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

51–60 of 181 posts

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#51

Post by bhups »

cookiecaper wrote: post #14
koolba wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't disappointing at all as it reflects the state of the laws as they're currently on the books. Desiring or determining a court ruling based upon what you'd like the law to be rather than how it's currently written opens the door for legislation from the bench. If workers want the law changed to ban arbitration clauses then they should ask their representatives to pass legislation to do exactly that. And if s…

We have a system that operates at the pace of 1776. That served us well for a long time, but since the post-war proliferation of mass media, it's hard to argue that it's adequate anymore. You're right that people don't understand the way the separation of powers works, but the system badly needs to be revised. The world has totally transformed in the last 75 years and it's much smaller now. Political and legal feedba…

> We have a system that operates at the pace of 1776. That served us well for a long time, but since the post-war proliferation of mass media, it's hard to argue that it's adequate anymore.

I'd argue the exact opposite. The pace of our system is just a reflection of the current ideological polarization. Enacting Federal law requires a strong consensus (to prevent abuse), and the more polarized we are, the more difficult it becomes to shove Federal laws down the throat of a narrow minority.

If we can't gather this consensus at the Federal level, we have the levers of state legislatures to pass those same laws at a more local level.

Liberal states have the political will, the systems, and (if we're being frank) the majority of businesses that would be affected by Federal law anyway. They just need to have the will to compromise and pass their desired law at the state level until such a time that there's Federal consensus for that law.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#53

Post by jonas21 »

mars4rp wrote: post #13
Someone1234 wrote: post #6

Time to pressure congress to change this. A lot of people see SCOTUS decisions and think the matter closed, but congress with the flick of a pen could completely ban arbitration for employee contracts. The employer/employee relationship is by its nature power imbalanced. If employers band together and all require arbitration (as they likely will via a standardised templated contract) employees cannot do much.

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

The last time the Democratic party had control of congress?

e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009

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

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

etc.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#54

Post by bhups »

latortuga wrote: post #10
koolba wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't disappointing at all as it reflects the state of the laws as they're currently on the books. Desiring or determining a court ruling based upon what you'd like the law to be rather than how it's currently written opens the door for legislation from the bench. If workers want the law changed to ban arbitration clauses then they should ask their representatives to pass legislation to do exactly that. And if s…

Okay sure. But don't lose track of reality in your quest for idealism though. There is a vast power imbalance between worker and corporation, both money and power. Businesses control the contracts, they have far more money, and, as a result, they have vastly more powerful lobbying. So in practice, there is no defense for workers anywhere! Kicking the can to "elect someone else" is just as naive as claiming that this…

> 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 necessarily onerous, owing to the requirement of a strong consensus so as to prevent a marginal majority from shoving Federal laws down the throat of a large minority.

> Okay sure. But don't lose track of reality in your quest for idealism though.

Okay sure, it sounds like you don't care much for the idealistic standpoint, so let's talk pragmatism. If we can't gather this consensus at the Federal level, we have the levers of state legislatures to pass those same laws at a more local level.

Liberal states have the political will, the systems, and (if we're being frank) the majority of businesses that would be affected by Federal law anyway. They just need to have the will and pragmatism to compromise and pass their desired law at the state level until such a time that there's Federal consensus for that law.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#55

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#57

Post by howard941 »

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.

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.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#58

Post by kinsomo »

mars4rp wrote: post #13
Someone1234 wrote: post #6

Time to pressure congress to change this. A lot of people see SCOTUS decisions and think the matter closed, but congress with the flick of a pen could completely ban arbitration for employee contracts. The employer/employee relationship is by its nature power imbalanced. If employers band together and all require arbitration (as they likely will via a standardised templated contract) employees cannot do much.

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

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

It's certainly not going to do anything if the people assume advocacy is a lost cause and give up without even trying.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#59

Post by onecooldev24 »

bradleyankrom wrote: post #31
onecooldev24 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ohh yeah sure, employees should easily be allowed to harass employers by slowing down the justice process. And this place is suppose to be frequented by smart people, I am just amazed by the stupidity on this forum.

based on your comment history, your whole schtick seems to be insulting the people on HN. why are you here?

Just for entertainment.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#60

Post by notyourday »

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.

Yes, that's how the laws work. Future laws narrow/refine previous ones unless they are found to be unconstitutional on specific grounds or spell out exceptions.

We have been running with courts writing laws for years -- banana republics had less judicial interference into purview of legislative branch/executive branch. Now the rubber band is snapping the other way and those who have been happy at letting courts to write laws because it was their men/women on courts are now freaking out. Just wait until Kennedy retires in August and Trump gets another originalist there -- outsource unpopular legislation to courts group is in for a world of hurt for decades.

Edit: Not liking that water is wet does not change that the water is wet. Downvotes are not going to change this SCOTUS decision or other coming SCOTUS decision. Neither would they change a retirement of a swing vote and neither would they change that it will happen when Trump is in office and republicans control the Senate.

Post reply on HN