6 ms·

In this case, workers intentionally waited until they'd filled up all the trucks with concrete to go on strike, so that the concrete would harden in and destroy

by nullc 3y ago

In this case, workers intentionally waited until they'd filled up all the trucks with concrete to go on strike, so that the concrete would harden in and destroy the trucks. The company was able to clear the trucks to save them, at the cost of all the concrete. Wonder how the author here would feel about surgeons going on strike scheduled intentionally after beginning open heart surgery on a loved one?

rcme 3y ago
Are cement trucks equivalent to loved ones? I would love to know how I could replace a loved one if they perish.
- pavlov 3y ago
  In the Supreme Court’s equation, cement trucks are more important than loved ones because losing cement has an economic impact but some old retiree undergoing heart surgery was just a non-productive liability anyway.
  - JimtheCoder 3y ago
    Well, a a healthy retiree, maybe. 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?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Avshalom 3y ago
allegedly intentional Regardless as https://www.eater.com/23575014/supreme-court-union-case-glacier-northwest-teamsters-starbucks-workers-united-explained 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.
- awildfivreld 3y ago
  I know there is a rather large culture difference, but here in Norway the unions announce the start time of the strike some time before the actual walkout, instead of "you're striking right now". 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_?
  - waldothedog 3y ago
    The scenario you describe in paragraph 2 is not out of the ordinary, but the tension you describe in paragraph 3 is certainly not out of the ordinary either
  - rayiner 3y ago
    > 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.
- rayiner 3y ago
  Yes, it’s allegedly intentional. That’s all it takes to initiate a lawsuit. The Supreme Court’s ruling was only that the lawsuit could proceed, not that the employer won. They still have to prove the allegations.
ZoomerCretin 3y ago
If the company never stopped filling trucks, the workers could never go on strike. The company was well aware they were not willing to meet their workers demands. They shouldn't get to filibuster a strike.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  > If the company never stopped filling trucks, the workers could never go on strike. 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.
paddw 3y ago
I think the case of medical workers would be considered a bit differently, and deservedly so. Despite that, I think the Supreme Court's ruling on this case was essentially correct for this specific situation, although I think it's worrying to think about how this precedent set could be abused for different cases in the future.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
awhitty 3y ago
Wonder how the author here would feel about surgeons going on strike scheduled intentionally after beginning open heart surgery on a loved one? This is a silly comparison. Concrete trucks don’t have beating hearts - they’re just property owned by the business. It’s important to recognize life as distinct. 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.
- kcplate 3y ago
  While it may not be an apples to apples comparison and certainly exaggerates the impact (a human life vs property), it describes the mechanism of the intentional destruction of property in this case pretty well. 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. https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes
  - awhitty 3y ago
    No, it certainly does not describe the mechanism. One is inconveniencing a business and one is murder. Please don’t get confused on this.
    - 3y ago
justin66 3y ago
Concrete, human lives. They are practically the same thing!
mundo 3y ago
What a terrible analogy. This strike didn't hurt anyone, it cost the employer money, which is exactly what they're supposed to do! A strike that doesn't cost money isn't a strike, and a union that can't strike is a social club.
- shukantpal 3y ago
  The idea that strikes are intended to cost the company does not lend itself that workers can do anything that damages the company. Are workers allowed to blow up the trucks using TNT (as long as no one gets hurt)? Can they steal all the gasoline in the trucks and sell it on the secondary market? No. 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)
  - mundo 3y ago
    You sound like you're arguing with me, but all of the rules you described seem to suggest that what the strikers did in this case was legal. They didn't blow up anything or steal anything, they quit working at an inconvenient time. 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.
    - shukantpal 3y ago
      If you intentionally fill up a truck with material that destroys it and then leave it, that is property destruction. That is equivalent to blowing something up (the concrete expands and blows up the truck) in that it is property damage. 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.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  There is difference of losing money because employer can't sell something for duration or some sort of expected stoppage happens. And pure waste of material and possibly equipment. 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.

by nullc 3y ago

rcme 3y ago

Are cement trucks equivalent to loved ones? I would love to know how I could replace a loved one if they perish.

pavlov 3y ago
In the Supreme Court’s equation, cement trucks are more important than loved ones because losing cement has an economic impact but some old retiree undergoing heart surgery was just a non-productive liability anyway.
- JimtheCoder 3y ago
  Well, a a healthy retiree, maybe. 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?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Avshalom 3y ago

allegedly intentional Regardless as https://www.eater.com/23575014/supreme-court-union-case-glacier-northwest-teamsters-starbucks-workers-united-explained 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.

awildfivreld 3y ago
I know there is a rather large culture difference, but here in Norway the unions announce the start time of the strike some time before the actual walkout, instead of "you're striking right now". 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_?
- waldothedog 3y ago
  The scenario you describe in paragraph 2 is not out of the ordinary, but the tension you describe in paragraph 3 is certainly not out of the ordinary either
- rayiner 3y ago
  > 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.
rayiner 3y ago
Yes, it’s allegedly intentional. That’s all it takes to initiate a lawsuit. The Supreme Court’s ruling was only that the lawsuit could proceed, not that the employer won. They still have to prove the allegations.

ZoomerCretin 3y ago

If the company never stopped filling trucks, the workers could never go on strike. The company was well aware they were not willing to meet their workers demands. They shouldn't get to filibuster a strike.

marcosdumay 3y ago
> If the company never stopped filling trucks, the workers could never go on strike. 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.

paddw 3y ago

I think the case of medical workers would be considered a bit differently, and deservedly so. Despite that, I think the Supreme Court's ruling on this case was essentially correct for this specific situation, although I think it's worrying to think about how this precedent set could be abused for different cases in the future.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

awhitty 3y ago

Wonder how the author here would feel about surgeons going on strike scheduled intentionally after beginning open heart surgery on a loved one? This is a silly comparison. Concrete trucks don’t have beating hearts - they’re just property owned by the business. It’s important to recognize life as distinct. 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.

kcplate 3y ago
While it may not be an apples to apples comparison and certainly exaggerates the impact (a human life vs property), it describes the mechanism of the intentional destruction of property in this case pretty well. 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. https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes
- awhitty 3y ago
  No, it certainly does not describe the mechanism. One is inconveniencing a business and one is murder. Please don’t get confused on this.
  - 3y ago

justin66 3y ago

Concrete, human lives. They are practically the same thing!

mundo 3y ago

What a terrible analogy. This strike didn't hurt anyone, it cost the employer money, which is exactly what they're supposed to do! A strike that doesn't cost money isn't a strike, and a union that can't strike is a social club.

shukantpal 3y ago
The idea that strikes are intended to cost the company does not lend itself that workers can do anything that damages the company. Are workers allowed to blow up the trucks using TNT (as long as no one gets hurt)? Can they steal all the gasoline in the trucks and sell it on the secondary market? No. 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)
- mundo 3y ago
  You sound like you're arguing with me, but all of the rules you described seem to suggest that what the strikers did in this case was legal. They didn't blow up anything or steal anything, they quit working at an inconvenient time. 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.
  - shukantpal 3y ago
    If you intentionally fill up a truck with material that destroys it and then leave it, that is property destruction. That is equivalent to blowing something up (the concrete expands and blows up the truck) in that it is property damage. 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.
Ekaros 3y ago
There is difference of losing money because employer can't sell something for duration or some sort of expected stoppage happens. And pure waste of material and possibly equipment. 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.