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

Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 181 posts

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#171

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #145
dctoedt wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I agree that the characterization of which is more specific is the hairiest part. To me, the main issue is that the NLRA Section 7 does not address contracts specifically. One can imagine lots of things that have an incidental effect on exercising the right to bargain collectively; I don't think the NRLA can be read as preempting all of those things.

> One can imagine lots of things that have an incidental effect on exercising the right to bargain collectively; I don't think the NRLA can be read as preempting all of those things.

I dunno about that — my guess is that Congress intended a heavy presumption: Anything that materially diminishes the right to concerted action is unlawful. I know, materiality will often be hotly contested. Here, though, an employer's ability to unilaterally take away one of employees' key enforcement weapons, viz., the class action, seems pretty freakin' material.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#172

Post by cannonedhamster »

cookiecaper wrote: post #114
sbov wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you're replying to presented no such false dichotomy. They said when was the last time they sided with the people WHEN they were in opposition, not that they were always in opposition.

It's like asking "When was the last time Congress did something to help feet, instead of shoes?" It's a really weird thing to ask, because like shoes, corporations are a tool used by people. They cannot, therefore, be opposed to anything as such. They're merely mechanisms, tools, in the hands of their principals and agents. You can suggest that certain uses of these tools are improper and that the agents who effect t…

American corporations are tools for people in much the same way that monarchies were tools for people. It pretty much is a tool that's only useful for those with the means to make the most use of it. Small businesses often can't use it to the fullest abilities because to do so requires an army of lawyers and accountants who are able to find every advantage possible. Playing to the rule book is especially advantageous when you get to write the rule book. The other problem is that corporations have more legal rights and power and are considered people in legal terms.

Using another example. Indentured servitude used to be a completely valid legal contract that benefited both sides. The reason it went away was because those writing the contracts started treating it like legal slavery.

The reason people go after corporations is because they are the ones in control of the government and what exactly will going after the people who own the corporations do? They often have private armies, write their own laws, and essentially function as royalty.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#173

Post by s73v3r_ »

chimeracoder wrote: post #162
sykh wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Janus is not about being left out of the bargaining unit. It’s about not being forced to pay for collective bargaining that all the workers benefit from. That they all benefit from it is clear when you compare non collectively bargained workplaces with those that are.

> Janus is not about being left out of the bargaining unit. It’s about not being forced to pay for collective bargaining that all the workers benefit from. You keep hammering on this claim, except it's clear Janus doesn't believe that he's benefiting from it. It's actually quite easy to find examples - from the very beginning of the labor movement up through today - of labor unions screwing over certain classes of me…

"You keep hammering on this claim, except it's clear Janus doesn't believe that he's benefiting from it."

Again, if this is what he believed, then he would be suing to get out of the bargaining unit.

The entire suit is a scam to weaken the power of unions. If the union has to act on behalf of you, but you don't have to pay, then very, very few people are going to actually pay for the union, and it will die.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#174

Post by s73v3r_ »

charleslmunger wrote: post #157
s73v3r_ wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, it was still my choice to live there. And, and this is the most important part, I still earned that money through my work. Having it auto deducted from the paycheck isn't any different than having auto pay set up on my bank account.

That's the difference - you choose to live there. You can't choose to not be part of a public union, for state jobs that have one. Support for political causes should not be a requirement for employment by the state.

Again, yes, you can. You are free to choose your job based on the conditions of the job.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#175

Post by chimeracoder »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #173
chimeracoder wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Janus is not about being left out of the bargaining unit. It’s about not being forced to pay for collective bargaining that all the workers benefit from. You keep hammering on this claim, except it's clear Janus doesn't believe that he's benefiting from it. It's actually quite easy to find examples - from the very beginning of the labor movement up through today - of labor unions screwing over certain classes of me…

"You keep hammering on this claim, except it's clear Janus doesn't believe that he's benefiting from it." Again, if this is what he believed, then he would be suing to get out of the bargaining unit. The entire suit is a scam to weaken the power of unions. If the union has to act on behalf of you, but you don't have to pay, then very, very few people are going to actually pay for the union, and it will die.

> Again, if this is what he believed, then he would be suing to get out of the bargaining unit. The entire suit is a scam to weaken the power of unions. If the union has to act on behalf of you, but you don't have to pay....

The courts have already ruled that the unions can create contracts that exclude non-members from bargaining units (and therefore refuse representation to non-members) as long as they don't charge the non-members agency fees. If Janus wins the right not to pay an agency fee, that's what they'll do.

The only scam is in pretending that the unions are forced to represent people like Janus whether or not they receive fees. That's nonsense; it's their decision entirely to include non-members in the bargaining unit.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#176

Post by chimeracoder »

sykh wrote: post #144
chimeracoder wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is law that everyone gets the benefit from a union’s collective bargaining. No, it's not. It's the law that unions must represent anyone whom they claim as part of their bargaining unit. However, unions have great freedom to define bargaining units how they like. They already take advantage of that ability, in order to invalidate decertification elections (by retroactively choosing a differently-sized unit from…

the collectively bargained agreement with an employer affects everyone under the scope of that agreement. This includes people who are not members of the union. The contract is for everyone within a bargaining unit. For instance, at my college every instructor's working conditions are set forth in the master contract. This includes those not in the union. The union can’t make a contract only for those instructors who…

> the collectively bargained agreement with an employer affects everyone under the scope of that agreement. This includes people who are not members of the union. The contract is for everyone within a bargaining unit.

Only because unions choose only to make contracts that cover non-members as part of their bargaining unit.

> The free rider problem occurs once so called right to work gets enacted. There is no free rider no because everyone pays fair share

There is no free-rider problem. Unions are free to create contracts that don't consider non-members to be part of the bargaining unit. That court ruling is 80 years old and completely uncontroversial and uncontested. Unions have systematically refused to do that, because they'd rather take an "all or nothing" stance.

It makes for a great political stance to pretend, "oh, we have to charge these other people fees because otherwise we'd be giving them representation for free", but in reality, they're the ones who are refusing to do business any other way. There is no free-rider problem, and there never has been.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#177

Post by s73v3r_ »

jeffdavis wrote: post #166
sykh wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is required to join the union. They are required to help pay for collective bargaining, grievances, contract enforcement etc. Those who are in the union are entitled to a refund of the portion of their dues that go toward political activities. This is all the current law without Janus.

I understand the argument: they're trying to draw a line between ordinary union activity and political speech. But a lot of people don't think such a line is possible.

A company of any decent size engages in political speech constantly, much of which many of their employees might disagree with. Why is it ok for the company to do so, but not the employees banded together?

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#178

Post by s73v3r_ »

rayiner wrote: post #149
s73v3r_ wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it that conservatives, when discussing any other aspect of a job (pay, working conditions, abuse, etc) will say that "you have a choice; you don't have to take the job," but when it comes to unions, suddenly everyone is forced?

When it comes to public unions the "unconstitutional conditions" doctrine comes into play. The Supreme Court has long held that the government cannot indirectly infringe free speech rights by imposing conditions on government employment, such as requiring employees to contribute to or join a particular political party. As Rehnquist pointed out, those cases are "indistinguishable" from situations where public employee…

"The public unions in Janus, for example, which are given special status and powers by state law, are nothing more than adjuncts of the Democratic party."

This is absolutely not true in the least. Unions tend to support candidates that will help and support them, just like anyone else who backs any other candidate.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#179

Post by charleslmunger »

sykh wrote: post #159
charleslmunger wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know there was a law about a refund - do you have a link to that?

You could Google it. Here’s a link: https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/

The case you linked refers to Beck, which is a ruling on the NRLA which as far as I can tell does not apply to the public sector.

Wikipedia points to Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, which has:

"Non-chargeable expenses include: Lobbying, electoral, or other political activities not directly related to contract bargaining or implementation;[144] political or public activities aimed at winning a greater budget for the collective bargaining unit;[140] litigation or publications reporting on litigation that does not concern directly concern the bargaining unit;[145] and public relations efforts (including informational picketing, media purchases, signs, posters, and buttons) designed to enhance public respect for the workers' profession"

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not sure what the difference is between this upcoming case and that one. But it sounds like the supreme Court has already ruled that lots of the behavior I find objectionable is not chargeable as an agency fee to nonmembers.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#180

Post by zentiggr »

spaginal wrote: post #72
zentiggr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe in some fantasy corporation-league version of America, but I see a constant stream of "oh, you lobbyists want concessions for your anonymous sponsors/donors/owners? Sure, always glad to get more votes paid for!" The only way to keep the general populace from getting trampled as far as they will allow is to push back against all this. I've said elsewhere, vote out every incumbent Congressperson. Once the current…

If you want to reduce corporate influence, reduce the size and influence of government. The more a central authority takes and dictates, the more lobbying and money will be the influence that runs them. When you have a powerbase of politicians that can make or break conpanies, industries, and entire regions with a law or regulation, you will naturally have players interested in that space working for their own intere…

Deregulation is the worse case in that sliding variable... an effectual government balances between the various parties, preventing corporate abuse of power at the expense of individuals.

When existing government gets hijacked by power brokers, that's where we the people should step up and say no by voting out the worst offenders. Tha's our check and balance, and where I despair of getting people to understand and care.

Post reply on HN