Striking just before the banana boat docks was a stevedore favorite.
The Captain
The Teamsters, the union in this case, allegedly timed a 2017 strike so that it would begin after some of Glacier Northwest’s mixing trucks were already filled with concrete, forcing the company’s non-union employees to race to dispose of this material before it hardened in the trucks. But the company was able to remove this wet concrete from the trucks before they were damaged, and there are a wealth of cases establishing that workers may strike even if doing so will cause some of their employer’s product to spoil.
What incentives (to use a word passed around freely in another thread) do unions have not to place the owners’ businesses in some kind of harm unless they accede to at least some of union’s demands? This seems to be a time-honored tradition between workers and management/owners when bargaining power is so lopsided and the way demands have been met in the past.
I’m sure those actions are now at risk, however, given the composition of the court. Will be interesting to see how this affects this cohort of voters - will economics finally trump social issues?
Pete
" In one such case, for example, a federal appeals court ruled that foundry workers who work with molten leadcould not abruptly walk off the job and leave the lead in a state where it could melt the employer’s facilities or injure other workers."
“As a practical matter, however, the exact scope of the right to strike (along with many other rights protected by the NLRA) is ill-defined.”
DB2
I’ll agree one shouldn’t threaten the destruction of company property. However, some jobs simply cannot just “stop the lines” in any sense of orderly fashion. Some things just HAVE to keep going. What then?
I work in hi-tech. I have very high job mobility in an industry that is LACKING in a qualified job pool. This is the fundamental reason why my industry has never been unionized (though there have been ramblings at least twice in my 30+ years). If I don’t like my situation I look for work elsewhere, because that endeavor will be fruitful.
I also worked a union factory job during college summers rather than intern. I’ve seen this work first hand. I know the people (albeit from the late 80s of course). They do not have the mobility that I have. But does that mean they should be treated like crap and given low wages and benefits? NO!
Well. If they couldn’t get the trucks cleared quickly enough, all those trucks would be out of commission for quite a while. And with the supply chain backed up, maybe parts and/or new trucks aren’t readily available. So that means no work at all for a while. And if very severe, the company may fold and they all have to find new work. That’s a pretty good incentive I think.
But you are not thinking from their perspective. Maybe they are fed up. Maybe they are at their last straw. Maybe they feel they have been treated poorly for so long that the nuclear option is viable to them.
As offered here, from time to time, the entire body of US labor law is open to debate, because there is no explicit language in the Constitution giving the government authority to inject itself into the labor/management relationship. Not only the entire body of law and regulation regarding unions, but the entire body of wage and hour laws could be overturned, if the court took an expansive view.
Steve
MAD for employment/business. Fine. But nobody wins that game.
This lead to one of my favorite MythBusters episodes of all time. The cement truck experiment/explosion.
And in another sort of union we see compensations increase.
“In the 102nd General Assembly that ends Jan. 10, base pay for legislators is $72,906 a year…If Senate Bill 1720 as amended is approved by the Senate and is enacted by the governor, starting with the 103rd General Assembly that begins Jan. 11, the base pay for part-time state legislators will increase to $85,000.”
DB2
Sounds like being a part-time legislator in Illinois can be pretty lucrative!! Do you have to be a resident to be a legislator? Or can I ZOOM in from MA? 
'38Packard
=> Never been a legislator before, but there’s always a first time for everything!
You do have to be a resident of your district for two years, but you don’t have to be a registered voter. One sees lots of cars with Florida license plates here in the upper Midwest, you clearly you can be a non-resident resident. I don’t know about voting on bills by Zoom (assuming you want to do more than just collect a paycheck).
DB2
You’re assumption is incorrect 
I don’t know about legislators in IL, but I’m pretty sure the ones in MA are only collecting a paycheck. I don’t see them helping me out too much
Maybe that’s because I’m no longer a “JC”.
'38Packard
=> MA is very pro-union BTW.
The University of Michigan football coach pulls in $7M/year.
Jamie Dimon apparently had trouble getting by on only $30M a year, so, for 22, the BoD gave him a bump to $80M.
Steve
Yes, but the coach doesn’t set his own salary.
DB2
This hinges on one thing. Did the “rule” get enacted by Congress? Or was the rule decided by an executive branch decision. If that latter the court will decide the “rule” is not valid.
This court is very consistent. Put all of it through congress if you want the law to stand up before the court as constitutional.
The sooner the American public gets that the more Congress over the coming years will do things. I applaud the courts approach. The pain the court is causing is miserable. The American public has been fooled for too long to believe just an admin can fix things as most of us want them.
He “negotiates” it, just like Jamie Dimon.
This is what the football coach at Michigan State makes:
the coach will make $5.9 million in base salary, $3.1 million in media appearances, $100,000 from school-negotiated apparel and a $400,000 annual retention bonus.
The Governor of the state of Michigan, someone with real responsibility, who can influence the lives of everyone in the state, makes $159,300.
The football coach at Alabama pulls down $10.95M/year
Steve
They may offer incentives, too.
Pete
It really doesn’t matter if it is a “rule” or a “law”. If an originalist SCOTUS decides it does not find explicit authority in the Constitution, the “law” is overturned just as easily as a “rule”.
Steve