71–80 of 181 posts
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!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
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 interests above all else.
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…
They're not. And plenty of other organizations which receive tax dollars (any company that's ever done government contracting, for instance) engage in lobbying as well, and they're a much, much bigger problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 diffic…
That's a nice theory, but no. Federal law preempts state law in this scenario[1] so states are completely unable to do anything to reign in arbitration.
[1] https://www.drinkerbiddle.com/insights/publications/2017/05/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Contracts are supposed to be fair for both sides. That's not really a prerequisite for contracts. Contracts will often reflect substantial negotiating leverage on one side versus the other ( e.g. a contract for sale of a house where the seller just lost his job, or a contract for sale of stock where the seller really needs money due to an unforeseen emergency). That's not a reason not to enforce them.
AFAIK there are limits to that. Certainly, contracts are required to be reciprocal. That is, one cannot write a contract that states A gives stuff to B, without requiring B to give some form of compensation. This is why things are sometimes sold for $1 rather than gifted. I think there are also 'no contracts can be made under duress' clauses that limit how much one can use leverage to unbalance a deal. Not sure what…
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 sexual harassment that the employee or independent contractor suffers, witnesses, or discovers in the workplace or in the performance of the contract. The bill would also prohibit an employer from requiring any applicant for employment or prospective employment or any employee to waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or other specific statutes governing employment, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit. The bill would also prohibit an employer from threatening, retaliating or discriminating against, or terminating any applicant for employment or prospective employment or any employee because of the refusal to consent to the waiver of any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of specific statutes governing employment. The bill would establish a specific exemption from those prohibitions. Because a violation of these prohibitions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
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.
This is a flat out lie that has been disproven time and time again. More often than not, what's good for the company is bad for everyone else.
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…
Power abhors a vacuum. If government cedes power somewhere, who do you think is going to pick it up?
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.
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…
You're reversing. Originalists says "this law's authors didn't anticipate modern conditions, so the law must not change under modern conditions " Non-originalists say "this law's authors didn't anticipate modern conditions, so we must project their intent onto modern conditions "
In this case, I think an original intent reading and a living Constitution reading lead to the same place. But I only mention that because the decision references intent; original intent scholarship is rare in general and basically absent on the court.
Original meaning is what's currently represented on the court, and is as you say: "the law must not change under modern conditions". That's what I'm suggesting was abandoned by its usual practitioners today.