THANK YOU

But it's not the same punishment? It's the same in that you might get sued for both but if you do $5 of Damages they can only sue you for $5 if you do 5 million of Damages they can sue you for 5 million

Ignoring the choice to not start the trucks? That's how the Teamsters fucked themselves.

Unions don’t have a Right to Break Stuff.

I like this response, sort of like “Malicious Compliance”.

As long as the union hadn’t previously agreed to specifically not do something like this, I’d look at it the same as if everyone got food poisoning from storing their lunch in the same fridge.

No individual is responsible for a negative group outcome as long as the group outcome wasn’t intentional. Each worker choosing to strike per the rules of putting tools down at a set time should not be punishable.

Dumping the beer would be intentional property destruction, not negligence or dereliction of duty, and thus a terrible example of the point you're trying to make.

imagine being a small business owner, like a brewer for example, who has struggled for the last 7 years to turn a profit and then your employees

Has there ever been an example of a small business owner whose 3 or 4 employees destroyed the company's property in the course of a strike?

If you can provide me with one example of something small like this happening - where employees of a small company of, say, less than 15 workers, formed a union, complained about their conditions, were ignored by an employer who barely turned a profit, and subsequently these workers destroyed property of any significance - then we can dive into whether this is a legitimate fear and whether any laws of protections can or should address such a scenario.

Because strikes are historically associated with huge companies where workers have little options for taking their skills and talents elsewhere. People don't strike at a mom and pop tiny store - they just leave it and find another one to work for. But you can't do that with a town coal mine or a railroad.

"intervening on behalf of private capital" often meant beating, jailing or killing workers, but yeah I guess that your made up analogy in which someone loses money is comparable.

then your employees just fucking dump all of your beer down the drains

Bu thats not what happened lol. They left the drums rolling in an effort to save the concrete and notified management.

Thats like brewery workers striking in the middle of fermentation and said "hey if you don't do something about this the beer is going to sour"

Are workers just never supposed to strike? Any strike is going to cause some loss thats literally the whole point...

"I don't understand how the world works so I respond to posts with salient points and well-documented information with clear analysis connecting historic trends with whiney platitudes proclaiming superiority of ideas without any evidence or addressing any of the points."

"I do this every time I see a post I don't like, then put down the user to feel good about my own shitty worldview."

I agree that socialists do this a lot... but this is specifically a legal case about unionized workers striking and the company suing. It's pretty explicitly a capitalist phenomenon.

How has capitalism reduced poverty in America in the last 10 years?

Another capitalist who feels sympathy for wealthy and powerful people and when the militias or national guardsman or cops come and use violence against striking workers you blame the striking workers for starting it.

This isn't an anti-union decision at all

It is literally and directly anti-union.

this is a decision about State Authority versus Federal Authority

The "federal authority" had been ruling for about 60 years that these cases should be reviewed by the NLRB and not tried in state court. The "state courts" are much less consistent. Why would the company want that and why would the Supreme Court decide to do that unless they wanted to increase the likelihood of an outcome that was less beneficial for unions and more advantageous for companies?

Stop shielding from the point by pointing to "state vs federal" issues. People said that shit about the confederacy. Yea, it was about "states' rights" but specifically and crucially it was about states' rights to enslave people, so miss me with this bullcrap.

There are states with more workers protections than the federal governments and there are states with less

Undermining federal protections literally is only ever intended to loosen the rules. If the Supreme Court decided to overrule the federal minimum wage and you proclaimed that the SC wasn't against low wages on the basis that some states have state minimum wages above the federal minimum wage you'd be just as big of a dipshit shill as you are on this issue. Why? Because the obvious outcome is that some states would lower their minimum wage below the previous federal minimum age (or their current state min wage would become active).

When you advocate for sovereignty/autonomy of certain jurisdictions (i.e. states vs fed gov) on topics where those jurisdictions have different standards, you are directly advocating for the lower of those standards.

The Supreme Court does not decide if a law is good or bad a state could decide to give the death penalty for jaywalking and the Supreme Court can't do anything about it because it's perfectly legal and constitutional

I'm quite certain the SC could rule a state law of executing a person for jaywalking unconstitutional on the basis of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the 8th amendment. They have long recognized proportionality.

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken about most of this.

Long history of companies hiring private militias and using direct violence against striking workers before some weak compromises came in. Unions got some weak protections to actually strike and corporations had to. . . . Stop murdering strikers with hired guns? And much of the 19th century gains were rolled back starting with Taft Harley.

So no, I don't think some complete anarchist approach here is so awesome, unless you want things to get so heated that frustrated parties resort to literal violence.

I think the state stepping in to protect collective bargaining helped stem the violence tremendously, but capitalists have been fighting that every step of the wat, and people become desperate the more their needs are ignored.

That’s not what happened here. The state isn’t intervening and the company isn’t lobbying the state. The company is suing the workers because they destroyed property out of negligence.

The state should stay out of it.

Coded phrase for "the state should not protect the rights of the people and just let the capital class have its way"

break stuff because they’re mad

My brother in christ they drove the trucks back to the facilities, kept the drums rolling to prevent damage from immediate drying of concrete, and then spme notified their managers.

Y'all are so far up the ass of billionaires you can't even reason through some basic series of events and weigh some decision points.

Socialists: damage someone else's property

So the truck drivers are automatically socialists because they are in a union?

Besides, they didn't set out to destroy property. I literally covered this in my post. They specifically went out of their way to minimize the damage that leaving their job on strike might incur by returning the trucks, leaving the drums rolling, and literally notifying managers about it.

The breakdown in negotiations is at least as much the fault of the capitalist owner(s) as it is the workers, the property damage was incidental, and the workers took steps to mitigate the damage.

You gotta at least meet us at the facts of the events.

Litigation happens at the extremes

I wouldn't necessarily say extremes. Maybe edge cases. But yes it's true that litigation is a small piece of the legal picture. Plenty of movement occurs with individual contracts over long periods of time that never get tried but become the de facto law.

You're not going to find an accurate view of capitalism here,

I could not disagree more strongly. It is the owners of capital who are paying for and arguing for the legal framework to push the law in their favor, and many things from the beginning began with assumptions for land owners, the original capitalists.

The shaping of intellectual property, corporate structure, and the necessary framing relationship to labor all have taken place in the domain of the law. It's extremely fascinating, important, and tragically overlooked (largely because of how wonky legal language is).