Should Union Strikers Be Allowed To Destroy Employer Property

[Independent thinker]

with no repercussions? Apparently most of the left seem to think so. But not the US Supreme Court.

Supreme Court sides with cement mixing company over striking workers in latest blow to unions

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a cement mixing company that seeks to bypass federal labor law and sue a union in state court for the destruction of property caused by striking workers.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Jessica-stormlover]

No of course not, but they do have a right to protest and to fight for their rights.

 

[Catsnmeters]

with no repercussions? Apparently most of the left seem to think so. But not the US Supreme Court.

Supreme Court sides with cement mixing company over striking workers in latest blow to unions

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a cement mixing company that seeks to bypass federal labor law and sue a union in state court for the destruction of property caused by striking workers.

www.yahoo.com

Most of the left?

You got a link for that claim?

 

[Rambunctious]

No of course not, but they do have a right to protest and to fight for their rights.

When did we as a nation exclude protest permits?... we used to have to have a permit to protest which states on the permit where you are allowed to gather and the times you are allowed to protest.. and its not on private property.... or on a public roadway or sidewalk during rush hour....

 

[Independent thinker]

No of course not, but they do have a right to protest and to fight for their rights.

LOL. When Trump says to fight light hell he is said to incite insurrectionists.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

with no repercussions? Apparently most of the left seem to think so. But not the US Supreme Court.

Supreme Court sides with cement mixing company over striking workers in latest blow to unions

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a cement mixing company that seeks to bypass federal labor law and sue a union in state court for the destruction of property caused by striking workers.

www.yahoo.com

Of course not.

Do you have a link supporting that MOST on the left think so?

 

[Hum Dinger]

Obviously, students should ONLY riot and destroy property after sporting events!

More UConn students arrested in riot after men's basketball team's NCAA title

University of Connecticut police have made two more arrests in the riot at the Storrs...

www.ctinsider.com

It's the American way!!!!

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

with no repercussions? Apparently most of the left seem to think so. But not the US Supreme Court.

Supreme Court sides with cement mixing company over striking workers in latest blow to unions

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a cement mixing company that seeks to bypass federal labor law and sue a union in state court for the destruction of property caused by striking workers.

www.yahoo.com

Who thinks so?

 

[Resnic]

If a union worker is on strike and damage property they should be immediately terminated before the cops even get the cuffs on them to take them to jail.

Being a pissy pants doesn't entitle you to damage someone else's property.

And this is a reason why unions are horrible, except police unions because those guys need all the backup they can get. Unions now turn workers into demanding snot nosed assholes that think a union means they can get skilled labor wages for non skilled labor jobs, that they deserve everything, will call off as much as they possibly can under any excuse they can and just abuse employers.

There are state and federal labor laws, there are armies of lawyers ready to sue over anything, if you don't like you're job the internet is there to find a million jobs allover the world, we have OSHA now and so on. Unions only exist to feed off of workers.

 

[d0gbreath]

They walked off the job on strike. Their trucks were still spinning, so the scabs were able to empty them out. Not a single truck was damaged. The contents were lost, I guess because the scabs couldn't actually deliver the product. How this got to the USSC suggests that all of the lower courts ruled against the company.

Up jump the supremes to lean on the unions. That's what a good, hard right-wing court does.

 

[g5000]

Should Union Strikers Be Allowed To Destroy Employer Property​

Well, it depends on what property you are destroying. If it's windows and doors at the Capitol, and smearing your shit on the walls, and bashing in the heads of policemen, not only is it okay, you will get a pardon from DeSantis or Trump and given a medal!

 

[lantern2814]

Well, it depends on what property you are destroying. If it's windows and doors at the Capitol, and smearing your shit on the walls, and bashing in the heads of policemen, not only is it okay, you will get a pardon from DeSantis or Trump and given a medal!

^^^ TDS Stage 4 on full display.

“Must.....make.......everything....about ......Trump....”
As well as spew more bullshit about Jan. 6. Pathetic derail attempt.

That said, arrest the goons destroying property and throw away the key. Being a union member doesn’t give you that right.

 

[ActionJackson]

with no repercussions? Apparently most of the left seem to think so. But not the US Supreme Court.

Supreme Court sides with cement mixing company over striking workers in latest blow to unions

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a cement mixing company that seeks to bypass federal labor law and sue a union in state court for the destruction of property caused by striking workers.

www.yahoo.com

Nobody should be able to destroy anyone's property. But if they're J6ers ... they should spend the rest of their lives in prison. If they're union workers, then they should do whatever they want. Just as some LibTard. He'll confirm.

 

[martybegan]

They walked off the job on strike. Their trucks were still spinning, so the scabs were able to empty them out. Not a single truck was damaged. The contents were lost, I guess because the scabs couldn't actually deliver the product. How this got to the USSC suggests that all of the lower courts ruled against the company.

Up jump the supremes to lean on the unions. That's what a good, hard right-wing court does.

It got to the USSC because the lower courts were interpreting the law basis of the NLRB wrong.

If you actually read the decision you would see the strike was called at a given time to deliberately harm the company's product AND vehicles.

 

[Independent thinker]

Of course not.

Do you have a link supporting that MOST on the left think so?

How did this make it all the way to the Supreme Court? Because leftists thought it was ok for strikers to destroy property.

 

[Independent thinker]

Who thinks so?

This made it all the way to the Supreme Court so, apparently, a lot of lefties think so. Otherwise it would have already been decided and done with in the lower courts.

 

[d0gbreath]

It got to the USSC because the lower courts were interpreting the law basis of the NLRB wrong.

If you actually read the decision you would see the strike was called at a given time to deliberately harm the company's product AND vehicles.

Doesn't the company 'get wind' of the pending strike? Don't they know exactly when it will take place beforehand? Of course they do. Should the union workers have striked at 3:00a?

No vehicles were harmed. None at all. I can see that, as the drivers wouldn't want to mess up their trucks, that they were hoping to return to after the company decided to increase their chicken feed?

 

[Independent thinker]

Well, it depends on what property you are destroying. If it's windows and doors at the Capitol, and smearing your shit on the walls, and bashing in the heads of policemen, not only is it okay, you will get a pardon from DeSantis or Trump and given a medal!

Have you looked in the mirror? That is what this thread is about.

 

[CowboyTed]

with no repercussions? Apparently most of the left seem to think so. But not the US Supreme Court.

Supreme Court sides with cement mixing company over striking workers in latest blow to unions

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a cement mixing company that seeks to bypass federal labor law and sue a union in state court for the destruction of property caused by striking workers.

www.yahoo.com

Good luck in court...

How is the union liable?

Have you proof of the union directing people to destroy property?

 

[easyt65]

with no repercussions? Apparently most of the left seem to think so. But not the US Supreme Court.

Supreme Court sides with cement mixing company over striking workers in latest blow to unions

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a cement mixing company that seeks to bypass federal labor law and sue a union in state court for the destruction of property caused by striking workers.

www.yahoo.com

Approved For Use Against Violent Destructive Union Workers:

Firehose
Tear Gas
Dogs
Rubber Bullets
Shotgun / Bean Bags
Tazers
Batons
Genital mutilation
Gender Re-assignmrnt Surgery for violent, destructive protestors rendered unconscious