On a rainy June 1st in1975, President Gerald Ford slipped while walking down the Air Force One boarding stairs after landing in Salzburg. The caught-on-camera incident became a PR problem for an already controversial and unelected President seeking a full term the old fashioned way. The writers for newly-minted late night satirical skit comedy show on NBC, Saturday Night Live, know comedy gold when they saw it, turned Ford’s alleged clumsiness into a signature gag, with break-out show star Chevy Chase playing Ford and including elaborate pratfalls in many of the SNL “cold opens.”
Exactly 43 years after Ford’s fall, Joe Biden, who makes Ford look like one of the Flying Wallendas by comparison, took a Chevy Chase-like face plant on stage at the U.S. Air Force Academy graduation ceremony in Colorado yesterday. This poses an immediate integrity test for SNL, or would, if the show had not completely abandoned integrity when it decided to leave Barack Obama essentially unscathed for eight years. If I were producing SNL, I’d bring back Chevy and have him introduced as Biden in the cold open…and that would be enough (and it would be all that would be realistically possible, as Chase ruined his back by all those falls as Ford.
What are the odds? I’m not curious enough to watch the show, as I have not since it became a full-time Democratic Party attack machine, but Joe’s tumble had me thinking about it.
But I digress. There is plenty in the ethics jungle to talk about, so get to it.
Ethics Alarms 
actually would you mind terribly deleting my comment? kthx.
Done (but it was a point worth making….)
It’s okay. They’re going to bring back the sedan chair for Joe. His feet will no longer have to touch the ground. And of course, the porters will be Chinese.
Is it unethical to make fun of dementia-jo?
SNL is still on? Go figure!
Glacier vs Teamsters
Click to access 21-1449_d9eh.pdf
The teamsters called a strike against a concrete company during the middle of the day. The workers, knowing that a strike had been called, mixed batches of concrete and loaded them as if the deliveries were going to be made, and then abandoned the trucks. The company was able to offload the concrete to avoid damage to the trucks, but the concrete was lost. The company sued the union for conversion and trespass to chattels (intentional torts that refer to intentional interference with the possession of someone’s personal property.).
The union argued that the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act) precludes cases like this, and the state court granted that under the auspices that there was a jurisdictional problem and that Glacier should have sued federally. My (lay) impression is that that is a really weird determination, seeing as there was an almost identical precedent involving a union strike where employees left molten iron in molds and walked away, but this is Washington State, I guess.
“The Board has long taken the position—which both the Union and Glacier accept—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. Bethany Medical Center, 328 N. L. R. B. 1094 (1999)” […] “Given this undisputed limitation on the right to strike, we proceed to consider whether the Union has demonstrated that the statute arguably protects the drivers’ conduct. Davis, 476 U. S., at 395. We conclude that it has not.”
“The Union failed to “take reasonable precautions to protect” against this foreseeable and imminent danger. Bethany Medical Center, 328 N. L. R. B., at 1094. It could have initiated the strike before Glacier’s trucks were full of wet concrete—say, by instructing drivers to refuse to load their trucks in the first place. Once the strike was underway, nine of the Union’s drivers abandoned their fully loaded
trucks without telling anyone—which left the trucks on a path to destruction unless Glacier saw them in time to unload the concrete. Yet the Union did not take the simple step of alerting Glacier that these trucks had been returned. Nor, after the trucks were in the yard, did the Union direct its drivers to follow Glacier’s instructions to facilitate a safe transfer of equipment. To be clear, the “reasonable precautions” test does not mandate any one action in particular. But the Union’s failure to take even minimal precautions illustrates its failure to fulfill its duty.”
“Indeed, far from taking reasonable precautions to mitigate foreseeable danger to Glacier’s property, the Union executed the strike in a manner designed to compromise the safety of Glacier’s trucks and destroy its concrete. Such conduct is not “arguably protected” by the NLRA; on the contrary, it goes well beyond the NLRA’s protections. See NLRB v. Marshall Car Wheel & Foundry Co., 218 F. 2d 409, 411, 413 (CA5 1955) (strike unprotected when employees abandoned their posts without warning “when molten iron in the plant cupola was ready to be poured off,” even though “a lack of sufficient help to carry out the critical pouring operation might well have resulted in substantial property damage”).”
The decision was 8-1, with Justice Jackson dissenting (and holy shit that’s a bad dissent).
Commie Twitter is melting down, and it’s glorious.
This is wrong, of course:
“Second, the Union argues that “workers do not forfeit the Act’s protections simply by commencing a work stoppage at a time when the loss of perishable products is foreseeable.” Brief for Respondent 22. It points out that the Board has found strikers’ conduct protected even when their decision not to work created a risk that perishable goods would spoil. […] If the mere risk of spoilage is enough to render a strike illegal, the Union insists, then workers who deal with perishable goods will have no meaningful right to strike.”
The Union is swinging at a straw man. It casts this case as one involving nothing more than a foreseeable risk that the employer’s perishable products would spoil. But given the lifespan of wet concrete, Glacier could not batch it until a truck was ready to take it. So 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. This case therefore involves much more than “a work stoppage at a time when the loss of perishable products is foreseeable.””
It’s almost like if you intentionally set out to damage someone’s property, you might be held civilly liable, and “It’s just a strike, bro” isn’t a “get out of trouble” card.
Few ethical points:
– Unions are generally unscrupulous like this, but The Teamsters are a special kind of garbage. Always have been, always will be. I immediately thought of them before I had read the decision.
– Jackson’s dissent is embarrassing. I never want to hear about the partisan politicization of the court from a Democrat again. Ever.
– This is a real mask-off moment for union commies. If you can’t even condemn practices like this, I don’t think there’s a low that you won’t defend. Anyone who defends the union in this case has demonstrated that they aren’t serious actors. We always knew this, but this is signature significance.
The drivers should consider the fact that had they ruined the truck they would have no job to return to. There is no guarantee of a job after a strike let alone after they effectively destroy the equipment.
Interesting. Justice Jackson makes a mistake a Seventh Circuit panel made in a case a client of mine was involved in. Her entire dissent appears to be based on something that was never raised in the proceedings below. (God, appellate judges can be annoying.) The footnote in the holding states that the Board’s general counsel didn’t even make the objection in their amicus brief: “The Board’s
general counsel agrees that this issue [the general counsel’s right to make the determination] is not properly before us.”
I have to say, the union’s conduct as described was really vicious. It’s always amazed me that more loads of concrete don’t set up in the drums before delivery is complete.
One of the most frustrating things about the Open Forum is that during the week, I run across ethics conundrums and I think, “I’m going to ask about that on Friday.” Then Friday comes and, for the life of me, I can’t remember what I wanted to ask. This has happened at least a half-dozen times.
Obviously, age is catching up to my mental acuity. My grandfather, before he died, took to carrying a small notepad and pencil with him. I may need to follow suit.
I keep tabs open to share on the open forum, but usually by the time it’s gets to Friday the sheer volume of ridiculous nonsense that has happened during the week has overwhelmed my desire to talk about any of them.
I would just look through the e-mails I sent to Jack in the past week. If he did not post them, I would put them up on the forum.
-Jut
A Memorial Day addendum:
Juan Browne documents a missing man formation from the cockpit. AT-6 (and T-34) rather than Boeing Stearmans. Remembering all the missing men.
If we spend too much time on the interweb, we become blind to all the normal people there are in the country still.
Did the Lautenberg Amendment go far enough?
Why not also do the following regarding those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence?
– prohibit them from practiving law or medicine
– prohibit them from hacving any form of intimate contact or relationship
– require them to wear a distinctive badge when out in public
Lautenberg is likely to be overturned in light of recent decisions following NYSPA v. Buren.
What I don’t understand is why people convicted of felonies, especially those associated with injury and death to innocent parties, can purchase any quantity of alcohol limited only by the same federal excise taxes that apply to everyone.
Every study I’ve seen of the social costs of alcohol far outweigh the costs of weapon possession, from littering all the way to FAS. Its redeeming qualities are also less essential than tools of effective societal defence.
I’m only proposing some common sense federal legislation, such as affixing a permanent identifier to every container and dealer recordkeeping requirements so that littering or straw purchases for minors can be traced back to the original purchasor.
It’s possible for retailers to perform an instant background check at all points of sale, they already check for legal age. We can put in a convenient safeguard default-proceed of three hours if the system doesn’t respond.
The 21st Amendment clearly wasn’t meant to cover non-resident aliens, people addicted to any controlled substance, fugitives from justice, those under indictment, or who share a name with people in those categories, so we can simply block those sales too.
Nobody needs high capacity 1.75 liter bottles of distillery-grade liquid. All must be sold in units that is reasonably consumed by an individual in a day, say, the volume of a hip flask.
Concealable hip flasks are clearly designed for subversive non-social problem drinking. All distilled spirits must be contained in a nonconcealable container a minimum of ten inches in height and three inches across their minimum width. This will be enforced by a ten-year penalty, which will be plea-bargained away for all people who are picked up with other charges, but never for law-abiding people who have this as their only infraction.
Imports are especially problematic. New imports must reach standards not required of all domestic brewerys, and some types, even some of those with historical significance, must be smashed on the ground and soaked up with a sponge so they can be squeezed into bottles made domestically. Other imports may be banned from their country of origin for political reasons, but the ban never lifted.
We probably also need to mandate that all alcoholic beverages be dyed a clearly recognizable color so people can easily identify them. Puce maybe? Then mandate that all non-alcoholic beverages also be dyed a particular color so people don’t get confused by look-alikes and unnecessarily stigmatized. Neon orange would work for non-alcoholic beverages.
Esoteric firearms news:
The Biden/ATF pistol brace ban goes into effect today. It’s virtually impossible to enforce prior to the commission of a crime, as it is not illegal to own either pistol or brace or both, unconnected.
The Fifth Circuit has put a stay on the bureaucratic edit. Their ruling would normally only apply as relief in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, but in response to a query from one of the parties, the FPC (Firearms Policy Coalition, to which I belong), they clarified that it also applies to individual members of the FPC, no matter their location.
I’ll take it, but is this sort of thing usual?
It is unethical for trans-females (biomales) to invade female sports, locker rooms, sororities, prisons, women’s shelters, bathrooms, etc. It is unethical for teachers to groom (veryyoung) students and then instruct them to withhold this from their parents. It is unethical for medical professionals to advocate for teens and younger to take puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and permanently mutilate their bodies. It is unethical for pronoun speech to be criminalized.
It took Megyn Kelly a very long time to figure out the insidious nature of the trans-agenda.
She decided to speak out after the destructive insanity became too much to ignore.
It’s PEONY SEASON!
Wow, those are gorgeous! Implanted mine about 2 years ago, so my flowers are still tiny.
If nothing else, Biden’s performance should put to rest forever jokes about:
1. Gerald Ford’s equilibrium;
2. Ronald Reagan’s Memory: and
3. George W. Bush’s ability to enunciate words.
Biden is worse than each of those predecessors on those counts.
I fear that Biden will not put those criticisms to rest.
-Jut
While I’m here, I’d be interested in our hosts’ opinion on a couple of matters.
1. In Scotland, the government (Scottish, not UK, to be clear) has announced a pilot program to hold rape trials without juries. Apparently conviction rates in rape trials conducted by juries are far too low (50% vs. 90% for other criminal trials, roughly) and the Scottish government feels that the reason is that juries are too prone to believe myths about rape. I’d thought that the attitude of “the justice system isn’t locking up enough people so let’s change the rules” was supposed to be a right-wing thing, but apparently the Scottish government is considered of the left. At any rate, Scottish law associations have announced a near-total boycott of it, much to the disappointment of the government. I wondered if this would mean lawyers walking picket lines in court gowns while the government looked desperately for strikebreaker lawyers, but apparently it will be nothing so dramatic. Any precedent for something like this in American law? Would be interested in your thoughts generally.
2. A week or so ago, Quillette had a pair of articles on the Adnan Syed case, made famous by the podcast Serial. It is a heck of a story, and thus a rather long read. Not going to discuss the facts of the case, as that can mean getting into an absolute swamp. Still, it does raise some interesting questions regarding the escapades of the lawyers involved. If you have the time, it could be interesting.
Regarding #2—I have to do my homework. Thanks for flagging it.
regarding #1: Yikes. No, there’s no US parallel, and there couldn’t be: a jury is guaranteed for criminal trials under the 6th Amendment. I think you meant ‘laws’ not rules: the Constitution lays out the rules for criminal trials, and I’m aware of no attempts to change them from the Right to lock up more people. The Right has worked for sentencing laws, like mandatory minimums and three strike laws, to restrain overly merciful/lenient judges. The only limits the Constitution places on sentencing is the 8th Amendment prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The British Isles just don’t have the culture embracing individual rights that the US has, and that Scottish move is a good example. I hadn’t heard about it. To n American lawyer’s ear, it sounds unimaginable. It does sound like something the #MeToo crowd would try to advance.
Apologies for not being clear on a couple points. By “rules” I meant any change in the justice system, such as interpreting search and seizure requirements more loosely, or questioning people without giving Miranda warnings. I am not a lawyer, and as the man said, all I know is what I read in the papers, but it had always been my impression that such changes were most closely associated with conservatives. You want to disagree, please go right ahead.
As for “something like this” what I meant was lawyers boycotting a legal change they thought ethically or constitutionally dubious. Lawyers refusing to go to court seems odd, but it is a way of opposing dubious practice. Is there any American parallel? I did pay enough attention in AP US Government classes in high school to know that jury trials are a right. For that matter, I watched 1776 where a similar point comes up.
Thanks for the clarification. If we’re talking about the Sixties and the Warren Court’s various innovations in criminal law, yes, conservatives objected to a lot of those at the time, as they tent to wary of any major changes. The Exclusionary Rule and the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” rules are still controversial as policy more than as ideology; the Miranda Warning is settled law at this point, but academically even the farthest left scholar can’t deny it was an egregious example of SCOTUS legislating, even though all agree that the Court’s formula “works.”
Under the ABA Model Rules, which all other legal ethics rules are based on in the US, lawyers can’t “protest” as you describe: it would directly breach the ethics rules and end with suspension or disbarment. Lawyers can always quit bar associations in protest, and they can speak out in the news media, but an actual protest demonstration would require a bar to deliberately decide to join in if it wasn’t going to discipline its members.