Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of us have no desire to pick strawberries or work on the kill floor of a meat packing plant no matter the wage
The corporations have done a really good job of on-shoring and off-shoring jobs to people that will work for little money, no benefits and no legal safety net like workers' compensation etc.
They've done an even better job of hiding behind the workers ethnicity and branding people that point out the scheme as "racist".
Oh well, enjoy your wage stagnation if you're blue collar.
Sorry but it's quite obvious that in the last few decades corporations have thrived at the expense of the worker. Once again look at how much income inequality has gone up. Even if it was a new right that the supreme court struck down that was still uncalled for. Any rights new or old that benefit the American worker should be upheld.
The written law has meaning or there is no rule of law. The law cannot and should not change meaning because of the personality of the chief executive. All the SCOTUS did was uphold the law as written, not "as interpreted by a petulant President who ignores laws that he finds inconvenient."
And you want it to be this way, believe me, because Emperor Barack I is no longer President. If memory serves, I believe Donald the Unwise is the current tyrant in chief, and do you really want his sensibilities overruling the laws as written?
If you want workers to retain their right to sue under class actions even after they've signed individual arbitration agreements (basically, contracts and contract law are meaningless)...WRITE/CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR, and ask them to make that a legitimate law, duly written, debated, passed and signed. That's how laws get made, abolished, updated, superseded, etc.
It's called the lawmaking process and it's why we have a 535 member Legislative branch.
Last edited by Volobjectitarian; 05-22-2018 at 08:36 AM..
The corporations have done a really good job of on-shoring and off-shoring jobs to people that will work for little money, no benefits and no legal safety net like workers' compensation etc.
They've done an even better job of hiding behind the workers ethnicity and branding people that point out the scheme as "racist".
Oh well, enjoy your wage stagnation if you're blue collar.
My sentiments exactly. While I can see business people and the rich liking this decision. For those who are on a lower income bracket, cheering for this makes it clear that they can't see who's upholding their best interests. Because it sure ain't the Republicans.
At my unionized workplace, employees don’t sue when they have a gripe. After failing to resolve the matter on their own, the employee files a greivance and the union works with the company to resolve it. If that doesn’t work, the union goes into arbitration with the company under the National Mediation Board.
It sounds like the Supreme Court is merely restating what is already in practice.
The corporations have done a really good job of on-shoring and off-shoring jobs to people that will work for little money, no benefits and no legal safety net like workers' compensation etc.
An acquaintance of mine who owned a small manufacturing company was approached by a Chinese company that would of built and shipped his product directly to his dealers for far less than what it was costing him to do it. He could of laid off everyone, sold his assets and ran his business from a lazyboy.
In his niche his only competitors are US manufactures so it's an even playing field, he could of severely undercut them. He rejected the offer but that doesn't mean a Chinese company will not enter the market in the future or one of his competitors will not take up an offer in the future. If hsi prices are severely undercut becsue of that he will have some hard choices to make.
The business world is highly competitive and if your competition has the advantage of cheaper labor you really don't have much choice.
The written law has meaning or there is no rule of law. The law cannot and should not change meaning because of the personality of the chief executive. All the SCOTUS did was uphold the law as written, not "as interpreted by a petulant President who ignores laws that he finds inconvenient."
And you want it to be this way, believe me, because Emperor Barack I is no longer President. If memory serves, I believe Donald the Unwise is the current tyrant in chief, and do you really want his sensibilities overruling the laws as written?
If you want workers to retain their right to sue under class actions even after they've signed individual arbitration agreements (basically, contracts and contract law are meaningless)...WRITE/CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR, and ask them to make that a legitimate law, duly written, debated, passed and signed. That's how laws get made, abolished, updated, superseded, etc.
It's called the lawmaking process and it's why we have a 535 member Legislative branch.
You keep saying that the law which was made in 1925 cannot change. It's funny the last time I looked it wasn't 1925. As a matter of a fact it hasn't been 1925 for nearly 100 years!
The fact of the matter is that even if Obama changed the 1925 law because he found it inconvenient, what he was doing was just, because he was looking out for the American worker and he knew that they would benefit from the change in law.
As I pointed out the gap between the poor and the rich is growing higher and higher. At least Obama sensed this and tried to do something about it. For those in the Supreme Court who voted for this decision eliminating another worker right, I fail to see how they thought that this would benefit the American worker.Of course if they thought that this would benefit the rich well......
You keep saying that the law which was made in 1925 cannot change. It's funny the last time I looked it wasn't 1925. As a matter of a fact it hasn't been 1925 for nearly 100 years!
The fact of the matter is that even if Obama changed the 1925 law because he found it inconvenient, what he was doing was just, because he was looking out for the American worker and he knew that they would benefit from the change in law.
As I pointed out the gap between the poor and the rich is growing higher and higher. At least Obama sensed this and tried to do something about it. For those in the Supreme Court who voted for this decision eliminating another worker right, I fail to see how they thought that this would benefit the American worker.Of course if they thought that this would benefit the rich well......
You keep running with this "ignored the law in the name of all that is good and pure" argument that equates to having exactly zero rule of law.
Nowhere in any of the framework documents that guide the law making, enforcing or adjudication processes of the United States is there a clause that invalidates laws as written based on the perceived wealth gap between income quintiles. Nowhere will you find clauses for "because it's the right thing to do for workers" either. Matter of fact, finding officially enumerated "because So And So feels like it" clauses that invalidate law will be a very fruitless effort, because there aren't any, no matter what the lazy rep/senator who abdicates their duties to the faceless bureaucracy tells you.
And yes, the law covering individual arbitration is almost 100 years old. And? If there needs to be an update to the law, as I said...that's why we have a legislative branch. I realize the luxury of the President inventing/ignoring law as he sees fit is something you miss now that Barack the Benevolent is out of office, but again, do you want Donald the Unwise doing the same thing according to his own thinking?
Checks and balances, separation of power, due process, rule of law. These are features, not bugs.
The fact of the matter is that even if Obama changed the 1925 law because he found it inconvenient, what he was doing was just, because he was looking out for the American worker and he knew that they would benefit from the change in law.
That is not the way it works. The Administration only administers law. They have some leeway with regulations and the details but anything they do has to be within the scope of the law on the books.
Checks and balances, separation of power, due process, rule of law. These are features, not bugs.
It's amazing how many people do not understand the importance of this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
