You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
SCOTUS Rules Against Teamsters Union
2023-06-02
[Yahoo News, hat tip to Epoch Times] The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dealt another setback to organized labor by making it easier for employers to sue over strikes that cause property destruction in a ruling siding with a concrete business in Washington state that sued the union representing its truck drivers after a work stoppage.

The 8-1 decision overturned a lower court's ruling that said the lawsuit filed by Glacier Northwest Inc, which sells and delivers ready-mix concrete, against a local affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters was preempted by a U.S. law called the National Labor Relations Act.

The Washington state Supreme Court in 2021 ruled that the company's claims were preempted by a statute called the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), saying the company's loss of concrete was incidental to a strike that could be considered arguably protected under federal labor law.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the ruling, said the union's actions had not only destroyed the concrete but had also "posed a risk of foreseeable, aggravated and imminent harm to Glacier's trucks."

"Because the union took affirmative steps to endanger Glacier's property rather than reasonable precautions to mitigate that risk, the NLRA does not arguably protect its conduct," Barrett wrote.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a 27-page dissent, wrote that the ruling "is likely to cause considerable confusion among the lower courts".
Posted by:Bobby

#8  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Fuck the Teamsters. Crooked and evil organization.
Posted by: DarthVader   2023-06-02 16:14  

#7  ...well given how many of those positions are being filled by 'Biden' people who neither know the text of the Constitution nor 'what is a women', I would understand the confusion anything may entail.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2023-06-02 15:41  

#6  Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a 27-page dissent, wrote that the ruling "is likely to cause considerable confusion among the lower courts".

Typed in crayon.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2023-06-02 15:23  

#5  They didn’t like the home protests and death threats.
Posted by: Super Hose   2023-06-02 15:19  

#4  The left side of the court has been swinging sort of moderate lately. Maybe they have seen some tea leaves the rest of us have not. Yet.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2023-06-02 15:08  

#3  The shock here is not that Brown dissented but that the other lefty justices concurred. There is hope!
Posted by: Tom   2023-06-02 15:01  

#2  Here is a clarification for lower courts: sabotage is not protected. Playing patty cake with BLM and ANTIFA is not Juris Prudence.
Posted by: Super Hose   2023-06-02 14:57  

#1  Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a 27-page dissent, wrote that the ruling "is likely to cause considerable confusion among the lower courts".
I think she is the only one confused.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2023-06-02 13:10  

00:00