Supreme Court sides with employers in class action arbitration cases

[glenn1]

How was this decision not SCOTUS rewriting the law?

They let the status quo stand. Mandatory arb has been in play for decades without Congress taking any action against it. Thus the legislative lack of action in itself shows intent. If SCOTUS got it wrong the Congress can write a new law.

 

[fskimospy]

They let the status quo stand. Mandatory arb has been in play for decades without Congress taking any action against it. Thus the legislative lack of action in itself shows intent. If SCOTUS got it wrong the Congress can write a new law.

They explicitly did not let the status quo stand, they overturned the interpretation of the law by the relevant agency.

Whether or not arbitration exists is not the issue here. The question is if a prior law overturns the plain meaning of later labor laws. Today SCOTUS rewrote the law to say it did.

 

[glenn1]

They explicitly did not let the status quo stand, they overturned the interpretation of the law by the relevant agency.

Whether or not arbitration exists is not the issue here. The question is if a prior law overturns the plain meaning of later labor laws. Today SCOTUS rewrote the law to say it did.

If they “overturned the statute” then why was this bill proposed? Seems odd to legislate against something you said was already a fait accompli. This bill would seem to expressly recognize Congress is fully aware they did no such thing as prohibit mandatory arbitration.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4734?q={"search":["ABLE+to+Work+Act"]}

 

[IJTSSG]

My current employment contract expressly forbids forced arbitration and is devoid of any non compete agreement.

This ruling appears to be technically correct but is ignoring the spirit of the nlra in recognizing organized labor. I don't agree with it.

 

[dphantom]

Perhaps you can help me think harder?

That appears to not be possible. You should read the posts more carefully and you will see how you are in error in your assumption.

 

[theeedude]

Hopefully Democratic states will pass their own forced arbitration bans.

 

[glenn1]

My current employment contract expressly forbids forced arbitration and is devoid of any non compete agreement.

This ruling appears to be technically correct but is ignoring the spirit of the nlra in recognizing organized labor. I don't agree with it.

IANAL but NLRA or the laws which amended it like Taft-Harley don't really seem to talk about arbitration but rather the rights of workers to unionize and collectively bargain. Thus if you're not unionized (or your union agreed to binding arb) then the NLRA seems to not apply to binding arb clauses. You can argue all day long about "the spirit of the NLRA" but that's an argument for having Congress codify their intent rather than SCOTUS attempting to infer it. It's not SCOTUS's job to ensure the "correct" party is in power to modify unclear or conflicting laws and I have no doubt once Dems are back in power they'll pass legislation to address mandatory arb clauses by employers.

 

[brycejones]

Hopefully Democratic states will pass their own forced arbitration bans.

Supremacy clause

 

[glenn1]

Supremacy clause

The state could sue on behalf of the employees as a class if they wished.

 

[IJTSSG]

IANAL but NLRA or the laws which amended it like Taft-Harley don't really seem to talk about arbitration but rather the rights of workers to unionize and collectively bargain. Thus if you're not unionized (or your union agreed to binding arb) then the NLRA seems to not apply to binding arb clauses. You can argue all day long about "the spirit of the NLRA" but that's an argument for having Congress codify their intent rather than SCOTUS attempting to infer it. It's not SCOTUS's job to ensure the "correct" party is in power to modify unclear or conflicting laws and I have no doubt once Dems are back in power they'll pass legislation to address mandatory arb clauses by employers.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you've written but IMO this activity is covered under Section 7 of the NLRA and if there weren't separate laws about arbitration . . . .

 

[fskimospy]

If they “overturned the statute” then why was this bill proposed? Seems odd to legislate against something you said was already a fait accompli. This bill would seem to expressly recognize Congress is fully aware they did no such thing as prohibit mandatory arbitration.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4734?q={"search":["ABLE+to+Work+Act"]}

You don’t know what you’re talking about and it doesn’t even seem like you understand the case. The case was not about prohibiting mandatory arbitration, it was whether or not employees subject to mandatory arbitration clauses should be exempt from them when litigating as a class action due to the National Labor Relations Act explicitly protecting ‘concerted action for mutual protection’. The majority decided that only some types of mutual concerted action counted, overturning the government’s interpretation of it.

While mandatory arbitration should be banned regardless that’s not what this case was about.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you've written but IMO this activity is covered under Section 7 of the NLRA and if there weren't separate laws about arbitration . . . .

Sec. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)

I find it a stretch indeed to shoehorn arbitration clauses into language talking about "mutual aid or protection." It would take a Commerce Clause like reading of that text ("commerce means literally whatever we say it means and so does "mutual aid") for that to incorporate the idea that language specifically calls for the prohibition of mandatory arbitration agreements. It seems obvious Congress was fully aware of arbitration at the time (since they passed a law on the subject just a few years prior) yet deliberately didn't codify arbitration into NLRA or somehow expected the vague language about "mutual aid and protection" to apply to it when they easily could have specifically written NLRA so that arb was definitely in scope. One can argue that was unwise for Congress not to include arbitration, but that doesn't mean you get to insert it yourself as an "oopsie" later.

 

[fskimospy]

IANAL but NLRA or the laws which amended it like Taft-Harley don't really seem to talk about arbitration but rather the rights of workers to unionize and collectively bargain. Thus if you're not unionized (or your union agreed to binding arb) then the NLRA seems to not apply to binding arb clauses. You can argue all day long about "the spirit of the NLRA" but that's an argument for having Congress codify their intent rather than SCOTUS attempting to infer it. It's not SCOTUS's job to ensure the "correct" party is in power to modify unclear or conflicting laws and I have no doubt once Dems are back in power they'll pass legislation to address mandatory arb clauses by employers.

It would be impossible to list every conceivable activity that could be ‘concerted action’ and an attempt to do so would probably make the situation worse as the courts would then likely consider the list exhaustive and exclude anything not specifically in there.

Our system is based in common law where statutes are deliberately general, relying on the courts to sensibly interpret them. So yes it is literally SCOTUS’s job to infer meaning.

 

[fskimospy]

I find it a stretch indeed to shoehorn arbitration clauses into language talking about "mutual aid or protection." It would take a Commerce Clause like reading of that text ("commerce means literally whatever we say it means and so does "mutual aid") for that to incorporate the idea that language specifically calls for the prohibition of mandatory arbitration agreements. It seems obvious Congress was fully aware of arbitration at the time (since they passed a law on the subject just a few years prior) yet deliberately didn't codify arbitration into NLRA or somehow expected the vague language about "mutual aid and protection" to apply to it when they easily could have specifically written NLRA so that arb was definitely in scope. One can argue that was unwise for Congress not to include arbitration, but that doesn't mean you get to insert it yourself as an "oopsie" later.

You’re badly misreading the case. The ‘mutual aid and protection’ is not a protection against mandatory arbitration, it’s protection against things like wage theft which class actions are uniquely designed to do.

 

[glenn1]

It would be impossible to list every conceivable activity that could be ‘concerted action’ and an attempt to do so would probably make the situation worse as the courts would then likely consider the list exhaustive and exclude anything not specifically in there.

Our system is based in common law where statutes are deliberately general, relying on the courts to sensibly interpret them. So yes it is literally SCOTUS’s job to infer meaning..

Which they did and your side lost. Correctly.

 

[glenn1]

You’re badly misreading the case. The ‘mutual aid and protection’ is not a protection against mandatory arbitration, it’s protection against things like wage theft which class actions are uniquely designed to do.

Which is why Congress expressly made wage left illegal via the Fair Labor Standards Act.

 

[fskimospy]

Which they did and your side lost. Correctly.

Wait, I thought you just said that wasn’t their job? Lol.

It’s hard to see how you could make a judgment as to what the correct decision was considering you thought the thing they were seeking protection from was mandatory arbitration, which is obviously untrue.

 

[IJTSSG]

glenn1 - serious question. If there were no arbitration laws on the books and the only mention of arbitration was in employment agreements, do you think the SCOTUS would have ruled differently? Would you have a different opinion?

 

[fskimospy]

Which is why Congress expressly made wage left illegal via the Fair Labor Standards Act.

You can’t possibly be this naive. FLSA has very limited means for employees to recover their stolen wages, which is why civil lawsuits were used.

 

[glenn1]

glenn1 - serious question. If there were no arbitration laws on the books and the only mention of arbitration was in employment agreements, do you think the SCOTUS would have ruled differently? Would you have a different opinion?

I'm unsure how a case would have gotten to SCOTUS absent two laws that seem to be in conflict with one another; what would be the legal question the courts would be addressing? If you're asking me the hypothetical "what if the Federal Arbitration Act never existed" then whether class actions should be exempt from arbitration clauses seems again like a policy question to be determined by the Labor Department in absence of unambiguous language in NLRA. If Congress disliked the Labor decision then again Congress could change the law. To me "mutual aid and protection" is a really weak peg on which to try to hang a general interpretation that class action should be prevail over previous arb agreement; you could make the argument but so could the other side given that weak and generic language.

Considering a few years back SCOTUS similarly upheld arbitration agreements between consumers and companies (cell phone plans were the issue at hand then IIRC) it seems that Congress and the American people can hardly claim to be taken by surprise by today's rulings.

 

[Greenman]

You don’t know what you’re talking about and it doesn’t even seem like you understand the case. The case was not about prohibiting mandatory arbitration, it was whether or not employees subject to mandatory arbitration clauses should be exempt from them when litigating as a class action due to the National Labor Relations Act explicitly protecting ‘concerted action for mutual protection’. The majority decided that only some types of mutual concerted action counted, overturning the government’s interpretation of it.

While mandatory arbitration should be banned regardless that’s not what this case was about.

That was an informative paragraph. Well done.

 

[theeedude]

I'm unsure how a case would have gotten to SCOTUS absent two laws that seem to be in conflict with one another; what would be the legal question the courts would be addressing? If you're asking me the hypothetical "what if the Federal Arbitration Act never existed" then whether class actions should be exempt from arbitration clauses seems again like a policy question to be determined by the Labor Department in absence of unambiguous language in NLRA. If Congress disliked the Labor decision then again Congress could change the law. To me "mutual aid and protection" is a really weak peg on which to try to hang a general interpretation that class action should be prevail over previous arb agreement; you could make the argument but so could the other side given that weak and generic language.

Considering a few years back SCOTUS similarly upheld arbitration agreements between consumers and companies (cell phone plans were the issue at hand then IIRC) it seems that Congress and the American people can hardly claim to be taken by surprise by today's rulings.

This ruling was actively encouraged by Republicans and the justices were cherry picked by them over decades to support such rulings. The real SCOTUS battle was never about abortion, it was about corporatism, and the American people lost, again.

 

[zinfamous]

This will hit the uneducated blue collar hourly workers and gig economy workers the hardest. You know, groups that either voted Republican or largely didn't bother voting. This will inflict a cost for those foolish decisions.

Yes but they will blame liberals and abortions for their misery, as they always do.

 

[zinfamous]

That appears to not be possible. You should read the posts more carefully and you will see how you are in error in your assumption.

lol, you obviously didn't read the post you were replying to, because you seem to be the only person here that doesn't understand your mistaken replies. Go back and maybe you'll realize that you changed some questions to give an answer that you wanted to give, and not one that addressed your initial, childish assumption.

But hey, if you're the only one that is having issues, it's clearly not you, but the dozen or so other people that are the idiots, right? Is that what you learned in Sunday school?

 

[zinfamous]

Which they did and your side lost. Correctly.

Ah yes, "sides," again.

You've rather exposed yourself here in that as you don't even understand the case--we all realize that you don't even know what side you are on wrg to this ruling. You're arguing against yourself, and it's rather illuminating.