this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
402 points (98.8% liked)
Work Reform
9879 readers
339 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hmm. I couldn't read the full article because of a paywall, but from what I understand, the constitutionality of the NLRB was upheld by the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. 301 U.S. 1 (1937). I'm not sure there is any foundation to contemporary claims that the NLRB is unconstitutional.
As with overturning Roe v. Wade, the legal foundation will be "our conservative cult says so".
"ThE NLRb isn'T in the cONSTITutIoN!!1!" - The Supreme Court, probably
This is essentially what is happening when you hear the conservative justices talking about "substantive due process". It's arguing that just because things are rights, the mere fact that they aren't mentioned in the constitution means they aren't protected by the constitution.
Even though the 9th a amendment explicitly says the opposite.
They'll have to find some different basis for suing, just like the Dobbs case. The Supreme Court today is most certainly less friendly toward the idea of the NLRB than the Supreme Court of 1937.
Archive link: https://archive.ph/eOOwV
I have only seen one explanation that Space X has made. Since it denies them a trial by jury then it is unconstitutional. That seems to be the crux of their complaint.
Oh, it's "corporations are people" again. Bleh.
I suspect that’ll be the answer. Fine give them a jury. I don’t they’ll fair well