Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in strong terms from today’s Supreme Court Decision curtailing workers’ Rights.
As the oldest Justice, age 85, she has many admirers who count on her to fight for the average person, not the powerful. She is now affectionately called The Notorious RBG.
Trump’s appointee Neil Gorsuch provided the decisive vote in the 5-4 Decision. He may be the most conservative Justice on the Court.
“In Monday’s case, decided by a bitter 5-4 vote, the conservative majority ruled that employers may forbid employees from banding together to fight wage and other workplace issues covered by arbitration agreements. The court said a federal arbitration statute overrides federal labor law intended to protect workers’ bargaining power.
“Speaking for the four liberal dissenters, Ginsburg said the decision threatens to return the country to a time in the late 19th century and early 20th when workers were forced to take jobs strictly on the boss’s terms and “yellow dog” contracts, forbidding employees from joining labor unions, were common.
“The employees who had brought Monday’s case claimed they had been underpaid in violation of the Fair Labor Standards and wanted to join in a class-action lawsuit in federal court. The Supreme Court majority agreed with their employers that the arbitration contracts they had signed prohibited any collective proceedings.
“Ginsburg declared the agreements “arm-twisted, take-it-or-leave-it contracts.” She noted that the cost of a lawsuit dissuades most workers from seeking to redress a grievance on their own and emphasized the “strength in numbers.”
“She said federal laws dating to the 1930s protect workers’ rights to band together to confront employers about working conditions. “Federal labor law does not countenance such isolation of employees,” she insisted.”
We can pray that Trump does not get a second pick, or that the Democrats control the Senate after 2018 and can block him from picking someone else who wants to set the clock back 100 years and restore the Age of Robber Barons.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This is one more step in giving corporations power at the expense of workers.
So if multiple workers are harmed in an accident, due to negligence for safety protocols by their company, each one must sue individually, as opposed to them collectively suing, and as a group, have more power and leverage. They can pool their resources and have a better, stronger case. With this the workers who can afford the attorney costs on their own can take them to court, but those who don’t have money can’t sue and the company isn’t held responsible in any way.
One more nail on coffins of workers thanks to Trump. How much more will be taken away before this clown is out of office? So much for Don the Con and his great works to Make America Great Again.
Are workers listening and do they vote?
No individual worker has the money to sue a big corporation.
Will working people rethink their vote for Trump? The scary part is, probably not. They will still wear their red Trump caps and chant “lock her up” on cue. Not realizing they are being royally screwed.
THis is good in the sense that we no longer will have these class action suits where lawyers make all the money and the people get $35 dollars or so.
But not so good in that working people can’t afford to sue corporations
Class action litigation is the only language big corporations understand. It’s therefore the only way that employees and consumers can really speak to big corporations.
The age of robber barons has been fully restored. It’s all around us, from the Kochs and the DeVos family to Gates, Zuckerburg, and the Mercers.
The age of the Roberts’ Barons.
John Roberts.
Perfect! Thanks once again, SomeDAM.
“The Age of Roberts Barons”
The Age of Roberts Barons
Is Age of CEO’s
It’s even in the gerunds
Like “courting”, I suppose
I am still praying for the comet.
Very few workers have the resources to engage in a law suit . Very few attorneys will take a case for the small contingency fees that most of these individual cases will generate .
I used to love it when I would hear the disingenuous statement:
” workers used to need Unions but now we have laws that protect workers “.
Guess who provided the lawyers ?. Unions they did it in the hopes of pressuring employers into recognizing Unions and signing contracts . The did it to demonstrate to workers the advantage of Union representation. So now instead of representing 10 ,100 ,1000 workers it will be impossible to provide those legal services to individuals.
Still praying for the comet strike.
Joel,
Correction. No individual worker has the resources to wage a lawsuit against a corporation unless some pro bono lawyer or organization takes him or her without a fee.
The Balkanization of the individual and the upwards redistribution and concentration of what were once individual powers and rights into corporations and oligarchs continues to accelerate. How bad, how obvious must it get for voters on the right to finally understand the value of voting for, not against their own self interest? Many on the right are leery of the trope of the “one world government” while simultaneously being utterly cluess about the rise of government of, by and for the aforementioned corporations and oligarchs. Serfs never did have a reputation for seeing the big picture when there is Wonderbread and imaginary circuses to distract them.
Don’t worry: the serfs are being armed with critical thinking and problem solving skills thanks to our innovative new curricula.
That “one world government” is the government of by and for the transnational oligarchs and corporations. It’s already here, just not recognized for what it is.
Duane: I never discuss politics with my brother. Occasionally he sends me an email and I delete it.
According to his beliefs, the devil is working to get a ‘one world government’. The United Nations’ leader is controlled by satan. Pope Francis is controlled by satan.
Is this the same ‘one world government’ that is controlled by oligarchs and corporations? Both are evil.
When will this garbage end? Even religions have gone wacko.
I certainly don’t understand those like your brother who believe in that old-fashioned devil “One World Gubmint”, which usually has a biblical font. How one gets to that thinking, is, well, beyond my thinking. I can understand not wanting to engage in discussion with someone who is so closed minded, even if they are family.
Be that as it may, in my mind religions/religious thought have always been wacko, but that’s just me. It works in some fashion for some and if it makes them feel/be better in their own mind, that’s an okay outcome I’d say. It’s when the “religious” insist that their way of being is for all (we’ve seen the historical and current harms to others that that thinking has caused). I have serious issues with those that insist their beliefs are their god’s mandates.
“Ginsburg said the decision threatens to return the country to a time in the late 19th century and early 20th when workers were forced to take jobs strictly on the boss’s terms and “yellow dog” contracts, forbidding employees from joining labor unions, were common.”
That is exactly what the Koch brothers and their ALEC coven want … a return to the era of the robber barons when 99.9 percent of the people were basically their wage slaves with most earning barely enough to survive.
I think it is safe to say that the decline in the average lifespan will plummet. It has already dropped for the last two years but that average will drop faster now until the only people with health care are wealthy and the rest of the people have nothing.
In 1900, 40-percent of the population lived in “horrid” poverty, only 7-percent graduated from high school, 3-percent from college and the average lifespan was 46.3 for men and 48.3 for women.
The EU was right to think that the United States has been lost.
I saw the documentary of Justice Ginsburg, “RBG” in Tucson last week while visiting my daughter. An attendant at the theater told me that every screening had been sold out. I recommend it as an antidote to our despair.
Lower wage employees should join a union while they still can. They better hurry up before they’re outlawed.
How outrageous is it that these judges with lifetime appointments want to make it so employers can steal wages from people who make 10 dollars an hour.
They should be ashamed of themselves. Privilege is a hell of a drug.
Ah if it were only that easy . Even when workers vote for a Union, there is nothing that compels the employer to sign a contract. If the Union walks out there is nothing that stops an employer from hiring replacement workers . And remember first you had to overcome the hurdles of organizing .
“Neither the NLRB nor FMCS keeps statistics on the percentage of certifications that
result in a first collective bargaining agreement. However, evidence suggests that perhaps
a third of bargaining units voting for representation never secure a contact and that
eventually the union is decertified ”
Click to access 179.authcheckdam.pdf
Well, maybe the greed and overreach will cause a backlash. I don’t think anyone would have predicted a year ago that all those teachers would go on strike, yet they did, and they did it in some of the most conservative states in the country.
Oh, don’t worry, Jill Stein will save us in 2020, cough, cough.
Get over it hilbot.
FYI: notorious, not notoriously RBG >
Thanks! Bad proofreading.
The conservatives have been working to get this law on the books for a while. Remember the class action suit by women against Walmart in 2011? The ruling said individual women would have to sue since this case was brought by too many women. Gee, wonder why I have not heard of any woman getting food stamps while working at Walmart suing the company? …”more than 12,000 Walmart employees, who each had a story of bias.”, and not one lawsuit! Just what the Waltons want. Keep those surfs in their place..work for nothing and be discriminated against.
……
Walmart Discrimination Suit Supreme Court Ruling Hurts All Women
MICHELLE GOLDBERG
06.20.11 9:06 PM ET
It isn’t just the women of Walmart who’ll suffer the fallout of the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday.
You’ve heard about firms that are too big to fail. Now the Supreme Court has declared that some companies are too big to be sued for discrimination. On Monday, the court threw out Dukes v. Walmart, the largest sex-discrimination lawsuit in history, waged against the world’s biggest company, essentially on the grounds that it dealt with too many women. In doing so, the court has made it much harder for employees to challenge bias that results from a broad corporate culture instead of the misdeeds of a few individuals…
In a conference call after the ruling, the attorneys in Dukes v. Walmartpromised to press ahead with individual sex-discrimination cases. Even if a class-action suit is impossible, said co-lead counsel Brad Seligman, every one of Walmart’s female employees “potentially have the right today to file individual claims of discrimination with the United States Equal Opportunity Commission, or to file individual lawsuits.” Over the years, he said, he and his fellow attorneys have heard from more than 12,000 Walmart employees, who each had a story of bias. “There are thousands of claims of discrimination that remain to be filed,” said Seligman.
But it’s no easy thing for individuals to take on behemoths like Walmart alone. When challenged about workplace discrimination, said Greenberger, companies often will try to show that the employee in question was simply subpar. It’s much harder to argue that all female employees are inferior. “If you can’t provide that broader base of comparison, because you can’t bring a broad-based class action, it undermines the ability of even individual women to bring their cases,” she said. In other words, it wasn’t just the women of Walmart who lost on Monday…
http://thebea.st/kGof7d?source=email&via=desktop
Unions are under attack and declining and decisions like this one whittle away at the middle class. How long can this growing inequality divide continue? We are going backwards in time.
Republicans stand for corporate power and Democrats, growing more weak and ineffective, usually stand for workers.
Why are so many working people unable to see that? Why do poor and working people vote for corporate power? Why are they still loyal to Trump? My uneducated guess: appeals to nationalism, racism, xenophobia, and male supremacy trump pocketbook issues.
Diane: “Why do poor and working people vote for corporate power?”
As my brother said, “Trickle down works”. He told me that I don’t understand economics.
Yep. It works really well. He lives in Idaho which shares with Utah the honor of being one of the two lowest states in the nation for funding education.
I don’t know where he gets his news. One time he told me that liberals kill people. I haven’t figured that one out yet.
Your brother and Charles see the same news source.
I think I read a possible answer to your questions in the April 2018 issue of National Geographic Magazine.
The title of the piece is “The Things That Divide Us”
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/things-that-divide-us/
Since arbitration bars collective action, I fear the next step will be to bar all unions because that’s what unions engage in.
I have a feeling that yesterday’s Supreme Court decision was just another brick cemented into place to destroy whatever few tools the working class has left. The Janus decision will be the next brick.
Watch for a Koch-funded lawsuit challenging the legality of unions to quickly sprint to the U.S. Supreme Court.
After that, the Roberts court can quickly demolish any and all labor protections.
The corporations and oligarchs will declare Glory Days; everyone else will be consigned to a perpetual living hell. Not even ourchildren will be exempt from laboring for the profiteers.
The Neil Gorsuch opinion was horrid, but it was only the tip of the oligarchic iceberg.
There’s voter suppression. There’s the attack on environmental and financial regulations. There’s rampant corruption at the top levels of government. There’s utter disregard for the rule of law and the principles embedded in the Constitution. It’d be no stretch to say that the continuance of the Republic is at stake.
Here’s what the Houston Chronicle said prior to the 2016 presidential election:
“Any one of Trump’s less-than-sterling qualities – his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance – is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, ‘I alone can fix it,’ should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic…”
It was prescient then, and it’s reality now. And that doesn’t even include the ratfu*king of the election by the Russians, nor does it include what certainly appears to be the wholesale sell-out of American foreign policy in return electioneering assistance and for Trump family financial gain.
Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines activities and behaviors like this.
But there’s much more at ply on al this nonsense. As article in The Atlantic noted:
“the 9.9 percent are a crowd of lawyers, doctors, dentists, mid-level investment bankers, M.B.A.s, and other professionals…mostly white…it took $1.2 million in 2016 in net worth to make it into the 9.9 percent…the 9.9 percenters live in safer neighborhoods, go to better schools, have shorter commutes, receive higher-quality health care, and when circumstances require, serve time in better prisons…why do America’s doctors make twice as much as those of other wealthy countries?…the United States has placed dead last five times running in the Commonwealth Fund’s ranking of health-care systems in high-income countries…Who is not in on the game? Auto workers. Caregivers. Retail workers. Furniture makers. Food workers…The poorest quintile of Americans pays more than twice the rate of state taxes as the top 1 percent does, and half again what the top 10 percent pays.”
It gets worse, much worse:
“Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, and liver disease are all two to three times more common in individuals who have a family income of less than $35,000 than in those who have a family income greater than $100,000… the federal government doles out tax expenditures through deductions for retirement savings (worth $137 billion in 2013); employer-sponsored health plans ($250 billion); mortgage-interest payments ($70 billion); and income from watching the value of your home, stock portfolio, and private-equity partnerships grow ($161 billion). In total, federal tax expenditures exceeded $900 billion in 2013. That’s more than the cost of Medicare, more than the cost of Medicaid, more than the cost of all other federal safety-net programs put together… the bottom 90 percent haven’t got a clue. The working classes get riled up when they see someone at the grocery store flipping out their food stamps to buy a T-bone. They have no idea that a nice family on the other side of town is walking away with $100,000 for flipping their house.”
In other words, the deck is stacked. (And even worse than that paragraph suggests.)
Now consider this:
“The counties that supported Hillary Clinton represented an astonishing 64 percent of the GDP, while Trump counties accounted for a mere 36 percent. Aaron Terrazas, a senior economist at Zillow, found that the median home value in Clinton counties was $250,000, while the median in Trump counties was $154,000. When you adjust for inflation, Clinton counties enjoyed real-estate price appreciation of 27 percent from January 2000 to October 2016; Trump counties got only a 6 percent bump.”
Now, which candidate offered up serious policy proposals – not lies – that would benefit people who lived in those Trump counties? Which political party had a platform and a record of helping people who lived in Trump counties?
But it gets worse:
“the Rust Belt counties that put the anti-government-health-care candidate over the top were those that lost the most people in recent years to deaths of despair—those due to alcohol, drugs, and suicide. To make all of America as great as Trump country, you would have to torch about a quarter of total GDP, wipe a similar proportion of the nation’s housing stock into the sea, and lose a few years in life expectancy.”
So, Trump supporters felt deep resentment. The policies that helped create the Great Recession and that hurt them and their communities were perpetrated by – and are major platform planks – of one particular political party. And they voted for more of it.
Add this:
“Trump lost college-educated white voters by a humiliating 17 percent margin. But he got revenge with non-college-educated whites, whom he captured by a stomping 36 percent margin. According to an analysis by Nate Silver, the 50 most educated counties in the nation surged to Clinton: In 2012, Obama had won them by a mere 17 percentage points; Clinton took them by 26 points. The 50 least educated counties moved in the opposite direction; whereas Obama had lost them by 19 points, Clinton lost them by 31. Majority-minority counties split the same way: The more educated moved toward Clinton, and the less educated toward Trump.”
So, the deeply resentful Trump supporters – many of whom likely get their news from Fox – voted for more of the toxin about which they feel resentful.
The article concludes with this:
“We should be fighting for opportunities for other people’s children as if the future of our own children depended on it. It probably does.”
And those future “opportunities” are going to be grounded – out of necessity for the “general Welfare” – in a recommitment to the social contract that’s embedded in the Constitution.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
Trump’s beloved ”uneducated” silllose whateverbenefits they have. They can always eat cake even if they can’t afford it.
Supreme Court Deals a Big Blow to Workers’ Rights…Mother Jones
In a major defeat for workers, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that companies can force employees to seek damages individually, rather than as a group. The decision allows employers to require that workers pursue claims in individual arbitration hearings—which tend to be more favorable to employers—and bar them from filing class-action lawsuits or seeking group arbitration hearings….
…As Ginsburg pointed out, it is often not practical for workers to go through arbitration to recover small damages. “But by joining together with others, similarly circumstanced,” she added, “employees can gain effective redress for wage underpayment commonly experienced.” The former federal judge Richard Posner summarized the problem with individual suits in 2004: “The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”*
Ginsburg compared contracts that force workers into individual arbitration to the “yellow dog” contracts that once blocked workers from joining unions. She argued that the outcome of Monday’s decision is easy to predict. “Employers, aware that employees will be disinclined to pursue small-value claims when confined to proceeding one-by-one, will no doubt perceive that the cost-benefit balance of underpaying workers tips heavily in favor of skirting legal obligations,” she wrote.
As Mother Jones wrote last year, mandatory arbitration agreements have become increasingly common in recent years and provide significant benefits to employers:
In the early 1990s, less than 4 percent of companies surveyed by the Government Accountability Office, an independent government agency, used mandatory arbitration for their employees. Today, more than half of private-sector non-union workers are subject to it, according to a report published last week by the liberal Economic Policy Institute. Forty-one percent of those employees—24.7 million workers—have also waived their right to class-action litigation…
[…]https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/05/supreme-court-deals-a-big-blow-to-workers-rights/
Which is precisely why the oligarchs love Mitch McConnell, and why he’s the funnel for their money. McConnell is fast-tracking Trump-appointed judges who believe the Constitution was written for the 1 percenters. Gorsuch is obviously one of them. But it’s deeper than just that.
In fact, when McConnell was told in no uncertain terms that the Russians were interceding in the election on Trump’s behalf, he refused to take part in any bipartisan announcement to condemn the actions. Instead, ” McConnell raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the [Obama] administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.”
Meanwhile, as a result of the Citizens United decision, McConnell and McConnell’s PAC have taken in millions of dollars from oligarchs and corporations, and from American Russians with close ties to both Russian oligarchs and to Putin.
“. . . or that the Democrats control the Senate after 2018 and can block him from picking someone else. . .”
Horse manure. They could have blocked Gorsuch, just as the Rethugs blocked Obama’s pick Garland. They could have put up a fight against the Rethugs shenanigans on that, but no, for a year the spineless Dimocraps didn’t do a damn thing.
The Republicans blocked Garland because they controlled the Senate AND they could stall for 8 months in an election year. The Democrats could not block Gorsuch because they did not control the Senate. And they could not stall for 4 years. Even if the Dems could have blocked Gorsuch, whomever Trump appointed was never going to vote with the Ginsburg faction. Trump made that clear when he campaigned. He was going to appoint only right wing justices and judges and that is exactly what he has done. America’s federal judiciary is full of very scary very right wing judges, far beyond Gorsuch, with many more to come.
Elections matter. If Hillary Clinton had won, we would not have this decision. We would not have Gorsuch on the bench.
The awful, corrupt, no different than a Republican Bill Clinton gave us Ruth Bader Ginsburg. No Republican will ever nominate another Ginsburg. Hillary Clinton very well may have.
And if the Democrats in the Senate are in a large enough majority, they may be able to block the next Gorsuch. But even with Bork, some Democrats voted for him. (And some liberal Republicans voted against him which would never happen today as they all fall in line with the most right wing appointments.) The person in control for 3 years will be the President. Maybe in the 4th year if the Dems control the Senate they can stall. But the person with the power to appoint justices is the President. Period.
You can’t deny reality. And if you don’t vote for a Democrat for President who might have appointed the next Ginsburg instead of Gorsuch, it seems very odd to complain about the Democrats in the Senate who couldn’t block one or another right wing appointee to the Supreme Court when they don’t even control the Senate.
This result is exactly what everyone knew would happen if Trump got to appoint Supreme Court Justices instead of Hillary Clinton. And their vote reflected whether they believed that issue was very important.
Well, Hillary just endorsed Cuomo, so there’s that.
Christine Langhoff,
I agree that any Democrat who endorses Cuomo in this primary should be ashamed. I don’t know why Clinton isn’t just pulling a Bernie Sanders and refusing to endorse either candidate. Has Elizabeth Warren endorsed Cynthia Nixon? I can’t imagine why Hillary would choose to endorse Cuomo of all Democrats and it makes me even more certain my NY primary vote for Bernie Sanders was correct.
But that doesn’t change my main point. When it comes to a general election where the Supreme Court is up for grabs, if you don’t vote for the candidate who will appoint the next Ruth Bader Ginsburg instead of Gorsuch, this is what you get. Obviously, some people believed who chose the next Supreme Court Justice wasn’t very important. I do.
Her endorsement of Cuomo is precisely why I’m not so sure Hillary Clinton would have nominated judges as liberal as Ginsburg. The Clintons (both of them) are not exactly outside-the-box policy makers. It was Clinton who began the shredding of the safety net of welfare, after all.
Would her appointments have been less awful than Gorsuch? Yes. Would she have held up a compromise candidate the Republicans would confirm? Yes. Garland was a compromise candidate who couldn’t even get a hearing. Under a Clinton presidency with a Republican controlled Congress, I’m not convinced we’d have had a liberal champion on the SCOTUS, though I’d settle for someone willing to make decisions based on stare decisis instead of the fervid dreams of the plutocracy.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed BY a Clinton. In fact, she was appointed by the more conservative and co-opted Clinton.
If you dismiss Merrick Garland as a “compromise candidate” as if he wasn’t drastically different than Neil Gorsuch, then I can understand why you would believe Hillary Clinton’s Presidency would be barely different than Trump’s. I have to disagree but you are entitled to your own opinion that the same Clintons who appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg should not come anywhere near any Supreme Court nominations because they would be no better than Trump’s.
^^^Correction:
Upon re-reading your post, I realize I may have misunderstood and if so, I apologize.
No matter what, the main reason to vote for Hillary Clinton was because it was clear that the Clintons liked Supreme Court Justices like Ruth Bader Giinsburg (who I suspect voted for Hillary Clinton although I can’t be certain.).
Knowing that there was an open Supreme Court seat that would change the tenor of the Supreme Court, if you didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton, it was because you did not believe that it mattered who sat in that seat. And that is my only point. I think you agree so I’m sorry if I implied you did not.
We are in agreement.
Because two of my three children are young women, the open Supreme Court seat was of utmost importance to me during the election, and I made sure everyone I talked to before the election knew that. A president has at most 8 years (though Trumpie is currently promising more…), but a SCOTUS seat is forever, until death do us part.
Yes we definitely agree! I’m sorry I jumped to conclusions.
I only posted because I am still positive that the more Democrats in the Senate, the more able they will be to prevent even worse damage to the Federal Judiciary by Trump.
Unlike the Republican Party, a small percentage of Democrats will almost always be more conservative than I want which is why the bigger the majority, the more likely they can put some limits on Trump. Controlling committees gives the party great power, even if they don’t always use it properly. Ultimately, the Presidency influences Supreme Court Justices more than the Senate, however, and there is no way that Republicans could have prevented Clinton from filling an open seat for 4 years. But now we are stuck with Gorsuch and whatever far right hack justice Trump appoints for the next opening.
And I’m rooting for Cynthia Nixon. I have no idea why Hillary would go out of her way to endorse Cuomo and not stay out of it. (Although it is clear that many trade unions that are not teachers’ unions are endorsing Cuomo, too, to my disgust.)
But I like to think that Andrew Cuomo’s desperation to have Hillary’s endorsement must mean that he is running more scared of Cynthia Nixon than it seems. And maybe it will backfire because there are probably many upstate Democrats who see Hillary as part of the status quo they want gone.
You need to brace yourselves for the upcoming Janus v.AFSCME decision. It is estimated that the NEA will lose 300,000 (three hundred thousand) members, and take a $50 million budget cut.
That no doubt makes you gleeful. Roll back the New Deal in its entirety. O how I wish you read anything but publications from the Heritage Foundation.
Charles, I suppose you’ll be thrilled when teachers will be paid like Walmart workers and treated like chattel.
I have made many posts, stating that school teachers should be paid a living wage. I have stated, that teachers should not have to take a vow of poverty.
I enthusiastically support labor unions. My wife belonged to the Machinists’ union.
I do NOT support the mandatory collection of fees for political purposes, from individuals who do not choose to contribute. see
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/janus-v-afscme-could-cost-me-my-job-but-heres-why-its-worth-it
Charles,
I don’t know whether you have a reading problem or a comprehension problem. Janus doesn’t want to pay union dues but he wants union benefits. Not one cent of his union dues is used for political action by unions. He is a dupe for plutocrats.
I just discovered a legal blog devoted to arbitration issues. The blogger has some choice things to say about the ruling in addition to regular posts for non-lawyers on what to look for in contracts.
https://www.arbitrationnation.com/justice-gorsuch-delivered-win-class-arbitration-waivers/
It looks like Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg was in her dissent inviting another lawsuit on this matter, but with a Cause of Action framed in terms of principles of what the 1932 Norris-LaGuardia Act made illegal. In fact, how did federal courts even hear this case, because the Norris-LaGuardia Act barred federal courts from ruling on labor disputes that are of a nonviolent nature?
I wonder if people who couldn’t quite muster enough enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton to make calls or walk precincts for her still think she wasn’t worth the effort.