LogFAQs > #973873247

Read through the SCOTUS opinions and yeah the majority is just legislating out of their asses here and KBJ is the only one who makes a rational case in her dissent.

The law is extremely clear that if it is even arguable that the Union is protected by the NLRA then the courts have to sit back and wait for the NLRB to investigate the case before proceedings continue - a clear statement of intent on the part of Congress that the heavy lifting and fact finding is meant to be handled by the NRLB and not the courts.

What the majority does is go, "Well, fuck that. We'll hijack the fact assessment from the NRLB so we can fuck over labor." They decide to accept the company's allegations while simultaneously dismissing the Union's rebuttals re: what actions the Union took regarding the wet concrete in the trucks and therefore conclude "Well, the Union didn't do enough to help the company out" and just start theorycrafting things they could have done instead - despite KBJ pointing out not only does precedent continuously show that workers are perfectly protected in their right to strike even if it's known that the company would lose perishable products because of the timing chosen.

Like the majority keeps coming back to, "But the Union just left the concrete in the trucks and oh my god those poor trucks, the company had to do miracle work to save them and jesus those trucks were innocent so fuck labor" and when presented with the Union stating they brought the trucks back to the company and left the barrels rotating to extend the amount of time the company had to act they go, "Well, why the fuck should we trust you? The company said not all the trucks came back and they seem like honest blokes." Meanwhile KBJ points out that - again - workers have a right to withhold labor and that the limitation of, "Workers can't affirmatively destroy property" refers not to things such as perishable goods (whether they be food, livestock, or in this case concrete) being lost because of a work stoppage and that again there is precedent on this - but that it instead means that the Union employees can't double back after striking and start sabotaging and says that unprotected actions would be more in the vein of slashing the tires on the trucks or just dumping the concrete themselves at random. And also that by the company's very nature there's basically never going to be a "good" time for them to strike under the majority's asinine view and points out the company had advance notice of two months that a strike was possible because it was required by law and they knew the bargaining talks had broken down so it's not like they could credibly claim to be blindsided by a strike.

Meanwhile Thomas and Gorsuch just want to gut the NLRA even more than the majority was willing to and Alito essentially writes a separate concurrence specifically to threaten the lower court now getting this case back that if they listen to KBJ who points out why this case should still be dismissed even taking into account what the majority said today that he (and implies the majority) would be willing to overturn them in record time so don't you dare listen to her.