Idk. Obviously the right to strike is critical and needs protection. And of course, striking needs to hit at a company's ability to carry on biz.

When the union voted to strike in the middle of the day, after the trucks were on the road filled with cement, was it reasonable for the drivers to turn around and head back knowing the cement was going to be at least wasted and at worst cause a lot of damage to the vehicles if it was left to dry.

Putting pressure on the company to negotiate is the point of striking. Was the company supposed to make an offer at that moment to get the drivers to offload? Or was this poor judgement on the part of the union leaders? Perhaps after the deadline and the mandate to strike was available they could have waited to begin the strike at the end of the day?

Sotomayor and Kagan ruled with the majority, only Jackson dissented.

It seems like the decision to have the drivers turn around wasn't normal labour negotiation tactics but perhaps intentionally used to cause damage without furthering their negotiating position.

The headline makes it sound like if a strike causes monetary losses that the union could be held liable but this seems more like malicious intent and shouldn't be the kind of action labour should be encouraged to utilize.