Seems like a net loss for workers of all kinds.
Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
91–100 of 181 posts
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're mixing up two different things: does the new thing fall within the old language, and would the drafters have used different language had they known about the new thing. Is a semi-automatic rifle an "arm" as the term was understood in 1789? Yes, almost certainly, in the same way an aircraft carrier is a "ship" as the term was understood in 1789. If semi-automatic rifles had existed in 1789, would the framers st…
We don't care about what they thought, just what they wrote. Uh, who's "we?" It sounds like you're describing textualism or strict constructionism, which are two of many types of judicial interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation
The we is the supreme court.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#93Time 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.
The essential and influential backers for Congress is industry. Congress is not really responsible or beholden to its replaceable selectorate. I don't think people hold enough influence to hire the lobbying to see this change.
Another comment mentioned how California is considering arbitration in legislation. With their massive engineering and startup culture, I think employees there as a bloc have a tremendous influence for very specific employee rights (also why there is so much legislation against non-competes there as well). That doesn't really exist in the rest of the country.
You can't really just "vote the bums out" when all politics depends on various degrees of corruption, no matter how democratic the country. I mean really, you need more of the people to hold more of the income; therefore less income inequality for all. That way you move more of the replaceables into the influentials.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 #3 - Could you please explain how penalizing people for choosing to not patronize certain corporations fits that criteria? Because that seems like a huge boon to the corporations, basically cementing their positions and outweighing the procedural concessions they traded.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? That's an extreme position. You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction? I'm in a public sector union. I pay union dues. Th…
The parent comment was a bit excited, but there are major differences between money you use for groceries and money used for union dues. The most relevant one to Janus is the fact that you can't choose which union your dues go to - but you have a number of choices about how to feed yourself with your dollars. You can go to a restaurant; go to Smart & Final; go to Whole Foods; in general, those dollars are fungible an…
"The most relevant one to Janus is the fact that you can't choose which union your dues go to"
This is false; you can choose your workplace based on the union.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The primary issue is that there is no competition for the public sector. Yes, the fact that workers face a monopsony (and one which can and does exempt itself from generally-applicable workplace laws) is why public sector unions are even more critical to avoid abusive employment conditions than private sector unions.
> Yes, the fact that workers face a monopsony (and one which can and does exempt itself from generally-applicable workplace laws) is why public sector unions are even more critical to avoid abusive employment conditions than private sector unions. Source? Last I checked the public sector is covered by OSHA. What rules apply to the private sector that don't apply to the public sector? [1]: https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/…
> Last I checked the public sector is covered by OSHA.
Federal agencies can apply alternate standards if they decide general OSHA rules don't work for them; while this requires DoL sign-off, IIRC, this option is not available to individual private employers.
> What rules apply to the private sector that don't apply to the public sector?
Aside from the above, another example is that a variety of regulations under FLSA, including standards for exemption, do not apply to federal employees when adopted by the Labor Department; OPM sometimes adopts conforming regulations that apply similar standards to the federal civilian workforce and sometimes does not.
Similarly, states often limit the applicability of their own labor laws to themselves, though they are of course bound by federal laws to the extent that they aren't either specifically exempted or Constitutionally immune.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#97Time 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.
Employees can (and should) band together as well.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"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.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The primary issue is that there is no competition for the public sector. Yes, the fact that workers face a monopsony (and one which can and does exempt itself from generally-applicable workplace laws) is why public sector unions are even more critical to avoid abusive employment conditions than private sector unions.
> Yes, the fact that workers face a monopsony (and one which can and does exempt itself from generally-applicable workplace laws) is why public sector unions are even more critical to avoid abusive employment conditions than private sector unions. Source? Last I checked the public sector is covered by OSHA. What rules apply to the private sector that don't apply to the public sector? [1]: https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/…
Covered by OSHA
But with exemptions in place for adverse conditions (oversees).
And all Workman's compensation claims go through a government agency (Department of Labor).
With zero ability to sue or claim damages like you would have in other businesses.
If you get hurt via some hilariously OSHA-illegal workplace incident, the most you can hope for is a schedule reward of some number of your work weeks plus forced retirement, and most people have to fight to get that using their own resources and legal help. All the while being treated as a criminal or a draft dodger.
So in the end, an OSHA-unsafe environment has no repercussions to governmental organizations ($$ as normal or firing).
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That's called "consideration" and it's to prevent a contract where only one side is being obligated to do something.
Except the court has also ruled that simply keeping your job is sufficient "consideration".