@Pat https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna77242

@JonKramer @Pat Okay, that article doesn't say what your OP says. It says they're liable for the damaged work product because they took affirmative steps to damage it (by loading their trucks and leaving it there) instead of safeguarding it.

That makes sense. If nuclear power plant workers walk off, they should be expected to shut it down first.

@LouisIngenthron @Pat affirmative steps to damage would be to douse it with gasoline and light it on fire. Use of the equipment as intended by the company, manufacturers, etc is not attempts to damage.

If you are fired, what is your responsibility to a company beyond returning equipment? You have to work for free for the company for even a single second? Strikes are a similar situation. As soon as a strike is on, and the company knows these are coming, you have no moral responsibility for company equipment. The SCOTUS has now said that an employee, on strike, has a legal responsibility. The company can and should have prepared for care of their own equipment. That isn't an employee's responsibility.

Your nuclear power plant example fails because the employees, and employers, both have legal and moral obligations that extend far past company equipment.

@JonKramer @Pat So a construction company employee going on strike should just leave the bulldozer running with the keys in? The frozen food truck driver can just turn off the truck and leave it somewhere to spoil the contents? The schoolteachers should quit and leave their classes unsupervised?

Concrete sets and does damage if not properly stored. Choosing to put it where they know it will cause damage before walking off without securing it is absolutely beyond simple striking.

Quitting/striking is legitimate. Kicking a hole in the wall on your way out steps over the line.

@LouisIngenthron @Pat if turning off the bulldozer causes some form of harm, yes. Leave it running. Turning it off would be direct harm against company equipment.

@LouisIngenthron @Pat you see, the striking workers did NOT turn off the frozen food truck. They returned it to the depot and left it in care of management, still running.

That isn't kicking a hole in the wall on the way out.

@LouisIngenthron @Pat , I am trying to think of other examples of quitting on the spot. I am not sure how familiar you are with Uber, but in the app, you can cancel a ride at any time. Some passengers do this during the ride in order to avoid paying.Does the driver have any responsibility to continue to drive the passenger?

If you are a trucker, and are hauling a load, and the company you are hauling for fires you in route. Do you still have to deliver your load at your expense??

@JonKramer @Pat There's a difference between being fired and choosing to quit/strike. In either of those examples, if the uber or truck driver decided to quit and just dumped their cargo/passenger where they were mid-route, yes, they should absolutely be liable for the harm that causes.

@LouisIngenthron @Pat It's two sides of the same contract. Labor doesn't have additional responsibilities that another individual doesn't. You meet the terms of the contract. If there is no contract, then there is no moral responsibility. If the uber driver has the right to terminate the contract in the middle of the ride, and does, then the passenger is out of the car. If you don't like that term in a contract, don't agree to it upfront if you are the passenger.

Simply put, if it isn't in writing, then it isn't the responsibility of either party.

@JonKramer

>"So the Supreme Court has ruled that if you strike, or your union strikes, you can be sued for any business costs or loss of business."

That statement you made, is not true.

Here's a link to the opinion issued by the SCOTUS in the case...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf

@LouisIngenthron

@JonKramer

Here's an excerpt from the opinion...

"Second, the Union argues that workers do not forfeit the NLRA’s
protections simply by commencing a work stoppage when the loss of perishable products is foreseeable, but this case involves much more than that. Given the lifespan of wet concrete, Glacier could not batch it until a truck was ready to take it. 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. "

@LouisIngenthron