SCOTUS Just Screwed Workers. What Does That Mean for Washington State?

Comments

1

Jesus wept--this shameless Trumpzillan regime will not be satisfied until we're all fighting like rats in a trap or numb, faceless sheeple marching over the cliff mechanically in lockstep. SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg must be reeling. I say, 'Vive la resistence!' and let it be bloody as hell for all the corrupt pigfuckers in charge. The Mein Trumpfy / Pencezilla team is asking for a revolution. Remember, folks----there are over 300,000,000 of us who are NOT among the richest 1% against the few of them.

2

@1: It's clearly up to the states now.

3

This is how contradictions get heightened. I guess.

Gorsuch describes the solution in the quoted passage though: a little clarifying legislation is all it will take. So long as the Democrats actually do so, next time they have the chance to pass some legislation.

4

And arbitration can be very intimidating for the plaintiff - just you, the employer (or a rep), and the arbitrator who can say anything to you to discourage your efforts to seek remedy or pressure you to accept a deal saying something like, "You'll never get a better deal than this." If you are unaware of how the system works, you are very apprehensive and frightened into accepting way less than what you are due just to get it over with. And of course, that's the whole point. I've seen arbitration in action with eviction settlements. Believe me, arbitrators are often paid to settle things as quickly as possible, and justice is an afterthought if that.

5

'No difference between Hillary and Trump,' - Kshama Sawant

6

@2, How can the State create a law or allow a Action that SCOTUS says is illegal? If the State says that workers can. Won't the business file in Federal Court saying that the State Action, Law, or Employee lawsuit is illegal because of the recent decision?

7

@3, True Dat! I read the same thing. Both Gorsuch and Ginsburg said that Congress can provide an easy fix.

8

What is important here is not what states can do, it’s what workers can do: organize your workplace, so that instead of class action, you use collective bargaining to make sure these arbitration agreements aren’t part of your employment.

9

@3: Easy fix? Not in this polarized environment. This argument is such a cop-out. The statutes at issue are from the first half of the 20th century, and the FLSA was in response to the depression and the threat of communist revolution. So this easy fix would require economic disaster and the threat of the downfall of capitalism to bring it about. Are you advocating that we return to these circumstances?

10

@7 But will Congress actually provide that easy fix?

11

@9 Yo(re @3 and @7): Thank you. That was my point exactly.

12

Looks like those checks and balances established by our founding fathers works....even when the whinners and blamers think otherwise. It never seemed to bother anyone when it was a liberal majority was pushing through their agenda. Ironically enough, it didnt stop the madames of Gollywood to throw out their non-disclosure to sue their employers and start #metoo. So really its pretty much moot especially where group can cry on TV en mass to get the hapless uninformed mob on their side.

13

States can regulate employment contracts, I believe.

So pass a law that makes these clauses illegal, and one that restricts non-competes in the same way California does and... well what other obviously good wish lists have we got?

Then tell the evil employers to stop poking the bear.

14

This is what all the third party Hillary haters wanted, right?

15

Every state should work on passing a law called the Gorsuch Act to close the gap in worker protections under state law without allowing employers to limit access to the courts. Few companies would prefer 50 flavors of regulation and courts over a class action case on the national level. Maybe they would change their tune?