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.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Where is your value?
Where is your loyalty?
I'm sure you will make it in life one day and not have to depend on forcing others to provide for you to get by.
Your logic is flawed, the vast majority of people are employees for their entire careers. Business owners make up a minority of the population
I can't believe the amount of stupidity on this thread.
Already income inequality levels are at record levels and again the supreme court eliminates more rights of the worker. And yet some people on here are too idiotic to see this.
Hopefully actions like this will ultimately make more voters take off their blinders towards Trump in the next election.
It doesn't matter how well the economy is going if all of the spoils are going to CEO's and the rich.
This is to those who quoted the Arbitration Act of 1925.
I will quote the NLRA verbatim which I am confident is public domain by now.
RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES
Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--
(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];
I believe this to be the clause in the NLRA that the NLRB was using to overrule the Arbitration Act of 1925.
actually what happened was, SCOTUS corrected yet another really bad decision by the Obama administration.
They rest back to what has been the case since 1925. Once again Obama proved to be a dirtbag idiot whose legacy lies shattered like a pane of glass all over the nation.
Your degree of objectivity about Obama is overwhelming. Obama is one of us. He ruled like one of us. I don't see how a Harvard scholar is a "dirtbag idiot".
I can't believe the amount of stupidity on this thread.
Already income inequality levels are at record levels and again the supreme court eliminates more rights of the worker. And yet some people on here are too idiotic to see this.
Hopefully actions like this will ultimately make more voters take off their blinders towards Trump in the next election.
It doesn't matter how well the economy is going if all of the spoils are going to CEO's and the rich.
Not one thing changed regarding the rights of workers. The Supreme Court simply refused to invent a new right that lets employees abandon contracts they voluntarily sign the minute that contract becomes inconvenient. Obama's various Executive branch departments were real god at inventing new laws out bureaucratic machination, but the courts have been rock solid for almost a century on upholding the 1925 Arbitration Act, and this ruling goes along with LONG ESTABLISHED precedent of following the duly written/passed/signed law as written.
And under individual arbitration, you have all your legal rights except the ones you voluntarily waived - suing under class action in civil court. You can still become a plaintiff against your employer, you simply agree that you do it yourself, for yourself, and that an arbitrator hears/decides the case instead of a civil court. YOU SIGN AND AGREE TO THESE TERMS VOLUNTARILY.
None of your rights change outside of what YOU agree to change.
Not one thing changed regarding the rights of workers. The Supreme Court simply refused to invent a new right that lets employees abandon contracts they voluntarily sign the minute that contract becomes inconvenient. Obama's various Executive branch departments were real god at inventing new laws out bureaucratic machination, but the courts have been rock solid for almost a century on upholding the 1925 Arbitration Act, and this ruling goes along with LONG ESTABLISHED precedent of following the duly written/passed/signed law as written.
And under individual arbitration, you have all your legal rights except the ones you voluntarily waived - suing under class action in civil court. You can still become a plaintiff against your employer, you simply agree that you do it yourself, for yourself, and that an arbitrator hears/decides the case instead of a civil court. YOU SIGN AND AGREE TO THESE TERMS VOLUNTARILY.
None of your rights change outside of what YOU agree to change.
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.
This is to those who quoted the Arbitration Act of 1925.
I will quote the NLRA verbatim which I am confident is public domain by now.
RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES
Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--
(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];
I believe this to be the clause in the NLRA that the NLRB was using to overrule the Arbitration Act of 1925.
Yes, the Obama admin NLRB stretched the meaning of "coerce employees" to include "employees signing arbitration contracts of their own volition." It did so against all established precedent relating to the 1925 Arbitration Act, in a most outlaw fashion, same as a lot of departments did under Obama whenever the written law annoyed Emperor Barack I.
But Obama ordering people to interpret or stretch laws to suit him does not create new law, it does not abolish old law, nor does it establish legal precedent to later interpret/adjudicate the law. It is simply one person wielding executive power like a kid who stole their dad's gun.
Read the full written opinion by Gorsuch. It relies on fact, precedent, case law, etc. Ginsburg's rambling dissent relies on feelings, emotions, and bumper sticker platitudes and political theater. Again, the only sad thing is the ruling was something other than 9-0, given how clear cut the law is.
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.
