Teamsters Still Not Entitled To Sabotage

One key element to the “social contract” between bosses & workers is that they’d treat each other fairly so it was no surprise Supreme Court AGAIN shot down Teamster sabotage. SURPRISE is having to remind union of the law.

So suggested WSJ in, “Union Sabotage at the Supreme Court” & subtitle Q, “Does federal law protect intentionally destructive labor strikes? Nope.” NOPE, striking workers are NOT protected “when they deceive an employer into making inventory that they intend to ruin,” as was the case in the recent 8-1 Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters ruling.

“Readers might be shocked,” the editors opined, “that this is a live question.” But, really? Not if they follow the woke left’s political agenda on any number of extra-legal issues they try to shoe-horn into legal issues. Writing for the majority, Justice Barrett didn’t have to explain the decision (although she did) & could easily have relied simply on the absurdity of the “mad” facts that stripped away any “defense” the union lawyers could (& did try to) argue. As the WSJ points out, Glacier Northwest sells concrete in Washington state. The company alleged the Teamsters intentionally called a work stoppage right “when the Union knew Glacier was in the midst of mixing substantial amounts of concrete, loading batches into ready-mix trucks & making deliveries.” On cue, 16 drivers refused to complete their deliveries while 9 abandoned their trucks without a word, as the concrete hardened inside the rotating truck drums.” As the editors marveled: The case “is worth highlighting because it’s another example of the wild things unions believe they’re entitled to do.”

Davd Soul