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.
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.