Imagine you're a newly-unionized Starbucks barista, discussing whether to strike.
You've got lots to think about, but what you probably wouldn't expect to have to
consider is whether your union-busting boss, Howard Schultz,
is going to sue you for the impact of your strike on Starbucks, for
the coffee that gets wasted, or milk that goes sour, or
lost revenue from customers who get tired of waiting in line.
But if a Seattle concrete mixing company and the US Chamber of Commerce
get their way before the Supreme Court this year, that's the crazy
position that American unions are going to be in if they wanna strike.
>> That is correct.
The Supreme Court is poised to decimate the rights of hardworking
Americans who have unionized and who have decided to go on strike.
And the intention of that strike of course, is to add pressure to
the employers to engage in good faith in contract negotiations.
Now, there are costs associated for the employer in that regard.
And now the employer wants to be a to retaliate against the striking workers
by having those workers pay for the lost revenue during that strike.
There are more details on this.
Let's take a look at it and then I'll give you more details on the court case that is
making its way to the Supreme Court.
>> The case the Supreme Court is considering is called Glacier Northwest
versus International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local union 174.
And here are the facts.
After months of contract negotiations,
cement mixers at Glacier Northwest decided to go on strike.
They drove their trucks back to the company's headquarters and
walked off the job.
Workers left trucks that had already been loaded with cement running so
that the cement wouldn't instantly harden inside the truck's drums.
The strike lasted one week before the companies reached agreement on a new
contract.
The issue in this case revolves around what happened next.
The employer sued the Teamsters for
tortious destruction of the company's property.
Glacier asked a Washington state court to make the Teamsters pay for
damage to their trucks as a result of cement hardening after the strike began.
>> So, there are a few things to consider here.
Number one, when I say that the Supreme Court is poised to decimate the rights
of these unionized workers.
The reason why I say that is because when it comes to the Supreme Court justices
who happen to be appointed by conservative presidents.
They were intentionally appointed due to their pro-corporate views,
their pro-corporate anti-worker views.
Part of the reason why they were included on the Federalist Society's list
of candidates to be nominated to Supreme Court justices.
The other thing is, this would undercut the power of organized labor.
Because if you are part of a union and you and your colleagues, you and
your co-workers are thinking about going on strike, you're far less likely to do so
with the knowledge that the employer could then sue you, come after you for
any potential financial harm that was caused as a result of that strike, Cenk.
>> So, look, there is a situation where the workers could be liable,
I'm gonna explain the distinction here in which side this falls on.
But what the companies are doing,
and here is a twist is actually anti-capitalist, so I'II explains why.
So, now, in a situation where you're about to go on strike, if,
right before you go on strike, you smash all the equipment in your workplace, no,
you can't do that, okay, you'll be liable for that.
That makes sense, right, guys?
Now, but by the way, in the old days, it didn't really work that way.
In the old days, strikes were very physical and oftentimes violent.
And it's sending the Pinkertons to bust the heads of the guys on strike,
the guys on striker would strike back, etc.
And so but now corporations are so protected by the entire system,
they're like, our dude, how dare you.
So now, the part that doesn't make sense is you're not smashing equipment,
you walked out.
And the company is saying, well,
if you hadn't walked out I would have made more money, so now you owe me that money.
No, that's crazy, that's nuts.
And that's where it gets anti-capitalist because they're trying to
build through the Supreme Court a right to profit.
That's not a thing that exists.
And it is the opposite of capitalism.
In capitalism, it's a free market, and it's you compete, and
if you don't make it, you die, your business dies.
It's over, sad day for you.
And Right-Wingers and Republicans are supposed to celebrate that.
Hey, that's how the market works and
gets you the best results of the best companies, the best prices, etc, right?
Now, companies are saying, I don't like capitalism,
I like corporatism where I'm guaranteed a profit.
And if anyone messes with my profit for one second, they owe me.
Which by the way, they've done on an international level,
we talked about in other stories where they say if a government tries to protect
its environment or its workers, etc, they take in the international court and
say no, I'm owed profits cuz I have a right to absurd levels of profit.
There is no such thing, they're making it up, it's totally a fiction.
So, in this particular case, the dispositive fact, which by the way,
every court before the Supreme Court agreed with unanimously,
including in the last round is, well, I mean, they already loaded the concrete
was already loaded, the workers didn't do that.
It's just that when they went on strike,
they did everything they could to actually mitigate damages.
They're like, all right, we'll keep the thing going and
then let management deal with it if they can rescue that concrete,
they literally couldn't have done anything more.
And the company said, nope, not good enough,
management didn't do anything to rescue that concrete, but
you owe us the money anyway because we need to be guaranteed profit.
It's absurd.
>> It's interesting because on one hand, you have the corporate employers
acknowledging the critical nature of labor in order to make revenue to turn a profit.
So, they'll acknowledge it when it's convenient for
them in trying to retaliate against the workers for
exercising the leverage they have in this contract negotiation process, right?
But then they minimize the critical nature of labor when it comes to paying wages,
ensuring that the working conditions are safe for their workers.
It's really interesting how they'll kind of like change or
how fluid they are when it comes to the importance of labor depending on,
what the matter is and what the argument here is.
But make no mistake about it.
This is meant to do away with the leverage that the workers have.
Because again,
there's a form of intimidation here when if the Supreme Court and I, unfortunately,
think the Supreme Court will rule with the corporate employers here.
But if and when that happens, it sends a message to organized labor
to Teamsters to unions that should they go on strike again,
any of the financial cost that the employer incurs as a result of that will
be something that they are potentially liable for, should they get sued.
And we'll see what happens, I hate my prediction,
I think my prediction is correct but I hate it.
Because there were already successful efforts in dismantling labor unions in
this country, it happened under Taft and
I think that this could potentially be the nail in the coffin.
Which is why as much as I hate to say it, sometimes you do have to hold your nose
and vote for the lesser of two evils in presidential elections
because the president gets to nominate Supreme Court justices and
we now have three Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices who were on that list
by the Federalist Society specifically because they're pro-corporate and
anti-worker.
>> So, last couple of things here, first of all,
to Ana's point about the Supreme Court justices, we've told you many times.
To the justice got on there by saying, corporations can kill their workers.
So, Kavanaugh said that Seaworld when a worker was killed by a killer whale,
he signed up for it, no big deal, no liability at all, okay?
And then Gorsuch said that someone, if a company orders you to freeze to
death if you don't agree to freezing to death, they can fire you.
Literally you can look it up.
Every other judge disagreed, thought it was a maniacal decision, but
since those two raise their hands and said,
we think companies can kill their own workers and get away with it.
They got a one-way ticket to the Supreme Court.
So how do you think these guys are gonna rule?
And so, think about how economically devastating this is to the average worker
cuz if you go on strike they're gonna say now you owe us all the profit that we
would have made.
But how the hell are the workers gonna pay for that?
Especially when they're on strike?
Even considering this is lunacy.
>> I have to mention one other thing to wrap this up because listen.
The reversal of Roe,
as you can tell from my reaction to the reversal Roe on the show was a big deal.
And there was a lot of media attention to that issue.
There were a lot of Democratic politicians who were talking about it,
campaigning about it, drawing attention to it.
But this potential Supreme Court ruling which would have a severe negative impact
on labor in this country notice I don't hear any democrats talking about it.
>> Of course not.
Biden's been half okay to labor, which almost never happens
under a Democratic president in the last 50 years usually spit in Labour's face.
Obama did almost Clinton did right.
So Biden's National Labor Relations Board is pretty good.
And he's got a couple of quarter measures, right?
But don't get it twisted.
He didn't do any of the major pieces of legislation the unions wanted,
he didn't even come close.
Like he laughed a lot [LAUGH] we would do something, we promised you guys.
There's no way.
So, when the Democrat gives them like 5% of what they want and
you're just like, my God.
So, the reality is they own 100% of the Republican Party,
they own 95% of the Democratic Party and they own 100% of corporate media,
which includes mainstream media and Right-Wing media.
And that's why you never hear about stories like this cuz everyone in
power agrees.
Let's crush the workers, make them pay for everything, and
then take advantage of the average American to guarantee ourselves profits.
>> That's exactly right.