Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Omaha Steve's Labor Group
In reply to the discussion: Anyone notice the supremes ruling 8-1 yesterday on companies can sue striking workers. [View all]MayReasonRule
(1,806 posts)41. Labor Leaders Are Relieved This Doesn't Change Labor Law And Leaves The Right To Strike Intact
Stanford Law School Professor William Gould, National Labor Relations Board Former Chairman
"Virtually every strike is based on timing that will hurt the employer, there was great concern that the court would rule broadly to limit the rights of strikers. But that didn't happen."
"Virtually every strike is based on timing that will hurt the employer, there was great concern that the court would rule broadly to limit the rights of strikers. But that didn't happen."
At first glance, the Supreme Court did seem poised to issue a decision more damaging to unions. Thursday's ruling followed three earlier decisions against labor in the last five years, including one that reversed a 40-year-old precedent. And the truckers' case posed the possibility that the court would overturn another longstanding precedent dating back nearly 70 years. So labor feared the worst: a decision that would hollow out the right to strike. Thursday's decision, however, was a narrow ruling that generally left strike protections intact.
For nearly 70 years, the Supreme Court has said that federal law gives the Board the authority to decide labor disputes as long as the conduct is even arguably protected or prohibited under the federal labor law.
The business community was gunning for, and hoping to eliminate, that rule. But it didn't get its way. This was a case of winning a relatively minor battle but losing the war. The high court did not overturn or otherwise disturb its longstanding rule giving the NLRB broad authority in labor disputes, leaving unions free to time when they will strike.
At the same time, the court's majority decided the case in favor of the company in a very fact specific way. The court ultimately said the union's conduct in this particular case posed a serious and foreseeable risk of harm to Glacier's trucks, and because of this intentional harm, the case should not have been dismissed by the state supreme court
There are 27 cases still to be decided by the court, as it enters what is usually the final month of the court term. And many of those cases will be highly controversial. In Thursday's case, though, the court, quite deliberately took a pass. If there is to be a major retreat on long-guaranteed labor rights, it will not be this term, and labor leaders were relieved.
"We are pleased that today's decision ... doesn't change labor law and leaves the right to strike intact," said Mary Kay Henry, president of the 2 million member Service Employees International Union.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
61 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Anyone notice the supremes ruling 8-1 yesterday on companies can sue striking workers. [View all]
Duncanpup
Jun 2023
OP
This isn't the 1970s. Unions, what's left of them, are pretty by the book now.
SunSeeker
Jun 2023
#59
The Union is not going to sabotage equipment they are going to need to make a pay check
Bluethroughu
Jun 2023
#24
...pleased that today's decision... doesn't change labor law and leaves the right to strike intact.
MayReasonRule
Jun 2023
#40
SEIU needs to get a backbone. Telling us "it could have been worse" is pitiful.
SunSeeker
Jun 2023
#51
Might That Be An Outlier? Or Is It Part And Parcel Of Their Pattern And Practice?
MayReasonRule
Jun 2023
#56
People just don't get how the "middle class" doesn't exist without collective bargaining.
jaxexpat
Jun 2023
#12
I worked in union shops for 35 years. I am a solid liberal Democratic voter
The Jungle 1
Jun 2023
#13
Labor Leaders Are Relieved This Doesn't Change Labor Law And Leaves The Right To Strike Intact
MayReasonRule
Jun 2023
#41
They didn't abandon fully loaded trucks without telling anyone. Glacier knew they were on strike.
SunSeeker
Jun 2023
#49
Important distinction needs to be made though. The ruling was not about suing employees FOR striking
Pacifist Patriot
Jun 2023
#26