question is whether the company, Glacier Northwest Inc., can sue the union for damages in state court over an August 2017 strike action when drivers walked off the job, allegedly leaving wet concrete to harden in their trucks. They finished going after women and their next target is going to be making sure those nasty workers stay where they belong, under the boot heel of their executive overlords. Eh, not sure. Going on strike seems fine. Leaving wet concrete to dry in a truck and thereby fucking up the truck doesn't sound like a strike, though, that sounds like vandalism. Striking is not showing up for work, not showing up for just enough work to break equipment. I'd argue that they didn't vandalize it (like stabbing the tires or something) but simply didn't continue working and that's a meaningful difference. Expenses borne by ownership from not completing a job, maintaining equipment, etc are not supposed to be on striking workers. That concrete trucks bear a particular maintenance expense when their workers strike during a shift does not change that.
Bingo. There are innumerable things you can attribute to workers not being there and thus causing damage to but its hardly fair, if you do then shocker workers cant ever really stop working without there being some "Whoops you werent here and X problem happened and you're liable for it!" from that sort of logic. Thats definitely part of the intention/hope for conservative anti-worker pricks, can't strike if youre liable for every last bit of negative implications to the corporation you're striking against!
They see workers with a little bit of power and they'll do whatever they can to stomp it out before a little power organizes into a lot of power.
|
On January 11 2023 07:52 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 03:53 Zambrah wrote:Heres something worth actually caring about instead of more of whatever you’re all currently fighting over! https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna64875Supreme Court probably gonna deal a nasty blow to Workers Rights, WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated it would rule in favor of a concrete company in Washington state seeking to revive a lawsuit it filed against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters alleging that a strike damaged its product.
The legal question is whether the company, Glacier Northwest Inc., can sue the union for damages in state court over an August 2017 strike action when drivers walked off the job, allegedly leaving wet concrete to harden in their trucks. They finished going after women and their next target is going to be making sure those nasty workers stay where they belong, under the boot heel of their executive overlords. Eh, not sure. Going on strike seems fine. Leaving wet concrete to dry in a truck and thereby fucking up the truck doesn't sound like a strike, though, that sounds like vandalism. Striking is not showing up for work, not showing up for just enough work to break equipment.
According to article trucks ended up fine?
"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."
I may be wrong, but it seems that if Court rule in favour of the company, it will effectively shut down strikes within any industry using short expiration date products, like for example food processing.
|
|
|
On January 11 2023 10:10 JimmiC wrote:
If it works out that way it will be another hugely unpopular decision by the judges put in their position for life by the Republicans.
Going to take quite the logical gymnastics to see workers losing the right to stike as a win for "freedom".
Win for the freedom to run your business without pesky plebs and their silly demands cutting into your bottomline, of course. The most sacred of all freedoms, freedom to maximize your and your shareholders' profits at everyone else's expense.
|
On January 11 2023 09:36 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 07:52 Acrofales wrote:On January 11 2023 03:53 Zambrah wrote:Heres something worth actually caring about instead of more of whatever you’re all currently fighting over! https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna64875Supreme Court probably gonna deal a nasty blow to Workers Rights, WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated it would rule in favor of a concrete company in Washington state seeking to revive a lawsuit it filed against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters alleging that a strike damaged its product.
The legal question is whether the company, Glacier Northwest Inc., can sue the union for damages in state court over an August 2017 strike action when drivers walked off the job, allegedly leaving wet concrete to harden in their trucks. They finished going after women and their next target is going to be making sure those nasty workers stay where they belong, under the boot heel of their executive overlords. Eh, not sure. Going on strike seems fine. Leaving wet concrete to dry in a truck and thereby fucking up the truck doesn't sound like a strike, though, that sounds like vandalism. Striking is not showing up for work, not showing up for just enough work to break equipment. According to article trucks ended up fine? "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." I may be wrong, but it seems that if Court rule in favour of the company, it will effectively shut down strikes within any industry using short expiration date products, like for example food processing.
bruh, "breaking up" hardened concrete inside a mixer truck sounds like the biggest pain in the ass i've ever heard of. This is clearly the union and company not communicating properly. Everyone knew exactly what walking off the job meant at this decision. But it could be any combination of blame to be fair for reaching it.
|
This sounds like the workers' fault for not emptying the concrete truck before going on strike.
|
United States44122 Posts
On January 11 2023 14:52 gobbledydook wrote:
This sounds like the workers' fault for not emptying the concrete truck before going on strike.
The right to strike is the right to stop working. If you’re forced to keep working before you’re allowed to stop working then in what way is there a right to strike? Employers will always suffer damages from strikes, missed sales, missed routine maintenance, equipment idling, missed deadline penalties, cost of contract labour etc. That’s the cost of doing business for the employer, they’re dependent upon their employees which is why it’s a good idea to not force the union to strike.
If employers can sue unions for strike related losses then the right to strike no longer exists. We’re not talking active sabotage here, just the withdrawing of labour, something all free men have the right to control. The employer fucked around and found out. If you’ll incur substantial losses without their labour then it sounds like their labour is really valuable. If their labour is really valuable then it sounds like you should give them what they want.
|
You're not threatening to stop working, you are literally threatening to destroy property.
It's like, for example, a dam operator keeping the damage open and flooding the town downstream because he's going on strike.
You have a right to go on strike, but you also have a responsibility to not be negligent.
|
Norway28819 Posts
While I hold the right to strike as pretty sacrosanct, the goal should be to show how valuable/essential the workers are for the company/work place, not to inflict damage upon the company/ work place. The desired outcome should be 'restarts work after negotiations that lead to better conditions', not 'company gets fucked'. Not emptying a concrete truck before striking seems like a pretty dickish move, not that I'm qualified to infer how costly or time consuming that really is.
But I also dunno what lead to the decision. (Haven't read the article.) If it was towards the end of the shift and the boss was like you all have to work three hours of unpaid overtime to finish up and that was the straw that made all the workers go fuck this shit, we're going on strike, then I'm pretty sympathetic towards the workers. If it was planned ahead and they just decided to quit working in the middle of their shift, much less so.
|
On January 11 2023 15:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 14:52 gobbledydook wrote:
This sounds like the workers' fault for not emptying the concrete truck before going on strike.
The right to strike is the right to stop working. If you’re forced to keep working before you’re allowed to stop working then in what way is there a right to strike? Employers will always suffer damages from strikes, missed sales, missed routine maintenance, equipment idling, missed deadline penalties, cost of contract labour etc. That’s the cost of doing business for the employer, they’re dependent upon their employees which is why it’s a good idea to not force the union to strike. If employers can sue unions for strike related losses then the right to strike no longer exists. We’re not talking active sabotage here, just the withdrawing of labour, something all free men have the right to control. The employer fucked around and found out. If you’ll incur substantial losses without their labour then it sounds like their labour is really valuable. If their labour is really valuable then it sounds like you should give them what they want.
Everyone here knew what would happen if the workers simply turned off their keys and walked away. Sounds like a game of chicken. This particular case shouldn't have gone all the way up to the supreme court imo. Either the union fucked up, or the company. I'd be interested in watching some of the local news to see which angles were at play.
|
On January 11 2023 15:17 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 15:05 KwarK wrote:On January 11 2023 14:52 gobbledydook wrote:
This sounds like the workers' fault for not emptying the concrete truck before going on strike.
The right to strike is the right to stop working. If you’re forced to keep working before you’re allowed to stop working then in what way is there a right to strike? Employers will always suffer damages from strikes, missed sales, missed routine maintenance, equipment idling, missed deadline penalties, cost of contract labour etc. That’s the cost of doing business for the employer, they’re dependent upon their employees which is why it’s a good idea to not force the union to strike. If employers can sue unions for strike related losses then the right to strike no longer exists. We’re not talking active sabotage here, just the withdrawing of labour, something all free men have the right to control. The employer fucked around and found out. If you’ll incur substantial losses without their labour then it sounds like their labour is really valuable. If their labour is really valuable then it sounds like you should give them what they want. Everyone here knew what would happen if the workers simply turned off their keys and walked away. Sounds like a game of chicken. This particular case shouldn't have gone all the way up to the supreme court imo. Either the union fucked up, or the company. I'd be interested in watching some of the local news to see which angles were at play.
But you have to realize that they very purposefully chose this exact strike to go up there. Because here, a lot of people can kinda agree that leaving cement to dry in a truck is a dick move.
But US law is all about precedence. And this would be precedence for "You can sue the union for damages occured due to not working during a strike". Which would basically mean "You cannot strike", because the whole point of a strike is to inflict damages on the company by not working, because that is literally the only negotiating power labour has.
Labour rights in the US are already laughingly absurdly miniscule. The US needs more unions and more strikes, not companies being legally able to make unions pay for the damages from strikes, leaving unions with absolutely no negotiating power.
|
One could imagine a ruling that forces unions to be responsible for actual property damage (or willfull neglect/mishandling of company tools/whatever) while not making unions be responsible for financial damages due to production delays/missing deadlines?
Well, at least if a not hardcore rightwing court would be in charge...
|
On January 11 2023 15:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
While I hold the right to strike as pretty sacrosanct, the goal should be to show how valuable/essential the workers are for the company/work place, not to inflict damage upon the company/ work place. The desired outcome should be 'restarts work after negotiations that lead to better conditions', not 'company gets fucked'. Not emptying a concrete truck before striking seems like a pretty dickish move, not that I'm qualified to infer how costly or time consuming that really is.
But I also dunno what lead to the decision. (Haven't read the article.) If it was towards the end of the shift and the boss was like you all have to work three hours of unpaid overtime to finish up and that was the straw that made all the workers go fuck this shit, we're going on strike, then I'm pretty sympathetic towards the workers. If it was planned ahead and they just decided to quit working in the middle of their shift, much less so.
Yeah I mean the details seem kind of important here, despite the fact that everyone here seems to know the correct ruling just from reading a brief summary of the facts from a news story.
|
On January 11 2023 15:10 gobbledydook wrote:
You're not threatening to stop working, you are literally threatening to destroy property.
It's like, for example, a dam operator keeping the damage open and flooding the town downstream because he's going on strike.
You have a right to go on strike, but you also have a responsibility to not be negligent.
When life, health or 3rd party property is in danger like this, there should be different rules. Some professions have more limited striking rights than others because of this, like the police force, firemen, doctors etc. Recently, a teacher strike was cancelled by the government because there were concerns about the mental health of vulnerable kids. A more obvious RL recent example was an airline strike effecting air patient transport.
Strikes will always hurt both the company in question and 3rd parties. It will be a difficult balance, though; if the company goes bankrupt, there will be no job to go back to. For this reason, it is "safer" if the strike mainly strikes a 3rd party, even though it will never be said out loud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
