Supreme Court Crushes Unions By Limiting Collective Action Bargaining

In what will likely be remembered as an epic middle finger to America's unions, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Monday - in a decision split along ideological lines - that businesses can force employees into individual arbitration to resolve disputes, virtually eliminating the threat of a class-action lawsuit.

The Washington Post described the ruling as "an important outcome for business interests."

Supreme

The decision could make life much harder for unions fighting for better conditions and wages. 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision "egregiously wrong". She argued that individual complaints can be very small in dollar terms, or "scarcely of a size warranting the expense of seeking redress alone." The justice read a summary of her dissent aloud in the court.

In a comment that broke with the administration's official view, the National Labor Relations Board argued that requiring employees to waive their right to collective action conflicted with national labor laws. Bodies representing business were united in support of the ruling.

Meanwhile, lower courts had been split over the issue. Two rulings had been issued - two in which appeals courts ruled that such agreements can’t be enforced and a third in which the appeals court said they are valid.

According to the New York Times, the Court had ruled back in 2011 during the AT&T Mobility V. Concepcion case that companies could forbid class actions in contracts with consumers. These contracts typically require two things: That disputes be resolved and claims brought through arbitration.

The justices were asked to determine whether these same conditions apply to employees.

Comments

Dickweed Wang NidStyles Mon, 05/21/2018 - 13:00 Permalink

It’s almost impossible for public employees to be terminated.

 

Exactly.  It's obvious this ruling was focused on the private sector as they've been trying to diminish the power of unions like the UAW and others in manufacturing for decades.  If anyone thinks that's a good thing they really don't know what they're talking about.  This has the potential to help shrink what's left of the American middle class even more.

In reply to by NidStyles

Justin Case NidStyles Mon, 05/21/2018 - 13:05 Permalink

almost impossible for public employees to be terminated.

There has to be a ligit reason. That's bogus, employers should be able to fire without just cause like in the twenties. This way they can hire immigrants, OFWs or who ever they see fit. This won't make products cheaper for consumers, but at least the managers and CEO can pad their bank accounts moar. I'd like to see mexicans fixing roads and collecting merican's taxes. That would be a hoot!!! At minimum wage too LMFAO. Carma coming. Whites making minimum wage at auto plants, while CEOs rake in millions a year in compensation packages. Once the Mexicans move in they'll be happy right? Just fire all the white, no just cause, just too high pay.

In reply to by NidStyles

hannah The_Juggernaut Mon, 05/21/2018 - 13:26 Permalink

'This affects people who signed an agreement to use arbitration in the first place, right?  I don't see what the big deal with living up to your agreements is.'

 

the problem is that these big companies like at&t use the gov to create laws to force out competition so you cant go the the 'other company' because there isnt one. the epa wasnt created to clean up the environment. it was created to kill competition. same with the dot....if we didnt have the fed gov and people could do whatever they wanted it would be a different world entirely.

In reply to by The_Juggernaut

sessinpo Umh Mon, 05/21/2018 - 13:02 Permalink

There is also the issue of statistics. What I mean by this is that the population continues to grow. So in terms of shear numbers, yes, membership might be at its highest. But is it in terms of percentage? I don't know.

Point being, there is a big difference on how and what you use as a metric.

In reply to by Umh

Justin Case ZENDOG Mon, 05/21/2018 - 12:11 Permalink

The labor movement in the United States grew out of the need to protect the common interest of workers. For those in the industrial sector, organized labor unions fought for better wages, reasonable hours and safer working conditions. The labor movement led efforts to stop child labor, give health benefits and provide aid to workers who were injured or retired.

The movement’s impotence has been felt. “The collapse of labor’s legislative power facilitated the adoption of a set of economic policies highly beneficial to the corporate sector and to the affluent,” wrote analyst Thomas B. Edsall in 1984. And, with collective bargaining in retreat, declining living standards of American wage-earning families set in for the first time since the Great Depression. The union movement became in the 1980s a diminished economic and political force, and, in the Age of Reagan, this made for a less socially just nation.

https://www.history.com/topics/labor

Hood winked public. Like a pendulum, swinging back. Peak prosperity is regressing for labour and returning to the corporatocracy of the 20's. During the murica industrial revolution was the greatest membership in unions and the whole country prospered. Now the CEOs and upper management is taking most of that prosperity and figures indicate that the ratio of pay to management is at the highest level in murican history of 300:1. I'm quite certain that that spread will continue that trajectory for sure now.

In reply to by ZENDOG

Akzed Justin Case Mon, 05/21/2018 - 13:14 Permalink

Unions are organized against non-union workers. Period. Their main goal is to limit the number of qualified workers for each skillset, thereby driving up the price.

Employer-provided health insurance came out of WWII due to wage and price controls. Insurance was not under these restrictions so it was offered to lure workers.

Without unions we would probably be just where we are now with workplace conditions anyhow, except e.g. Bethlehem Steel would still be around.

 

In reply to by Justin Case

Justin Case wwwww Mon, 05/21/2018 - 11:41 Permalink

Workers, of course, should stand alone against big business. Perfect, they love it. Means you take what we give you, or we'll help you out, show you where you came in. Now you can compete with OFWs and immigrants. Mexico's future looks brighter. The future is so bright I need sunglasses. LOL.

Then the corporatocracy should at least supply the the lube at no cost to the victims.

Murica will soon have third world wages and lifestyle. Folks, meet Ben Dover. The execs just came in their panties on this one! Powerless workforce a wet dream. Big business will soon return and have their sweat shops in murica instead of China, Bangladesh and India? You guys are so lucky. Everyone will have a job, and no future.

In reply to by wwwww

wisehiney Mon, 05/21/2018 - 11:12 Permalink

“We’re going to win. We’re going to win so much. We’re going to win at trade, we’re going to win at the border. We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning, you’re going to come to me and go ‘Please, please, we can’t win anymore.’  You’ll say ‘Please, Mr. President, we beg you sir, we don’t want to win anymore. It’s too much. It’s not fair to everybody else.’” Trump said. “And I’m going to say ‘I’m sorry, but we’re going to keep winning, winning, winning, We’re going to make America great again.”

shizzledizzle tmosley Mon, 05/21/2018 - 11:43 Permalink

Won't argue with your synopsis. Problem is we are a long LONG way from "High real interest rates" and in the current situation I fail to see how they can get there without causing implosion. I think them not hiking last go around is a indicator of this as well as other central banks following suit. The FED knows they can't allow a low risk place to park money and get a decent return...

In reply to by tmosley

Justin Case shizzledizzle Mon, 05/21/2018 - 11:50 Permalink

I fail to see how they can get there without causing implosion.

The off loading of the balance sheet is a real problem for the FED. It's going at nauseous drip pace. The bond market will will be the struggle. There are trillions of dollars in zero rate bonds out there. Who is going to buy them when rates rise? The FED? That would be a closed loop for moar QE to monetize that garbage.

The USD is a cadaver with the tubes still hooked up to give the illusion that the cadaver will recover at any moment.

In reply to by shizzledizzle

tmosley shizzledizzle Mon, 05/21/2018 - 11:55 Permalink

Naturally. Watch for the pivot to lower government spending. Once the deficit becomes a real surplus, the interest rate will no longer be a threat to the government.

There is room within Medicare and Medicaid to balance the budget simply by modifying the way doctors get paid. For example, a transition to a health savings account+catastrophic insurance coverage type model, where the government pays into such an account until there is enough to cover the entire premium, and then any additional payouts go to the person in the form of 50 cents on the dollar cash. The cash incentive encourages them not to go to the doctor unless they really need to.

In reply to by shizzledizzle

Justin Case tmosley Mon, 05/21/2018 - 12:49 Permalink

High real interest rates help the middle class

If middle class wasn't in debt up to their ears, it would be great. Since wages for the non-unionized work force haven't kept up to real inflation, they borrowed their future earnings from the bank to maintain their current living standard. GDP is an indicator of economic strength. muricas GDP is barely above zero. Without manipulation it would be negative.

Most muricans have zero savings and a mountain of debt that low rates allowed them to get into. Pensions got wiped out, now it's Joe Six pack that is going to get totaled financially. The masses are under paid, which allowed the spread in financial compensation to management to reach 300:1. That is the highest in murican history. The economy only grew because the population brought forward future income, by borrowing.

Unions aren't over paid. It's an illusion created by the stagnant wage compensation that the non-unionized workers are getting, which are at 1999 levels. So being stuck in 1999 wage bracket, everyone that was compensated properly looks like they make too much, but in reality, they just don't make enough. The level of consumer debt was caused by low compensation. Prices of goods did not stay at 1999 levels and so things cost moar but you don't make moar, so borrow the difference.

In reply to by tmosley