Unlike the nuclear plant example, the supreme Court case did not endanger lives. All it did was threaten profit. Big difference.
Unlike the nuclear plant example, the supreme Court case did not endanger lives. All it did was threaten profit. Big difference.
sj_zero 1 year ago
It specifically damaged property on purpose.
Your right to strike isn't a right to damage stuff that doesn't belong to you as a bargaining tactic.
ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 year ago
They didn’t damage property on purpose. They chose a time to strike that would maximize the impact to the employer. Glacier Northwest knew full well that their contract with the union was expired. Without a contract, labor is under no obligation to continue working if they do choose, no matter how inconvenient or costly. Management still chose to send out full cement trucks with non-contracted drivers who had every right to walk away at any time.
sj_zero 1 year ago
It's probably a good thing that the rest of the world doesn't think in this way.
Imagine if you hired a contractor to work on your kitchen, and the money ran out, and they left all your taps on with the drain plug in because they knew that that would damage your house. If a contractor did that, and cause damage to your house, of course they would be liable for what they just did. "We didn't damage your house, we just chose to stop working at the moment that would have maximum impact!"
Under virtually any other circumstance, nobody would have accepted that logic. Its probably unlawful, and it's definitely immoral.
ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Contractors can and do leave people with their water shut off and their electrical ripped out if they are not compensated sufficiently for their work. What the unions did is no different. All the business had to do is sufficiently compensate the workers to avoid the problem.