Supreme Court Decision on Workers' Rights

[Taylor]

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/21/605012795/supreme-court-decision-delivers-blow-to-workers-rights

Quote

In a case involving the rights of tens of millions of private-sector employees, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, delivered a major blow to workers, ruling for the first time that workers may not band together to challenge violations of federal labor laws.

Thoughts on this? Seems like a blow to the little guy in favor of corporations.

[hopkinsHalo]

initial thought: Hastens the decline of the US, which (let's be honest) is probably good for the world as a whole. We just have to hope the Chinese learn from these mistakes. 

[Thomas]

The problem with these kind of summary articles is that while they briefly mention that the case hinged on likely a complicated interpretation of legal precedence between two existing laws they never focus on this legal question that actually is being contested. Instead they always frame it as being about the cause. In this case the ability for these affected workers to join together in litigation. As if that is the only issue the justices are weighing. Now of course the SCOTUS has been decidedly partisan in recent years and may be deciding cases simply based on the issue.  It'd still be nice though in these articles to explore the actual legal questions raised in much more detail.

[Adam]

I fucking love this decision

[hopkinsHalo]

Did you read the opinions? One takeaway: Gorsuch (who I hadn't read before) is a shitty writer and really not that smart. I guess that does make him the appropriate Scalia replacement.

[Adam]

There are still a ton of things employers must do right in terms of executing proper arbitration agreements. And blue states won't give a shit. 

[Thomas]

7 minutes ago, hopkinsHalo said:

Did you read the opinions? One takeaway: Gorsuch (who I hadn't read before) is a shitty writer and really not that smart. I guess that does make him the appropriate Scalia replacement.

Did he write it or one of his clerks?

[mtangelsfan]

9 minutes ago, hopkinsHalo said:

Did you read the opinions? One takeaway: Gorsuch (who I hadn't read before) is a shitty writer and really not that smart. I guess that does make him the appropriate Scalia replacement.

This is a completely subjective argument.

 

It is good to see you posting again though.  

[hopkinsHalo]

2 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Did he write it or one of his clerks?

Dunno...fair question.

 

[hopkinsHalo]

Just now, mtangelsfan said:

This is a completely subjective argument.

 

It is good to see you posting again though.  

Definitely subjective. Also true though.

[floplag]

possibly one of the worst SCOTUS ever

[Tank]

did this suddenly become the bolshevik forum?

[hopkinsHalo]

"Bolshevism" is your dirty word for valuing the rights of the people who do actual work over the corporate entities who extract wealth from those people? Think your insults might be a little out of date.

[mtangelsfan]

6 minutes ago, hopkinsHalo said:

"Bolshevism" is your dirty word for valuing the rights of the people who do actual work over the corporate entities who extract wealth from those people? Think your insults might be a little out of date.

Hopkinshalo this is tank, tank this is hopkinshalo.

I think you may have taken his post seriously.

[hopkinsHalo]

Just now, mtangelsfan said:

Hopkinshalo this is tank, tank this is hopkinshalo.

I think you may have taken his post seriously.

ah...my bad.

 

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, Adam said:

I Facking love this decision

Violated any federal workers laws lately, Adam?

[Adam]

I’m in the business of independent contractors. We see lots of suits

[Thomas]

14 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Violated any federal workers lately, Adam?

Well?

[Rico]

This is just bad.  When workers get fucked over they don't want to rock the boat too much and risk getting fired.  Also companies don't fix the problems if they are not held accountable. 

[UndertheHalo]

Terrible. 

[Adam]

federal law is gay

[Adam]

Hey @wopphil correct me if I’m wrong but this decision is focused on arbitration agreements.

I’m pretty sure this decision really only impacts people who signed signed an arbitration agreement (they can opt out by federal law). They can’t say “I was just kidding about that” and seek class action status.

[Lou]

Yes, Adam, it is. 

But allow the fist-wavers to have their faux outrage. 

[wopphil]

I haven't read the decision yet, but it is a huge case (in the context of employment law, that is), and one we have anxiously been anticipating for some time. We expected it to come out favorably for employers, though given past decisions favoring arbitration I am a little surprised it was such a close decision.

I think it can be broken down as simply as follows: most arbitration agreements contain a "class action waiver," which serves to prevent the employee from litigating his claims as part of a class action.  He can still bring those claims - he just has to do it on an individual basis. This helps employers limit exposure on wage and hour claims, but it has no impact on the typical harassment, retaliation, and discrimination claims (98 percent of which are entirely frivolous anyway).

Recently, courts have been ruling that class action waivers violate the National Labor Relations Act because they prevent employees from engaging in concerted action to seek redress for alleged wrongs. Thus some courts have invalidated arbitration agreements containing class waivers, leading to enhanced wage and hour class litigation. This case upholds class waivers and should no longer allow for their invalidation on grounds that they violate the NLRA.

[wopphil]

9 hours ago, Adam said:

Hey @wopphil correct me if I’m wrong but this decision is focused on arbitration agreements.

I’m pretty sure this decision really only impacts people who signed signed an arbitration agreement (they can opt out by federal law). They can’t say “I was just kidding about that” and seek class action status.

Yes, and it doesn't even impact them all that much. They can still bring claims, just on their own behalf rather than as part of a class.

You know who this really affects? Attorneys. Attorneys drive class cases because the fees are so much higher. Employees aren't any worse off by this decision, but their attorneys will have to find other ways to cheat employers.