Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX is suing to bust up federal union protections

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 62 posts

Re: SpaceX is suing to bust up federal union protections

#31

Post by tw04 »

legitster wrote: post #8

> It claims the NLRB’s proceedings, which involve a hearing in front of an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ), violate SpaceX’s “constitutional right to trial by jury.” The company also accuses NLRB of violating the Constitution’s rules on the separation of powers, stating the agency’s structure “is miles away from the traditional understanding” of the concept. This is the same argument going against the FTC, SEC, a…

So you’re in favor of the government being able to kill a company? For instance 3Ms PFAS debacle has resulted in enough death and sickness that any person would face life in prison or death depending on where the trial took place. If we’re giving corporations constitutional protections, we should also give them the punishment we’d give an individual for their actions.

You can’t have it both ways.

Re: SpaceX is suing to bust up federal union protections

#32

Post by pfannkuchen »

tw04 wrote: post #31
legitster wrote: post #8

> It claims the NLRB’s proceedings, which involve a hearing in front of an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ), violate SpaceX’s “constitutional right to trial by jury.” The company also accuses NLRB of violating the Constitution’s rules on the separation of powers, stating the agency’s structure “is miles away from the traditional understanding” of the concept. This is the same argument going against the FTC, SEC, a…

So you’re in favor of the government being able to kill a company? For instance 3Ms PFAS debacle has resulted in enough death and sickness that any person would face life in prison or death depending on where the trial took place. If we’re giving corporations constitutional protections, we should also give them the punishment we’d give an individual for their actions. You can’t have it both ways.

Doesn’t the government generally have the power to assess a fine large enough to bankrupt a company?

Re: SpaceX is suing to bust up federal union protections

#33

Post by standardUser »

flerchin wrote: post #7

It's not clear to me why the open letter authors are protected under the NRLB at all. They seemed to be criticizing the boss, which is not illegal, but not really a labor action either?

NLRB doesn't just deal with unions, a fundamental part of its purpose is to ensure that conditions are allowed to exist for the creation of unions.

Here is their own page on "Jurisdictional Standards"...

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/ju...

Re: SpaceX is suing to bust up federal union protections

#34

Post by legitster »

ok_dad wrote: post #24
legitster wrote: post #8

> It claims the NLRB’s proceedings, which involve a hearing in front of an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ), violate SpaceX’s “constitutional right to trial by jury.” The company also accuses NLRB of violating the Constitution’s rules on the separation of powers, stating the agency’s structure “is miles away from the traditional understanding” of the concept. This is the same argument going against the FTC, SEC, a…

SpaceX is not a person, so it should not have constitutional protections. When forming a limited liability arrangement like this, you agree that the entity itself is governed by laws and regulations which may not be applicable to an individual. It’s a mistake for us to allow corporations to be treated as constitutionally protected entities.

Corporations are a complete legal fabrication that only exist because they are constitutionally protected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juridical_person

So it's a bit of a non-sequitur to say they should not have any constitutional protections. So while I agree they should not have the same level of individual rights as people, corporations are already allowed to sign checks and enter contracts own things and be sued.

I'm just saying it makes more sense to me that we keep our constitutional powers separated. If it's a legal case it seems better for the judicial branch to do it.

Re: SpaceX is suing to bust up federal union protections

#35

Post by hindsightbias »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #32
tw04 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’re in favor of the government being able to kill a company? For instance 3Ms PFAS debacle has resulted in enough death and sickness that any person would face life in prison or death depending on where the trial took place. If we’re giving corporations constitutional protections, we should also give them the punishment we’d give an individual for their actions. You can’t have it both ways.

Doesn’t the government generally have the power to assess a fine large enough to bankrupt a company?

As long as Chapter 11 is ok for mass murder.

Re: SpaceX is suing to bust up federal union protections

#36

Post by legitster »

tw04 wrote: post #31
legitster wrote: post #8

> It claims the NLRB’s proceedings, which involve a hearing in front of an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ), violate SpaceX’s “constitutional right to trial by jury.” The company also accuses NLRB of violating the Constitution’s rules on the separation of powers, stating the agency’s structure “is miles away from the traditional understanding” of the concept. This is the same argument going against the FTC, SEC, a…

So you’re in favor of the government being able to kill a company? For instance 3Ms PFAS debacle has resulted in enough death and sickness that any person would face life in prison or death depending on where the trial took place. If we’re giving corporations constitutional protections, we should also give them the punishment we’d give an individual for their actions. You can’t have it both ways.

> So you’re in favor of the government being able to kill a company?

Courts regularly order companies to be dissolved all of the time.

But I think you are jumping to conclusions and trying to imply that I am saying something I am not. I just think legal cases should be executed by our judicial system.

Re: SpaceX is suing to bust up federal union protections

#37

Post by legitster »

biomcgary wrote: post #30
legitster wrote: post #8

> It claims the NLRB’s proceedings, which involve a hearing in front of an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ), violate SpaceX’s “constitutional right to trial by jury.” The company also accuses NLRB of violating the Constitution’s rules on the separation of powers, stating the agency’s structure “is miles away from the traditional understanding” of the concept. This is the same argument going against the FTC, SEC, a…

Given the current make up of the Supreme Court (particularly Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, IIRC), this hail-Mary isn't necessarily that low probability. Several justices don't like administrative courts being the law-maker, judge, jury, executioner, and tax collector. I think one's attitude toward this case (independent of Musk / SpaceX) comes down to how much you value separation of powers as a check on government vs conso…

Right, but it would take a lot of steps for it to even make it to the Supreme Court in the first case. As it is this has a huge chance of being instantly dismissed.

> consolidation of government power as a check on the power of corporations

This might be a good way of putting it. But I personally grew up in an ex-soviet country so my experience is that I am way more afraid of governments than corporations. If you think greedy corporations are bad - you should see what an unchecked "government of the people" can do to their own citizens' water supply.

Re: SpaceX is suing to bust up federal union protections

#38

Post by [deleted] »

PM_me_your_math wrote: post #4
el-dude-arino wrote: post #2

Just when you think there's no end to Musk's dip-shittery, he goes and dives head first into a pile of nonsense and butt-hurtedness.

Unions are cancer. This isn't the late 19th century anymore. Unions do very little but enrich themselves and exert political power.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX is suing to bust up federal union protections

#39

Post by flerchin »

kevingadd wrote: post #29
flerchin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling your boss an asshole is not a labor action. Asking for a better work environment might be, but that wasn't the title of the letter.

I must be misunderstanding your post because the only way I can interpret this is "their tone wasn't nice enough so they deserved to get fired". Do you have a link to a full copy of the open letter or a screenshot where it called him an asshole? The version of it here doesn't look like it deserves to be tone-policed in this way: https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk... To cite a small portion o…

Not deserving to be fired is not the same as being federally protected from being fired. NRLB says that being fired for what they did is illegal, and that's hard for me to square with how I understand labor law.

Re: SpaceX is suing to bust up federal union protections

#40

Post by gamblor956 »

legitster wrote: post #34
ok_dad wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX is not a person, so it should not have constitutional protections. When forming a limited liability arrangement like this, you agree that the entity itself is governed by laws and regulations which may not be applicable to an individual. It’s a mistake for us to allow corporations to be treated as constitutionally protected entities.

Corporations are a complete legal fabrication that only exist because they are constitutionally protected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juridical_person So it's a bit of a non-sequitur to say they should not have any constitutional protections. So while I agree they should not have the same level of individual rights as people, corporations are already allowed to sign checks and enter contracts own things and be sue…

Corporations pre-date the Constitution, and exist in many countries without a constitution, so they do not exist because of "constitutional protections."

Corporations are legal constructs. They are not entitled to any legal protections beyond what the governing jurisdictions decides as a matter of regular law, and they are certainly not entitled to Constitutional protections of their own. In the U.S., Constitutions derive their rights from their owners, and their rights are derivative of their owners.

Post reply on HN