Oh great (supreme court and unions) Glacier Northwest, Inc., dba CalPortland, Petitioner v.

[Deleted member 586536]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...latest-attack-on-unions-any-worse/ar-AA12XNSn
extreme Tl;dr
Supreme court is likely going to make it possible for companies to charge unions with losses from striking. This is among other likely, unpopular decisions from the conseritive supreme court , such as loss of gay marriage, contraceptives, being accepted rights.

 

[sombrerosonic]

Ngl i read these pol threads for the funnies. Lets see what Funnies will happen today

 

[tabzer]

The losses aren't from the striking itself, but the manner in how they chose to strike.

Say if I decided to strike in the middle of doing someone's delivery, after I had already taken the food--should I be responsible for the waste caused by my choice to abandon the delivery?

I think there is a difference between not showing up to a shift and abandoning a task in the middle of it (potentially malicious). This is the line that the case seems to be examining. Maybe there is worth in scrutinizing the difference between abandoning a shift and abandoning a task.

I don't even understand why SCOTUS is examining it to be honest. Is it because it is an interstate issue?

 

[Deleted member 114266]

I don't even understand why SCOTUS is examining it to be honest. Is it because it is an interstate issue?

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the NRLA preempted the local suit. And that the ability to strike is Federal law. This why it was moved to the Federal courts.

There's only speculation at what the court will decide. But this thread is just more misrepresented fear mongering.

 

[tabzer]

Thanks for mansplaining.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Say if I decided to strike in the middle of doing someone's delivery, after I had already taken the food--should I be responsible for the waste caused by my choice to abandon the delivery?

Leave it to you to create your own story of events so you can try to look good/smart.

In this specific case. If I had to use your own rhetorical argument but tweaked to actually fit what's going on.
It would be like being the delivery driver, returning the order back to the company/building, so it wouldn't get cold and thus, not destroying the product. And then having the company sue me for damages, because they couldn't find people to do the work for them, to deliver said food, which got old with time, and the customer wanted their money back.

The conservative court, is likely going to rule, that being responsible while striking, is too much. That saying "hey I'd like to not damage your goods, but I'm also not going to do the shit you asked me because of x reason that makes working for you bullshit. So have your shit back, it's undamaged, and find someone else to do the work."

 

[tabzer]

View attachment 334314
Leave it to you to create your own story of events so you can try to look good/smart.

In this specific case. If I had to use your own rhetorical argument but tweaked to actually fit what's going on.
It would be like being the delivery driver, returning the order back to the company/building, so it wouldn't get cold and thus, not destroying the product. And then having the company sue me for damages, because they couldn't find people to do the work for them, to deliver said food, which got old with time, and the customer wanted their money back.

The conservative court, is likely going to rule, that being responsible while striking, is too much. That saying "hey I'd like to not damage your goods, but I'm also not going to do the shit you asked me because of x reason that makes working for you bullshit. So have your shit back, it's undamaged, and find someone else to do the work."

You are an idiot. The situation is comparable. I'm sorry if it making me look smart is a problem for you. Waste was created because a task was abandoned. If you are hired for a job, why do you think it is reasonable to hire someone else to do your job in the event that you flake out?

 

[Deleted member 586536]

You are an idiot. The situation is comparable.

saying
"Say if I decided to strike in the middle of doing someone's delivery, after I had already taken the food--should I be responsible for the waste caused by my choice to abandon the delivery?"
is not comparable to
"Say if I decided to strike during a middle of someones delivery, I put the delivery back with the company/building, and tried to keep it safe and ready. And then the delivery became old because the company could not find someone to do my job"
But go on please, continue to be dishonest.
Because the workers that were striking, kept running the cement trucks. They didn't want to harden the cement or damage the truck. And they got sued for damages because the company couldn't find anyone to do the work for them, so they had to destroy the cement.

 

[tabzer]

saying
"Say if I decided to strike in the middle of doing someone's delivery, after I had already taken the food--should I be responsible for the waste caused by my choice to abandon the delivery?"
is not comparable to
"Say if I decided to strike during a middle of someones delivery, I put the delivery back with the company/building, and tried to keep it safe and ready. And then the delivery became old because the company could not find someone to do my job"
But go on please, continue to be dishonest.

It is very comparable. The major difference is that you think it is okay to agree to take a delivery, and then cancel after it's made. It would have been better if you didn't show up at all.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

It is very comparable.

sigh
Round 804,076.
Since you REALLY wanted to do this. I'll give a breakdown, and then I'm going to stop arguing with you since you can't win an argument with stupid.

It would have been better if you didn't show up at all.

Not your original argument.

I think there is a difference between not showing up to a shift and abandoning a task in the middle of it (potentially malicious)

this was your original argument. And I proved you it was not malicious, and I'll prove it a second time. And your additional statement proves that you thought it was malicious.

Say if I decided to strike in the middle of doing someone's delivery, after I had already taken the food--should I be responsible for the waste caused by my choice to abandon the delivery?

The way you phrased the statement sounded like the worker just threw the food onto the ground right out of their car.

This is false. Because the cement workers did what they could to preserve it. They didn't chuck it onto the ground. they didn't stop the cement truck, which would of resulted in more damage of the truck and the loss of costly cement.
It was AGAIN, the company couldn't find anyone to do the work for them. And they had to destroy it because they had no backup plan.

If there is 8 delivery people out and about, and all 8 say "fuck you, figure out how to deliver this for yourself" and they put the order in a warm place (for hot food) or a cold place (for cold food)
Then the responsibility falls onto the company, not the worker. The worker has the right to strike, and they carried their responsibilities by keeping the food safe in hopes someone else would do it for them. It wouldn't change if they didn't accept the order or not. Unless your telling me trying to avoid food waste is not responsible enough, and that they need to suck up to the corporate overlord and deliver it anyways, which is fucking stupid
Because there's plenty of strikes that occur because of something that happened during a job.

 

[tabzer]

Not your original argument.

It supports my argument. You are a liability if you think it is okay to abandon a task in the middle of it.

And I proved you it was not malicious, and I'll prove it a second time. And your additional statement proves that you thought it was malicious.

You didn't prove it wasn't malicious, and I don't know if it is malicious. Whether it was malicious or not was besides the point I was making.

The way you phrased the statement sounded like the worker just threw the food onto the ground right out of their car.

No it doesn't. This is literacy issue on your part, not mine.

If you think "keeping food safe" is the sole responsibility of a delivery driver, then that is your argument. I wouldn't bank on a court of rational people agreeing with you.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

You didn't prove it wasn't malicious, and I don't know if it is malicious. Whether it was malicious or not was besides the point I was making.

The cement workers could of:
1. Stopped the cement trucks, made the cement harden and destroy the vehicle
2. Dump all the cement or use it as a sculpture

All of these would be malicious. You know what isn't? Taking option number 3
Take the cement truck back the facility, keep it running, inform that you left it. And leave to strike.

I'm so sick of your "you can't know and I don't know so let's assume xyz" when we 100% know the cement workers actively avoided destroying the cement. Had you know, read the article.

It supports my argument. You are a liability if you think it is okay to abandon a task in the middle of it.

In a perfect world tabzer sure. No one would leave a job in the middle of it. But the world ain't that simple chief.
So it then becomes a question of "did they midigate or reduce all possible damage that is within their control within a reasonable degree when they left"

And the answer is yes. Unless you want to tell me tabzer. That the cement workers, taking back the trucks, and keeping them running. Simitanously putting in the hands of the company, and keeping the product in a undamaged state, that doing so is malicious.

Which to me, if I had to use your example. Is keeping the food safe, for someone else to do the job. It's not irreparably damaging or destroying it. It's not dumping it on the ground. It's not eating it. it's not poisoning it.

It is simply keeping it in a spot, at the facility, in a preserving location, for someone else, who's job it is to handle it.

And if they company can't find someone else to do the job. It's the companies problem.

No it doesn't. This is literacy issue on your part, not mine.

If you think "keeping food safe" is the sole responsibility of a delivery driver,

Here's tabzer trying to do another strawman because he can't make an argument against what I said.

If the delivery driver midway through decides to go on strike. His responsibility in that position, becomes preserving the product (the food) which would alivate him of the responsibility of it, and fall back to the company.

Now if you excuse me but I've already wasted plenty of time arguing with your disgenious ass, and I've grown old of it, so don't bother replying. I won't read it.

 

[chrisrlink]

It is very comparable. The major difference is that you think it is okay to agree to take a delivery, and then cancel after it's made. It would have been better if you didn't show up at all.

alright enough tabzer is the main reason i do not come to the political threads anymore he's a troll and a GOP tool newsflash the gop doesn't give a shit about the middle class and even worse people in poverty (like me) cutting life sustaining programs (SSI medicaid) is on their agenda if the gop wins majority and before you saay "get a job you lazy bum" you don't even know the stipulations when it comes to working with SSI (you basicly cant,you can't even do minimum wage without being smashed in the kneecaps by uncle sam)

 

[RaptorDMG]

I agree with tabzer if the workers show up, take a delivery and then don't deliver it and that results in the item becoming unusable (in this case due to being perishable) then the workers are in the wrong it would be better to say something like on the 28th we're going on strike so then the company knows not to create cement for that day or in the example with food not to cook a meal since you know the delivery workers are unavailable. Obviously if they knew in advance and still prepare the item and they have to dispose of it then that's on them.

 

[tabzer]

alright enough tabzer is the main reason i do not come to the political threads anymore he's a troll and a GOP tool newsflash the gop doesn't give a shit about the middle class and even worse people in poverty (like me) cutting life sustaining programs (SSI medicaid) is on their agenda if the gop wins majority and before you saay "get a job you lazy bum" you don't even know the stipulations when it comes to working with SSI (you basicly cant,you can't even do minimum wage without being smashed in the kneecaps by uncle sam)

@Nothereed is looking for a strawman, and this is it. The matter before the court, specifically on this issue, is a matter of liability and responsibility--not about your SSI. If unions are legally enabled to tank corporations by promoting workers to cause damage to businesses without protection, then SSI would decrease in its capability to "sustain life" as it is tied to the state of the economy.

The cement workers could of:
1. Stopped the cement trucks, made the cement harden and destroy the vehicle
2. Dump all the cement or use it as a sculpture

All of these would be malicious. You know what isn't? Taking option number 3
Take the cement truck back the facility, keep it running, inform that you left it. And leave to strike.

I'm so sick of your "you can't know and I don't know so let's assume xyz" when we 100% know the cement workers actively avoided destroying the cement. Had you know, read the article.




In a perfect world tabzer sure. No one would leave a job in the middle of it. But the world ain't that simple chief.
So it then becomes a question of "did they midigate or reduce all possible damage that is within their control within a reasonable degree when they left"

And the answer is yes. Unless you want to tell me tabzer. That the cement workers, taking back the trucks, and keeping them running. Simitanously putting in the hands of the company, and keeping the product in a undamaged state, that doing so is malicious.

Which to me, if I had to use your example. Is keeping the food safe, for someone else to do the job. It's not irreparably damaging or destroying it. It's not dumping it on the ground. It's not eating it. it's not poisoning it.

It is simply keeping it in a spot, at the facility, in a preserving location, for someone else, who's job it is to handle it.

And if they company can't find someone else to do the job. It's the companies problem.







Here's tabzer trying to do another strawman because he can't make an argument against what I said.

If the delivery driver midway through decides to go on strike. His responsibility in that position, becomes preserving the product (the food) which would alivate him of the responsibility of it, and fall back to the company.

Now if you excuse me but I've already wasted plenty of time arguing with your disgenious ass, and I've grown old of it, so don't bother replying. I won't read it.

First, I suggested that the action could be potentially malicious, not that it was or wasn't. It could be determined to be malicious, for example, if the strike was pre-planned and the workers mixed concrete to load it onto trucks with the intention of not delivering it. Your argument is that it wasn't malicious because they could have done something even more damaging, which is totally dumb and not proof of anything other than you being an idiot. Letting the house burn but returning the keys to the landlord isn't proof of non-maliciousness.

Second, my argument is that it doesn't matter if it is malicious or not. What matters is where the liability is, and that is the matter that the court is tasked to find. I can't claim what the courts will decide, but I personally am of the opinion that if you agree to do a task then you should do it. Maybe the workers are fulfilling all of their obligations. But what it looks like is that the delivery drivers caused the company to reasonably expect them to do the task of delivery, by accepting the position and showing up for work. Waiting for the concrete to be mixed and ready to be delivered before flaking out looks really shitty. It could very well be intentional and it could very well be unintentional. I never made the argument that keeping the trucks running is how they did damage, if you want to talk straw-man.

If there is anything to be gained here, it's from potential employers being able to see why no one should hire you, as you are a liability. SSI isn't going to stick around if the job market relies on people that think in the way you have demonstrated here. It's going to turn into a land of monopoly money and garbage product, if it hasn't already crossed that threshold.

If the delivery driver midway through decides to go on strike. His responsibility in that position, becomes preserving the product (the food) which would alivate him of the responsibility of it, and fall back to the company.

I completely disagree and think that you are better off talking to a therapist about that.

I agree with tabzer if the workers show up, take a delivery and then don't deliver it and that results in the item becoming unusable (in this case due to being perishable) then the workers are in the wrong it would be better to say something like on the 28th we're going on strike so then the company knows not to create cement for that day or in the example with food not to cook a meal since you know the delivery workers are unavailable. Obviously if they knew in advance and still prepare the item and they have to dispose of it then that's on them.

I honestly had high hopes of a consensus with this one.