One of the primary purposes of the police is to be able to break labor uprisings. This is so wrong and should be prevented in the strongest way possible. What do you all think? Is the U.S. constitution able to restrict police?

People from outside the U.S., what do you think of this type of idea?

  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unlike the nuclear plant example, the supreme Court case did not endanger lives. All it did was threaten profit. Big difference.

    • sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        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. Management suffered from their own poor choices.

        • sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            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.

            • sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s a difference between leaving a job undone and leaving a job in a situation that’s going to cause damage. Contractor might leave the water off, they’re not going to leave the water on filling up a basement that doesn’t have any drainage.

              • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                They returned the cement trucks to the yard and left the drums turning. The owner had plenty of time to prevent damage. The strikers could have just parked the trucks wherever and turned off the drums so they solidified immediately. The owners got off lucky that they just wasted a bit of concrete. It’s no different than cooks walking off the line and the restaurant dealing with food spoilage because of it.