|
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 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.
I didn't read the article at the time, but now I have and it seems fine. I hope that they decide to punt it to the labor board, who seem like the people who should be deciding the legitimate limits of a strike on a case-by-case basis, rather than the supreme court. It is what the Biden administration proposed and the labor board is already investigating. It sounds reasonable that they are the ones who decide, and I quote from the article:
During the argument, justices wrestled with the distinction between economic loss caused by a strike action, which is generally considered not to be the responsibility of workers, and intentional destruction of property, which would not be protected.
But even if the supreme court does decide, it sounds like it should be a narrow ruling. To me, returning trucks half-full of cement that was being delivered doesn't sound very reasonable. Finish delivering and let the company know you're on strike and won't be delivering any future trucks of cement. If they insist on filling more trucks, that is damage they could have avoided, but stopping mid-delivery still sounds like intentional destruction of property.
|
On January 11 2023 17:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 08:31 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I didn't read the article at the time, but now I have and it seems fine. I hope that they decide to punt it to the labor board, who seem like the people who should be deciding the legitimate limits of a strike on a case-by-case basis, rather than the supreme court. It is what the Biden administration proposed and the labor board is already investigating. It sounds reasonable that they are the ones who decide, and I quote from the article: Show nested quote +
During the argument, justices wrestled with the distinction between economic loss caused by a strike action, which is generally considered not to be the responsibility of workers, and intentional destruction of property, which would not be protected.
But even if the supreme court does decide, it sounds like it should be a narrow ruling. To me, returning trucks half-full of cement that was being delivered doesn't sound very reasonable. Finish delivering and let the company know you're on strike and won't be delivering any future trucks of cement. If they insist on filling more trucks, that is damage they could have avoided, but stopping mid-delivery still sounds like intentional destruction of property.
It wasn't destruction, any more than the spoiled milk. It's spoiled concrete. It's that simple imo.
Also for those unaware, chipping out spoiled concrete from trucks is a regular part of maintenance
|
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.
The difference there is if you put lifes at risk, not that some company material was destroyed.
|
In any case the article clearly stated that conservative and liberal justices seemed receptive to the company's arguments. The article also guessed that the court would ultimately rule in a narrow manner.
|
I believe main issue here is precedent.
Remember trucks are fine - it just took some costs/labour to get them to work again. According to article:
"the company says some of the concrete already in the process of being delivered was rendered useless"
It would seem like it is impossible to organise a strike, as pretty much always in result some concrete will be rendered useless.
It would be different story if they run trucks in the company walls.
Now easiest comparison would be some food factory using large amounts of milk - pretty much any strike there would meet the same conditions. There would be large tanks of milk going off - milk needs to be disposed, tanks need to be cleaned and rigorously tested.
As for dropping the concrete before going on strike: where?? you cant do it randomly and dropping it at the company seems to have higher chance of property destruction than leaving it in the truck.
Now, again, this are just my assumptions and not being a lawyer I am probably wrong.
|
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/21-1449
This link has more details if anyone cares. It seems the strike was strategically planned at a time when the trucks would be on the road so that the loads would be ruined. Everyone seems to agree that the workers are not responsible for the ordinary economic losses from a work stoppage I.e. the company doesn’t get paid because the customers don’t get their product. The disagreement is whether a union should be allowed to strategically time the strike to inflict the maximum amount of damages on the company.
|
On January 11 2023 19:29 BlackJack wrote:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/21-1449This link has more details if anyone cares. It seems the strike was strategically planned at a time when the trucks would be on the road so that the loads would be ruined. Everyone seems to agree that the workers are not responsible for the ordinary economic losses from a work stoppage I.e. the company doesn’t get paid because the customers don’t get their product. The disagreement is whether a union should be allowed to strategically time the strike to inflict the maximum amount of damages on the company.
Thank you for this link.
Seems that ( “strikingly similar” case of NLRB v. Marshall Car Wheel & Foundry Co ) which would work in favour of Glacier, isn't that similar.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/218/409/61108/
" The misconduct by the strikers, as the Examiner states, was that they `* * * physically barred all entrances to the plant in such a manner that for the nonstrikers there was "an effective implied threat of bodily harm * * * should they risk entering the plant". Socony Vacuum Oil Company, Inc., 78 N.L.R.B. 1185, 1186.' That action was directly opposed to the force and violence prohibition of the Act. It was for that reason the reinstatement rights of the strikers in question were forfeited."
Now Landmark and Coalition remarks:
" The Coalition asserts that tortious intentional destruction of property is too powerful a weapon because employers would bear not just financial but also logistical and reputational harms."
"Landmark thus argues that tortious intentional destruction of property cannot be a legitimate bargaining tactic"
Seems to be addressed by Local 174:
"Local 174 argues that the drivers engaged in the “mere act of stopping work,” and did not intentionally destroy Glacier’s property. Local 174 contends that strikes are protected even if the timing results in economic harm or makes such harm foreseeable. First, Local 174 points to the language of the NLRA, which states a strike is protected even if it causes an “interruption of operations.” Second, Local 174 cites several cases where opportunistically timed strikes were deemed protected, including a strike at a poultry plant and a strike at a cheese factory timed to maximize product spoilage. According to Local 174, in both the prior cases and on the present facts, there was no “affirmative” act that caused physical damage; instead, the workers merely stopped working"
and Broterhood:
"The Brotherhood suggests that, because Glacier produces perishable concrete on an ongoing basis, any strike by the trucker’s union was bound to cause property damage. The Brotherhood concludes that recognizing tort liability would disincentivize strikes and erode the congressional balance of negotiating power in industries involving perishable products."
|
United States41946 Posts
On January 11 2023 17:20 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +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. The difference there is if you put lifes at risk, not that some company material was destroyed.
The difference is also that there’s a third party. If your employer’s property will go bad without your input and you, as their employee, go on strike then you’re both parties to that. They’ve created dependence on you and they’re a party to the subsequent harm they suffer.
Flooding a town isn’t the same.
|
On January 12 2023 00:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 17:20 Godwrath wrote: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. The difference there is if you put lifes at risk, not that some company material was destroyed. The difference is also that there’s a third party. If your employer’s property will go bad without your input and you, as their employee, go on strike then you’re both parties to that. They’ve created dependence on you and they’re a party to the subsequent harm they suffer. Flooding a town isn’t the same.
I'm not sure that is true. That cement has to go somewhere. If that cement is needed for emergency repair of the dam, and the dam breaks because the cement company can't meet their deliveries due to employee strikes, I still don't think you can hold the striking employees responsible for the dam break.
|
There is a never ending cascade of bullshit you can infer damages from when workers stop working because thats the nature of the interconnected society in which we live.
If work is so absolutely important that it has to be done at any cost then the company best be ponying up at any cost.
If anyone doesn’t like that then they must not like capitalism very much.
|
In the US, are strikes required to be announced in advance?
|
On January 12 2023 16:08 gobbledydook wrote:
In the US, are strikes required to be announced in advance?
They are always announced because it's the big red button if negotiations break down. Usually the striking actions would also be announced because there's different levels of not doing the job that can then be escalated.
|
Second batch of Biden-related classified documents found. www.theguardian.com
Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president, has said “a small number of documents with classified markings” were discovered on 2 November 2022 in a locked closet at the [Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement] as Biden’s personal lawyers were clearing out the offices. According to Sauber, the lawyers immediately alerted the White House counsel’s office, which notified the National Archives, which took custody of the documents the next day.
...
Trump weighed in on his social media site, demanding: “When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?”
This is just getting silly now...
|
On January 12 2023 16:59 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2023 16:08 gobbledydook wrote:
In the US, are strikes required to be announced in advance? They are always announced because it's the big red button if negotiations break down. Usually the striking actions would also be announced because there's different levels of not doing the job that can then be escalated.
If they were announced surely the company should have known that trucks wouldn't be running during the strike period? Yet they also chose to do nothing.
|
I think in healthcare you need to give 10-day notice due to people's lives being at stake but I don't think that applies to other fields, but I'm no labor lawyer
|
On January 12 2023 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:Second batch of Biden-related classified documents found. www.theguardian.comShow nested quote +Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president, has said “a small number of documents with classified markings” were discovered on 2 November 2022 in a locked closet at the [Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement] as Biden’s personal lawyers were clearing out the offices. According to Sauber, the lawyers immediately alerted the White House counsel’s office, which notified the National Archives, which took custody of the documents the next day.
...
Trump weighed in on his social media site, demanding: “When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?” This is just getting silly now...
"According to Sauber, the lawyers immediately alerted the White House counsel’s office, which notified the National Archives, which took custody of the documents the next day."
In other words, the same non-issue. Trump weighing in on social media is just precious.
|
Talking about lawsuits, seems like this was submitted on 10th January:
Lawsuit launched against Trusted News Initiative
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/TNI-Complaint-1.10.22.pdf
I think point 19 is pretty damning (and indeed quite silly statement by BBC):
"This economic motivation was expressly admitted in 2022 by the founder of the TNI, the
BBC:
Of course the members of the Trusted News Initiative are . . . rivals. . . . But in
a crisis situation like this, absolutely, organizations have to focus on the things
they have in common, rather than . . . their commercial . . . rivalries. . . . [I]t’s
important that trusted news providers club together. Because actually the real
rivalry now is not between for example the BBC and CNN globally, it’s actually
between all trusted news providers and a tidal wave of unchecked [reporting]
that’s being piped out mainly through digital platforms . . . . That’s the real
competition now in the digital media world. Of course organizations will always
compete against one another for audiences. But the existential threat I think is
that overall breakdown in trust, so that trusted news organizations lose in the
long term if audiences just abandon the idea of a relationship of trust with news
organizations. So actually we’ve got a lot more to hold us together than we have
to work in competition with one another. "
It seems like direct admission to breaking antitrust law, as they explain in points 20 to 38.
|
On January 12 2023 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:Second batch of Biden-related classified documents found. www.theguardian.comShow nested quote +Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president, has said “a small number of documents with classified markings” were discovered on 2 November 2022 in a locked closet at the [Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement] as Biden’s personal lawyers were clearing out the offices. According to Sauber, the lawyers immediately alerted the White House counsel’s office, which notified the National Archives, which took custody of the documents the next day.
...
Trump weighed in on his social media site, demanding: “When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?” This is just getting silly now...
This is totally different because Trump had to be raided by the FBI to get the documents back whereas nobody even seems to care that Biden appears to have had classified documents from his VP days all over the place.
|
On January 12 2023 20:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2023 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:Second batch of Biden-related classified documents found. www.theguardian.comRichard Sauber, special counsel to the president, has said “a small number of documents with classified markings” were discovered on 2 November 2022 in a locked closet at the [Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement] as Biden’s personal lawyers were clearing out the offices. According to Sauber, the lawyers immediately alerted the White House counsel’s office, which notified the National Archives, which took custody of the documents the next day.
...
Trump weighed in on his social media site, demanding: “When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?” This is just getting silly now... This is totally different because Trump had to be raided by the FBI to get the documents back whereas nobody even seems to care that Biden appears to have had classified documents from his VP days all over the place.
They probably didn't realize. Also there appears to be a qualitative difference. It seems like Biden (and his aides) literally just forgot they existed as they were sitting in a filing cabinet in an office he had used when he was VP. Then when they cleared out the office and saw "CONFIDENTIAL", "CLASSIFIED" and similar labels, they said "oh shit, we should send these to the National Archive" and promptly reported that they had these documents and that they had been lying around unsecured for 4+ years.
Meanwhile, Trump seems to have intentionally taken documents with him upon leaving the White House and stored them in boxes in his basement for... whatever purpose. He intentionally took them out of secured locations and kept them. Whereas Biden appears to have forgotten these documents even existed.
Obviously what Biden did is wrong, but Republicans both-sidesing this is once again, incredibly disingenuous.
|
On January 12 2023 20:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2023 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:Second batch of Biden-related classified documents found. www.theguardian.comRichard Sauber, special counsel to the president, has said “a small number of documents with classified markings” were discovered on 2 November 2022 in a locked closet at the [Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement] as Biden’s personal lawyers were clearing out the offices. According to Sauber, the lawyers immediately alerted the White House counsel’s office, which notified the National Archives, which took custody of the documents the next day.
...
Trump weighed in on his social media site, demanding: “When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?” This is just getting silly now... This is totally different because Trump had to be raided by the FBI to get the documents back whereas nobody even seems to care that Biden appears to have had classified documents from his VP days all over the place.
Well yes, it's totally different for all the reasons I and others have repeatedly pointed out. In short, they're totally different because they're totally different. Nobody said they didn't care. Just that the "had to be raided by the FBI" part matters? Like, I'm not sure I get it.
"Well, you see, the last clown I had at my birthday party had to get arrested for burning my house down, but nobody seems to care that the new clown started a fire but put it out. Like they're totally different or something." Kind of, yeah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
