Just another whack at the little guy. Conservatives/Republicans have worked hard at devaluation of American workers. Another article states that the birthrate is below sustainable rates. Why? It’s not worth it. Why bring another worker droid into this world.
Yesterday’s decision by the US Supreme Court in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis deals a blow to workers’ fundamental right to join together to address workplace disputes.
In its decision, the Court majority has affirmed that employers may force working people to sign away their right to join together and act collectively to seek justice when disputes arise in the workplace.
Workers rely on their ability to join together - whether informally or in formal litigation -to remedy violations of workplace protections. The National Labor Relations Act has long guaranteed working people the right to join together to improve their wages and working conditions. Congress must act to restore this fundamental right by banning forced arbitration agreements and class and collective action waivers.
Between 1994 and today, the share of nonunion, private-sector employers who require their workers to sign forced arbitration agreements has increased from just 8% to 54%. That means that now, more than half of US workers whose legal rights are violated by their employer are not able to pursue a claim in court. In addition, 23.1% of private-sector nonunion employees, or 24.7 million American workers, no longer have the right to bring a class action claim if their employment rights have been violated. With yesterday;s ruling, that number will surely increase.
6
Our best hope is that the young talented workers that business needs so badly will refuse to sign these agreements.
The Voters got what they wanted and now for several decades we will have to live with the Gorsuch appointment. This man has a History of decisions if favor of Employers over Workers.
2
...all we anticipated with fear and more.....this is only the beginning of greed and favor for the wealthy trampling all those "ordinary' people who voted in the dangerous moron and his ever deepening swamp...
4
As a practical matter the Supreme Court's ruling upholding arbitration contracts barring class actions will not have an adverse effect on those employees who assert claims that entitle the employee to recover attorney's fees if the claim is successful e.g., claims for unpaid overtime or claims of unlawful discrimination. In such instances the employee will find plenty of attorneys who are willing to handle an individual claim. In fact, there are plaintiff's attorneys who prefer to handle such claims on an individual basis rather than as a class action because they are likely to recover more attorney's fees if each claim is arbitrated individually than if the claims are handled as part of a class action. In cases where attorney's fees are recoverable by the successful employee, the employer, not the employee, is likely to be worse off as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling.
2
It’s all fine & dandy to say this law exists so the Supreme Court upheld it. But it doesn’t slow the larger longer-term problem of corporations taking over our political system. And the even more pervasive problem that corporations only consider kindness and humanity when it suits their goals of increased profits and increased shareholder equity. Corporatism and Fascism are not far removed from one another. And the Supreme Court, in its current form, either doesn’t notice or thinks that’s how it should be. This is why the decision is troubling. And it’s a bad omen for how the court could rule if it’s forced to decide on Trump’s blatant corporate corruption. If you think I’m wrong please look back 17 years to that decision Bush v. Gore.
4
We all know of the many dangers the Trump administration poses but none is more lasting than Trump's potential to further shift our federal courts to the right...the far right. His nominees require simple majority Senate approval.
It highlights the current imbalance of power of the so called 'Red states' vs. Blue states. If you add the population of the 20 least populous Red states it does not equal the population of the two most populous Blue states. While California and New York have four U.S. senators those 20 Red states have 40 senators.
No doubt our forefathers could never have imagined such vast imbalance in state populations as exists today between California and Wyoming or New York and Vermont.
2
Does this ruling preclude employees from forming a union and using the union to file suit on their behalf in open court?
1
Any potential employee has the right to refuse to work for an employer that demands such an agreement.
Any consumer has the right not to buy an item that requires compulsory arbitration of disputes.
The Supreme Court (which now includes Gorsuch), has spoken.
2
Hi Cassandra, I hope the weather is nice out there in Arizona, great state btw.
Please allow me to comment on your post. I mean no harm or offence but I do have some other perspectives regarding some of the things you expressed.
It has been my experience that not every potential employee has the privilege of being so picky when choosing their employment. Often times people have to work for places they don't like. The least we the people can do is make sure they aren't being taken advantage of imo.
This is also the case with consumption. Consumers do not always have a choice to go with the company they want, if that were the case i'd switch cable companies.
Finally your last sentence is confusing "The Supreme Court has spoken." What's your point? The Court has reversed decisions before and will in the future. I'm just assuming based on your comment that you're a republican... Are you prochoice? The Supreme Court has spoken yet the fight wages on...
4
Not surprising. The court typically (and legitimately) upholds Congressional laws and precedents. Also, I would point out that upholding arbitration does NOT prohibit an individual from suing when a labor law has been broken. And, there are many.
Arbitration has it's place, but so do class actions. Class actions are most reasonable when a company has knowingly brought harm to their customers or workers. If a company harms it's workers, there will be a class action lawsuit. If a few people were insulted by the workplace culture - that's an arbitration case.
1
Now that individuals have been denied the legal right to obtain redress for their grievances we have, in effect created a Totalitarian State ruled by the rich and powerful. The SC has sowed the seeds for a popular and possibly bloody revolution - all they need to do is to publish an opinion stating that if the middle class in America doesn't like their decisions they should "Eat Trump Cake" and the end will be near.
3
The Republicans appear to be moving quickly to consolidate the laws in favor of the one percent. They want to ensure their hold on those of us who dare to view ourselves as worthy of rights, living in their land. We are no longer we the people, it is them and us...remember Romney said, corporations are people too! Corporations now are moving to be more important than people could ever hope to be. I'm afraid that they will finally succeed if we don't get a grip on this NOW. We need to VOTE!
7
Welcome to a new era of unionization!
Worker rights continue to be diminished or eliminated, and this decision is the icing on the cake. (Meanwhile, U.S. productivity is the lowest it has been since the 1970's, I wonder why?)
These days, employees must agree to criminal and credit checks, non-compete clauses, relinquish their right to sue, give up the right to class action suits, agree to be fired at any time, for any reason and without cause, accept minimal work breaks, be on call 24/7, work nights and weekends if needed, accept stagnant wages...the list goes on.
I predict that in hindsight, the corporate "powers that be" will live to regret this decision, because the long-term effect will be the kinds of protests and work stoppages we're seeing with teachers…
…and the unions will rise from the ashes like a Phoenix. Be careful what you wish for already-rich-guys.
7
Let's face it, the Supreme Court isn't impartial. Most of the justices are, as often as not, if not more often, motivated by political biases. If you appoint conservative justices, as the current administration and Senate are doing, SCOTUS will give you conservative opinions. If you care about decisions that protect individual as opposed to corporate rights, you need to take the political nature of the judiciary into consideration when you go to the polls to elect members of Congress or a President.
3
I'm pretty confident that 'Justice' Gorsuch never met a labor law he couldn't interpret in a corporation's favor. Unless all one cares about is Christian dogma and maintaining and expanding corproate power to abuse their labor force and the environment, this 'Justice' has little to offer as far as justice for the little people goes.
1
So change the law to ban arbitration agreements. If you cant get the feds to do it, go state by state.
Look at marijuana as an example.
3
Gorsuch got it right, in a way.
The solution is in Congress. The problem is in the electorate. The numbers are there. Problem is that the workers most likely to be negatively impacted by this decision are voting for Trump and his enablers. In effect, they are getting exactly what they are voting for. The Democratic opposition is apparently doing a terrible job of making that point. Or Trump, Fox News and the Republican big bucks are bamboozling the working man/woman.
How do we get the working class to vote in their own economic interest?
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
4
I'm a arbitration panelist for financial disputes, and I'm appalled by this decision – and I think the Times is partly to blame for it. Your interminable vendetta against all arbitration (featured in countless stories over the past year or two) has always seemed to overlook the fact that getting the "day in court" you so cherish typically takes much longer and enriches only lawyers. That said, this Supreme Court ruling will make it too expensive for little guys to band together seeking justice and that's a terrible thing. I can't help but wonder whether the conservative court would have left well enough alone if the Times – which conservatives love to bash – hadn't provided a target and drawn so much attention to it.
1
Here’s your republican judiciary at work: Give more power to the powerful. And I can’t wait for net neutrality to end soon. Watching that internet access bill go up is going to be fun. Seems Americans will keep cutting off their noses in the name of cultural politics over actual legislation.
1
“Job providers”? I’m sorry, but you can tell when a commentator is anti-workers’ rights when they give no credit to the innovation and productivity of workers. Anyone not in the top 10% is doing their employer a favor by working for them.
4
I do not understand why Supreme Court judges don’t have term limits.
1
so this court thinks corporations have free speech rifhts, but people don't have the right to associate?
3
What makes you think they believe in free speech? Gorsuch seems like the kind of guy who might be open to having a debate about it.
In theory, it prevents them from being influenced by politics and money. In practice...well, you know.
Absolutely the right result. As the LAW is written, nothing prevents this practice in these situations.
The way to fix this is not through legislation from the bench (sorry, lefties), but rather through the do-nothing, know-nothing cowards in Congress to pass some meaningful collective bargaining reform—look at the dates on the laws at issue here because it’s definitely time for an update.
1
Just because a law is written does not mean it serves justice. A Supreme Court Justice is not there just to interpret the law. The Supreme Court is an equal branch in the 3 branch federal government and is supposed to act as a check and balance against both the Executive and Judicial branches. A law that allows corporations to use all their collective financial and legal power against employees the same law forces to fight individually is not just in any sense of the word.
A decision against employees by persons whom, as employees themselves, have lifetime tenure generous pensions, retirement and medical benefits, not to mention paid holidays and vacation as well.
7
This decision, and I fear, several to be coming soon, highlight the most disastrous consequence of Trump's election. His appointees will remain for decades.
I wonder how many impacted union members voted for Trump? Reminds me of the vast majority of air traffic controllers who voted for Reagan only to be permanently deprived of a career after he was elected. One can never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.
6
Would Justice Gorsuch have insisted on arbitration instead of emancipation in 1860 if Congress said it should be so? Should we regulate only labor and leave the owners of labor unfettered, if Congress thinks it so? Should we then re-title Justice Gorsuch to Interpreter Gorsuch - Justice no longer having anything to do with his function?
Wage and hour violations, especially for systemic wage theft, often are sustantial
I would venture to guess that some of the people, maybe even a majority of them, who voted for Trump are negatively affected by this decision. Proof that you reap what you sow!
1
No Supreme Court ruling prevents Americans from taking action against the growing powers of employers. Instead of using class action lawsuits, social media and other resources can identify those corporations which abuse employees.
Stockholder protests, boycotts of such corporations etc. can never be stopped by any right-wing court.
It will be harder to fight such corporate power but it can be done and will be worth every bit of effort.
It's time for a renaissance of the American labor movement – specifically, the return to unions in all major job sectors. Collective action is the only line of defense. Without it, employers unquestionably, invariably exploit their workers with total impunity.
The record of history proves this true at every single turn. Once slavery was illegal, they immediately leased groups of prisoners they could work just as hard and just as inhumanely; when restrictions were put in place to regulate that, they filled dangerous factories with children and teenagers working twelve hour shifts for a pittance.
It's become conventional wisdom to regard unions as inherently bad, but the arguments against them fall apart under scrutiny. Oh, they're corrupt? What do you call the behavior of these corporations? Because you can collectively fix your own organization's flaws, but individually, you can't do anything about Amazon calling delivery drivers "independent contractors," then dodging labor laws by paying them flat wages based on how many hours they estimate the work will take – ludicrous, low-ball estimates that are inevitably exceeded, so the drivers end up making less than minimum wage.
United we bargain. Divided we beg.
5
I would say congrats to the corporations who bought this ruling, but we can’t even give them that. They stole this ruling with the help of Mitch McConnell. Cutthroat political tactics get big money interests the laws and rulings they want. This is why the Republican Party is so extreme. It’s the best tool the rich have to increase wealth inequality.
2
Perhaps we need a Constitutional Amendment that requires all Supreme Court 5-4 decisions to be submitted to arbitration for final adjudication.
At least this time the Court is not upholding race-based slavery.
And, this time Congress has not enacted a Fugitive Slave Act.
So far.
8
Damages for wage theft, especially where large corporations mis-categorize workers so they can bar them from overtime pay and other protected benefits, are usually not small at all--they can amount to six figures. But without class actions on wage theft cases, employees usually never even learn of labor law violations and the likelihood of recovery, because of secrecy and lack of litigation notice to all employees. Further, this cynical decision (and the Court's previous ATT cell phone consumer case) ignores that the federal Arbitration Act was expressly designed for parties with equal bargaining power. But employers force current as well as new hourly wage workers to waive their civil and class action rights on pain of job loss. Finally, litigating one class action case to determine if all employees have been mis-classified, eg., is far faster, more economical and fair than litigating 200 or 2000 or more cases individually, where different arbitrators do render different results on the same facts. And of course, private judging overall consistently favors corporations--their repeat business.
6
What's next, outlaw in labor unions? A Democratic Senate is essential as is after the Republicans are thrown out to add 4 more seats on the Court and fill them with justices like Merit Garland, whose seat was stolen by Mitch McClellan and filled by Gorsuch whose majority vote makes that holding on any issue illegitimate.
Pretty much. Coming up: the Janus v AFCSME decision. I can predict the same outcome. Which will further erode the power of public sector unions.
Right to work states, Citizens United, now this??? Oligarchy of Oligopolies IMO. Repeat after me: "I am free..."
1
Frustrated and abused employees may start taking action into their own hands,
3
Since the Roberts Court loves arbitration so much, maybe they should leave the bench and become arbitrators. It will be more efficient for them and better for the rule of law.
4
Sadly, the right wing are in control.
The poor corporations have personhood and the corporations have dominion over the laborer. That`s what happens when workers at the bottom fail to vote for a progressive candidate.
The only answer is to turn this crowd out. Work hard in your precincts and vote to get these right wing types out of government.
2
Another huge win for Trump. The Supreme Court is being remade in his image. Two more appointments means the end of Roe v Wade and gay "marriage." Ginsberg and Kennedy are next out. They are old. Stay tuned.
2
I wonder if all the Trump voters are tired of "winning" yet? I sure as heck am.
7
A rare piece of objectivity by the NYT. Please, return to objective journalism.
it's funny the way historians pick and choose the facts they wish to use. facts that point the way to major change. major change like finding a brand new continent to populate.
it will be interesting to see which future facts are going to be responsible for the spark of violent revolution. kicking it to congress is the correct path for change, except this current congress is severely lacking in proper direction for the nation.
1
"Justice Gorsuch wrote that there are policy arguments on both sides of the dispute but that the role of the courts was to interpret the governing statutes."
What a refreshing point of view! Instead of legislating from the bench, "interpret the governing statutes" from the bench.
Even Justice Ginsburg seems to be on board:
"Justice Ginsburg called on Congress to address the matter."
If you don't like the law, change the law. Pretty simple.
5
Congress can just change the law and the conservatives are fine with it. So, why is this such a big deal? Seems simple enough to fix.
1
If conservatives had been fine with changing the law to favor employees over big corporations, McConnell would not have broken with 200 years of history to hold a Supreme Court seat open for over a year despite having a highly qualified nominee so that a "conservative" justice could replace Scalia.
And make no mistake, this decision is strictly about protecting big corporations from class action suits - the Kochs and the big corporations that "donated" all that money to the Republicans and held their nose to vote for Trump knew why they were doing it.
9
The illegitimate Gorsuch authors another illegitimate opinion, as McConnell expectedly awaits an infusion of grateful corporate millions into the coffers of Republican Congressional campaign committees. Checkmate!
2
Rulings such as this, with no provision for recourse for the average person, will eventually lead to individuals taking the law into their own hands.
5
The majority opinion here is based on the language of the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court is not saying that arbitration is better or worse than class actions. It is saying that contracts that call for arbitration must be enforced because that's what Section 2 of the Arbitration Act says. Change a few words in Section 2 and arbitrations will give way to class actions. Congress can change the law and this decision will go down the tubes. You can whine about the conservative court or you can vote Democrat in November and take care of the problem.
5
When an argument over efficiency ("..speed and simplicity, and inexpensiveness..") trumps the need for justice, you know things in the court have taken a very bad turn.
Thanks Gorsuch for spelling that out for the rest of America which does care about justice and are impacted by these decisions.
7
He spelled it out - was anyone reading?
If this had gone the other way, it would've been a boon to the ambulance chasing lawyers. They would be the only ones winning. Good decision.
3
@Tamar: Please square this circle...would Rudy G. be any less opportunistic than the lawyers you impugn? One person’s ambulance chaser might be another’s champion.
1
A process...arbitration...that was set up so that adversaries of similar power and resources could stop clogging up the courts and privately resolve their differences is now being used to crush employees and consumers and the corporations who wanted arbitration as a process now refuse to use it and clog up the courts. This decisions is part of the reason that SCOTUS is know as the SUPREME CORPORATE COURT! It’s infuriating.
8
SCOTUS just enshrined this hold-harmless clause for the benefit of the haves at the expense of the have nots. The deck is already stacked against corporate employees in the US. Arbitration is simply another way for corporations to indemnify themselves against allegations of exploitation. SCOTUS is following the pro-corporate power, anti-worker stance that began in the Reagan era and has gathered steam under Roberts.
7
And the really, really good news for the working class: McConnell is packing the judicial seats he denied Obama with corporation friendly, YOUNG right wing ideologues at breakneck speed. Good luck seeing worker's rights, women's rights, civil rights or LGBT rights upheld by the courts for at least a generation. You voted for it ... you got it. The ruling class thanks you VERY much.
10
@gdurt: Tragically complicit in their own subjugation.
4
This is really bad. We need to stop relying on courts to achieve progress. The focus needs to return to electing members of Congress that will act to protect worker rights and more so worker interests!
9
Hard to do when those same courts uphold gerrymandered political districts that ensure that more "conservatives" backed by more corporate money get elected - it is a self-perpetuating scam. (and yes, I'd be shocked if the same Supreme Court turns around and finds political gerrymanders unconstitutional.)
Meanwhile, do you know how much the Kochs are pledging to spend on midterms elections? It's an obscene amount (look it up rather than relying on me telling you).
5
Neil Gorsuch is not a legitimate member of the Court, and should not be allowed to write its opinions.
13
The immediate effect of this decision may be felt by employees tomorrow. Will HR take any complaints seriously?
4
To all those who have recently lauded Senator McCain, he was part of the Republican establishment in the Senate who refused to give President Obama the chance to fill Scalia's seat. So much for bipartisanship from this supposed maverick.
4
Senate rules permit McConnell to single-handedly block a Supreme Court nominee from getting a floor vote, as explained by the Congressional Research Service: "The majority leader, by custom, makes most motions and requests that determine when or whether a nomination will be called up for consideration." And a single senator can place a hold on a nomination.
The Supreme Court of the United States continues to trample on individual rights of citizens. Beginning in the late 1800's with decisions that provided business owners more rights than individual citizens/workers the court has perpetuated America's caste system. Owners choose to do business in a semi - public environment. Today's decision follows the Hobby Lobby ruling as another blow against individual rights. If businesses can hide behind bankruptcy laws and Supreme Court decisions we will eventually fall into Trumps fascist country club state!
63
There is a great book that chronicles every single law created that empowers corporations beginning in the 1880s. It’s called “Gangs of America.“ Highly recommend it.
2
I sad and fearsome day for ordinary American workers, we are bent on returning to the days long before the New Deal.
7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow-dog_contract
A yellow-dog contract is an agreement between an employer and an employee in which the employee agrees, as a condition of employment, not to be a member of a labor union. In the United States, such contracts were, until the 1930s, widely used by employers to prevent the formation of unions, most often by permitting employers to take legal action against union organizers. In 1932, yellow-dog contracts were outlawed in the United States under the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
8
This decision is just another indication of how the Supreme Court's conservatives and their enablers (Republicans in Congress) have shifted the balance of power towards corporations and away from individuals. Just imagine asking your employer to remove a mandatory arbitration clause from your employment contract. It is as likely to happen as you negotiating with AT&T to remove a mandatory arbitration clause from your cell phone contract. Neither employees nor consumers have the market power to "negotiate" with employers or large corporations to get reasonable terms, such as: if you violate our agreement I can sue you.
Mandatory arbitration clauses, by disallowing class action lawsuits, essentially force you to give up your right to sue for breach of contract. After all, how many of us can afford to "arbitrate" against a sophisticated corporation, when our damages are $60 per person, as in AT&T v. Concepcion?
It takes 100,000 consumers at $60 per consumer to make it worthwhile to sue. (That is what a class action lawsuit is.)
Even worse, and as the decision indicates and Professor Fitzpatrick predicts: “it is only a matter of time until the most powerful device to hold corporations accountable for their misdeeds is lost altogether.” Now, this disease is in employment contracts.
How much longer until all of us non-rich people are little more than serfs
13
We already are. At the same time, most class action suits are only worth pursuing for the lawyers, who take most of the money and leave consumers and plaintiffs with pennies on the dollar. In my lifetime, only once did I get a check for more than $10 in any suit in which I was a member of a class.
1
Is this the first step towards eliminating class action lawsuits completely? I know big business would love to eliminate all class action lawsuits.
First employees.
Then customers. ("By buying this product or using our service, you agree to not participate in class action lawsuits ...")
11
May Ruth Bader Ginsberg remain a healthy octogenarian until we get rid of this travesty of an administration.
If that poor excuse for a President gets to nominate another Supreme Court justice, God help the American worker.
8
Perhaps we need a Constitutional Amendment that requires all Supreme Court 5-4 decisions to be submitted to arbitration for final adjudication.
At least this time the Court is not upholding race-based slavery.
And, this time Congress has not enacted a Fugitive Slave Act.
So far.
3
From Mr. Liptak's reporting, it appears that Justice Ginsburg had nothing to say about the content of the relevant statutes and only asserted that these clauses are bad policy, a question that isn't within a court's purview in cases involving only statutory interpretation. Did she challenge the majority's core reasoning at all?
4
If Gorsuch decided that the 1925 law renders the 1935 law moot and subject to corporate caprice and avarice why did congress even bother with the 1935 law if the 1925 law supersedes it? What was their intent to spend their time doing that?
7
Good outcome. I hope that the court rules against union fees.
4
When the companies get to choose and pay the arbitrators the deck is stacked and the fix is in. The overwhelmingly amount of arbitration decisions are decided in the company's favor.
11
A direct consequence of losing the 2016 election. The Democrats in 2020 will be smart to make this an issue with a pledge to make legislation overturning the decision as they did to good effect in 2008 in response to the Lilly Leadbetter decision.
9
Justice Gorsuch, quoting an earlier decision, states that Congress "‘does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions — it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.’
That has not been true in my lifetime and I'm older than Justice Gorsuch.
Congress consistently writes vague and conflicting laws that courts need to interpret and balance. Whether its due to incompetence, lobbying, or compromise, "hiding elephants in mouseholes" is so far from rare that to suggest otherwise is ludicrous .
Lobbyists are willing to spend a lot of money on the right politicians to ensure that they have the right judges to make sure the right "elephants stay hidden in mouseholes". McConnell was willing to steal a Supreme court seat, a move that impact subsequent nominations for decades.
If Trump continues to place enough conservative judges willing to cherry pick mouseholes then even the some of the Republican members of Congress who despise him will convince themselves that the damage done by an ignorant authoritarian President will be worth in the end.
5
You're right. Congress has used nebulous language in major statutory schemes like the Americans With Disabilities Act to avoid political heat for decisions it's supposed to make. It leaves it for the courts to read its statutory tea-leaves.
Justice Gorsuch does sometimes seem to engage in flowery or lofty pronunciamentos of this type, which a Supreme Court justice should avoid. Justices Kennedy and Kagan are the worst offenders in this regard.
3
Since absolutely nobody was using arbitration or the FAA's scheme in the kinds of contracts at issue here, the "mousehole" is the FAA.
And the NLRA was, in fact, an elephant. The first statutory scheme to fully pass Court muster in the New Deal, it revolutionized employment in the US.
And that statute specifically grants employees the right to collective action, NOT limited to unionizing.
If Gorsuch can't properly identify an elephant and a mousehole, he has no business being on the court.
7
I am so very disturbed by this ruling. Wasn't a right to a trial by jury part of our founding principles, mentioned in both the Dec. of Independence and the Constitution?? and I can only assume that if the court is upholding the mandates for individual arbitration, that general right is pretty much out the window too. I have had to sign several of these contracts over the last few years--in short, any time I was not part of a UNION--and I always comforted myself with the belief that, if brought to court, they would be ruled unconstitutional. Now I'm worried.
6
I've said from the start that Gorsuch has a job to do. And he will do it gleefully. As we know money always wins. Always.
7
Gorsuch? Ah! Where is Anatole France when we need him?
"In its majestic equality, the law prohibits rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."
6
Wait until the unionized coal miners in WV and the unionized car assemblers in the Midwest hear about how the Supreme Court just "upheld" their rights.
How many times do working people have to get taken to the cleaners before they understand that the Republicans and conservatives are not on their side?
Just askin'.
15
Unfortunately, I think you're giving them too much credit. Most will never even know about it, they vote based on attack ads and commercials and not much else, they let racism and bigotry lead thier emotional vote, oh and thier love for guns. They don't read the anit-consumer, anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-citizen legislation passed by Republicans across the country, and Fox news certainly isn't telling them about it. It's really the only logical explanation, an informed middle or lower class voter has no logical reason to vote Republican, only emotional. If we had an informed voter base, Republicans would never win elections.
5
Welcome back to the good old days (for social and economic forces of reaction) of the Lochner era.
2
Fox will portray this as a victory for Corporations, protecting them from Lawyers. Guaranteed.
7
Another reason to vote in November and replace the present confederacy of dunces with a national legislature that will defend and uphold the rights of working people. The Supreme Court is a lost cause for at least a generation, Justice Ginsburg and her three admirable colleagues notwithstanding.
9
The United States Constitution and American democracy are in very grave danger. I know it sounds trite to say vote the Republican party out of Congress in November because we are in existential danger, but VOTE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OUT IN NOVEMBER BECAUSE WE ARE IN EXISTENTIAL DANGER OF LOSING OUR DEMOCRACY!
12
I agree. You know how politicians always say, "this is the most important election of our lifetime?"
Now it really is.
6
"In her oral statement, she said the upshot of the decision “will be huge under-enforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well being of vulnerable workers.”
"Justice Ginsburg called on Congress to address the matter."
The proper action for a judge who's supposed to call balls and strikes would have been to delete the quoted paragraph and stay with the quoted sentence. Put another way, judges should do what they're supposed to do, and leave the legislating to legislators.
4
When ideologues vandalize a statutory scheme it's common for those in dissent to suggest a congressional remedy.
In this case the Congress gave workers broad rights to act collectively in 1935, and 83 years later a group of vandals holds, in essence, that Congress reversed itself on this via a law it had passed 10 years earlier.
This legislative interpretation will go down as historically inept, and that insults ineptitude.
15
Paul '52,
Perhaps you ought to read the majority opinion, including this excerpt - which is the basis for my comment:
“The respective merits of class actions and private arbitration as means of enforcing the law are questions constitutionally entrusted not to the courts to decide, but to the policymakers in the political branches where those questions remain hotly contested.”
“This court is not free to substitute its preferred economic policies for those chosen by the people’s representatives.”
You might want to express your own opinion without resorting to words like "vandalize" to characterize five Justices whose familiarity with the law is likely to be at least as comprehensive as your own. Remember, the Times itself urged Justice Kennedy to stay on the bench. His vote helped determine the outcome in this case.
1
It’s not about the respective merits of class action arbitration it’s about whether a law passed in 1925 to govern arbitration between businesses overrides a broad grant of workers rights passed ten years later.
Holding that the law passed in 1935 was ineffective as against an earlier statute passed to deal with wholly different issues is vandalism.
1
Yup. A real workin' man's court, that. What a proud day for trump's base, who have made Amerika great by shooting themselves in the foot.
16
I love that Justice Gorsuch explicitly noted that the question is NOT whether individual arbitrations or class actions are "better" public policy but rather what the laws currently on the books state. THAT is the role of the Supreme Court -- something that the liberal justices all too often conveniently forget. RBG may be totally "right" that allowing class actions would be "better," but that is irrelevant and NOT her job. Go appeal to Congress and get them to change the law if you want, but don't just pretend that the law is how you wish it were.
4
What you're saying is that a law passed in 1925 reversed a law passed in 1935.
It makes no sense whatsoever. And you cannot pretend otherwise.
9
No. Without an intention to repeal or supersede, a later-enacted statute does not affect an earlier one.
2
No waiter is going to sue their employer at a cost of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to recoup being short changed, illegally, $20/week.
Hopefully Congress will sort this out.
9
If we had any hope that Gorsuch might vote to uphold union and workers' rights in Janus - that infinitesimally slim hope is gone.
Yet another sad day in America.
8
It is never a sad day when SCOTUS actually applies the rule of law and interprets the laws as written instead of imposing its own public policy preferences.
5
So I guess that would go for Brown v Board of Education, Roe V Wade and so on?
3
Yes, of course. In both cases
1
The corporations have all the power - money and political - and the individual worker has almost none - now not even the ability to get together with others suffering the same abuse and collectively punish the corporation. The corporation will pound the single actors into dust and laugh all the way to the bank. Lewis Powell must be laughing his head off - -his objective of total corporate control of the country is almost complete.
This supreme court is destined to destroy the middle class once and for all. Thanks McConnell and all the repubs who support his theft of the SC seat. Gorsuch is the perfect person to write this decision- utterly amoral and not a care in the world about real Americans.
125
This is another unfair ruling by an illegitimate court with illegitimate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. This SCOTUS became illegitimate when the Senate refused to appoint eminently qualified Merrick Garland for merely political reasons. Fie on the GOP and their usurpation of the democratic process.
7
The Senate doesn’t appoint. It either expresses its advice and consent or, as in the case of Gorsuch, does not.
The Senate is not obliged to give advice and consent to a presidential nomination. That’s part of the balance of powers established in the Constitution. The Dems are continually trying to re-litigate the 2016 election and to declare Trump and all his action illegitimate. So who are the bomb-throwing traitors?
2
@Working Stiff: Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party are the bad guys in this scenario. McConnell refused to do what parties in a parliamentary situation are supposed to do: work with each other to govern. Instead, he sat on his hands and allowed his fellow senators to sit on their hands.
In idleness and irresponsibility, they stopped bothering to govern in cooperation with the Democrats and simply became obstructionists. They ground the wheels of the Senate to a halt and refused to do their jobs.
They should all be thrown out on their keisters in November.
6
The only people who benefit from class actions are the lawyers.
We just got tiny checks in from a class action suit; the postage cost more than amount. But the lawyers made millions. That’s irrational. If the loss is that small, don’t do business with these folks again. Alternatively, make a complaint to your state consumer protection board.
Not every trifling wrong requires a hideously expensive litigation. As RBG notes, plaintiffs’ “claims are small scarcely of a size warranting the expense of seeking redress alone.” Exactly. As a matter of policy, such itsy bitsy claims do not warrant litigation. If plaintiff’s are annoyed, let them seek the assistance of state Wage and Hour departments.
RBG’s dissent boils down to “I don’t like the statute that Congress wrote”. She’s entitled to her views. If she wants to write a better law, she should resign and run for office. (The idea that Congress intended the NLRA, a union protection statute, to protect class action suits is so profoundly silly that it scarcely merits rebuttal.)
The leftists who comment here don’t like the result. Fine. Win an election and change the law. That’s how the process works. Thankfully, we have five actual judges who understand that they do not sit to impose their policy whims on the populace. Alas, we have four leftist politicians in black robes who believe precisely that, seconded by their NYT amen-chorus, who simply don’t care about the rule of law if it stands athwart their preferred policies.
5
It may be true that the lawyers get most of the winnings. But the threat of litigation is sometimes enough for employers to be fair. Now without any threat, why would an employer be fair!
1
Just another attack by the SC against normal Americans trying to make a living. This court is so thoroughly stuffed with corporate hacks that they might as well be called " The Supreme Corporation."
Now you see what McConnell was after - installing an illegitimate SC justice to do favors for corporations. Gorsuch and his ilk are only to happy to do the bidding of their corporate masters.
103
This is an illegitimate decision because the process by which Gorsuch acceded to this Court was illegitimate. I therefore do not accept this decision. Decisions in which Gorsuch tips the balance are not the law of this land. They serve only to reinforce the anti-democratic forces by which Gorsuch assumed this power. If you believe in democracy, I am sure you are of the same view and will maintain it. If not, I do not consider you to be part of my country, but instead, one of it's enemies.
3
it seems that many conservative voters are very much concerned about the constitution of the SCOTUS, with the disproportionate amount of attention being given to the issue of abortion. But i wonder how many voters of the conservative stripe would agree with this decision (or at least its impacts)? It never ceases to amaze me how the actions of the elected conservatives are to the detriment of the "little man" that they trumpet as their cause, but not nearly so much as the continued election of these same politicians. The country does indeed get the government it deserves.
4
Bravo for Justice Ginsberg - She called on Congress to right the situation. That my friends is exactly how our system is suppose to work. Those lamenting the Courts finding today would do well to follow Justice Ginsberg's lead.
6
Hurrah! This is a welcome decision for free and fair labor markets.
The alternative is the sclerotic, morbid European labor system.
3
If this case is about "freedom" then it's about the freedom of thieves.
82
Free and fair labor markets results from this?
FOX News think at its finest.
Then again rather than something from opposite world it could be literally true. Companies get free labor which is only fair.
Some are even figuring out how to get labor to pay to work.
8
maybe the solution is to start a list similar to the "METOO" list of abusers , of companies that have arbitration agreements" and workers can boycott those employers. Soon enough they will have a shortage of employee prospects and change (?) their policies.
Employees have the ultimate control if they exercise it. Sure you might give up a good job but your future may depend on it.
If Congress's law did not have the intent that SCOTUS interpreted, they can modify the law and clarify it.
4
The current congress would modify it to say that the feudal system will be established for the benefit of the workers where they will no longer be burdened by money in exchange for their labor.
3
"Job providers"? What happens to them if the job-doers decline to accept jobs? Capitalists have a truly upside down view of how the world works.
2
Used to be government and unions protected labor against robber barons and corporate taskmasters. Now Capital has its own people installed in government and unions have been decimated by corporate campaign donations.
When you vote, think about mandatory public campaign financing, so elected officials will once again work for the people and not for the money.
3
I suppose that it will be up to employees to refuse to sign such agreements. That is a big burden on them, but otherwise, they are victims of whatever the corporations think up. Corporations themselves could advertise that working for them, an employee would not have to sign an arbitration contract; indicating that they are confident enough in the fairness of their policies to scorn the Court's ruling. You may say "dream on," but dreaming on is about the only thing that will work now that the legislature, executive, and judiciary are all aligned against individuals and workers.
1
So according to Gorsuch speed and costs out weigh fairness for the masses.
As a former union officer I can understand wanting speed and keeping costs down, but usually it's the company that ends up benefiting from those and not the workers.
Also arbitration cases only effect that case and then the company if they do the same thing again that brought that case about, they get to go back to arbitration all over again, so how is that speedy or cost effective?
3
A sad day for employee rights. Collective action is a necessary tool to find redress for the most egregious systematic abuses. Certain types of claims are cost-prohibitive to bring as individual actions, particularly in confidential arbitration where relevant corporate discovery can’t or won’t be shared across cases. Perhaps most unfortunately, this ruling will almost certainly disproportionately impact women, minorities, and low wage workers.
7
The ruling simply affirms what the law is. If you don't like that law, lobby Congress to change it, not the Supreme Court.
1
Yeah, like the Dred Scott decision. It only took another few years, a Civil War, hundreds of thousands of dead and the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to make that right. What's the problem? Sheesh, these liberal, activists judges.
2
Yet another Supreme Court Cop -Out supporting the interests of Businesses and Employers against the least protected majority group...The People, who as Employees are once more cornered, controlled and left to the increasing mercy of Business which is not a quality that Business and Employers have shown any liking for or interest in unless theirs.
Additionally, under Trump, the Government sided with Business and by ruling against Employees arguing that the will of Congress must be followed, with the weight of the administration...ALL instruments and parties aligned against Employees and struck yet another blow against them and by thus the majority of Americans...You , the People.
Leaving all of them in their role as Employees , weaker, more vulnerable and even more likely to be exploited than ever.
Now , more than ever one must ask that most important question that you would think least needs asking in any Democracy and yet cries out louder as it must : Who stands for and protects the People and guards and ensures that their best interests are met?
It is increasingly obvious that it is less and less as By the People , Of the People and For the People who after this decision , are even closer to being on their own as they are in other decisions and mandates less and less able to pursue the mandate that was theirs to have and use.
4
Meanwhile, corporate people are taking themselves private by buying back their own stock. Welcome to neofeudalism.
11
I guess we're left to hope the "job providers" are benevolent?
4
The curse of Justice Nonesuch. Our fifty-year prize. If this doesn’t inspire us to toss the Republican rascals out, I don’t know what would. A black day for workers and unionism. George F Gitlitz, MD, Sarasota, FL
4
Janus is coming- probably tomorrow. The final nail in the coffin. Originalists? Strict Constructionists? No- right wing ideological sociopaths who make up stuff in oder to fit their political needs. The worst Court since the Taney Court, maybe worse. Generations will suffer!
9
So wish Obama had the moral compass to appoint Merrick Garland as a 'recess appointment' to the Supremes...........
6
At least this time slavery is not race-based.
Plus, this time Congress has not enacted a Fugitive Slave Act.
So far.
5
Another win for the corporatists. #StolenSeat
7
"Like most apocalyptic warnings, this is one is a false alarm."
Gorsuch in reply to Justice Ginsburg.
I find his remark to her to be condescending to the point of insult.
As expected from the Roberts court who declared corporations are people, one dollar one vote, this is another slap in the face of ordinary Americans. Roughly 63 million of whom will not know what hit them when their employer arbitrarily picks their pockets, because they can, and Hannity will blame Hillary, or Obama, or Benghazi, because... MAGA!
10
If the current state of the Executive branch wasn't enough clarification for you, perhaps the complete predictability of an ideologically rigged Judicial branch (see Gorsuch v. Garland) will suffice in concluding the death of any rational notion of national greatness?
4
Seems our new radical strict constructionist majority missed the seventh amendment. Pity. Forced "contractual" arbitration in worker/consumer-related commercial dealings is a corporate scam. #StolenSeat
6
They only read the parts that apply to their ideology.
4
Gorsuch and Roberts never met a corporation that they did not like.
13
. . . or a worker they didn't care to exploit.
9
Everyone stop complaining and start acting! Simply boycott the businesses and corporations who will ultimately use this ruling to their advantage. Surely our elected leaders in the Democratic party, liberal Facebook users or the NYT can provide us with a list? The problem is- this issue isn't as chic as #MeToo or #DACA .. Give it time though .. This was a horrendous ruling and two backward steps for the working class.
2
Why would any worker ever vote republican?
14
Because they are uneducated by designed and brainwashed by false news sources like Fox.
4
Because Republicans excel at propaganda while Democrats struggle to convey their superior message. It's the tragic flaw that is bringing down the republic.
5
No surprise that we can sign our rights away Consenting adults or non consenting but then coerced because when one side has all the power the other side has no choice. I hate seelng my fundamental rights whittled away by the chop logic of those interpreting the law. Enough of our congress is bought and paid for to make sure that there will be no change in the law or court.
5
I have an Masters Degree in labor law and practiced it for 40 years.
In 1935 Congress passed the National Labor Relations guaranteeing employees the right to act collectively in pursuit of their mutual interests for wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment.
I can pretty much guarantee that, until today, nobody thought that the Congress overturned that act in 1925, 10 years earlier. Indeed, the metaphysics involved completely boggle the mind.
9
Um, sir, with all due respect you have it exactly backwards; there is no indication -- zero -- that Congress had any intent, when it passed the various labor laws of the 30's through early 50's, to alter the earlier Federal Arbitration Act. SCOTUS doesn't make the laws, it is supposed to interpret them.
1
In 1925 and in 1935 nobody was using arbitration in these settings. The idea that a restaurant owner would ask a waiter to agree to arbitrate disputes would have been met with uncontrollable laughter.
Indeed, in the mid-70s when I was taking my LLM in Labor Law the debate whether the FAA even applied in employment/labor cases was just beginning.
So no, it cannot be said that Congress "intended" to leave the FAA intact in this context.
Indeed, by giving workers the right to engage in "other" (than unionizing) collective action in pursuit of their mutual aid and protection it can be said that Congress expressly envisioned that the courts and NLRB would prevent employers from trying to forestall the use of the very rights it was granting.
3
I would have appreciated a more thoughtful article. For example; how often does class action enrich anyone but the lawyers? How costly is arbitration and how often does it find in favor of the workers without the massive expenses of a class action suit. ?? Is a class action suite the best way to change corporate behavior or does it mostly affect the stock holders and the price to consumers? Can union sue on behalf of all its members or the ones affected? This article instead of being informative just seeks to divide opinions and reinforce political stereotypes?
3
The technical legal issue is whether the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act - which permit employees to engage in collective activity - override the provisions of the Arbitration Act which encourages and allows arbitration generally. Reasonable minds can differ on this override issue. I think that dissent emphasizes the unfairness of the decision/ situation whereas the majority seems less concerned with any unfair result as it does not see the role of the court, at least in this instance, as ensuring a "fair" result (however one defines fair).
3
Gorsuch is the beneficiary of stolen goods - Judge Garland's seat. Will he submit to binding arbitration if its rightful owner wants to arbitrate?
9
Mussolini would be proud. The corporate state lives on, in the hearts and minds of the Supreme Court majority.
This opinion shows that the checks and balances envisaged by the Founders have been severely weakened by a Congress owned by corporate masters and a Supreme Court majority which, regardless of their conduct as human beings, ratifies corporate dominance over daily life.
8
If the people don't like the current law, their democratically elected representatives in Congress can change it. SCOTUS should continue to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, not whether they're good or bad socially.
6
Where in the Constitution do you find the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws vested in the Supreme Court?
Please quote the relevant Article and Section numbers as I cannot find any mention of this power being given to the court in my copy of the Constitution.
2
While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.
That has been the law since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. No, it isn't expressed in the Constitution, but we've all lived under and agreed to that paradigm for 215 years.
1
Exhibit 459 about how elections matter. If Hillary Clinton had won, this would have been 5-4 the other way.
As it was, our President at the time, Obama, didn't even have a say once Majority Leader McConnell decided he was going to refuse to do his job to "advise and consent" on a sitting president's Justice choice.
Judge Gorsuch never should have been on this court to write this majority opinion. Workers have been robbed because of this injustice.
22
And that's why we are to be profoundly grateful that didn't happen.
The four dissenters basically say, "we don't like the statute Congress wrote, so we're going to write a new one."
While leftists passionately believe in adjudication by result -- whatever result best advances progressive desires is the one the Constitution compels -- this wasn't a tough case. The NLRA obviously never contemplated class action suits as "collective action"; that law was designed to protect union activities. And the Arbitration Act is clear.
Yes, elections matter. So, win and election and change the statute to one you like better.
Elections don't, however, change the Constitution or endow judges with the power to simply ignore or rewrite laws with which they disagree. It is wonderful we have at least five "judges" who understand that, and deeply troubling that we have four leftist politicians in black robes who do not.
5
As Obama said, elections have consequences.
4
Elections should have consequences but when a corrupt Republican Congress decides to override the Senate's responsibility to advise and consent regarding the president's SCOTUS nominee, the will of the people is subverted. This ruling deprives workers of power while this Congress deprives voters of their due representation. Both are grave injuries to the republic.
2
It appears that Karl Marx has finally made his point. Working class people have lost the ability to live in freedom given that the corporate elite have stacked the deck against them.
20
I didnt realize these people had to sign this, or had to take the job. Its funny how little people blame themselves for the choices they have made.
In many parts of the country where jobs are few, people have to take jobs that appear, or starve. American workers having a choice between many jobs offered is a fantasy of your own creation.
7
The quoted comments by Justices Gorsuch and Ginsberg provide a good roadmap into the thinking of the right and left sides of the Court. The conservatives typically look at a case in the context of existing federal statutes. The liberals typically ask what social outcomes they wish to realize, and they make law accordingly.
For those who believe that the conservatives always favor "big business", remember the 2005 case in which the Court kicked Susette Kelo out of her home in New London, CT to help Pfizer Corporation, who planned to build a facility there. The four liberals were joined by Justice Kennedy. As it turned out, Pfizer walked away, but the larger impact was that government became a broker, not a protector, of private property, and eminent domain abuse got a boost.
2
For the life of me, I cannot understand the purpose of SCOTUS if their only purpose is to interpret the Constitution as it was written. It negates the point of a judge's job (i.e. Judging).
And now that SCOTUS has judged, look what we have to show for it: the elimination of a law meant to keep workers' rights from being neutered by arbitration agreements.
Donald Trump was right when he said that voting for him was really about voting to keep conservative justices in power. And true to his word, here we are...
I'm sure the moronic masses that cheered when Trump said this will eventually realize their mistake , I just wouldn't bet on them they'll realizing it in this decade, but eventually...
6
Well when he gets reelected for another term because all the left has to offer is we arent Trump. Meanwhile the country is doing better, we arent stuck at 1% growth(the new norm we were told by Obama) unemployment at its lowest, NK coming to the table, Iran getting sanctions back on it, doing what he said and why he was voted in. I know its hard for a liberal to watch a president do excatly what he said he would if elected, even though he is being fought on everything. Liberals have lost more Democrats to the independent party than ever before, and the party isnt doing well when they keep moving farther left alienating even more of their voter base.
2
"Well when he gets reelected for another term because all the left has to offer is we arent Trump. "
Trump's entire angle is "undo everything Obama did", so I don't know where you get off trying to discredit the "we're not Trump" agenda.
You know what's so annoying about the Trump base? You make it sound like anyone opposed to Trump is a liberal with a single-minded focus on identity-politics, while your base acts like you don't have time to focus on petty personal issues because you're focused on policy. And yet, you demonstrate virtually no understanding of foreign policy, you speak in generalities, and some of your claims are outright wrong.
You really expect me to believe that the millions of people who voted for Trump are all a bunch of policy-wonks who have a nuanced understanding of law? Most people wouldn't trouble themselves to do that much research - in fact, it's why so many of us rely on analysts from the mainstream media. And in response, the Trump base just chalks up anything from mainstream media as fake news.
So not only are you not disciplined enough to learn the nuances of policy, but you dismiss the people who are. I wish I could say I feel sorry for you because this will all come back to bite you (circling back to the SCOTUS decision today), but I'd rather you learn the hard way than not learn at all.
1
This decision is a major blow to the rights of workers. This article, however, is neither a good summary of the brashness of this nearly lawless decision nor the extent of its likely adverse impact.
Worse, the NYT buries its report of the decision on the bottom of the page. At the top are more articles speculating with no new facts about Trump and China, and about the Mueller investigation. Is there no end to reports on Trump's blustering displacing reporting on the actual policies being implemented by the Republican party? [And, yes, Gorsuch should be identified by partisan affiliation.]
9
Totally agree. I had to SEARCH for this piece. This is a direct result of McConnell holding up Judge Garland from potentially becoming Justice Garland.
8
Someday Justice Ginsburg’s dissents will become the law of the land. Vote 2018.
13
Gorsuch is too clever by half in his self congratulating style of writing.
Hiding 'elephants in mouseholes' to gloss over the long standing and well documented abuse of workers by companies is as sophomoric as it is shallow. He's sounding like the Steven Miller of the Supreme Court.
26
Yes, it looks like Gorsuch's aw-shucks modesty at his confirmation hearing masked his true personality and mindset -- strident and self-righteous.
10
Stealing a Supreme Court seat will continue to pay dividends to the Republicans and big business for years to come.
17
Rodger Lofton,
You're from Kentucky- please do the rest of the country and future generations a favor and vote Mitch McConnell out of the U.S. Senate for good (I know he's not up for reelection in 2018, but whenever he is please do.)
4
L, I've voted against McConnell every time his name has appeared on the ballot. He is a master of negative politics and history will not treat him well.
Starting with denying President Obama his constitutional right to appoint a Supreme Court justice, the stealing of an election with the help of a hostile foreign government, the huge transfer of wealth via a tax cut and the ongoing assault on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps and health care in general.....the Republicans are playing for keeps folks. It is truly scary.
Is it too late to turn this around? I'm not sure those of us who believe in things like workers rights and human rights are fully prepared for the fight in front of us to save our Democracy. "We the people" has come to mean "We the Oligarchs."
16
Obama exercised his constitutional right to appoint Garland and the Senate exercised its constitutional right to withhold advice and consent.
5
So much for workers who could never afford to sue or press a company for wrongdoing, no matter what.
Another gain for wealthy Americans.
But we all knew that’s where Trump’s choice, Neil Gorsuch, would take the country, didn’t we?
14
Hopefully, blue states will criminalize wage theft, prosecute vigorously, and incarcerate often.
Of course, Fake Justice Gorsuch can be expected to try to invalidate such laws on some ground. On whatever ground he can state with a straight face.
9
Due process is among the most basic rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but SCOTUS just sided with corporations that require consumers to sign away these rights in order to receive power, light, phone service, home health services, etc.
19
Private employers are not legally obliged to afford “due process” to their employees.
1
Sickening what is happening to all facets of the US Government. It's analogous to tearing away parts of a fly one piece at a time. I just wonder what will be left when Trump hopefully is defeated in 2020. It's really a mere 2 1/2 years, but for me, it feels like a century away!
8
The working class Trump voters have been dumped again in favor of the owners and power elites. Yet, he can do no wrong. I wonder how they will feel when they’re fired, arbitration runs against them, and there’s no safety net to catch them?
12
This is just another continuing incursion of inequality by wealthy and powerful businesses and individuals who own them, depriving its employees of all of his or her previous individual rights to seek redress.
Increasing inequality is an understatement. The destruction of rank and file individual rights is the reason our founders fought our Revolution for our INDIVIDUAL freedoms. It would be wise for all of us to remember that.
9
This decision is another punch in the gut for consumers and workers. If it keeps up we're going to have an American Peasants' Revolt.
The fact that Neil Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court is unconstitutional. Mitch McConnell and the sinister GOP ignored our Constitution and stole the seat. It belongs to Merrick Garland.
17
This headline should be right up there at the top left, to push "covfefe"'s latest foreign policy blunder of the day down the columns. Behind his outward idiocy is a monster and his party who knew exactly what they were doing, when they fenced Garland's seat to make this happen.
The madhatters won't care, of course. They're blaming their unemployment (nevermind lack of union rights) on the other guy they want so desperately to keep penniless too. Their goal is not shared sacrifice, but shared misery.
But then they likely don't know what a "class action" or "arbitration" is, or how it'd help lift them from the poorhouse. The GOP loves the Poorly Educated.
14
Trump and the Republican party are a moral blight upon this country.
18
Well, my fellow wage slaves, this is how the plutocracy becomes entrenched. You should have chosen to be born wealthy.
16
As Mae West once said, “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor and, believe me, rich is better.”
3
When corporations are people, what used to be people become chattel. The race to the bottom continues.
16
One closer step to total enslavement to the corporate stranglehold on resources...another sad day for America...whats left of it..
6
As usual, the conservative "justices" on the Supreme Court have found in favor of the wealthy and powerful. I loved Gorsuch's comment that apocalyptic warnings are incorrect. I suppose the vile Citizens United decision and the apocalyptic warnings following it were wrong, too? I believe a lot of our current political climate can be traced to that decision. Shame on all of them. They're not interested in justice and decency, just making sure the powerful can continued their fleecing undisturbed by pesky laws. Some "court"!
11
The Court’s job was to read the laws, in this case the Federal Arbitration Act and the National Labor Relations Act. The unions and others argued that the NLRA should be interpreted as superseding the FRA. The Court said that isn’t what the laws say and policy arguments for a change in law should be presented to the Congress, not the Court.
7
Working Stiff: Which is why the Conservative judges ruled the way they did. They can wipe their hands of responsibility and turn it over to Congress who they know will do nothing.
Unless we can change Congress and even then Corporate lobbyists will be working and spending feverishly for friendly legislation. Workers won't be there. They'll be working.
The Supreme Court has historically been pro-business at the cost of the average American, and this decision is not an outlier from those of the past. Capital is power in a capitalist society. Perhaps social media can impose a cost-benefit induced conscience on a profit obsessed corporate America. Like the flash mobs of a decade ago, the threat of mass boycotts of corporations that fall out of public favor can quickly change the hearts and minds of the most callous members of their boards of directors.
5
The best court money can buy.
19
Just how many of the trump supports are going to feel this? Of course they will watch fox news and think this is a good thing for them until it hits them in their pockets.
4
Another piece of evidence that explains why revolutions occur.
13
If there was ever any doubt that we live in a corporate state, this is now the nail in the coffin. We now have corporate immunity for any sum less than --pick a number, $5000, $10,000? More? -- before anyone will be able to get a lawyer to help them. This is disgusting, and thanks to all those who let Trump steal the presidency and McConnell a Supreme Court seat.
14
Hey Einstein, the whole point of arbitration instead of litigation is that you don't need lawyers. It's inexpensive and fast. And class action lawsuits? LOL. You DO realize that the lawyers take almost all of the proceeds and individual class members get pennies on the dollar at best, right?
1
"Justice Ginsburg, citing a New York Times article examining arbitration agreements, wrote that the 2011 decision and later ones"
As esteemed as the NYT may be, it does not establish legal precedent.
8
Of course they did. No matter that the power imbalance against almost every new hire is such that they are in real fact, if not in form, under duress. This is a decision for the Oligarchy and by the Oligarchy, against the citizenry. Is the USA a "free' country? No not really.
10
This is a prelude to the Janus decision. The conservatives have tried forever to get rid of controls on corporations and to dismantle workers unions. With to appointment of Neil Gorsuch they may have their golden opportunity.
At least New York State is trying to alleviate the attack. Governor Cuomo has signed legislation to save public employee unions, in light of the pending Supreme Court decisions. Maybe other governors will have the guts and compassion to stop this preemptive attack on the average citizen by corporate greed. One can only hope.
12
Every worker who gets a raw deal from arbitrators can thank Mitch McConnell for holding a Supreme Court seat hostage until it could be filled by someone appointed by a Republican president, albeit one who received several million fewer votes than his opponent.
14
THESE ARE THE CASES that McConnell had in mind when he stole the Supreme Court seat!
The Republican party, would have it's voters think their picks for the SC, are in line with abortion and gun rights issue. In fact, they could care less about abortion or gun rights.
In reality, the Republicans are doing nothing but protecting corporate interests!
This is going to adversely affect the citizenry of the country for generations to come.
17
One of the payoffs from McConnell’s unconscionable stonewalling of a president’s constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice. Illegitimate court.
10
Just remember when you discuss Merrick Garland that the Dems blocked Bush’s appointment of Manuel Estrada to the DC Circuit because they feared he was being positioned for a subsequent Republican appointment as the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court.
5
What a sham. Clearly oral arguments are just a cover for predetermined decisions. Does anyone think the Supreme Court any longer adjudicates other than along preconceived partisan lines? They've destroyed a last bastion of reason and checks and balances, and further corroded the way our nation is governed. And we're all helpless in the face of it -- is this democracy any longer?
8
Sorry coal miners, you are on your own if you need to sue the company you work for if there is a dangerous work environment. I hope you have a lot of money in your coffers!
9
I think that would be a workers’ compensation claim matter, a type of action in no way related to the arbitration issue...
1
Well, Democrats -- the Supreme Court just handed you another 2018 election issue: the crucial role Congress plays in shaping workplace relationships.
Right now, it's a Republican-led Congress that defines those relationships, one unsympathetic (to put it mildly) to anything that smacks of workers rights, one that denies workers have collective bargaining rights or anything "collective" although Corporations do. They can act collectively to advance and defend their interests. Workers can't.
Republican Congresses serve the parochial economic interests of donors who benefit from those same arbitration clauses in contracts employees must sign. Funny how that works.
As Justice Gorsuch himself said, the court's job isn't to usurp Congress' legislative functions but to interpret legislations' meaning. So, the only actual remedy available is to change the composition of Congress itself, install new leadership and write new legislation.
But can the opposition party that styles itself "Democrat" rise to the occasion? My sense is, no, for two reasons. It is still dominated by a self-serving, sclerotic, effete, out-of-touch septuagenarian leadership. And it is filled-to-overflowing with sharp-elbowed presidential hopefuls more intent on winning the 2020 nomination than helping the country. They are too full of themselves, the leadership too reviled in too many parts of the country to attract enough support to turn both houses of Congress "blue". Without both, nothing changes.
9
Check your 7th Amendment at the door, please.
3
If the 7th amendment applied to state law actions, the Workmen’s Compensation statutes would all be unconstitutional.
1
IL Constitution: "The right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate." Annotation: "The U.S. Constitution’s Seventh Amendment guarantee of a right to jury trial in civil
cases does not apply to state courts. But this section and its predecessors in earlier Illinois
Constitutions protect the right in both civil and criminal cases." Many states do the same, and yet, we still have workmen's comp.
Ah, yes. "Constitutional law".
When you have a Constitution that refuses to equalize half of the "tax-paying" population then these are the "legal" results you will get.
No "class action"?
Well, that's just no class, isn't it?
So, men - how do you like this multi-tiered legal system?
It working out okay for you?
Ah.... control..... it's not just on women anymore.......
6
The drip, drip, drip of lost freedoms under this court can have only one consequence. When you make every effort to work within the system and the system is RIGGED against you, what option do you have? I leave it for you to decide.
6
Fake Supreme Court.
Maybe Democrats will learn to fight dirty.
6
Did Garland get "Borked"? Maybe. In my memory, this is where it started. Both sides are to blame in the politicizing of the court, however. SCOTUS is partly to blame, by overstepping their bounds.
Oh boy! Up next? Indentured servitude approved by SCOTUS! Originalists: "Jeez the founding fathers thought it was ok. So why not?"
10
I applaud the Court to uphold the will of the people as expressed by the Congress.
And more importantly, again drawing a bright line of policy making belongs to political branches of government - and emphatically not to the courts.
Hopefully, this practice of calling "balls and strikes" rather than sending plays even if just using hand gestures - will continue in this newly constituted Court with Justice Gorsuch.
As a side note.
While nothing against the NYT or Justice Ginsburg for quoting an NYT article. But, it's kind of ingenious. It has been said that politicians and famous folks often lie when asked to be quoted. And the next day, when they read it in the press, they say, "why it must be true?"
4
I have a bit of a problem with "the will of the people" as expressed by congress. While this is nominally true, it doesn't account for the corruption of congress by the financial elite. That financial elite who just gained enormous power by this ruling. That said, I agree that congress should write the rules and unambiguously so.
But Also, this is not just calling balls and strikes as though it is strictly objective. It is not objective. This is a radically activist court.
6
Trebor: Yes, a radically activist court and ditto for the House, Senate and White House.
Consistently what is "promoted and voted" on is exactly the opposite of what 80% of this nation polls that it wants.
Congress is NOT upholding the "will of the people" - not on abortion, not on health care, not on fair taxation, not on guns, not on climate...... You name it, the rightie 1%er's are the darlings of our government. The Supreme Court takes the cake on this ruling - they voted for whomever it is that they consider "SUPREME".
The rest of us majoritarian "inferiors" can just go punt as far as they are concerned.
1
Rosa, The reality we are waking up to is we are in a class war. The 99% are losing. Both party machines have been corrupted and usurped by the .01% financial elite.
Read "Democracy in Chains" and "Dark Money" if you have not already. It is shocking to realize the scope and scale and mostly, the intent of the power grab the elite are now executing. They are truly NeoFeudalists. Their aim is: it's their world and we're just serfs they own.
What to do? Stop compromising on corporatist candidates. No matter how "liberal" they sound. If they aren't adamant about getting money out of politics, they are for increasing corporate power.
1
[In]justice Gorsuch is not truly independent. He represents the fixed views of his patrons. In reality he is not the organ grinder but the monkey.
7
This is one of many decisions to come that will favor the Monied Class because of the "stolen" seat that should have gone to Merrick Garland. Thanks, Mitch McConnell! Way to look out for the Working Class...
10
The problem here is the FAA. It was introduced with the noble intention of placing conflict resolution power into the hands of the [corporate] disputants and thereby reducing the reliance on the courts. Unfortunately, it was so broadly worded as to make it a bludgeon against the weak by the powerful. I have long argued that the Citizen's United decision --which EVERYONE is familiar with-- was actually less important to the most people than AT&T v. Concepcion...which usually needs to be explained in a footnote.
In theory arbitration and other ADR mechanisms are a public good. But too frequently they come at the cost of equal access to justice. Talk to your congressperson and get this monstrosity changed!
4
Once again we see conservatives on the Supreme Court see workers as serfs. Serfs who abandon and recourse to justice for a paycheck. Once again we see the GOP feels responsibility like taxes is something Conservatives only expect from little people.
10
Lots of High Fives in boardrooms. Pass the cigars and Champagne.
12
Alas, Merrick Garland would likely have tipped the decision the other way. The conservatives have been in charge of the Supreme Court since the late 1960s. This Court would have ruled against the great Civil Rights Laws of the 1960s, the laws that helped African--Americans enter the middle class; against Roe v. Wade (1972); against Milliken v. Detroit, in which the plaintiffs asked to merge the Detroit schools with those of the county; in favor of Citizens United. In sum, in favor of those laws and rules that make our country more unequal economically and racially. They disunite the country.
The great divide in our country is between Democracy and Capitalism. Capitalism has been winning since the late 1960s.
20
The Supreme Court is not legitimate without Merrick Garland on it. I dismiss any decision of this political hack court.
15
Make America great again for business. This decision is no surprise - the average conservative voter will not even read this article nor even care what it could mean for the average worker. And that is unfortunate. Under Trump making America great again is at the expense of the average worker for the benefit of the rich and business interests.
22
Just wait. The employment contracts will further state that the employer will gladly pay for all of the costs of the arbitration, instead of splitting the costs with the employee. AND that since it is paying all the costs of the arbitration, including for the arbitrator's time, the employer . . . now gets to pick the arbitrator (subject to conflict of interest disclosures, of course ), who must agree to be "impartial." Right.
14
Justice Ginsburg called on Congress to address the matter.
Gorsuch wrote, “The respective merits of class actions and private arbitration as means of enforcing the law are questions constitutionally entrusted not to the courts to decide but to the policymakers in the political branches where those questions remain hotly contested.”
Congress passed two laws that are somewhat conflicting. Gorsuch and RBG are essentially in agreement that the solution is for Congress to pass and the President to sign legislation that clarifies/reconciles the two current laws.
We need to shift power back to the legislative branch, and insist that our representatives and senators properly shoulder their responsibilities.
23
"Congress passed two laws that are somewhat conflicting."
Yes, and standard legislative interpretation requires that the second law takes precedence. Because, quite obviously, the earlier statute cannot override the later statute.
yet the majority totally vandalizes this idea and holds that in 1925 the Congress overrode a law passed in 1935.
This is an insult to us all.
5
This is not a surprise. So much that we confront is unsurprising. The current legislative and judicial majorities continue to burrow deeper into the terra firma of conservative geologic strata. Sinking their pilings deeper and deeper into the cold, brittle reality of greed and avarice.
19
No class action allowed and by the way, sign this non-compete contract that limits your job opportunities even if you are laid off. Sounds like a fair deal for the worker.
46
While I agree with you that this is unfair to workers, I don't think that the judges - particularly the conservative majority - consider "fairness" as one of the criteria in reaching their decision.
4
Hayek's :"Road to Serfdom" seem to run through our Conservative Supreme Court.
6
This decision reminds us what a catastrophe the Reagan and Bush presidencies have been for the average American.
The court stacked by Reagan and the Bushes -- and hijacked by McConnell steamrolling a weak, quiescent Obama -- is stealing the rights of the American people.
Trump may be a facist, but the GOP assault on democracy began long before Trump.
95
Who said this: "“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.” “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
Hint: he sits in the oval office!
Was he authorizing the use of force? And is that now the only way to get equity?
4
With all due respect, this article is fatally confusing. It quickly digresses into earlier decisions regarding commercial issues and never returns to discuss what was at stake in the 3 labor cases. I'm off to the WaPo to get the details.
5
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was enacated in 1935 and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was enacted in 1925. Congress is presumed to know about earlier law, and it never mentioned the FAA being superior to the NLRA. So, the NLRA is presumed to work together with existing law, including the FAA. SCOTUS should have interpreted the laws to work together and not conflict. Every law student learns this -well except 5 former ones on the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS majority intepreted them to conflict so they could hold the FAA superior and uphold bans on collective activity by employees (class actions). What a ridiculous holding for big business.
Congrats to all the working class people who voted for Trump who put in Gorsuch. Nice move!
225
As long as he toes the line on abortion and immigration, they don't care.
10
Terrible decision. Workers, their safety, their rights, their dignity are under attack for the sake of increased profits for a wealthy few. America is Great Again for a few Americans.
30
Conservatives want to keep individuals' rights...until they interfere with corporate profits.
28
The Supreme Court did nothing more nor less than uphold a Federal law. That is their job.
Congress passed a law enabling and favoring arbitration clauses in many cases, including employment contracts. SCOTUS enforced this law. As they should.
Arbitration is more inexpensive and efficient than courts of law. And the possible damages that can be awarded in arbitration cases are much more limited than those to which employers are vulnerable in class actios. In many ways, arbitration is a good thing.
But there are real problems with arbitration; arbitrators do tend to favor corporations over individuals. The solution is for Congress to change the law; that is Congress's job, not SCOTUS's.
We must remember that arbitration has grown in acceptance and popularity in large part because tort lawyers have so abused the courts, especially class actions. Everyone has received fine print post cards telling us we are participants in a class action lawsuit, and have been awarded a one month extension on a product we don't remember buying. Meanwhile the lawyers who filed the lawsuit get millions, and the prices of everything we buy is increased to pay the legal expenses.
Congress may wish to limit arbitration, to protect employee and consumer rights. But they must also include provisions to reign in our system of torts and class actions. If there's one thing the country doesn't need it is more wealthy lawyers in the 1%, whose wealth is, in effect, stolen from those of us in the 99%.
3
If they were merely enforcing the law, why did four justices hold for workers? The decision was based on anti-worker bias of the five member majority.
38
Conservative Justices are much more likely to view the role of SCOTUS as I described, to interpret the law, whether or not they agree with it. Liberal Justices, especially Justice Ginsberg, seem to feel it is part of the job of SCOTUS to write new law.
I think the conservative majority did not rule as they did because of an anti-worker bias, as you suggest. I think the ruled as they did because that's what the law said; the law itself may have had an "anti worker bias." In which case, perhaps Congress should change the law. I personally think Congress should amend the law, but only if Congress also takes steps to reign in abuses of class action litigation by tort lawyers.
26
Your response is just liberal-bashing and ill-informed at that. Read John Babby (above your post) for the sinking of your argument. The majority's bias is revealed by their seeking a rationale that will favor employers and harm workers. I don't think they seek to harm workers, it just becomes necessary when seeking to help employers. They chose to see the glass half empty rather than half full and the minority chose the opposite, which has nothing to do with using the court to write law. Think before your write.
Business, with the blessing of the US Supreme Court, has insulated itself from it own wrongdoing by required all employees, suppliers and customers to sign an arbitration agreement. Those agreement always make it virtually impossible for the companies to actually be held responsible for their wrongdoing. There are few neutral, competent arbitrators since the businesses pay them.
25
Gorsuch is probably right here on the law, but the dissent is certainly right on policy. The slow evisceration of the class action has essentially removed the single tool left by which large corporations can be held to account for cheating large numbers of people relatively small amounts of money. It simply isn't worth suing if a corporation cheats you out of $200 - especially if the corporation is your employer. There is essentially no remedy unless you and the other 1,000 or 10,000 or 1,000,000 who were cheated can band together.
I would hope Congress would react to this by changing the legislative landscape...but it isn't going to happen. The current Congress is hardly going to go out of its way to protect worker or consumer rights.
20
This is a very disturbing trend in anti-union, anti-worker landmark cases. Janus v AFSCME, another case soon to be decided by SCOTUS, will have a terrible impact on union's abilities to fund essential services, like the barrage of contract arbitration cases they will face without remit to take collective bargaining unit cases to the courts. Another reason why we needed a Democratic president. These 5-4 decisions will be crushing American workers and consumers.
18
Arbitrators are usually retired lawyers from large firms favoring business or retired judges. Employers usually select and pay for the arbitration so the arbitrators make sure that the employer gets the result they want. Years ago I represented a discharged employee at an arbitration after the court ordered it. The arbitrator ruled for the employee and then issued no award or attorneys fees. Since it is essentially final, there was no recourse. No one who has been wronged would want an arbitration. Very unfair and unamerican.
103
Ah, the joys of arbitration clauses. The truly disturbing thing is the lack of bargaining power and (often) lack of knowledge that such clause even exists.
I understand this article is about arbitration in the employment context, but my favorite is still that time General Mills declared that any customers who had "Liked" them on Facebook, download/print a General Mills coupon, sign up for their newsletter (whoever signs up for a cereal newsletter deserves what they get), etc. had entered into a binding arbitration agreement with the corporation. I guess it's just common sense that one would consult legal counsel before using a cereal coupon at the grocery store.
And of course, the weaker unions become (#MAGA), the greater the ability of corporations to force-feed arbitration clauses covering just about any dispute whatsoever, no matter how serious. What are an employee's rights when they go into P-R-I-V-A-T-E arbitration? A quick Google search can provide the details, but bottom line... they are minimal. What about the ability to appeal some injustice? Again... minimal.
60
One starts to think if the CONservatives should reconsider their support for gun ownership, as very soon, they will be the only recourse labor and consumers have left.
This is the Republican Supreme Court in a nutshell, overturning any possible protection or benefit for workers on a 5-4 vote. These reverse Robin Hood think that huge corporations need even more power over their employees.
This SCOTUS is identical in ideology to the GOP Congress and Trump administration. Wealth is allowed to flow in only one direction - upward.
48
Trickle-UP!
1
Class actions are an embarrassment to the legal profession. Initially conceived as an efficient way to resolve things like airplane crashes in which all of the claims derived from the same single act, activists and profiteers have turned it into a way in which lawyers can start litigation for there own benefit without actually having a real client.
The plaintiffs' bar tries to paint arbitration as inherently unfair. There is no reason to believe that a properly trained and tasked arbitrator will be any less biased than a politically appointed judge. Moreover, arbitration offers far faster claims resolution than our inefficient and over-burdened courts.
Plaintiffs' lawyers dislike arbitration because it deprives them of the leverage of cumulating a large number of small claims. Ultimately, the Court is doing no more here than upholding voluntary contracts. The trial lawyers just need to get over it.
3
I'm a plaintiff's lawyer, but I agree with you that sometimes class actions are a source of profit for the lawyers, but of little benefit to their clients. The situation involved in the case decided today was not one of those. The question before the court was whether employees who claimed to have been cheated out of their wages could be prevented from banding together, so that the total amount of their claims made it sensible to sue. If employees are cheated out of fifty or a hundred or a few hundred dollars, they cannot, as a practical matter, bring suit for the theft. If they can join with hundreds or even thousands of other employees who are in the same situation, they can have some hope of obtaining relief for the wrong done to them. That is what the Supreme Court has effectively prevented today. If you think that is a good result, by all means, say so. But don't point to imperfections in the class action mechanism to criticize a decision concerning cases that don't suffer from those defects.
22
If arbitration was that fair why would all businesses require everyone doing business with them to agree to arbitration and give up their legal rights to sue?
18
So corporations and employers can nickle and dime us to death? No thanks.
9
5-4.
What a surprise!
17
The middle class is toast.
35
Has been since the lever on the toaster went down in 1981.
15
Good one matty, and so true!
Working class Conservatives just love stabbing themselves over and over.
109
For all those who said "Both democrats and republicans are bad, there is no difference between the two, blah blah blah" -- how does it feel now to lose your rights to corporate America because of a stolen supreme court seat? Democrats should have a fiery nomination contest, but once nomination is done, they should have stood solidly behind the candidate against trump. Saying "I will stay home because my preferred candidate is not nominated" is shameful. You reap what you sow, and you starve if you dont sow.
56
Saying "I will stay home and not campaign in Michigan and Wisconsin because I am anointed by the DNC" was shameful also.
3
Garrett: Absolutely shameful. No candidate should take even a single voter for granted. That is why we need to nominate better candidates. But once the nomination process was completed, all I ask is "dont act foolish".
1
Trump should not be allowed to appoint any more judges, and any he did appoint should be removed when he is impeached
15
It seems correct.
No one is forcing anyone to sign a contract. It is a voluntary agreement between two parties.
The only losers are lawyers.
4
What's voluntary about a forced arbitration cost? A huge company tells you, if you don't sign, you can't have a job here. This is not two equal parties negotiating a contract.
54
Sure, George Orwell, all you have to do is be willing to forgo any economic activity that involves a contract. Simple.
44
This is the same tired refrain that is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent people from exercising their rights in court. There is no circumstance where an arbitrator will be ordering the defendant to change their practices and insulates them from damages. These contracts are what used to be referred to as adhesion contracts and no one ever even reads them. The lawyers that win here are those that draft those "contractual" terms to insulate their clients.
24
"Take it or leave it" contracts should not bind employees. We know from the work NYTimes has done on arbitration clauses in consumer contracts that they render consumers powerless to enforce the law. It is a nasty direction the conservative court has taken: crippling workers' power in a playing field already severely tilted toward employers. Further enriching and empowering employers is the last thing America needs. Shame on the conservatives on the Supreme Court.
30
Suggested reading for this occasion is Ian Millhiser’s 2015 book “Injustices: The Supreme Court’s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted”.
14
Conservatives seem to love the rich and hate workers rights.
Why?
9
Without a right to our day in court, we're just serfs. As privatization of justice and law occurs, a new dark ages begins, complete with a corrupt, powerful church grabbing power.
81
A stolen Supreme Court seat. A future stolen from the American worker. And it's going to get worse. Much worse.
120
There are a LOT more of the 99% than of the 1%. I would say 99 times more.
When you take away people's right that they remember they once had, and especially if you do harm to their children and grandchildren, look out for what follows. It will not be pretty.
If it gets bad enough, we are going to go looking for those guillotines and tumbrels that got stored away after the French Revolution in 1789.
5
What does that do to women working in businesses where sexual harassment is rampant?
11
Interesting question... I'm curious to know the answer. That's scary.
Yet another malicious decesion due to the "stolen seat."
14
The current Republican administration and the judicial appointees of Republican presidents: sending American workers back to the nineteenth century.
What's next? Repealing the overtime rules? Repealing the laws against child labor?
9
Corporate citizenship and now corporate theft endorsed by our very own radical "conservative wing" of our Supreme Court.
What California person is going to travel to Delaware to contest a $30 charge or pay an attorney to represent them.
Class actions are the only way to keep the large companies from stealing a few dollars from each customer.
Joseph Margolis wrote here today about the famous
Anatole France observation that the law in its majesty forbids both rich and poor from sleeping under bridges. So on point.
us army 1969-1971/california jd
15
It's unclear when employers spring this clause on you. I suspect that employees hear about it for the first time AFTER they have been hired (and have also invested time and energy in the job application process) instead of BEFORE they fill out the application. Job-seekers need access to this information before they initiate the job application process.
6
My company did not allow us to see the NDA or our severance packages until AFTER we had been forced to train H1Bs to do our jobs, and on our last day of work. That were several thousand of us in IT whose jobs went to India with the help of the H1Bs we trained.
Jobs were found for younger employees, and older employees they wanted to continue to use were not given packages, but forced to take contracting positions with the outsourcing firms managing the whole thing.
When employees invest a career or even a significant number of years with a company and are promised long-term benefits contingent on longevity, companies should be compelled to hold up their end of the bargain even when said employer decides to dump employees overboard.
6
When I applied to a large mega-bank, I saw one of these contracts. It was presented to me after 3 interviews and a 2 hour drive to do a background check. It was presented along with the job offer and a non-compete/non-disclosure agreement.
I didn't end up taking the job, although the arbitration agreement had nothing to do with that. The reason I turned it down had to do with the fact that it required a relocation, and how little my house was likely to sell for at the time. It looks like I might have dodged a bullet.
The Supreme Court arbitration decisions didn't usher in an era of denying access to due process by consumers and workers. Our state and federal judicial systems have been doing that for almost a century. By any measurement our courts are inefficient, slow, pompous, arcane, scary and solicitous of lawyer games and revenue needs. Sadly, just about everybody agrees that they can't be reformed, especially to enable people to pursue their claims on their own. When was the last time a legislature or Congress pondered real reform? Why hasn't anybody considered the possibilities of technological reforms? It's no wonder the Supreme Court gave up on our courts and that the private sector filled the void.
2
Even if all you say is true, which it is not, the motivation for the arbitration provisions is to insulate the more powerful party from any meaningful consequence for their misdeeds. That is also the motivation for the majority as Justice Roberts argued before reaching the Court.
9
We had an era of robber barons and an era of labor reform and an era social safety nets and an era of civil rights.
This is the era of corporatism, in which the rights of the investor class outstrip those of workers, those of consumers, those of individuals.
The only rights an individual is likely to be granted by this court i's the right to discriminate in the name of religious liberty.
23
This is a prime example of why the "conservative agenda" tends to defeat the basic rights and needs of the little guy. Voting "Republican" seems to produce results that are in the best interests of corporations and the big money elite, rather than the normal joe schmo who's just scraping quarters together to afford McDonald's coffee..
This is an old argument, but deserves to be revisited. There are many reasons why people wish to identify with conservatism and vote Republican - whether it's because of their support of "family values" or their opposition to abortion, which they deem immoral. Both of those positions may seem worthy and noble, but in the end? This is the result. A Supreme Court that will continue to interpret the constitution in ways that serve big money, and not your average citizen...
10
Once again, justice is done...if you are a wealthy corporation or individual. The rest of us apparently do not deserve access to the court system to resolve disputes. Equal protection was nice while it lasted, but the Supreme Court has deemed it inconvenient.
82
The blue collar poorly educated & technology workers who were displaced by outsourcing, were also the new Trump voters. they have now lost big in the SCOTUS decision.
Look to mass layoffs, with little or no penalty or financial damages to organizations. CFO's may be tizzy today.
19
Another good reason why unions had appeal
at one time and which current workers seem to have
completely forgotten about, given whom they continue to vote into office, November 2016 in particular.
You get (and you're stuck with) whom you vote for.
8
Another terrible, but unsurprising decision, by the shadow lobby for business corporations and the wealthy, the 5 “ conservative judges on the US Supreme Court. The same crew that gave us Citizens United , and proclaimed that Corporations are “ persons” under the law. Democracy continues to wither on the judicial vine. Where is Merrick Garland when he is needed?
31
Another Supreme Court decision upholding the old principle that the king can do no wrong. It is certainly in keeping with Citizens United which upheld the principle that corporate money in elections is free speech. American consumers and workers no longer have rights against corporations which have evolved into oligarchys. Corporations in America used to be regarded as protectors of workers, with decent wages and benefits that lifted the workers up. Today, corporations are no longer job creators, but are job destroyers and are safeguarded by Supreme Court decisions such as this one.
Workers no longer have a chance to win in grievances against corporations because money corrupts and corporations control the money and call it free speech. Instead, they protect their investors, more than they have ever protected their workers, as evidenced by this recent decision of the Supreme Court, which is monopolized by conservatives.
38
Basic reportage of a Supreme Court decision should include both the number of justices participating in the decision as well as their names. This matters as perhaps Merrick Garland would have come down differently than Neil Gorsuch! I searched online for those like me left wondering and here are the facts:
The opinion was by Justice Gorsuch and Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito joined the majority opinion. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.
33
Step right up Conservative and defend a decision that continues a trend of making the will and rights of the many less important than the needs and greeds of the wealthy.
Defend the constant tilt of the recent Conservative court toward the desires of large corporations and against the ability of average Americans who are trying to organize legal remedies to keep that power balance equal.
What if, in 1776, the colonies rising up against King George had taken their grievances to a high court and and were told that banding together as a class was forbidden - only individual grievances could be heard one at a time - and even those were subject to "take it or leave it" arbitration clauses
Why, people might get mad enough to have a revolution.
And, yet, you proudly cite Trump's influence on the Supreme Court.
You would have been on the side of the King.
I have no doubt.
What about your own interests for a change??
22
Clearly, the court system in the US is only for the wealthiest, not for us plebes. Regular Americans get shuttled off to "arbitrators" chosen, and thus effectively paid for, by the employer themselves.
25
The kinds of "contracts" the Supreme Court just upheld would acceptable (as would the ruling) if they were "freely entered into, where neither party was acting under duress." In law school, many years ago, we learned about "contracts of adhesion" where one party has virtually no bargaining power; oppressive clauses in those contracts are not enforceable.
The conservative justices have ruled that just such oppressive, non-negotiated clauses can be enforced. It's painful to watch our civil society being unraveled.
167
As mergers continue to increase monopsony power by limiting the number of employers for whole classes of employment, this ruling will have an even more egregious effect.
2
As you read through the comments bear in mind that the Federal Arbitration Act that favors arbitration, and the National Labor Act that provides for “concerted action” on the part of workers are both legislation, not matters of Constitutional law. What Congress creates, Congress can alter. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that change, but don’t fault SCOTUS for a statutory interpretation that is plausible, if not the hoped-for outcome. National labor policy rests with Congress.
7
We have this pesky little thing called the 7th Amend. In Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry (1990), the Sup. Court held that the right to a jury trial provided by the 7th A. encompasses more than the common law forms of action recognized in 1791 (when the Bill of Rights was ratified), but rather any lawsuit in which parties’ legal rights were to be determined, as opposed to suits that only involve equitable rights and remedies. A right to a jury trial on recognized civil claims including class claims for damages is guaranteed by the 7th A. To the extent the FAA conflicts with that, it is unconstitutional to force workers/consumers to arbitrate any claim they wish to pursue in court.
1
A sure indication that the denial of Senate hearings and vote on Merrick Garland in 2016 might have as much, if not more, impact on average working Americans than the election and consequent malfeasance of the Trump administration.
182
Don't get too excited. Your boy wasn't elected, he was appointed by a soon-to-be-gone electoral college that has recently given us 2 disastrous R train-wreck presidents.
Mitch McConnell has done more damage to our democracy than anyone in the last 100 years.
29
If "winning" means that you have no right to sue anyone who harms you then, yes, by electing Trump you won. I'll bet, due to your Confederate logo, you hope that Trump soon repeals all civil right legislation, and allows they states to prevent non-whites from votings. Hint. The Confederacy lost.
The loss of unions and decisions like this continue to whittle away at the middle class. Lower wages leads to a greater economic divide and at some point the masses will revolt. Beware the Hunger Games!
59
DB
Try "beware the French Revolution." The fat cats got to meet the guillotine up close and personal.
On 10 October 1789, physician Joseph-Ignace Guillotin proposed to the National Assembly that capital punishment should always take the form of decapitation "by means of a simple mechanism."
3
This is good news for employers that thrive on wage theft, forced overtime, and other abusive practices. As long as they don't run up very large amounts of money damages in each individual case, they can't lose, because the employee won't be able to afford a lawyer.
The Supreme Court really ought to treat rights enumerated in the constitution, like the right to a jury trial, with the greatest seriousness. This is a tragic ruling.
208
The right to a trial before a jury of one's peers refers to persons accused of crimes. There is no Constitutional right to a jury trial in a civil case.
Mr. Kessinger, you may want to consult the Seventh Amendment.
I think you need to pull your dusty old copy of the constitution off the shelf and have a look at the Seventh Amendment. ""In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Nice try, though.
As a lawyer who represents employees (mainly in anti-discrimination matters), I found this decision sad, but unsurprising. The court's majority, which had earlire expanded the reach of the Federal Arbitration Act far beyond what any of those who adopted it could have imagined, continues to hew to a view of the statute that exalts its imprecise language (ripe for interpretation) over the real world.
This is another example of the kind of thinking that leads to contempt for the judiciary and the legal profession. That reasoning was best described by the satirist Anatole France when he wrote that "The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich and the poor to sleep under bridges." To change the pattern exemplified in this decision it will be necessary to put together a strong congressional majority to amend the statute and rein in the reach of arbitration.
126
Great, even less rights for those who actually work... Can they stack the deck even more? And remember this decision comes from the court that claimed that money does not corrupt.
203
You vote Republican, you get judges that always protect employers. You vote Democratic, you get judges that often protect workers.
Anyone who thinks "the two parties are the same" is ignoring hundreds of low-profile events like this that happen every year. Nowadays, the same can be said about anyone who allegedly votes "based on the person, not the party."
Whatever side you're on, it actually matters to people's lives who gets elected.
312
Many of the Bernie voters who stayed away to express discontent with the "lady" candidate, because she was flawed..Now have to pay the price, in MI, OH, PA & WI..
65
Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains! Let the revolution begin.....starting with kicking the Roberts court out!
20
Just wait for this court to criminalize birth control. I can’t wait to see the first woman incarcerated for daring to use a day after pill. Sharia law American style.
25