“The Supreme Court ruled Thursday against unionized drivers who walked off the job with their trucks full of wet concrete… Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said the union failed to take reasonable precautions to protect the company’s concrete when the drivers went on strike. Barrett wrote that the drivers for Washington state-based Glacier Northwest quit work suddenly, putting the company’s property in ‘foreseeable and imminent danger.’… The decision united liberal and conservative justices in labor’s latest loss at the high court. The lone dissenter in the case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the ruling would hinder the development of labor law and ‘erode the right to strike.’” AP News
The left criticizes the decision, arguing that it is inconsistent with precedent and weakens the power of unions.
A libertarian's take
“Both Justice Jackson in dissent, and Justice Clarence Thomas in concurrence, draw attention to a curious 1959 Court precedent called San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon that has the effect of giving the NLRB a benefit of the doubt that ordinary federal agencies don’t get. While federal law generally preempts state law when the two conflict, in Garmon the Court ruled the NLRA preempts state law if the two even arguably conflict—a sort of super‐deference. [Justice] Jackson makes the most of this as a reason to defer to the Board, and writes at length about how Congress has chosen to entrust broad power to the Board given its specialized expertise…
“I have to say that the NLRB—a highly polarized panel that swings hard from one side to the other after the White House changes hands—would be one of my very last picks if I were asked to name an impartial federal agency guided by specialized expertise. Justice Thomas uses his concurrence to ask whether the odd Garmon preemption rule really makes sense, or should at some point be reconsidered by the Court. That’s a good question.”
Walter Olson, CATO Institute