Supreme Court Rules Companies Can Sue Striking Workers for 'Sabotage'
vice.com
vice.com
If you're a developer going on strike, you don't get to turn off the production database before you leave the building.
Now obviously there's always going to be a gray area between sabotage/destruction and not showing up for regular work duties. Continuing the developer analogy, if you know the production database is going to run out of disk space in 4 days, that's not your problem.
But halting work mid-shift with concrete that will dry out and could damage the trucks is extremely irresponsible and totally unnecessary in the context of labor negotiation. I can't see any legitimate reason why it's necessary to leave your job mid-shift in a labor dispute if that will result in damage. The union should either have called for the strike to begin before the shift or allowed workers to finish their shift.
There's no reason for property damage to be part of labor negotiations.
So, your rule is that it's okay for blue collar workers to strike as long as they don't leave during their shift, and for white-collar workers to shift if it doesn't impact the business the same day?
> There's no reason for property damage to be part of labor negotiations.
Striking hurts the company by definition. Whether the result is that concrete dries out, or fish go bad, or production servers are killed, or television production is halted doesn't matter.
Right, but there's an obvious difference between hurting the company through lost production, and hurting the company through lost production and deliberately engineering scenarios where work stoppages would cost maximum damage.
Please read my previous comment again. My claim isn't that there won't be damages due to work stoppages, just that there's a difference between damages caused as a side effect of work stoppages (eg. lost production), and work stoppages deliberately timed/engineered to cause max damage. A sibling comment[1] listed out other examples. Surely you see the difference between the scenarios listed and simply not showing up to work one day?
That doesn't seem to me as normal business losses and striking to increase one's bargaining position. That borders on extortion.
I think the difference is "obvious".
An aircraft mechanic decides to strike by walking out of the tow vehicle that he's driving, while it's moving, causing the airliner that vehicle is towing to ram into the hangar. That's legit?
A gas station fuel delivery truck driver decides to strike after starting the pumping of a load of fuel, intentionally (and foreseeably) causing the tank to overflow because he's no longer on the job to stop it. Just a cost of business and reasonable strike behavior?
How about the auto body shop workers decide to strike right after removing all the wheels from your car on the lift, intentionally starting the job first?
What principle are you advocating for exactly?
I'm not sure where you get "intentional" from — as I read it, the workers assumed business as usual until the strike was called, and in the end no damage was done. But in the hypothetical where it was intentional and did cause property damage, is $1M in property damage worse than $1M in digital damage (like a production database failing) or lost revenue?
> "...Tensions came to a head on the morning of August 11. According to the allegations in Glacier’s complaint, a Union agent signaled for a work stoppage when the Union knew that Glacier was in the midst of mixing substantial amounts of concrete, loading batches into ready-mix trucks, and making deliveries. Although Glacier quickly instructed drivers to finish deliveries in progress, the Union directed them to ignore Glacier’s orders. At least 16 drivers who had already set out for deliveries returned with fully loaded trucks. Seven parked their trucks, notified a Glacier representative, and either asked for instructions or took actions to protect their trucks. But at least nine drivers abandoned their trucks without a word to anyone.
Glacier faced an emergency. The company could not leave the mixed concrete in the trucks because the concrete’s inevitable hardening would cause significant damage to the vehicles. At the same time, the company could not dump the concrete out of the trucks at random because concrete contains environmentally sensitive chemicals. To top it all off, Glacier had limited time to solve this conundrum.
A mad scramble ensued. Glacier needed to determine which trucks had concrete in them, how close the concrete in each truck was to hardening, and where to dump that concrete in an environmentally safe manner. Over the course of five hours, nonstriking employees built special bunkers and managed to offload the concrete. When all was said and done, Glacier’s emergency maneuvers prevented damage to its trucks. But the concrete that it had already mixed that day hardened in the bunkers and became useless."
(page 5 of the court's opinion)
> The National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] has long taken the position—which the parties accept—that the NLRA [National Labor Relations Act] does not shield strikers who fail to take “reasonable precautions” to protect their employer’s property from foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger due to the sudden cessation of work.
The rule is nuanced, and courts have considered the case of perishable goods specifically. See my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36178491
Uh... My interpretation of this decision is that is 100% your problem.
2. regardless unless you take a slippery slope interpretation to the ruling, it's doubtful that any and all losses related to work stoppages (even ones that are days/weeks out) are the workers' "problem"
As noted elsethread, Glacier could keeping refilling the trucks, postponing the strike indefinitely.
Further, per the NLRB, the law permits this kind of strike.
Here's a summary of each side's arguments. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/21-1449
So this sets the precedent that a company can skip the NLRB and take their striking employees straight to court over hypothetical property damage (since in this case the trucks weren't damaged).
Separate from this issue, a lawsuit is a huge burden to place on workers. For striking to remain any kind of negotiation we can't have workers going unpaid and then buried in legal expenses. Everyone will just quit instead of striking, and workers will have lost what little power they have now.
According to a sibling comment[1], no.
>Separate from this issue, a lawsuit is a huge burden to place on workers. For striking to remain any kind of negotiation we can't have workers going unpaid and then buried in legal expenses.
Giving the workers a pass on illegal behavior just because they're on a strike doesn't sound too good either.
The Supreme Court needs to not forget what the worker union landscape looked before NLRB. The only reason NLRB and federal union rules are relevant is because the workers have for now accepted that. That can change.
But there's a big difference between trying to damage trucks by walking off mid-shift, vs. not showing up for work the next day. The same as there's a big difference between stealing things from a store vs. boycotting a store.
We draw these lines for a reason. Nobody's suing workers for going on strike. They're suing them for leaving drying cement in their trucks in the middle of their shift.
If workers simply finish their shift before going on strike, that's not crushing workers' right at all, nor is it creating a power imbalance that favors the owners.
> The National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] has long taken the position—which the parties accept—that the NLRA [National Labor Relations Act] does not shield strikers who fail to take “reasonable precautions” to protect their employer’s property from foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger due to the sudden cessation of work.
> the Union argues that “workers do not forfeit the Act’s protections simply by commencing a work stoppage at a time when the loss of perishable products is foreseeable.” If the mere risk of spoilage is enough to render a strike illegal, the Union insists, then workers who deal with perishable goods will have no meaningful right to strike.
> But given the lifespan of wet concrete, Glacier could not batch it until a truck was ready to take it. So by reporting for duty and pretending as if they would deliver the concrete, the drivers prompted the creation of the perishable product. Then, they waited to walk off the job until the concrete was mixed and poured in the trucks. In so doing, they not only destroyed the concrete but also put Glacier’s trucks in harm’s way. This case therefore involves much more than “a work stoppage at a time when the loss of perishable products is foreseeable.”
> the NLRA does not impose a legal requirement that workers give specific notice of a strike’s timing [but] the Union’s choice to call a strike after its drivers had loaded a large amount of wet concrete into Glacier’s delivery trucks strongly suggests that it failed to take reasonable precautions to avoid foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent harm to Glacier’s property
So I think the Supreme Court is quite reasonable in saying that the Union could be liable for the destroyed concrete in this case.
(I don't have an opinion on the jurisdictional question of whether this should be decided by the NLRB vs. a state court.)
They could have just told previous day that hey we are going to strike tomorrow from the morning or at this time. Sort things out so you maybe don't do stuff when we are out.
As I understand it, the NLRB is a forum totally biased in favor of labor, so the important question was whether the plaintiff could bring a case in state court.
It's like restaurant workers deciding to strike, and turning on all the gas stoves and putting food in the fryers before walking out.
The word profit/profits doesn't even appear in the article. Can you point out a sentence or two with an "agenda" (opinion) that isn't part of a quote?
"Supreme Court Rules Companies Can Sue Striking Workers for 'Sabotage' and 'Destruction,' Misses Entire Point of Striking"
Edit: This one stands out. Is it a paraphrase or a quote? If it's a quote maybe they hit their tick limit and couldn't afford any more marks?
Union leaders agree that strikes are supposed to be disruptive. But the precedent this case sets is that when a union goes on strike, it has to ensure that it won’t lose the company any money, said Seth Goldstein, a lawyer at Julien, Mirer, Singla & Goldstein, who has supported organizers in union disputes at Trader Joe’s and Amazon.
Or, to provide some balance to the actual anti-union ruling.
The quoted words are from the ruling. "Misses Entire Point of Striking" is a statement of fact, because striking can't work if that act doesn't negatively impact the business.
Edit: removed the word agree because that doesn't matter
Wonder how the author here would feel about surgeons going on strike scheduled intentionally after beginning open heart surgery on a loved one?
But, if you're providing healthcare to an old person to the tune of $50,000+ multiple times in a few short years, you could call them a GDP booster, no?
Regardless as https://www.eater.com/23575014/supreme-court-union-case-glac... point's out: in a lot of jobs prep is a required part of the job, so either you get fired for not doing your job or you get sued for losses from the strike.
If the employees here (and in the OP) did the same, they could start the strike by the end of one workday, so that no food/cement would be wasted as it it was never prepared.
Is this not possible in the US? Or is this a case of increasing one-uppance as the relationship between companies and employees is _that bad_?
The latter. America is a low trust, high conflict society. You can argue about “who shot first” but labor relations in America has often escalated to violence by both sides.
The same workers filling the trucks are the ones going on a strike. They can strike before starting filling exactly as well as after it.
Honestly, a ruling that doing sabotage during a strike consists on sabotage is completely mundane and expected. I don't think it would even appear on this site if the title was honest.
Wonder how the author here would feel about surgeons going on strike scheduled intentionally after beginning open heart surgery on a loved one?
Physicians take the Hippocratic Oath, and they otherwise generally care about the well-being of their patients. Also, it is illegal to strike at a health care facility without first giving 10-days notice (to plan how to continue care). I’ve talked to residents organizing at Mass General Brigham, and (though they aren’t planning a strike) my vague understanding is that the logistics of striking in health care are targeted more at paperwork rather than holding up care (e.g. provide the care but don’t sign the notes so billing can’t commence).
I recommend reading more about how organizing in health care works - it’s complex, very topical these days, and I think it’ll show you that folks tend to care for one another. Too easy for Silicon Valley edge-case thinkers to reach for ad absurdum armchair arguments like “what if a doctor let their patient die on the operating table because they want more money” - that’s not where their heads are at at all.
It’s also incredibly important that quality of life improves for health care workers. Med students are 3x more likely to die by suicide than the general population.
Even the NLRB states that a strike may be considered unlawful if it deprives company owners of their property. Timing the strike to intentionally destroy company trucks seems to go far beyond the act of the organized withholding of human labor.
Like, what’s the useful takeaway from the comparison? Cement getting left in a truck is like losing a loved one? Really? Striking workers performing something like sabotage is similar to pre-meditated murder? Are these useful comparisons? I don’t think so.
Okay, consider this scenario instead: you're getting an addition put on your house. Right after ripping the old roof off, the workers all go on strike, letting your house fill up with rain and snow.
If I’m employing them directly, I doubt there would be reason for a strike - what are they striking against? I don’t have a construction company. They’re either doing the work as contractors, and I’ll pay for it, or they aren’t doing the work, and they don’t get paid. IANAL, but I doubt it’s considered a strike if contractors skip a job or abandon a job midway through. Also, it’s important to foster a good relationship with your contractors and to make sure both parties agree they’re benefiting from the business relationship. That’s just simple good business.
If they are under someone else’s employ, the comparison doesn’t add up - the cement-in-truck didn’t cause substantial damages to the customer. (Maybe delayed schedule? I don’t know the details of the case.) What you are describing harms the customer directly. Talk to folks that are striking, and they will almost unanimously say they don’t want to inconvenience the customer. Rather more often than not they’re seeking to change the terms of their employment to benefit the customer, whether that’s more staffing, more safety, or more manageable hours to provide better service. These are folks working closest to the customer touchpoints, and I’m inclined to trust their knowledge of customer service more than management’s.
Does that make sense?
While they might say that, actions speak louder than words, and I as a customer have been inconvenienced a lot by strikes, e.g., when my car sat in the shop for over 2 months because it needed a part that ran out of stock and a UAW strike delayed any more of from getting made.
Strikes are intended to lose the company money in a very specific way - by a lack of labor. They are not intended to lose the company money by intentional destruction of property (nor should they be intended to do that)
Also, I think you're imagining a set of gentlemanly Marquis of Queensbury rules around strikes that don't exist. This isn't an elaborate ritual like the filibuster; labor dispute precedents are written in blood.
Another example to help you understand:
If I came into my office in the morning with a highly flammable liquid and put them where the sun shines in the afternoon, and then intentionally left for "striking" - the ensuing office fire would be property damage on my part.
Imagine if software developers took a service down for maintenance and then just decided to strike at that moment. Or maybe unloaded some servers from truck and then left them outside in rain.
But absolutely I agree that destroying millions of dollars in equipment and supplies is not equivalent to killing people, but the examples share an underlying principle of sabotage.
I imagine a follow up lawsuit will be that general striking is sabotage, in some way. For instance because routine maintenance is not performed equipment becomes damaged by proxy, sort of stuff.
It opens up a possible slippery slope going forward on this.
From everything I've read, courts are mostly very practical minded and make the narrowest decision possible given the facts of the case.
Legal precedent has given rise to nutsy stuff like massive federal power expansion and the entire DEA being based off of the ICC in Wikard v. Filburn [1], that stands out as an exception to me.
Normally these things are pointed and decided based on narrow and concrete circumstances. It's generally bad headlines (like this one) that sensationalize them.
> The Court took time to point out that workers do not forfeit the NLRA’s protections simply by commencing a work stoppage when the loss of perishable products is foreseeable. The Court emphasized that in this case the workers reported to work, prompting the loading of the concrete, and only after the concrete had been loaded into the trucks, did they commence the work stoppage. In so doing the workers not only destroyed the concrete but put the trucks at risk.
Just for consideration. If the NLRB recognized this is an issue for negotiation, it doesn't seem good to me to say "corporations, that already have a ton of the power in these negotiations can sue outside of the NLRB."
The problem I see is why wouldn't anti-union companies just sue for loss of business now? The goal posts have moved, and it doesn't seem like it would take much effort to get them to where you can sue people for sabotage just for striking in the first place.
Everyone who is saying this is a good thing is pointing to how the NLRB agrees wit h this. So why is it necessary if the governing body that oversees these disputes agrees with the principle of this for negotiations? It seems like we just lost more worker protections here, and that people are gonna be SLAPP-sued to oblivion anytime they strike...
The onus should have been on management to properly account for a work stoppage, esp if they are negotiating that day and they continue to load the trucks.
The actual financial risk of equipment loss was extremely low. Cement truck operators have contingencies for traffic, backups at work sites, work site closure, etc. The cement load is good for 90 minutes (meaning within spec) and go can longer but will be worthless. You throw down a tarp, drop the load, when it hardens you can break it up and remove it.
This just opens up another avenue to prevent workers from striking.
Lame ruling in what way? In that it's unreasonable for a concrete company to sue the union for intentionally waiting until the concrete was mixed, loaded onto trucks, and only then striking, to obviously cause maximal damages to the company?
Maybe you should read the transcript if you're actually curious.
"Maybe you should" (unconstructive phrasing) If you were going to educate rather than attack, provide links to the transcripts of this case.
You are not arguing in good faith.
We have the rights to sue someone / some entity based on the laws that govern contracts, negligence, etc. that give us the right to sue and have redress in court. We don't have the right to sue anyone or anything for whatever random reason we come up with.
Lawsuits are a genuine cost to the legal system (look at the backlog of cases and how often people have to settle to get any resolution) and a question is whether the laws we put in place adequately take into account the cost they create in people suing each other and the behaviors that incentivizes.
There are notable differences in the behavior of the people of a country that can be attributable to what expectation of lawsuit risk there is. The US is on the more "people frequently sued" side of that scale. Of course, there are many benefits to the right to sue that many people in less "sue-happy" countries do not enjoy. It provides a method of oversight at the person-level, transparency, etc. But it also can rise to the level of being a drag on society and industry.
On a more mundane dimension, this is related to what some conservatives offhandedly (and probably not really with knowledge of what they're talking about) refer to as "trial lawyers getting rich". When laws you create don't anticipate that they also create the right to sue, and the implications of enabling people to do that.
Also entirely expected that the Thomas Court rejected our Constition's separation of powers and continues to subsume Executive authority over administration.
Two aspects are surprising, however.
Justice Jackson's textualist sole dissent, asserting the Court should honor and adjudicate the law as written and render a legal decision. In other words, 8 justices, including 2 nominally liberals, are content to continue ruling based on their "vibes" alone.
This radical ruling wasn't snuck thru justice Alito's emergency shadow docket.
Yeah, that's what "textualism" and "originalism" actually amount to, ones own prejudice reflected by the imaginary ghosts of the founding fathers.