• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Divided Supreme Court sides with businesses over workers

MateoMtnClimber said:
Are you talking about the picture of the SCOTUS building that appeared in my post automatically when I clicked Post Quick Reply?
Click to expand...

Non other. A backbutton works wonders.



Take your anti-American rank propaganda bull**** somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Here I am, saying the same things you are.

So you don't know where the money came from to build those Roman Empire buildings, eh?
 
camlok said:
More of the old lies, Howard. Freedom means equality. Equality means that each side has equal power. For you to suggest that one worker has equal power to that of any business, let alone a Ford or GM or General Electric or Boeing is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Is the worker not free to quit and start his own company? That's equality. Then, he can set his own rules for his workers. It's up to him. The worker is not a slave who is forced to stay with a company he doesn't like.

A well spoken, intelligent worker is even more of a pariah to business.
Click to expand...

Now, you're showing your ignorance of the business world.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Is it really interesting that I side with the rights of businesses? Seriously? After all, it's the business that creates the jobs to begin with. Without the businesses, there would be no jobs.

Collective bargaining had a place -- a long time ago when it was necessary to establish safety rules. But, now we have OSHA and they've taken that over. Collective bargaining today can run a business out of business, such as what happened to Hostess.

A worker has the right to quit and look for a new job. That's true freedom.
Click to expand...

It is interesting because by siding with businesses, you are siding against the right of the individual to associate with other like-minded individuals and advocate for common causes. It doesn't get much more un-conservative and un-American than that. Businesses only create jobs after individuals create businesses, so how did you pick your priorities?

Of course a worker has the right to quit a job. What a meaningless platitude. What you are supporting is SCOTUS's restriction on individual Americans' 1A rights.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Conservatives, both politicians and judges, will always place the interests of corporations above the interests of workers.
Click to expand...

To everyone reading this thread, even our guests, remember the above when you vote on 6 November 2018 and in 2020.

The cons will screw working people with every opportunity. Don't give them another opportunity.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
Most employment contracts require employees to waive their right to a trial by jury in any disputes with their employer. This means disagreements will be settled confidentially by a judge or through an established arbitration process. It means, among other things, that employees cannot take common action against their employer for common infractions, e.g., unfair pay practices, discrimination, harassment, etc. It gives employers more leverage than their employees.
Click to expand...

Most? really? does that vary from state to state because Ive never encountered that and I have worked my share of places in the engineering, test, manufacturing and production fields.
Interesting, gonna have to look in to this more like i said, thanks
 
HowardBThiname said:
Easy or not, they are free to walk away -- that's freedom. None of us are born with a guarantee that life will be free from glitches.



If the worker and the employer both agree on a set wage for a specific job -- there is no exploitation. Slavery was exploitation because the slaves did not agree to the terms of the contract.

Today's worker is not forced to take a job he does not want and he is not forced to remain in a job he doesn't like.
Click to expand...


A corporation is big, a worker is small. The odds are there stacked heavily against the worker, that's an unfair bargaining equation.

Let the bargaining equation be fair, big bargains with big, and the only way to do that is for workers to organize with one voice representing.
 
OscarLevant said:
Jobs coming from people buying stuff. Jobs do not come from businesses, they are reactionary, not the cause of jobs.
Click to expand...

That's just silly.

Supply and demand create the market, and a good businessperson creates a way to satisfy need. But, no one can buy anything before it's been manufactured, so your statement is a bit of putting the cart before the horse.

You can't go buy a Big Mac until someone makes it, and someone can't make it until a company (McDonalds) develops a recipe for the burger.

Bottom line -- we're all responsible for ourselves in this world. If we don't like our current circumstances, we need to get off our duffs and change them. But, seeking to change our employers is lunacy.
 
It's just a little restriction of 1A rights. Besides, it's better for business, which is better for the country, which is better for all of us. Right?

If I proposed a little restriction on 2A rights the same people in this thread supporting the SCOTUS ruling would be threatening civil war.

Some people wouldn't have any positions at all if they weren't told what they are.
 
HowardBThiname said:
That's just silly.



You can't go buy a Big Mac until someone makes it,
Click to expand...



They'll only make it if someone wants it. Jobs come from people wanting things.


Human want is at the top of the chart on job causality.


Supply serves, and is monitored by, demand, not the other way around.
 
Amelia said:
Republicans and their donors love their nondisclosure agreements -- for those times that they can't get out of accountability altogether.

I apologize for my past allegiance to the GOP blocking me from coming to my senses earlier about the importance of fighting for workers' rights.



Republicans don't seem to be able to look far enough ahead in time to realize that forcing people into the poorhouse is a recipe for crime and revolution. They're not looking after their own interests by making low-income people desperate.
Click to expand...

Oh really? I didn’t know all the NDA in Hollywood were because they are Republicans. Learn something new every day.
 
TurtleDude said:
don't like the way a corporation is run? start your own.
Click to expand...

That is obvious and unrelated to this case. What interest does the federal government have in preventing private citizens engaged in private commerce from organizing as an interested class against its private employer?
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
It is interesting because by siding with businesses, you are siding against the right of the individual to associate with other like-minded individuals and advocate for common causes. It doesn't get much more un-conservative and un-American than that. Businesses only create jobs after individuals create businesses, so how did you pick your priorities?

Of course a worker has the right to quit a job. What a meaningless platitude. What you are supporting is SCOTUS's restriction on individual Americans' 1A rights.
Click to expand...

Do you even understand that this case is about contracts?

If a worker chooses to sign a contract saying he will not organize -- then he's bound not to organize.

If a worker doesn't want to abide by that regulation, all he has to do is seek employment elsewhere. But, if he violates the contract, his boss has every right to fire his ass.
Click to expand...
 
OscarLevant said:
They'll only make it if someone wants it. Jobs come from people wanting things.
Click to expand...

Demand comes from people wanting things. Jobs come from businesses that supply products and services to meet those demands.

If "jobs came from people wanting things," then everyone would have a job, right?
 
Would it be wrong to interpret this as a ruling that makes basically all states right to work?
 
Rogue Valley said:
Divided Supreme Court sides with businesses over workers

2a96452b2044429ab1a1596d07763ec6-640x427.jpg




Conservatives, both politicians and judges, will always place the interests of corporations above the interests of workers.
Click to expand...




...the justices held that individual employees can be forced to use arbitration, not the courts, to air complaints about wages and overtime.
...the outcome also might extend to workplace discrimination and other disputes if employee contracts specify that they must be dealt with in one-on-one arbitration.​

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said the contracts are valid under the arbitration law. “As a matter of policy these questions are surely debatable. But as a matter of law the answer is clear,” Gorsuch wrote.
Monday’s ruling is in line with earlier decisions, he said. “In many cases over many years, this court has heard and rejected efforts to conjure conflicts between the Arbitration Act and other federal statutes. In fact, this court has rejected every such effort to date (save one temporary exception since overruled),” Gorsuch wrote.​

Sooooooo ... it sounds like you should be looking for legislative action as opposed o Judicial activism. You don't want Judicial activism do you?
 
I spent quite a bit of time in corporate life, some happily, but most was bearable at best, and some not even that. Except for initially, I always felt uneasy as a captive employee. And I also detested the unfavorable tax treatment, versus working for one-self.

After I incorporated a business structure to assist in my moonlighting, and saw the huge benefits of that structure, I eventually left the corporate world for good!

I hate to admit it, but in some ways that old gangster movie saying is true: the working man is a sucker. Well at least the corporate hourly and most salaried are, in my humble opinion. But I mean no disrespect here, to the working employed; most of us are indeed employed by corporate entities. But I also believe for most of us, the faster one can shake off the shackles of corporate employment, the better they will be.

With only some exception, I really don't see corporate employment as a happy place to be. It's gotten worse through the decades, and at the end of my corporate employment I felt very demeaned. And it wasn't just due to my then current employer, since I had several employers and a literal plethora of contracting & consulting work, with the environments more or less being similar.

But perhaps the best reason to not work for a corporation, is to keep a larger share of the money you earn. It costs little to form an 'S' Corp, 'C' Corp, or LLC, and it costs only slightly more to hire a good accountant. But together, they will save you a bundle and protect your ass! Add a Trust for your family & real estate, and you've got structures around you that will greatly protect you and your capital in ways corporate employment never will. And these structures are available to working and middle-class families, just as they are available to the wealthy. And they make just as much sense.
 
TurtleDude said:
don't like the way a corporation is run? start your own.
Click to expand...
:thumbs:

I don't agree with the ruling, but you've got the right attitude. Even if you're the only employee!
 
AlbqOwl said:
The workers did not conceive, plan, organize, and take the considerable risks to start the business. And therefore, the workers have no right to demand anything of those who did do that. If the workers find the policies of their employer intolerable, they are 100% free to leave that company and work elsewhere. Or start their own business. I myself got so tired of working for the other guy who was too often incompetent and unreasonable that I did just that. Quit and started my own business. I didn't make as much money, but I was a happy and liberated camper for the next decade until I fully retired.
Click to expand...

If I haven't conceived, planned, organized, and taken the considerable risks to execute a war, plan a housing development, build the exterior walls of a house out of mirrors, or form my state legislature, have I no right to demand anything? What prevents me from exercising my 1A rights to organize with people who share my goals and seek redress of our common grievances?

Businesses are not more important than individuals. That is the key constitutional consideration that I think you and SCOTUS have missed here.
 
A business should be able to fire you for anything they want(accept for racial/sex reasons)... if they don't like you complaining about your wage.... they have a right to drop you and look for someone else who doesn't complain.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
That is obvious and unrelated to this case. What interest does the federal government have in preventing private citizens engaged in private commerce from organizing as an interested class against its private employer?
Click to expand...

Not to mention, in my meager understanding of SCOTUS, I don't think they're supposed to rule on something by saying "You don't like it? Do (x) instead."

They have to hear gun cases filed by states. I wonder if Turtle would say (if they ruled non-favorably towards gun owners) "Hey, we're siding with California here, because if you don't like it, you can just move to Texas." Something tells me that wouldn't be the case.
 
Like many things, this is not the fault of the Supreme Court but rather Congress. Over enough time Congress made this mess between competing legislation (the article goes into this) forcing the Courts to decide between business or workers.
 
camlok said:
Non other. A backbutton works wonders.





Here I am, saying the same things you are.

So you don't know where the money came from to build those Roman Empire buildings, eh?
Click to expand...

Your reactionary and repetitive posts don't mean anything to me, so when you say that a picture of the SCOTUS is "rank propaganda", I not only am unpersuaded. I'm also a little amused at this reduced version of what I assume is a relatively thoughtful person.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
It is interesting because by siding with businesses, you are siding against the right of the individual to associate with other like-minded individuals and advocate for common causes. It doesn't get much more un-conservative and un-American than that. Businesses only create jobs after individuals create businesses, so how did you pick your priorities?

Of course a worker has the right to quit a job. What a meaningless platitude. What you are supporting is SCOTUS's restriction on individual Americans' 1A rights.
Click to expand...

Start getting side work, convince several of your co-workers to also quit and start your own business. See it happen all the time.

Stop being the victim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom