Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MayReasonRule

(1,815 posts)
40. ...pleased that today's decision... doesn't change labor law and leaves the right to strike intact.
Sun Jun 4, 2023, 09:22 AM
Jun 2023
Stanford Law School Professor William Gould, National Labor Relations Board Former Chairman
"Virtually every strike is based on timing that will hurt the employer, there was great concern that the court would rule broadly to limit the rights of strikers. But that didn't happen."

At first glance, the Supreme Court did seem poised to issue a decision more damaging to unions. Thursday's ruling followed three earlier decisions against labor in the last five years, including one that reversed a 40-year-old precedent. And the truckers' case posed the possibility that the court would overturn another longstanding precedent dating back nearly 70 years. So labor feared the worst: a decision that would hollow out the right to strike. Thursday's decision, however, was a narrow ruling that generally left strike protections intact.


For nearly 70 years, the Supreme Court has said that federal law gives the Board the authority to decide labor disputes as long as the conduct is even arguably protected or prohibited under the federal labor law.


The business community was gunning for, and hoping to eliminate, that rule. But it didn't get its way. This was a case of winning a relatively minor battle but losing the war. The high court did not overturn or otherwise disturb its longstanding rule giving the NLRB broad authority in labor disputes, leaving unions free to time when they will strike.


At the same time, the court's majority decided the case in favor of the company in a very fact specific way. The court ultimately said the union's conduct in this particular case posed a serious and foreseeable risk of harm to Glacier's trucks, and because of this intentional harm, the case should not have been dismissed by the state supreme court


There are 27 cases still to be decided by the court, as it enters what is usually the final month of the court term. And many of those cases will be highly controversial. In Thursday's case, though, the court, quite deliberately took a pass. If there is to be a major retreat on long-guaranteed labor rights, it will not be this term, and labor leaders were relieved.


"We are pleased that today's decision ... doesn't change labor law and leaves the right to strike intact," said Mary Kay Henry, president of the 2 million member Service Employees International Union.
Like the chickens voting for multigraincracker Jun 2023 #1
Exactly Multigraincracker. Duncanpup Jun 2023 #2
thing is, 8-1, it wasn't just the Repuke votes on the court. 3Hotdogs Jun 2023 #3
see my reply below. mopinko Jun 2023 #5
i read the about ruling and it's a bit complicated. mopinko Jun 2023 #4
This encourages malicious suits by companies against unions. SunSeeker Jun 2023 #10
well, it is a bit fuzzy. mopinko Jun 2023 #17
Are you saying "the mob" caused the destruction to the cement trucks? SunSeeker Jun 2023 #46
no. i'm saying violence and breaking shit is not good for the union movement. mopinko Jun 2023 #55
This isn't the 1970s. Unions, what's left of them, are pretty by the book now. SunSeeker Jun 2023 #59
because a lower court had ruled that stopdiggin Jun 2023 #43
Deliberate destruction is already illegal. Why was this ruling necessary? nt SunSeeker Jun 2023 #45
because a lower court stopdiggin Jun 2023 #57
Just like Citizens United there was not advance news reports in advance. Delmette2.0 Jun 2023 #6
good point about this being on radar. A hush docket. Evolve Dammit Jun 2023 #22
Amen to that Joinfortmill Jun 2023 #7
I was complaining about this the other day in a thread. Bluethroughu Jun 2023 #8
Exactly. Justice Brown-Jackson was the only one who saw reality. SunSeeker Jun 2023 #11
I think like most people not knowledgeable in construction, Bluethroughu Jun 2023 #14
do we know that? mopinko Jun 2023 #18
The Union is not going to sabotage equipment they are going to need to make a pay check Bluethroughu Jun 2023 #24
according to the ruling, they had to construct bunkers to take the load. mopinko Jun 2023 #37
They sell and use those bunkers, and when they dump hot loads Bluethroughu Jun 2023 #38
Exactly. This basically allows SLAPP suits against unions. SunSeeker Jun 2023 #48
...pleased that today's decision... doesn't change labor law and leaves the right to strike intact. MayReasonRule Jun 2023 #40
SEIU needs to get a backbone. Telling us "it could have been worse" is pitiful. SunSeeker Jun 2023 #51
Might That Be An Outlier? Or Is It Part And Parcel Of Their Pattern And Practice? MayReasonRule Jun 2023 #56
I agree. nt SunSeeker Jun 2023 #47
She is the voice of reason on this Court mountain grammy Jun 2023 #25
This message was self-deleted by its author Joinfortmill Jun 2023 #9
People just don't get how the "middle class" doesn't exist without collective bargaining. jaxexpat Jun 2023 #12
This exactly! Bluethroughu Jun 2023 #15
I worked in union shops for 35 years. I am a solid liberal Democratic voter The Jungle 1 Jun 2023 #13
The management team had plenty of time to unload the trucks. Bluethroughu Jun 2023 #16
Site management did unload the trucks. The Jungle 1 Jun 2023 #19
Piss on Coathanger Barrett; she's dead wrong, as is this ruling. Hermit-The-Prog Jun 2023 #34
Labor Leaders Are Relieved This Doesn't Change Labor Law And Leaves The Right To Strike Intact MayReasonRule Jun 2023 #41
They didn't abandon fully loaded trucks without telling anyone. Glacier knew they were on strike. SunSeeker Jun 2023 #49
This is a complicated issue and we won part of it. The Jungle 1 Jun 2023 #28
imho, the union movement lost a lot of steam mopinko Jun 2023 #39
You're On Point. Thank You For Your Voice Of Reason! MayReasonRule Jun 2023 #42
Here's the actual ruling OnlinePoker Jun 2023 #20
thanks. that's helpful. mopinko Jun 2023 #31
This isn't about the strike, it's about the vandalism localroger Jun 2023 #21
I should have seen your reply first. I pointed out the same thing. Pacifist Patriot Jun 2023 #27
The acceptance of unions lies in management's respect for its power. jaxexpat Jun 2023 #32
Vandalism is already illegal. Why did Glacier need this ruling? nt SunSeeker Jun 2023 #50
My granddaughters range from 16 to 22 mountain grammy Jun 2023 #23
I'm on the side of the Union! Bluethroughu Jun 2023 #30
I'm CWA retired and proud Deuxcents Jun 2023 #54
Important distinction needs to be made though. The ruling was not about suing employees FOR striking Pacifist Patriot Jun 2023 #26
if they'd announced the strike, they'd have been fine. mopinko Jun 2023 #35
You do not know these people. Please stop defaming these workers. SunSeeker Jun 2023 #53
The company knew the union was going to strike, they Bluethroughu Jun 2023 #36
questioning this stopdiggin Jun 2023 #44
SCOTUS should not be making a ruling based on disputed facts. SunSeeker Jun 2023 #52
disputed on THIS site stopdiggin Jun 2023 #58
do u know how much 16 truck of concrete cost? mopinko Jun 2023 #60
yep. this was a big ol' giant FU stopdiggin Jun 2023 #61
Jesus H 3auld6phart Jun 2023 #29
And they use Christian dogma as science Farmer-Rick Jun 2023 #33
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Omaha Steve's Labor Group»Anyone notice the supreme...»Reply #40