Labor and Jobs

More stories

  • 100 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    UPS Workers Authorize Teamsters Union to Call Strike

    by

    A walkout is possible after the contract for more than 325,000 workers expires this summer. Negotiations began in April but have yet to resolve pay.United Parcel Service workers have authorized their union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, to call a strike as soon as Aug. 1, after the current contract expires, the Teamsters announced Friday.The Teamsters represent more than 325,000 UPS employees in the United States, where the company has nearly 450,000 employees overall. The union said 97 percent had voted in favor of strike authorization.Many unions hold such votes to create leverage at the bargaining table, but a much smaller percentage end up following through. “The results do not mean a strike is imminent and do not impact our current business operations in any way,” UPS said in a statement, adding that it was “confident that we will reach an agreement.”A UPS strike could have significant economic fallout. The company handles about one-quarter of the tens of millions of parcels shipped each day in the United States, according to the Pitney Bowes Parcel Shipping Index. And while UPS’s competition has grown in recent years, rivals would be hard-pressed to replace that lost capacity quickly, leaving some customers in the lurch and others facing higher costs.“What happens when you try to stuff 25 percent more food into a stomach that’s 90 percent full?” said Alan Amling, a fellow at the University of Tennessee’s Global Supply Chain Institute and a former UPS executive.The two sides have reached tentative agreements on a number of issues since they began negotiating a national contract in April, most recently on heat safety, including a requirement for air conditioning in new trucks beginning in January and additional fans and venting for existing trucks.But the negotiators have yet to tackle pay increases, which the Teamsters say are overdue amid the company’s strong pandemic-era performance. The company’s adjusted net income increased by more than 70 percent from 2019 to last year.The union has also focused on revisiting pay disparities for a category of driver who typically works on weekends.The UPS chief executive, Carol Tomé, who started in that position in 2020, said on a recent earnings call that UPS was aligned with the union on “several key issues.” She added that outsiders should not put too much stock in the “great deal of noise” that was likely to arise during the negotiation.Looming over the talks is the political standing of the Teamsters’ leader, Sean O’Brien, who during his campaign for the union’s presidency in 2021 repeatedly accused his predecessor, James P. Hoffa, of being overly conciliatory toward employers.Mr. O’Brien complained that Mr. Hoffa had essentially forced a concessionary contract onto UPS workers in 2018 after union members voted down the deal. He criticized his opponent for the presidency, a Hoffa-aligned candidate, for being unlikely to strike.“You already conceded that in your 25-year career, you only struck six times, so UPS knows you’re not going to strike,” Mr. O’Brien said at a candidates’ debate.Mr. O’Brien has largely maintained his aggressive stance on UPS since taking over as president last year. Speaking in October to activists with Teamsters for a Democratic Union, a reformist group that backed his candidacy, Mr. O’Brien vowed that “this UPS agreement is going to be the defining moment in organized labor.”Compensation for UPS drivers is generally higher than pay at the company’s competitors. UPS said that the average full-time delivery driver with four years’ experience makes $42 an hour, and that part-time workers who sort packages make $20 an hour on average after 30 days.The groups receive the same benefits package, which includes health care and pension contributions and is worth about $50,000 a year for full-time drivers, the company says.Beyond overall pay levels, the union has said it wants to eliminate a category of driver created under the 2018 contract.The company said the category was intended for hybrid workers who performed jobs like sorting packages on some days while driving on other days, especially Saturdays, to address the growing demand for weekend delivery.But the Teamsters said these workers never followed the hybrid arrangement and simply drove full time from Tuesday to Saturday, for less pay than other full-time drivers. The company says that the weekend drivers make about 87 percent of the base pay of regular full-time drivers, and that some employees have worked under a hybrid arrangement.In the event of a strike, deliveries to consumers, such as e-commerce orders, would probably be among the first to be disrupted. But experts said the supply chain could suffer, too. Some suppliers would struggle to quickly ship goods like automotive parts to manufacturers, potentially causing production slowdowns.Even a short strike could take a toll on UPS. Many customers long relied exclusively on the company, but that started to change after the Teamsters last went on strike in 1997, Mr. Amling said. After that strike, which lasted just over two weeks, more customers began to work with multiple carriers. The consequences were masked by gains from the rise of e-commerce and fewer competitors to choose from, but the company may not be so fortunate today.Niraj Chokshi More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    West Coast Dockworkers Reach Contract Deal With Port Operators

    by

    After a year of prolonged negotiations that have led to delays and declines in cargo, the two sides agreed to a new contract with help from the Biden administration.After a year of contract negotiations that resulted in numerous delays and a decline in the movement of cargo at ports along the West Coast, union dockworkers and port operators have reached a tentative deal set to last for six years.In a joint statement released late Wednesday, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the Pacific Maritime Association announced a tentative agreement on a new contract that covers 22,000 workers at 29 ports from San Diego to Seattle, some of the busiest in the world.Details about the agreement, which is expected to be formally ratified by both sides, were not immediately released.President Biden, who stepped in last year to urge a swift resolution, released a statement congratulating both parties for reaching an agreement “after a long and sometimes acrimonious negotiation.”“As I have always said, collective bargaining works,” Mr. Biden said. “Above all I congratulate the port workers, who have served heroically through the pandemic and the countless challenges it brought and will finally get the pay, benefits, and quality of life they deserve.”Mr. Biden also thanked Julie Su, the acting U.S. labor secretary, for assistance in finalizing the deal.The outcome on Wednesday somewhat mirrored past negotiations between the two sides. In 2015, as negotiations went on for nine months, officials in the Obama administration intervened amid work slowdowns and increased congestion at ports.The protracted negotiations between the union and the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents the shipping terminals, have focused on disagreements over wages and the expanding role of automation.In recent weeks the Longshore and Warehouse Union, or the I.L.W.U., has staged a series of work slowdowns at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which in recent months have lost sizable business to ports along the Gulf and East Coasts. Cargo processing at the Port of Los Angeles, a key entry point for shipments from Asia, was down roughly 40 percent in February, compared with the year before.Recently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote a letter to Mr. Biden urging the administration to intervene immediately in the negotiations and appoint an independent mediator to help the two parties reach an agreement.Matthew Shay, president of the National Retail Federation, said the ongoing delays and disruptions have had a negative impact on retailers and other stakeholders who rely on the West Coast ports for business operations.“As we enter the all-important peak shipping season for holiday merchandise, retailers need a seamless flow of containers through the ports and to their distribution centers,” Mr. Shay said.On Wednesday, Gene Seroka, head of the Port of Los Angeles, said in a statement that the tentative agreement between the I.L.W.U. and the Pacific Maritime “brings the stability and confidence that customers have been seeking.”Matt Schrap, chief executive of the Harbor Trucking Association, a trade group for transportation companies serving West Coast ports, said his organization is eager for cargo traffic to return to normal soon.“We need the certainty,” he said. “This has been a long, hard process.” More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Generative A.I. Can Add $4.4 Trillion in Value to Global Economy, Study Says

    by

    The report from McKinsey comes as a debate rages over the potential economic effects of A.I.-powered chatbots on labor and the economy.“Generative artificial intelligence” is set to add up to $4.4 trillion of value to the global economy annually, according to a report from McKinsey Global Institute, in what is one of the rosier predictions about the economic effects of the rapidly evolving technology.Generative A.I., which includes chatbots such as ChatGPT that can generate text in response to prompts, can potentially boost productivity by saving 60 to 70 percent of workers’ time through automation of their work, according to the 68-page report, which was published early Wednesday. Half of all work will be automated between 2030 and 2060, the report said.McKinsey had previously predicted that A.I. would automate half of all work between 2035 and 2075, but the power of generative A.I. tools — which exploded onto the tech scene late last year — accelerated the company’s forecast.“Generative A.I. has the potential to change the anatomy of work, augmenting the capabilities of individual workers by automating some of their individual activities,” the report said.McKinsey’s report is one of the few so far to quantify the long-term impact of generative A.I. on the economy. The report arrives as Silicon Valley has been gripped by a fervor over generative A.I. tools like ChatGPT and Google’s Bard, with tech companies and venture capitalists investing billions of dollars in the technology.The tools — some of which can also generate images and video, and carry on a conversation — have started a debate over how they will affect jobs and the world economy. Some experts have predicted that the A.I. will displace people from their work, while others have said the tools can augment individual productivity.Last week, Goldman Sachs released a report warning that A.I. could lead to worker disruption and that some companies would benefit more from the technology than others. In April, a Stanford researcher and researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released a study showing that generative A.I. could boost the productivity of inexperienced call center operators by 35 percent.Any conclusions about the technology’s effects may be premature. David Autor, a professor of economics at M.I.T. cautioned that generative A.I. was “not going to be as miraculous as people claim.”“We are really, really in the early stage,” he added.For the most part, economic studies of generative A.I. do not take into account other risks from the technology, such as whether it might spread misinformation and eventually escape the realm of human control.The vast majority of generative A.I.’s economic value will most likely come from helping workers automate tasks in customer operations, sales, software engineering, and research and development, according to McKinsey’s report. Generative A.I. can create “superpowers” for high-skilled workers, said Lareina Yee, a McKinsey partner and an author of the report, because the technology can summarize and edit content.“The most profound change we are going to see is the change to people, and that’s going to require far more innovation and leadership than the technology,” she said.The report also outlined challenges that industry leaders and regulators would need to address with A.I., including concerns that the content generated by the tools can be misleading and inaccurate.Ms. Yee acknowledged that the report was making prognostications about A.I.’s effects, but that “if you could capture even a third” of what the technology’s potential is, “it is pretty remarkable over the next five to 10 years.” More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Labor Board, Reversing Trump-Era Ruling, Widens Definition of Employee

    by

    The National Labor Relations Board, with a Democratic majority, restored a standard that counts more workers as employees rather than contractors.Labor regulators issued a ruling on Tuesday that makes it more likely for workers to be considered employees rather than contractors under federal law.Overturning a ruling issued when the board was under Republican control, the decision effectively increases the number of workers — like drivers, construction workers or janitors — who have a federally protected right to unionize or take other collective action, such as protesting unsafe working conditions.The ruling ensures that “workers who seek to organize or exercise their rights under the National Labor Relations Act are not improperly excluded from its protections,” said a statement by Lauren McFerran, the Democratic chairman of the labor board, which voted 3 to 1 along party lines to broaden the standard.Determining whether a worker is an employee or a contractor has long depended on several variables, including the potential employer’s control over the work and provision of tools and equipment.In 2019, when the board was controlled by appointees of President Donald J. Trump, it elevated one consideration — workers’ chances to make more money based on their business savvy, often described as “entrepreneurial opportunity” — above the others. It concluded that such opportunities should be a key tiebreaker when some factors pointed to contractor status and others indicated employment.In its decision in 2019, the board said that a ruling during the Obama administration had improperly subordinated the question of moneymaking opportunities.That 2019 ruling appeared to be a victory for gig companies like Uber and Lyft, whose supporters have argued that ride-share drivers should be considered contractors in part because of the opportunities they have for potential profit — say, by determining which neighborhoods to work in.The latest decision returned the board to the standard laid out in the Obama era, explicitly rejecting the elevation of entrepreneurial opportunity above other factors.The turnabout was criticized on Tuesday by businesses that rely heavily on contractors. In a statement, Evan Armstrong, chair of the Coalition for Workforce Innovation, which represents companies like Uber and Lyft as well as industry trade groups, said that the ruling “decreases clarity and threatens the flexible independent model that benefits workers, consumers, entrepreneurs, businesses and the overall economy.”Some labor experts, however, say it is not clear that gig companies like Uber and Lyft, which set the prices that passengers pay, provide drivers with enough bona fide entrepreneurial opportunity to qualify them as contractors even under the old standard.In his dissent, Marvin E. Kaplan, the board’s lone Republican member, made a version of this argument, concluding that the workers in the case before the board — wig, hair and makeup stylists who work with the Atlanta Opera — “have little opportunity for economic gain or, conversely, risk of loss.”As a result, he agreed with the board’s majority that the stylists should be considered employees who have the right to unionize.But Mr. Kaplan wrote that the lack of entrepreneurial opportunities meant that the stylists should have been considered employees even under the Trump-era standard, and that there was no need to alter it. More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    As the Fed Meets, It Shares an Inflation Problem With the World

    by

    Inflation is stubborn across a range of economies. Given its staying power, investors expect the Fed to pause rate moves only temporarily.The Federal Reserve on Wednesday is expected to stop raising interest rates for the first time in 11 policy meetings. But investors are betting that the pause will not last.The pattern of stopping and then restarting rate increases is becoming well-established around the world. The Reserve Bank of Australia paused its own campaign earlier this year only to raise rates again twice, including last week. The Bank of Canada had left rates unchanged for four months before raising them again in a surprise move on June 7.That’s because inflation is proving stubborn. Across a range of economies, from Melbourne to Munich to Miami, it has been hard to stamp out. Many central banks are contending with price increases that are only moderating slowly, propped up by higher service costs, which include things like concert tickets, rent and hotel rooms.“Everyone has a kind of similar problem,” said William English, a former Fed staff member who is now at Yale University, noting that policymakers in Britain and the eurozone are facing inflation problems that have a lot in common with the Fed’s. The European Central Bank’s policymakers also meet this week, and they are expected to continue raising rates.Policy may be tougher to predict in the months ahead as officials try to judge whether interest rates are high enough to ensure that their economies slow enough to restrain price increases.“We’re into the period where we’re kind of groping a bit,” Mr. English said. “It’s going to be a period of considerable uncertainty.”

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Central bank policy rates
    Source: FactSetBy The New York TimesThe Fed has already raised rates sharply over the past 15 months, to just above 5 percent as of May, and those higher interest rates are trickling through the economy. In recent speeches, Fed officials have hinted that they could soon “skip” a rate increase to give themselves time to assess the effects of their changes so far, and investors are betting that Fed officials will hold policy steady at their meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday before lifting rates one more time in July. But those forecasts are uncertain: Traders typically have a fairly clear idea of what the Fed might do heading into its meetings, but this time markets see a small but real chance that U.S. central bankers will raise rates this week.The doubt partly owes to the fact that the Fed will receive an important inflation reading, the Consumer Price Index, on Tuesday. But it also reflects what a fraught time this is for economic policy in the United States and around the world.This is the worst inflationary episode in America and many of its peer economies since the 1970s and 1980s, so it has been a long time since the world’s policymakers contended with the issue. And while inflation has been fading, it has also demonstrated staying power.In the United States and elsewhere, inflation started in goods like cars and furniture but has moved into services like airfares, education and haircuts. That’s concerning because price increases for services tend to be driven by broad economic trends rather than one-off supply problems, and can be more lasting.“Services price inflation is proving persistent here and overseas,” Philip Lowe, the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, said in a speech explaining the central bank’s surprise move last week.Fed officials have been fretting that today’s price increases could prove sticky.Wage gains remain fairly rapid, which could limit how quickly prices fall as employers try to cover climbing labor bills. And while slowing rent increases should cool overall inflation, some economists have questioned whether that will be enough to steadily lower inflation.“A rebound in the housing market is raising questions about how sustained those lower rent increases will be,” Christopher Waller, a Fed governor who often favors higher interest rates, said in a recent speech.At the same time, central bankers want to avoid plunging the economy into a recession that is more painful than necessary.That is why the Fed may hit pause this week. Officials are aware that monetary policy takes months or years to have its full effect. And recent bank turmoil could further slow down lending and spending, a situation officials are still monitoring.“Anecdotally, it’s not really that bad — but we don’t have even enough survey data,” said Yelena Shulyatyeva, senior U.S. economist at BNP Paribas. For more evidence, she will be watching a Dallas Fed bank survey this month.Still, after Australia and Canada increased rates last week, investors asked: Could this mean that the Fed, too, would be more aggressive than expected?“It is a mistake to make simplistic comparisons,” Krishna Guha, head of the global policy and central bank strategy team at Evercore ISI, said, noting that the Fed still seemed likely to pause in June while teeing up a possible move in July. While the rate increases abroad underscored that inflation is proving sticky globally, he said, that’s no surprise.“We know that inflation has been frustratingly slow to come down,” he said. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Economy’s Staying Power Poses Big Questions for the Fed

    by

    The Federal Reserve has been trying to slow growth without tanking it. Now, officials must ask if inflation can cool amid signs of resilience.Employers are hiring rapidly. Home prices are rising nationally after months of decline. Consumer spending climbed more than expected in a recent data release.America’s economy is not experiencing the drastic slowdown that many analysts had expected in light of the Federal Reserve’s 15-month, often aggressive campaign to hit the brakes on growth and bring rapid inflation under control. And that surprising resilience could be either good or bad news.The economy’s staying power could mean that the Fed will be able to wrangle inflation gently, slowing down price increases without tipping America into any sort of recession. But if companies can continue raising their prices without losing customers amid solid demand, it could keep inflation too hot — forcing consumers to pay more for hotels, food and child care and forcing the Fed to do even more to restrain growth.Policymakers may need time to figure out which scenario is more likely, so that they can avoid either overreacting and causing unnecessary economic pain or underreacting and allowing rapid inflation to become permanent.Given that, investors have been betting that Fed officials will skip a rate increase at their meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday before lifting them again in July, proceeding cautiously while emphasizing that pausing does not mean quitting — and that they remain determined to bring prices under control. But even that expectation is increasingly shaky: Markets have spent this week nudging up the probability that the Fed might raise rates at this month’s meeting.In short, the mixed economic signals could make Fed policy discussions fraught in the months ahead. Here’s where things stand.Interest rates are much higher.Interest rates are above 5 percent, their highest level since 2007.

    Source: Federal ReserveBy The New York TimesAfter sharply adjusting policy over the past 15 months, key officials including Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, and Philip Jefferson, President Biden’s pick to be the next Fed vice chair, have hinted that central bankers could pause to allow themselves time to judge how the increases are affecting the economy.But that assessment remains a complex one. Even some parts of the economy that typically slow when the Fed raises rates are demonstrating a surprising ability to withstand today’s interest rates.“It’s a very complicated, convoluted picture depending on which data points you are looking at,” said Matthew Luzzetti, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank, noting that overall growth figures like gross domestic product have slowed — but other key numbers are holding up.House prices are wiggling.Higher interest rates can take months or even years to have their full effect, but they should theoretically work pretty quickly to begin to slow down the car and housing markets, both of which revolve around big purchases made with borrowed cash.That story has been complicated this time. Car buying has slowed since the Fed started raising rates, but the auto market has been so undersupplied in recent years — thanks in large part to pandemic-tied supply chain problems — that the cool-down has been a bumpy one. Housing has also perplexed some economists.

    Note: Data is seasonally adjusted.Source: S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Index, via
    S&P Global IntelligenceBy The New York TimesThe housing market weakened markedly last year as mortgage rates soared. But rates have recently stabilized, and home prices have ticked back up amid low inventory. House prices do not count directly in inflation, but their turnaround is a sign that it’s taking a lot to sustainably cool a hot economy.Job signals are confusing.Fed officials are also watching for signs that their rate increases are trickling through the economy to slow the job market: As it costs more to fund expansions and as consumer demand slows, companies should pull back on hiring. Amid less competition for workers, wage growth should moderate and unemployment should rise.Some signs suggest that the chain reaction has begun. Initial claims for unemployment insurance jumped to the highest level since October 2021 last week, a report on Thursday showed. People are also working fewer hours per week at private employers, which suggests bosses aren’t trying to eke so much out of existing staff.

    Notes: Data is seasonally adjusted and includes hours worked by full- and part-time private sector employees.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesBut other signals have been more halting. Job openings had come down, but edged back up in April. Wages have been climbing less swiftly for lower-income workers, but gains remain abnormally rapid. The jobless rate climbed to 3.7 percent in May from 3.4 percent, but even that was still well shy of the 4.5 percent that Fed officials expected it to hit by the end of 2023 in their latest economic forecasts. Officials will release fresh projections next week.

    Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesAnd by some measures, the labor market is still chugging. Hiring remains particularly strong.“Everyone talks as if the economy moves in one straight line,” said Nela Richardson, chief economist at ADP. “In actuality, it’s lumpy.”Price increases are stubborn.Still, inflation itself may be the biggest wild card that could shape the Fed’s plans this month and over this summer. Officials forecast in March that annual inflation as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditures index would retreat to 3.3 percent by the end of the year.That pullback is gradually happening. Inflation stood at 4.4 percent as of April, down from 7 percent last summer but still more than double the Fed’s 2 percent goal.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Year-over-year percentage change in the Personal Consumption Expenditures index
    Source: Bureau of Economic AnalysisBy The New York TimesOfficials will receive a related and more up-to-date inflation reading for May — the Consumer Price Index — on the first day of their meeting next week.Economists expect substantial cooling, which could give officials confidence in pausing rates. But if those forecasts are foiled, it could make for an even more heated debate about what comes next. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Added 339,000 Jobs in May Despite Economic Clouds

    by

    Employers added 339,000 workers in May, the Labor Department said, though the report also offered signs of shakiness.American employers added an unanticipated barrage of workers in May, reaffirming the labor market’s vigor.Defying expectations of a slowdown, payrolls grew by 339,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis, the Labor Department said on Friday. The increase, the largest since January, suggested that the job market was still piping hot despite a swirl of economic headwinds.But below the surface, the report also offered evidence of softening. The unemployment rate, while still historically low, jumped to 3.7 percent, the highest level since October. In a sign that the pressure to entice workers with pay increases is lifting, wage growth eased.The dissonance offered a somewhat muddled picture that complicates the calculus for the Federal Reserve, which has been raising interest rates for more than a year to temper the labor market’s momentum and rein in price increases. Fed officials have indicated that the jobs report will be an important factor as they decide whether to raise interest rates again.“We’re still seeing a labor market that’s gradually cooling,” said Sarah House, an economist at Wells Fargo. “But it’s at a glacial place.”President Biden hailed the report, saying in a statement that “today is a good day for the American economy and American workers.” The S&P 500 index rose more than 1.4 percent as the data portrayed an economic engine that was running strong but not overheating.Looming over the report is the debt ceiling deal approved by Congress, though economists largely expect the spending caps and cuts to have only marginal impact on the labor market going forward.The hiring numbers suggest that employers remain eager for workers even in the face of high interest rates and economic uncertainty. Many are still bringing on employees to meet consumer demand, especially for services. The only major sectors to lose jobs were manufacturing and information.A slight reversal for manufacturing in MayChange in jobs in May 2023, by sector More

  • 113 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Supreme Court Backs Employer in Suit Over Strike Losses

    by

    The justices ruled that federal labor law did not block state courts from ruling on a case regarding damage caused when workers walked off the job.The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that federal labor law did not protect a union from potential liability for damage that arose during a strike, and that a state court should resolve questions of liability.The majority found that if accusations by an employer are true, actions during a strike by a local Teamsters union were not even arguably protected by federal law because the union took “affirmative steps to endanger” the employer’s property “rather than reasonable precautions to mitigate that risk.” It asked the state court to decide the merits of the accusations.The opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh.Three conservative justices backed more sweeping concurring opinions. A single justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.Some legal experts had said a union setback in the case would discourage workers from striking by making the union potentially liable for losses that an employer incurred during a work stoppage.“It will definitely lead to more expensive-to-resolve lawsuits against labor unions,” said Charlotte Garden, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who was an author of a brief in support of the union. Professor Garden did note, however, that the decision was less far-reaching in discouraging strike activity than it could have been.Others have argued that the ruling was necessary to prevent workers from intentionally harming an employer’s property, an act not protected by federal labor law, and that such restrictions do not jeopardize the right to strike.“Damages from intentional destruction of property are not inherent to the act of striking,” said Michael O’Neill of the Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative legal advocacy group that submitted a brief in the case. As a result, Mr. O’Neill said, the law does not shield workers or unions from liability for such damage.The case, Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, No. 21-1449, involved unionized employees of a concrete mixing and pouring company who walked off the job during contract negotiations, leaving wet concrete in their trucks. The employer argued that it suffered substantial monetary losses because the abandoned concrete was unusable.The union argued that it had taken reasonable steps to avoid harming the employer’s property, as federal law requires, because workers kept their trucks running as they walked off the job. That allowed the company to dispose of the concrete without damage to the trucks. The union said the lost concrete amounted to the spoilage of a product, for which unions were not typically held liable.At issue were two key questions. The first was procedural: whether the case should be allowed to go forward in state court, as employers generally prefer. The alternative is that the state court — in this case, Washington — should step aside in favor of the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency responsible for resolving labor disputes.The second question was about what economic damage is acceptable during a strike, and what amounts to vandalism — which federal labor law does not protect — of property or equipment.The two issues are linked because under legal precedent, the labor board is supposed to elbow aside state courts when the alleged actions during the strike are at least “arguably protected” by federal law.The Supreme Court ruled that the union’s actions, as alleged by the employer, were not arguably protected because the spoilage of the product was not merely an indirect result of the strike. Instead, the employer contended in a lawsuit, “the drivers prompted the creation of the perishable product” and then waited until the concrete was inside the trucks before walking off the job.“In so doing, they not only destroyed the concrete but also put Glacier’s trucks in harm’s way,” the majority opinion said. It sent the case back to Washington State court to be litigated.Sean M. O’Brien, the president of the Teamsters, issued a defiant statement after the decision was announced. “The Teamsters will strike any employer, when necessary, no matter their size or the depth of their pockets,” he said.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the court “got it right” in ruling that federal law “does not pre-empt state tort claims against a union for intentional destruction of an employer’s property during a labor dispute.”In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas agreed that the Washington State court should be allowed to take up the case. He wrote that in a future case, the Supreme Court should reconsider whether the National Labor Relations Board should have such wide latitude to take the first pass in such cases.Justice Jackson noted in her dissent that the labor board had issued its own complaint since the case was first filed in Washington State. In issuing its complaint, the labor board’s general counsel found that the strike activity was in fact protected. This by definition meant that the activity was “arguably protected,” Justice Jackson wrote, requiring the state court to stand down.The decision, which some experts said could cause unions to reconsider striking or take a more cautious approach when a perishable product could be harmed, followed a series of rulings that appeared to scale back the power of unions and workers.The court ruled in 2018 that companies could prohibit workers from collectively bringing legal actions against their employers, even though the National Labor Relations Act protects workers’ rights to engage in so-called concerted activities.In the same year, the court ruled that public-sector unions could no longer require nonmembers to pay fees that help fund bargaining and other activities that unions do on their behalf.In 2021, the court deemed unconstitutional a California regulation that gave unions access to agricultural employers’ property for recruitment.In interviews, union leaders said that the ruling on Thursday would further tilt an already uneven playing field toward employers, and that it was often not a strike itself but the threat of a strike that helped unions win concessions.“Without the threat of a strike, you have little leverage in negotiations,” said Stuart Appelbaum, the president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which has organized successful strikes.Mr. O’Neill’s group, the Landmark Legal Foundation, argued that a ruling against the employer could have jeopardized the labor peace that the National Labor Relations Act was enacted to assure, “placing workers and the public at risk” by essentially blessing acts of vandalism and sabotage.Unions and workers often deliberately plan strikes to exploit employers’ vulnerability — for example, Amazon workers walked out during the holiday season — and rely on an element of surprise to maximize the economic harm they inflict, and therefore the leverage the union gains.In the near term, unions that are contemplating strikes or already striking, such as unions representing Hollywood writers or United Parcel Service employees whose contract expires this summer, may have to take greater precautions to insulate themselves from legal liability.Such precautions will typically weaken the impact of strikes, said Ms. Garden, the University of Minnesota professor. “You could get unions prophylactically adopting less effective tactics — things like giving advance warning about strike, which gives the employer a lot more time to hire replacement workers,” she said.Other unions may simply decide not to strike at all out of fear of heightened legal exposure, she said.Further out, unions and their political allies may seek to enact legislation that explicitly exempts workers from liability for certain types of economic damage that arise during a strike.“There will be efforts in blue states to make the best of it, to do something protective,” said Sharon Block, a former Biden and Obama administration official who is a professor of practice at Harvard Law School.But even these laws could wind up being challenged before the Supreme Court, experts said.Adam Liptak More