The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow (5 to 4 along Party lines) to the rights of workers on Monday by allowing companies to require them to sign away their ability to bring class-action claims against management, agreements already in place for about 25 million employees.
High court backs companies over worker class-action claims
.
Workers are being fukked... Cut corporate and high earners taxes (re: business men); allow immediate "expensing" for business
Given all that, how can they bring themselves to vote Republican? Indeed, how? This is the question Democrats need to be pondering, long and hard.
Are you too for corporations over the workers like most here are??? Seems that's where SC has been going
Only if you're such a immature leftist turd that you can only see "for" and "against" instead of "following the law".
YOU are the people the Founding Fathers warned us about.
Are you so dung infested that you believe 4 SC officers would vote against the law?
Well, since it wasn't a unanimous vote, obviously some of the "SC officers" - known to educated people as "Justices" - DID vote against the law.
Oh, and Justice Ginsberg actually SAID, "This is the law", followed by, "But I think it's wrong, so I want to impose my will in place of it."
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.
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act trumps the National Labor Relations Act and that employees who sign employment agreements to arbitrate claims must do so on an individual basis — and may not band together to enforce claims of wage and hour violations.
LAW
A 'Yellow Dog Contract' And Other Jabs During Supreme Court Opening Arguments
"The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written," Gorsuch writes. "While Congress is of course always free to amend this judgment, we see nothing suggesting it did so in the NLRA — much less that it manifested a clear intention to displace the Arbitration Act. Because we can easily read Congress's statutes to work in harmony, that is where our duty lies."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the four dissenters, called the majority opinion "egregiously wrong." She said the 1925 arbitration law came well before federal labor laws and should not cover these "arm-twisted," "take-it-or-leave it" provisions that employers are now insisting on.
The inevitable result, she warned, is that there will be huge underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of workers.
"[T]he edict that employees with wage and hours claims may seek relief only one-by-one does not come from Congress," Ginsburg writes. "It is the result of take-it-or-leave-it labor contracts harking back to the type called 'yellow dog,' and of the readiness of this Court to enforce those unbargained-for agreements. The FAA demands no such suppression of the right of workers to take concerted action for their 'mutual aid or protection.'"
