SCOTUS thread

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon May 14, 2018 2:58 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Supreme Court removes federal laws against sports betting!

Always a fan of less fed intrusion


——-

It was a 6-3 vote. If someone can find who voted “no” please post the list

(ESPN has 7-2 right now, Fox and Yahoo have 6-3)


That’s huge! Conspiracy theorists will have a field day with this one.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 7144
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 187 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon May 14, 2018 3:49 pm

Another small win for freedom.

In Byrd vs. The United States the supreme court ruled that Police do not get to automatically search rental cars if the driver isn't the one listed on the rental agreement. It was a unanimous 9 - 0 decision.

The Supreme Court unanimously refused to adopt the federal government's sweeping argument. "As a general rule," the Court declared, "someone in otherwise lawful possession and control of a rental car has a reasonable expectation of privacy in it even if the rental agreement does not list him or her as an authorized driver."
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4274
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue May 22, 2018 10:19 am

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.

In a 5-4 decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 allows employers to require one-on-one arbitration hearings. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called Gorsuch’s decision “egregiously wrong” in a highly critical dissent that she read from the bench, a relatively rare move that signals strong opposition.

Ginsburg argued that the majority opinion violates workers’ legal right to engage in collective action. She wrote, “The inevitable result of today’s decision will be the underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers.” Her dissent was joined by the court’s three other liberal justices: Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.

Gorsuch’s decision caps a long run of Supreme Court decisions that have greatly expanded companies’ ability to require customers and employees to sign contracts that mandate arbitration, instead of allowing them to pursue claims in open court. Unlike court rulings, decisions made by arbitrators are usually kept private, making it difficult for other employees or customers to learn about wrongdoing. And unlike judges, arbitrators are generally paid by the companies that use their services. There is usually no right to appeal an arbitrator’s decision.

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.

Alexander Colvin, an expert on arbitration at Cornell University and the author of the report, expects more companies to add these waivers if the Supreme Court declares them legally enforceable. Companies have a significant incentive to do so. In 2015, Colvin found that employees win 21 percent of arbitration cases, compared to 57 percent of cases in state court. (Employees are far less likely to pursue grievances when they’re subject to arbitration: Colvin estimates that workers are 50 times likelier to sue than to arbitrate.) Workers also get less money when they’re successful: $109,000 in arbitration compared to $575,000 in state court. Colvin says lawyers he speaks with are less likely to represent workers bound by arbitration because they take a share of the damages.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 102 times
Been thanked: 565 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue May 22, 2018 10:21 am

Giving all the power to industry is as damaging as giving all the power to workers.

SCOTUS says now that rather than employees bringing a class action lawsuit, they have to arbitrate individually which will no doubt include a Non-disclosure agreement meaning you can't go back to your fellow screwed over worker and tell them how it went.

#freedom #freemarket #americanway
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 102 times
Been thanked: 565 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue May 22, 2018 10:33 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Giving all the power to industry is as damaging as giving all the power to workers.

SCOTUS says now that rather than employees bringing a class action lawsuit, they have to arbitrate individually which will no doubt include a Non-disclosure agreement meaning you can't go back to your fellow screwed over worker and tell them how it went.

#freedom #freemarket #americanway


That’s only if their union signed away those rights in the contracts or if they individually signed away those rights themselves if the shop isn’t unionized

This only applies to contracts that agree to arbitration. If an employment contract doesn’t specify arbitration as the sole remedial effect for grievances employees are still free to enter into class action suits

The ruling was absolutely correct.

The liberal judges argued that the NLRA signed into effect in the 30s was an implied repeal of the FAA Act of 1925. Congress is absolutely still free to repeal the FAA law if they want. But there is absolutely zero evidence that the NLRA law was supposed to repeal the earlier one.



—-

Why don’t you read Gorsuch’s paper. I read both his and RBGs. RBGs is based solely on conjecture about the intent of the laws passed nearly 100 years ago and the conjecture on what will happen in the future
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4274
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue May 22, 2018 11:27 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Giving all the power to industry is as damaging as giving all the power to workers.

SCOTUS says now that rather than employees bringing a class action lawsuit, they have to arbitrate individually which will no doubt include a Non-disclosure agreement meaning you can't go back to your fellow screwed over worker and tell them how it went.

#freedom #freemarket #americanway


That’s only if their union signed away those rights in the contracts or if they individually signed away those rights themselves if the shop isn’t unionized

This only applies to contracts that agree to arbitration. If an employment contract doesn’t specify arbitration as the sole remedial effect for grievances employees are still free to enter into class action suits

The ruling was absolutely correct.

The liberal judges argued that the NLRA signed into effect in the 30s was an implied repeal of the FAA Act of 1925. Congress is absolutely still free to repeal the FAA law if they want. But there is absolutely zero evidence that the NLRA law was supposed to repeal the earlier one.



—-

Why don’t you read Gorsuch’s paper. I read both his and RBGs. RBGs is based solely on conjecture about the intent of the laws passed nearly 100 years ago and the conjecture on what will happen in the future

Was there any discussion with regard to at will employees? Because if not, a simple addition to employee manuals (that you sign for) could have a provision saying acceptance of the employment is also acceptance of arbitration.

The point here is that employment is already tipped in favor of owners and this decision would tip the scale even further.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 102 times
Been thanked: 565 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Tue May 22, 2018 11:46 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:
That’s only if their union signed away those rights in the contracts or if they individually signed away those rights themselves if the shop isn’t unionized

This only applies to contracts that agree to arbitration. If an employment contract doesn’t specify arbitration as the sole remedial effect for grievances employees are still free to enter into class action suits

The ruling was absolutely correct.

The liberal judges argued that the NLRA signed into effect in the 30s was an implied repeal of the FAA Act of 1925. Congress is absolutely still free to repeal the FAA law if they want. But there is absolutely zero evidence that the NLRA law was supposed to repeal the earlier one.



—-

Why don’t you read Gorsuch’s paper. I read both his and RBGs. RBGs is based solely on conjecture about the intent of the laws passed nearly 100 years ago and the conjecture on what will happen in the future

Was there any discussion with regard to at will employees? Because if not, a simple addition to employee manuals (that you sign for) could have a provision saying acceptance of the employment is also acceptance of arbitration.

The point here is that employment is already tipped in favor of owners and this decision would tip the scale even further.

I'm sure you believe it should be equal between owners and employees.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Tue May 22, 2018 11:51 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Was there any discussion with regard to at will employees? Because if not, a simple addition to employee manuals (that you sign for) could have a provision saying acceptance of the employment is also acceptance of arbitration.

The point here is that employment is already tipped in favor of owners and this decision would tip the scale even further.


Does it tip it "further" or just keep things the same as currently dictated by law? I've only read two articles in addition to the responses by Gorsuch and RBG, but my take was the unless the current law was somehow deemed unlawful/unjust than the SCOTUS ruled correctly since it's NOT the role of the SCOTUS to change law unless there is legal precedence (which is why the FAA of 1925 was cited). Shouldn't Congress be the vessel to change this law instead of appealing to the SCOTUS?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11227
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 475 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue May 22, 2018 12:47 pm

There is really no other outcome here, it was inevitable. Employees can’t agree to arbitration but still hold a right to use the courts.

Imagine how some of the critics of this decision would feel if employers who didn’t like their chances in an arbitration case simply sued instead...they would rightfully flip out.

You simply can’t have parallel resolution avenues for parties to pick and choose as they see fit.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4274
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue May 22, 2018 12:56 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Was there any discussion with regard to at will employees? Because if not, a simple addition to employee manuals (that you sign for) could have a provision saying acceptance of the employment is also acceptance of arbitration.


I have no problem with companies putting these policies in handbooks. I have an 80 page faculty handbook that serves as my contract. It’s my “job” to learn it.

While I think one of the companies in this case did a crappy thing in one day without warning they simply
emailed everyone informing them they are adopting an arbitration scheme and that continued employment implies the worker agrees to this change, I see no law that was broken and I can’t imagine creating a law that would help prevent these instances while not creating a massive amount of negative unintended consequences
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4274
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue May 22, 2018 1:47 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Was there any discussion with regard to at will employees? Because if not, a simple addition to employee manuals (that you sign for) could have a provision saying acceptance of the employment is also acceptance of arbitration.

The point here is that employment is already tipped in favor of owners and this decision would tip the scale even further.

I'm sure you believe it should be equal between owners and employees.


Neither side should be holding a gun to the other side. An agreement on employment should equitably benefit both parties. The employee is already at a disadvantage going into the situation by needing to work or go bankrupt. Employers seldom have that dilemma and its unethical to take advantage of the situation. It would be equally unethical for employees to sabotage the company before even attempting to negotiate whatever grievance they had with the employer.

It should be equitable, not equal. Equal is a co-op.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 102 times
Been thanked: 565 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Caradoc » Wed May 23, 2018 6:26 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:An agreement on employment should equitably benefit both parties. The employee is already at a disadvantage going into the situation by needing to work or go bankrupt..


There it is, the dumbest thing I've read on the internet today.
Caradoc
 
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:30 pm
Has thanked: 191 times
Been thanked: 121 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed May 23, 2018 8:15 pm

Caradoc wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:An agreement on employment should equitably benefit both parties. The employee is already at a disadvantage going into the situation by needing to work or go bankrupt..


There it is, the dumbest thing I've read on the internet today.

You should read your own posts.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 102 times
Been thanked: 565 times

Previous

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mountaineer Buc and 6 guests