3 ms·

> …if you know the production database is going to run out of disk space in 4 days, that's not your problem. […] I can't see any legitimate reason why it's nece

> …if you know the production database is going to run out of disk space in 4 days, that's not your problem. […] 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. 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.

gruez 3y ago
>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.
- CameronNemo 3y ago
  No, the difference is not "obvious". In some industries and workplaces, there will always be damages due to work stoppages. Otherwise the laborer wouldn't command a competitive salary.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >In some industries and workplaces, there will always be damages due to work stoppages. 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? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36178614 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36178614
  - supernova87a 3y ago
    The union waited until the concrete trucks were poured/loaded/on their way to call the strike action, in order to exact intentional and maximal damage to the company. 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".
    - CameronNemo 3y ago
      Well, enjoy your reality.
      - supernova87a 3y ago
        Sure. I guess my reality is the one that's compatible with our laws.
        CameronNemo 3y ago
        Your laws, not ours.
        supernova87a 3y ago
        I think we can tell who's the crazy one in this thread.
        CameronNemo 3y ago
        Crazy is ableist language.
supernova87a 3y ago
So intentional property damage is just a reasonable part of the right to strike? 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?
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > So intentional property damage is just a reasonable part of the right to strike? 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?
  - supernova87a 3y ago
    Maybe read the case and form an opinion based on what the facts are rather than assuming what the facts are based on the opinion you want to hold? > "...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)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
timmaxw 3y ago
The specific rule applied by the Supreme Court was: > 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36178491

gruez 3y ago

>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.

CameronNemo 3y ago
No, the difference is not "obvious". In some industries and workplaces, there will always be damages due to work stoppages. Otherwise the laborer wouldn't command a competitive salary.
- gruez 3y ago
  >In some industries and workplaces, there will always be damages due to work stoppages. 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? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36178614 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36178614
- supernova87a 3y ago
  The union waited until the concrete trucks were poured/loaded/on their way to call the strike action, in order to exact intentional and maximal damage to the company. 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".
  - CameronNemo 3y ago
    Well, enjoy your reality.
    - supernova87a 3y ago
      Sure. I guess my reality is the one that's compatible with our laws.
      - CameronNemo 3y ago
        Your laws, not ours.
        supernova87a 3y ago
        I think we can tell who's the crazy one in this thread.
        CameronNemo 3y ago
        Crazy is ableist language.

supernova87a 3y ago

So intentional property damage is just a reasonable part of the right to strike? 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?

CharlesW 3y ago
> So intentional property damage is just a reasonable part of the right to strike? 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?
- supernova87a 3y ago
  Maybe read the case and form an opinion based on what the facts are rather than assuming what the facts are based on the opinion you want to hold? > "...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)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

timmaxw 3y ago

The specific rule applied by the Supreme Court was: > 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36178491