4 ms·

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

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)

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)