By MATTHEW BROUILLETTE
On June 1, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174. The case in question concerned whether Glacier, a concrete company, could sue the Teamsters due to striking employees’ intentionally destroying Glacier’s property by leaving concrete running in trucks when the workers walked off the job site. In an overwhelming 8-1 ruling, the justices upheld Glacier’s right to sue.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted, “By reporting for duty and pretending as if they would deliver the concrete, the drivers prompted the creation of the perishable product. Then, they waited to walk off the job until the concrete was mixed and poured in the trucks. In so doing, they not only destroyed the concrete but also put Glacier’s trucks in harm’s way.”
The ruling reversed the decision of a lower court, which had applied the so-called Garmon doctrine, which basically says that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts state law, so labor disputes must be litigated before the National Labor Relations Board, rather than in the court system.
Justice Barrett wrote “that the NLRA does not shield strikers who fail to take ‘reasonable precautions’ to protect their employer’s property from foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger due to the sudden cessation of work.”
Multiple mainstream media outlets framed the ruling as a “defeat” for unions, calling it a “blow to organized labor” and predicting it “could chill labor strikes.”
Is it anti-union for unions to be held accountable for intentionally destroying property? Of course not – but unions have long deemed themselves to be above the law. And too often, lawmakers have agreed.
For example, for years a loophole in Pennsylvania law allowed parties in a labor dispute to “stalk, harass, or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction” without fear of consequence. In any other context, these actions are punishable under the state’s criminal code. But union disputes offered a free pass to menace others.
In 2015, Pennsylvania lawmakers ended this dangerous carve-out, over the objection of the state’s AFL-CIO.
The following year, the NLRB said that a company could not fire a picketing employee for shouting racial epithets to a group of replacement employees, many of whom were black. In any other scenario, this would be cause for dismissal, but unionism trumped antidiscrimination rules.
Ending these union exceptions shouldn’t be controversial. But the very fact that doing so prompts debate illustrates how some believe that unionism equals exemption from the laws that apply to everyone else.
One egregious exemption persists in Pennsylvania: the allowance that government unions – and only government unions – can use taxpayer-funded public-payroll systems to collect their political campaign contributions.
A fundamental doctrine of government ethics is that it’s illegal to use taxpayer resources for political purposes. Period.
But Pennsylvania allows the use of taxpayer dollars, which fund public payroll systems, to deduct both union dues and union political campaign contributions from government workers’ paychecks and send this money directly to union leaders. These union leaders then use the money for partisan political activities, including donating directly to political candidates.
No other private organization enjoys this privilege – and rightly so. Imagine if tax dollars were used to send contributions to the political-action arms of the NRA or Planned Parenthood. While individuals are free to contribute to these and other causes they support, private organizations are not permitted to use tax dollars to run their campaign fundraising operations.
So far this year, four states – Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee – have enacted legislation ending this union loophole.
In Pennsylvania, Republican state Rep. Ryan Mackenzie of Lehigh County has introduced HB357, which would do the same here and finally ensure that unions are required to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Thankfully, unions can no longer intentionally destroy property without consequence. And unions can no longer stalk, harass, or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction as part of a labor dispute.
Now it’s time to ensure that unions can no longer use taxpayer dollars for their political activism.
Because no one – union leaders included – should be above the law.
Prior to founding Commonwealth Partners in 2016, Matthew Brouillette served as president & CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives for 14 years. This article was originally published by RealClearPennsylvania and made available via RealClearWire.
Unions in the 1940s did some good. Unions now are down right evil.
Please prove your first statement.
Finally! Unions too often vilify and do harm to employers that fail to hop to it when they want some concession. It happens in Alaska too.
Like anything else in the world of organizations, there are bad and good. A few bad apples always spoil the bunch. Let’s not group all unions into one evil cartel. If there are unions you don’t like, name them out individually.
Found the liberal. Unions are unequivocally an aspect of communism and should be abolished. No union is a good union.
That’s not quite accurate. Trade guilds have existed since ancient times, as associated mercahants and craftsmen banded together to make common cause on skill qualifications, apprenticeships, worker’s rights and expectation of duties, and even healthcare. These existed in ancient India, Roman society, and medieval Europe. Labour Unions were also formed in 1810s England. All of these things predate communism. Saying that unions are tantamount to communism is like saying that literacy initiatives are communistic. No transitive property between historic voluntary unionism and mandatory governent conscription in communist regimes should be taken seriously, and any such argument betrays a shallow understanding of 2000 years of economic history. The argument you are looking for (which has been offered on this very site) is that working people make too luch money and are offered social services and a decadent lifestyle they don’t deserve. If one doesn’t create enough value to society to generate enough capital to earn seven figures in income and hold eight figures in net worth, they should have their income reduces, not increased. Collective bargaining and worker solidarity predate communism, but they nonetheless should be crushed by the capitalist ownership class. The simplest way to do this is to democratically elect a pure conservative legislature and outlaw economic collusion by anyone classified as an employee. As Chris Rock says: “If you aren’t helping count the money at the end of the day, you work *for* someone, not *with* someone.” Unions infringe upon the Liberty of the ability to own a business, and lazy, poorly performing, and insolent employees shpuld not be legally allowed to have any protections. The solution to the so-called labour movement is to fire more people, not less. Banning unions will bring that closer to reality. But let’s not pretend that Karl Marx wrote a book and then suddenly unions existed and were 100% pure communism because reasons.
Yea I’m not reading a block of liberal propaganda
I don’t think you are smart enough to comprehend it, sport. Even small children understand that “i don’t like a thing” does not automatically make that thing liberal. But you do you. You sound like a 5 year old screaming that vegetables are communism and didn’t even exist until Obama invented them. Good luck with all that.
So, in your opinion, since unions predate communism, they are a completely separate issue? I guess communists can never take over useful entities like unions and use them against us?
Sorry. Unions have historically provided the communist party with a ready trained group of apparatchiks. (thanks, MA, for the word call up)
“No union is a good union.”
Marriage is a union of two people. You are apparently anti-marriage.
The United States of America is a union of 50 states. You are apparently anti-American.
Way to make up an unrelated argument and claim it applies to unrelated cases. Liberal tactics.
I often wonder what the budget of anchorage unions is. A guess is $10M or more and how much is their contribution to Planned Parenthood.
If you include their trusts and such it is many multiples of $10MM.
Why should any entity be considered above the law. I think we are a lawsuit happy society right now but, legally speaking, if a person or organization brings harm to people or property, why would they be shielded from legal actions in response?
There is no way I’d allow the operators who did that to operate my trucks later. That should be part of the suit against the union. Those guys need to be history.
I hope that stores team up to sue Seattle Dock Workers for any spoilage on fresh foods if they go on strike.
Dirty pool. That’s how they roll! And “they” need to get the hell out of our elections as well.
Well said! And that “no one” includes Donald J. Trump.
The school bus union did this same thing less than a year ago in the Matsu, instead of concrete they used children. This isn’t a tactic that thinking people use, this is a tactic of terrorists or idiots.
Unions are organizations in which everyone marches in lock-step. Their members are largely made up of people unable or unwilling to think for themselves and who need to have someone wipe their noses every time they sneeze. Unions and communism are synonymous.
Unions are economic terrorist organizations. Besides this, a good example was the recent ferry workers strike in Alaska. Timed for the peak of tourist season to cause as much pain and financial loss as possible. Unions suck.
Comments are closed.