Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#101

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, May 21, 2018, 7:11 PM UTC

Karishma1234 wrote: post #35

nathanaldensr wrote: post #3

This is really, really disappointing. Contracts are supposed to be fair for both sides. In isolation, meaning for one specific purchase or one specific job, they are. But what happens when every company and employer has this language in their contracts? What do they lose by including the language? They lose nothing!

The verdict seems very consistent with the existing laws while many believe it is unfair. But these are two separate things. Workers should petition their representatives to pass laws that will help them bring fairness and the courts will then have to look at the issue freshly. > But what happens when every company and employer has this language in their contracts? What do they lose by including the language? They lo…

"The verdict seems very consistent with the existing laws "

How can it be consistent with existing laws if the laws never mentioned arbitration at the time?

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#102

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, May 21, 2018, 7:12 PM UTC

loteck wrote: post #76

For those living in California, this issue of requiring arbitration contracts in the pre-employment stage is under consideration from the state legislature, and the bill has some heat on it. This bill would prohibit an employer from, as a condition of employment or as a condition of entering into a contractual agreement, prohibiting an employee or independent contractor from disclosing to any person an instance of se…

Unfortunately, it seems like it only would ban the arbitration requirement in the case of sexual harassment or the like.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#103

Post by gamblor956 » Mon, May 21, 2018, 7:14 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #44

mars4rp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was the last time Congress did something for the people against corporations?

That's a false dichotomy. Corporations are the basic units of the wealth-creation engine that gives Americans among the highest standards of living in the world, not to mention employs almost all of them. Doing what's good for the corporations is usually also what's good for people.

Corporations are the basic units of the wealth-creation engine that gives Americans among the highest standards of living in the world, not to mention employs almost all of them. Doing what's good for the corporations is usually also what's good for people.

You're missing the /sarcasm tag. Doing good for corporations has, since Reagan, eviscerated the living standards of the American people.

Plus you're ignorant of how people in this country are actually employed. For example, a number of the wealthiest individuals in this country, and most of the top 5%, actually work for or own partnerships (in the form of LPs, LLPs, or LLCs), none of which are corporate entities. This doesn't include those employed by the government agencies or armed forces at the state or federal or local levels.

And last I checked, every major invention of the past century was funded in whole or in part by the government--there are no major discoveries wholly funded by corporate dollars.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#104

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, May 21, 2018, 7:15 PM UTC

notyourday wrote: post #47

Bartweiss wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a particularly weird place to lay charges of activism. The majority decision claims "It is unlikely that Congress wished to confer a right to class or collective actions in §7, since those procedures were hardly known when the NLRA was adopted in 1935." That's either an activist position or an original intent position; it relies on comparing circumstances today to the circumstances Congress is presume…

Law says X. New condition Y shows up. The law does not magically become X' where X' accommodates for Y. If you want X', then pass the law that changes X to X'. Edit: I'm editing this as NH blocked me from replying: > Sure, we agree on that. But Law X will interact with condition Y somehow, so the question is what property of X is preserved when addressing Y. This is a pretty fundamental debate between constitutional…

"Law says X. New condition Y shows up. The law does not magically become X' where X' accommodates for Y."

But that's exactly what the majority decision here is saying! "Since class actions didn't exist back when the NLRA was enacted, we need to accommodate the NLRA for class actions" The court literally made up what they felt should happen!

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#105

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, May 21, 2018, 7:17 PM UTC

notyourday wrote: post #49

camgunz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read her dissent through to the end, she rightly points out that if the FAA were to hold over the NLRA then it would also hold over the Civil Rights Act, which is clearly not what Congress intended. See also her (well-cited) argument about specific vs. general legislation, as well the fact that the NLRA was written and enacted after the FAA. In fact, if you're on the side of "SCOTUS... starting to uplold the l…

No, the law did not address the new development. To address these developments, a new law should be passed.

Sure. But what happened today is that the SCOTUS legislated from the bench.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#106

Post by FireBeyond » Mon, May 21, 2018, 7:28 PM UTC

koolba wrote: post #43

sykh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will you believe this, that the court is not legislative in its actions, when the Janus ruling comes out? They are going to overrule decades of established labor laws.

Not GP but I sure will be. For the curious see [1] and [2] for more info about this case. Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. The very idea of having organizations funded by tax dollars that subsequently influence their own regulation, pay rates, benefits, and pensions with those same tax dollars in exchange for votes from their members is ludicrous. I…

That money is the worker's earned salary. Once they earned it, it was no longer "your tax dollars" "funding unions".

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#107

Post by dctoedt » Mon, May 21, 2018, 7:38 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #40

sykh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will you believe this, that the court is not legislative in its actions, when the Janus ruling comes out? They are going to overrule decades of established labor laws.

If the Supreme Court overrules Abood in Janus, that'll be the Court doing its job to invalidate statutes that infringing Constitutional protections. Here, where there was no Constitutional concern, the Supreme Court did its job to give effect to a more specific Act of Congress (the FAA) over the more general policy in a different statute (the NLRA).

> the Supreme Court did its job to give effect to a more specific Act of Congress (the FAA) over the more general policy in a different statute (the NLRA).

Disagree with your ipse dixit labeling. The FAA is broad and general, at least according to SCOTUS precedent, covering all contracts between all parties, covering all types of conduct in all industries, as long as "commerce" is involved. In contrast, NLRA § 7 was targeted to one specific category of contractual parties, namely employees and employers, and protected employees' right to engage in one specific type of conduct, namely concerted activity in two specific areas, namely (1) wages and (2) the terms and conditions of employment.

Moreover, as Ginsburg's dissent correctly pointed out, as the later-enacted statute, § 7 implicitly overruled anything to the contrary in prior legislation — because it's risible to think that Congress, in enacting a court-enforceable right to concerted action by employees, intended to allow the very target of employees' concerted action, namely the employer, to unilaterally strip away that right as a practical matter, whether by insisting on a no-class-action arbitration provision or by any other means.

I'm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago as a law student: Knowing little (then) about litigation, I innocently asked a litigation partner: "A nonsuit [a unilateral dismissal of a case in Texas state court] can only be filed by the plaintiff, right, and not by the defendant?" He laughed and said "Right; otherwise I'd be hurrying back to my office and dictating a whole lot of defendants' nonsuits." But now under this SCOTUS decision, employers get to do essentially much the same as a defendant unilaterally dismissing a plaintiff's case, without so much as a by-your-leave to a court or anyone else.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#108

Post by kevin_b_er » Mon, May 21, 2018, 7:40 PM UTC

camgunz wrote: post #25

notyourday wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her dissent is "I wish I could write legislation from a bench and darn we don't have enough on our side". It is great that SCOTUS is starting to uphold the laws as they are on the books. Frankly, the idea that not legislators but the courts get to write the laws should be abhorrent. Courts need to stick to "is this law contradict other laws and hence is invalid" decisions. Want to change the law? Get congress and sen…

If you read her dissent through to the end, she rightly points out that if the FAA were to hold over the NLRA then it would also hold over the Civil Rights Act, which is clearly not what Congress intended. See also her (well-cited) argument about specific vs. general legislation, as well the fact that the NLRA was written and enacted after the FAA. In fact, if you're on the side of "SCOTUS... starting to uplold the l…

Arbitration trumps ALL your rights. When arbitration is mentioned, it superceeds all your rights.

The conservatives love it because it means their greed rules over all other laws. It is federal which means it superceeds states. As long as they are in enough power, you are ruled by their greed.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#109

Post by kevin_b_er » Mon, May 21, 2018, 7:47 PM UTC

howard941 wrote: post #57

notyourday wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the law did not address the new development. To address these developments, a new law should be passed.

One new development here is that the FAA apparently trumps everything not expressly exempt from it. Used to be that later laws preempt conflicting prior laws. The FAA should be called the Class Action Preemption Act because of what it effectively turned into.

It is ROLRA, the Rule Of Law Preemption Act. Once the FAA is invoked, all other laws fall by the wayside. You have no rights, as they are waived. The arbiter is not required to follow any other laws.[1] Manifest disregard for the law is insufficient to halt or reverse arbitration. You are no longer under the rule of law, but under corporate rule.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_Street_Associates,_L.L.C.....

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#110

Post by bhups » Mon, May 21, 2018, 8:01 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #98

bhups wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kicking the can to "elect someone else" is just as naive as claiming that this decision respects the law on the books. But...it does respect the law on the books. Your concern seems to be that the law is bad, and that the judiciary ought to change that law. I don't think there's a lot of disagreement about the former, it's the latter that's more controversial. From an idealistic standpoint, enacting Federal law is…

"But...it does respect the law on the books." No, it absolutely does not. It completely makes up a reason why this should be considered any different than any other instance where things have changed since a law was enacted.

> No, it absolutely does not.

Can you explain what the law on the books currently is, and how the majority opinion "absolutely does not" respect it?

> It completely makes up a reason why this should be considered any different than any other instance where things have changed since a law was enacted.

Things have changed since a law was enacted by legislative fiat. The thesis behind those arguing the intended function of the judiciary is that any instance in the past where the judiciary has actually changed a law since it was enacted is considered abuse and not to be repeated.