3 ms·

Lame ruling, I'd love to see the full court transcripts. The onus should have been on management to properly account for a work stoppage, esp if they are negot

Lame ruling, I'd love to see the full court transcripts. 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.

supernova87a 3y ago
Full court transcripts have been available for years, if not more than a decade at Oyez.org, and at numerous university and public interest websites. 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.
- sitkack 3y ago
  Such a rude response on every level. All you have done is regurgitate other comments, "intentionally waiting" has not been shown. "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.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
Good ruling. Everyone should be able to sue for anything, whether you'll actually win is another matter.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  From personal experience I can say that this attitude is a good full-employment plan for software patent attorneys.
- supernova87a 3y ago
  Sorry, I'm disagreeing with you on the 2nd point. 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.
Avshalom 3y ago
Another thing is that by every account (including Brown Jackson's dissent) I've seen: this should have been a pretty cut and dry case to send through the NLRB at least first. The SCOTUS taking this up first was by itself basically a precedent changing anti-labor move.

supernova87a 3y ago

Full court transcripts have been available for years, if not more than a decade at Oyez.org, and at numerous university and public interest websites. 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.

sitkack 3y ago
Such a rude response on every level. All you have done is regurgitate other comments, "intentionally waiting" has not been shown. "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.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

Good ruling. Everyone should be able to sue for anything, whether you'll actually win is another matter.

hotpotamus 3y ago
From personal experience I can say that this attitude is a good full-employment plan for software patent attorneys.
supernova87a 3y ago
Sorry, I'm disagreeing with you on the 2nd point. 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.

Avshalom 3y ago

Another thing is that by every account (including Brown Jackson's dissent) I've seen: this should have been a pretty cut and dry case to send through the NLRB at least first. The SCOTUS taking this up first was by itself basically a precedent changing anti-labor move.