SCOTUS rules that companies can require workers to accept individual arbitration
19 replies, posted
Quote from the articl
The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 Monday that companies may require workers to accept individual arbitration for wage and other workplace disputes rather than banding together in collective actions.The case was considered the most important business case of the term, and could affect as many as 25 million contracts. The ruling extends the Supreme Court’s decisions that make room for corporations to require that wage disputes, and probably other actions such as job-discrimination claims, be handled through arbitration, rather than litigation. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the conservative majority, posed the question presented by the case: Should employers be allowed to insist that disputes be handled in one-on-one arbitration, or should employees always be permitted to bring their claims in class or collective actions? “As a matter of policy these questions are surely debatable,” Gorsuch wrote. “But as a matter of law the answer is clear. In the Federal Arbitration Act, Congress has instructed federal courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms — including terms providing for individualized proceedings.”
So sad that poor workers in the Rust Belt support the GOP when they are 100% against labor rights.
Let this be a reminder that the most lasting damage done by the 2016 election will be that Neil Gorsuch was appointed to the Supreme Court.
Originalism is fucking retarded, "oh we can't say this is constiitutuonal unless there's new amendment" fat fucking chance of a new amendment in the next 40 years.
This is bullshit. Supreme Court has been a farce within the last 2 decades.
Now justices can be obstructive assholes too with originalism!
He cited the Federal Arbitration Act passed by congress.
Remember, the SC isn't there to decide what is good and what is bad. They're there to interpret current law. There's nothing unconstitutional about these agreements and the current law supports them.
"Vote for Donald Trump! He is a friend to all the 'forgotten men and women' of the blue collar working class!", they said.
fucking hell, forced arbitration clauses are the ultimate runaround anything.
Now's a good time for a general strike
Here's hoping Gorsuch gets implicated with the pumpkin.
SCOTUS justices can theoretically be impeached, but it might open the floodgates of gop idiots trying to impreach liberal justices.
The point of the SCOTUS isn't to rule in favor of what you want, but rather what is currently legally valid.
It's hard to argue with Gorsuchs opinion, US labor laws suck.
arbitration is literally you waiving your rights away, you'd think the defenders of the constitution wouldn't edge towards that.
With how weak US unions are, that's not a realistic expectation.
Sure, and I don't expect it to actually happen, but it should. If this kind of shit had happened in Spain or France you know there would be riots and strikes.
Either way, while your basic unions are weak, your radical unions are growing. At the very least I expect that the IWW will see an increase in membership after this.
It's not a "single vague line". The Federal Arbitration Act specifically falls away in the presence of conflicting law; it is designed to do that. The National Labor Relations Act specifically guarantees the right to bargain collectively, and any refusal by an employer to allow employees to do so is an unfair labor practice. The two laws conflict. Nothing in the FAA suggests that arbitration agreements should be exempted from this restriction; it only requires that arbitration agreements are held to the same standard as other contracts. Any contract that restricts the right to bargain collectively is presumptively invalid. An arbitration agreement does not evade that standard. Therefore, the FAA should cede to the NLRA, and the individual arbitration agreements should not be valid.
But fuck workers, I guess.
I remember people arguing it was justified to hold off obama's nominee for so long because it was important to replace a conservative with a conservative.
It was a dumb opinion then and it's dumb now!
