The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.Don't have an account? Register
Ever see a snowball roll down a snow covered mountain?
Instead of a 12,000 mile warranty and defects fixed for free,
new car buyers will need to read the fine print in the sales
The smart car makers will sneak in arbitration clauses.
Then it will spread to other consumer goods.
Especially white goods.
"Workers, Justice Ginsburg wrote, “must have the capacity to act collectively in order to match their employers’ clout” in dictating wages and work conditions. "
Sorry, Ginsburg. If workers don't like who they work for, they can quite and work for someone else or they can form their own company.
If we accept the simple premise that so much in the law is not about All White v. All Black, or One side is 100% Right and the other side is 100% Wrong, we MUST come down to one conclusion and one conclusion ONLY.
That conclusion is the law, in particular in a claim of a tortious nature (which NLRA is) , comes down to ONE thing and ONE thing only - the balancing of competing interests. This is a point Judge Norsuch conceded in his superficially persuasive opinion.
Judge Gorsuch is an ass in the manner he balanced the competing interests. (it's OK, even the Queen of England has used this rude word publicly when commenting on how some asses need to be kicked).
I admire Judge Ginsburg all the more. A feisty judge with a conscience.
Sorry. Spelled the Justice's name wrong in paragraph 2.
This seems to apply only to non-unionized workers. Does that mean workers can escape the effects of this ruling by joining a union, or are things not that simple?
I'm sure this is all about 'making America great again'. For the oligarchy.
Once again, working Americans get scr****. I just hope the deplorables who made this possible are paying attention, but I'm sure Fox will have them believe this is all for their benefit because what is good for business is good for America, and what is good for America is good for Americans.
Yup! I agree with you. The more you look at what's happening, the more it is looking what is being delivered drop-by-drop to the voters of the present administration is a mirage against the backdrop of a promised monsoon.
I find it coldly hypocritical that labor unions will vehemently assert that their right to arbitrate disputes trumps any attempt at judicial second-guessing, yet if management asserts the same right it is somehow egregiously wrong. Can arbitration be unfair? Absolutely. Does an employee have to work for an employer that forces arbitration? No. Can Congress decide it wants to either amend the FAA or the NLRA to allow or disallow such arbitration clauses? Sure it can. If it doesn't, then democracy has spoken and chosen to disagree with Justice Ginsburg.
"Does an employee have to work for an employer that forces arbitration? "
Yes, because every single employer is going to force new employees to sign arbitration agreements now. Why wouldn't they?
And then those employers will steal small chunks of paychecks from them, like the thieving gangsters they in fact are, knowing that it will not be worth it for the worker to take a case to arbitration individually for anything but very large instances of wage theft, whereas class action allowed them to band together to deal with systematic but small instances of theft.
Read the article a little more closely. This ruling affects non-unionised workers wanting to band together in class actions. So what's it got to do with labour unions?
And democracy? More like corporate oligarchy.
The solution for those workers is to then unionize. Unions have been fretting about the possibility of the Court striking down mandatory union dues and saying that they will wither on the vine. However, this current ruling actually gives unions the optimum marketing tool to justify their existence -- collective action.
It has to do with labor unions because the FAA needs to be interpreted the same way for all arbitration agreements. Labor unions put such agreements in their collective bargaining agreements, and it is interpreted as mandatory, regardless of whether the employee wishes to do things individually, or if the employer would like to do things differently. I see no reason why the FAA ought to be interpreted any differently when it is an employer enforcing an arbitration clause against a worker, versus a worker (or union) enforcing an arbitration clause against an employer.
Private sector unions are dead and they are not coming back. Globalization killed them. Capital is more mobile than workers it can always flee a union and take the jobs with it.
No, this is just plain inexcusable corruption of the Supreme Court but by all means keep trying.
No the FAA does not need to be interpreted the same way for all arbitration agreements. Congress is specifically delegated the authority to provide special protections for classes vulnerable to discrimination in contract due to power differentials. There is a massive and obvious power differential between an individual worker and a large corporate entity that affects bargaining power and practical ability to bring lawsuits to redress grievances. Holding them to the same standard is absurd and dishonest.
If globalization is killing unions, then the solution for unions is to globalize themselves. I see a lot of "international" in a lot of union titles, but in reality they are very small minded and parochial thinking, which is why they are on the losing end of globalization.
As far as "power differentials" go, I have no idea where you got the notion that Congress was creating special protections for classes vulnerable to discrimination in contracts. The FAA is not a one sided affair, where labor gets all the protections. The FAA is actually non-partisan when it comes to arbitration award judicial review and enforcement -- either side (labor or management) can take advantage of the requirements of the statute. The NLRA was created to allow workers to collectively organize and act in concert, but the FAA is about preserving arbitration for both sides, without any sense of favoritism.
I just got paid 7k dollar working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over 12k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do
In case anyone had any remaining doubts that the Supreme Court has been effectively purchased by capital interests, here you go.
This is not about ideological differences on the court. It is about bribery and corruption.
@Peace, until there is concrete evidence of bribery, that accusation is at best tenuous. "Corruption", on the other hand, is a more pliant word. I personally would assert that without qualms.
It is (questionably) a legalized form of bribery in this country, but it is still well within the scope of the term bribery, to pay an elected politician in order to secure favorable judicial appointments to your interests.
Modalities of Constitutional interpretation and legal philosophy have been crafted and refined to create a legal pretext for serving the interests of those who have bribed our elected politicians. Those appointing politicians purposefully appoint those judges who have adopted this modality as an act of direct quid pro quo to those who have bribed them. I'm quite comfortable using the term here because it absolutely applies to what has in fact occurred.
If you are talking about a *systemic thing* that pervades and prevails, I nearly 100% agree with you. Sometimes one despairs that America, when all the trimmings and icings and garnishes are removed, is a democracy. It breaks the heart just to think about it.
I had mistaken you to mean Gorsuch personally took bribes (he wrote the majority opinion in this case) , and some members in the USSC personally take bribes too. That hasn't been seen yet, or there is no evidence for that impression yet. And at least some members in the Court are nearly as clean as Casesar's wife.
It wouldn't surprise me if bribery was happening, although it is far more likely to be of the quid pro quo sort than the "here is some money rule in my favor" sort.
By that I mean: Where the justices themselves are concerned, the bribery is more along the lines of "if you adopt this modality of legal interpretation in general, I will appoint you to this seat which pays quite well and will also make you enormously famous"