straightUp Loc: California

Yes, I did.


If you read the article I referenced, you will notice this point is made very clear. Later in the thread I said this in response to Lone Wolf... The 5-4 decision on this issue could have gone either way... Gorsuch himself said it was a weak decision where they decided to err on the side of NOT legislating from the bench, though given the weight of the issue I would call this a cop-out.

So obviously, I am very aware that the court took the position of respecting the current law as it was intended and obviously, that doesn't have any impact on the point I am making which you're obviously missing, probably because your too much in a rush to find a contradiction in my post so you can write me off as a troll. Ironically, it's your priority to write me off as a troll before bothering to understand my argument that exposes YOU as the real troll here.

I *did* warn people that this a somewhat complicated issue... You basically read chapter 1 and made your hasty conclusion from there. But there's more to the story.

1. The "current law" that the court was "respecting" is the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925. That law says that arbitration is legally binding and it created a situation where workers had to resolve their differences with their employers if they signed arbitration agreements. This created an unfair situation for workers because workers have no leverage at the table. It basically came down to whether they want a job or not.

2. Ten years later, another federal law was enacted called the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 that says workers can bargain collectively. This obviously gave the workers better leverage. This was the condition that lasted for 80 years and saw the development of the American middle class.

3. But recently, employers have been adding a NEW clause to their arbitration agreements saying that workers can only arbitrate as individuals. This clearly violates the National Labor Relations Act, but that doesn't mean anything if the law isn't enforced and the law can't be enforced without a court judgment, which can't happen if the Federal Arbitration Act says they CAN'T take it to court.

Think about that for a minute.

4. This is a NEW problem that isn't addressed by either of the aforementioned laws. This NEW problem is what the Supreme Court was ruling on. As I've said before, it could have gone either way, they could have upheld the 1935 law which was intended to modify the situation created by the 1925 law, but they didn't. Instead, the majority used a real lame excuse, that since 77 years went by before anyone tried to violate the 1935 law, the illegitimacy of the law itself is doubtful and so they decided to overrule the 1935 law with the 1925 law.

Think about THAT for a minute... Why would a law be illegitimate just because no one tried to break it for 77 years? That's like saying no one has been beheaded for a few years, so it's okay to do it now. BTW, the fact that you said the court was "respecting" a current law as it was intended 77 years ago shows how bad your reading comprehension is. The 77 years is a reference to the time it took for a case to appear that appeals to the 1935 law, NOT a reference to the 1925 law they were "respecting" because ya know... 2018-1925=93 years, not 77.

My assessment of this attack on the working family, doesn't stop here either. Though I am disappointed with the court decision, I do understand that new problems can't always be solved with old laws. So as Ginsburg had stated in her dissenting opinion, Congress needs to act because unlike the courts, Congress CAN make new laws to deal with new problems. But Congress is currently being controlled by Republicans who refuse to act and Trump is supporting that position.


If you think "new forced arbitration clauses" is garbage then what was going on in the space between your ears when you (supposedly) read the SCOTUS ruling on new forced arbitration clauses? We're you not paying attention or were you just not understanding?

Loki Loc: Georgia

What does this have to do with Trump? Did he become a member of the SCOTUS and not tell anyone?

straightUp Loc: California

Fair question... First let me say that by "Trump" I am not referring to the personality as much as I am the political organization, so his administration, his allies in Congress, his appointees on the bench etc... Also, there is a general attitude about arbitration that clearly distinguishes the Trump administration from the previous administration. Under Obama there was a bias toward protecting the little people against arbitration and under Trump that bias has reversed and now clearly favors the corporation.

Also, let me point out that the SCOTUS ruling is only one battle in this war over arbitration. I only used this ruling as the example because it's a recent event, but the war extends far beyond that ruling and covers more than just worker's rights. Here are some examples...

1. The SCOTUS ruling was a 5-4 decision with Trump's appointee, Gorsuch writing the opinion.

2. Trump uses arbitration agreements with his own employees so if he breaks any labor laws, which he has done numerous times in the past, his employees can't take him to court. He even forced volunteers on his campaign to sign arbitration agreements.

3. Since Trump was been elected, ALL the anti-arbitration bills in queue were sidelined. This includes the Arbitration Fairness Act, the Investor Choice Act, The Restoring Statutory Rights Act (“RSRA”), The Justice for Telecommunications Consumers Act and The Justice for Victims of Fraud Act that would have allowed investors to sue Wells Fargo for the fake account scam. These bill will all die at the end of the current session.

4. Speaking of banks, these "angelic" institutions have recently started to add arbitration clauses to their financial agreements that force customers to arbitrate disputes out of court. In other words, if the bank steals money from you, you can't take them to court, instead you have to bargain with the bank. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) added a rule to prohibit banks from forcing customers into arbitration and guess who repealed it? Not only was this a very unpopular move where the Republicans used an obscure and questionable review process to kill the legislation without any input from the Democrats but even then the Republicans were so divided that Trump had to send Pence in to break the tie.

I know that most people are busy in their own bubbles, filtering out the news according to what they want to hear, but arbitration is a huge deal right now. Our citizens are literally being blocked from the judicial branch of the republic. This is NOT an exaggeration. So far on this thread NO ONE has been able to justify the arbitration rules. I'm waiting for arguments but so far, the only thing I see other than agreement and questions like yours are denials, distractions and insults. I think people need to get off their partisan high horses and look at this from the perspective of an American worker because from this perspective, I see us all on the same side. I'm not attacking Trump's politics because he's a Republican, I'm attacking his politics because his politics are attacking the American working class family.

straightUp Loc: California

I've seen that happen in health care. But the way I look at this Voice, is that ANY system is susceptible to corruption. The key is to always be vigilant.


More often than not? "Most" employers? "Fairly" generous..? ;)

According to the 2015 U.S. Census, there are about 6 million employers in the U.S.A. Less than half could be as many as 3 million. There are about 3.5 million companies with 5 or fewer employees. So, in theory, "most employers" could have less than six employees each. There are only 19,200 employers with 500 employees or more. So, in theory, THEY could all be bad apples.


"would be even more so" is a reference to an alternate reality. "It would be even more so if only he had... (insert description of alternate reality here)". Alternate realities can't be proven, Voice.


I used to say the same thing, but I've changed my tune a few years back. Let me ask you something... Do you think our nuclear arsenal is a waste because we never use it? I've heard the argument that you don't have to launch the weapons to use them because they act as deterrents. Unions launched campaigns a few decades ago and moved workers from sub-human conditions to middle-class conditions. For years I thought they had outlived their purpose, but then I started noticing that the forces of oppression never actually die... I think this arbitration war is really delivering that message loud and clear. Given this context, I would say the unions are serving as effective deterrents if nothing else.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Unions are in the category of necessary evils. It is through the absolute adherence to whatever the union pushes as its position that is the basis of their strength as well as their vulnerability to succumb to abuses of the union members. Just as there are some capitalists with a social conscience who treat their workers fairly, there are some unions which have not degenerated into thug controlled, fiefdoms. Unfortunately, too many capitalists do not treat their employees fairly and it has taken the unions to force some sort of just compensation for labor.

straightUp Loc: California

I agree... 'though I'm less inclined to call them a necessary "evil". I tend to think of them as corruptible systems, just like every other system we have from Congress to city councils, from the Federal Reserve to pawn shops. Everything is corruptible and when a system has powerful enemies, corruption can become a permanent reputation. I think that's what happened with unions in general.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

It's good that you were able to understand my question after I lowered the complexity to first-grade level and removed all traces of humor, sarcasm and irony. Maybe you should get a trophy.

OTOH, it's not so good that you have a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Supply and demand has little to nothing to do with union membership, it's what determines salary. If you perform a job that anybody can do, that makes you easily replaceable and the salary is (usually) low. If you perform a job that only a few people are capable of, meaning you can't easily be replaced, then the salary is higher.

For example, qualified commercial airline pilots aren't exactly plentiful, and yet they're unionized. Pro football players aren't easily replaceable, but they're unionized. Cleaning people are very plentiful and easily replaced, but mostly non-union.

As for what this has to do with the subject of your post, it addresses the larger (big picture) issue of worker exploitation and the hypocrisy of you and your leftist ideals. You and your fellow comrades purport to be against the exploitation of workers, but you're in favor of unions exploiting them.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Trump's politics have little to do with SCOTUS decisions, just as they have little to do with arbitration cases being sidelined. Concerning Federal judgeships, Obama appointees number 329, which is some forty percent of the current Federal Judiciary. I am sure you are aware that these judgeships are a lifetime deal. There are more Democrat appointed Federal Judges than Republican, so perhaps you should direct your scrutiny in that direction.
When Obama took office, only one of thirteen Federal appellate courts had more Democrat than Republican appointees, and two were tied. Obama's appointments have resulted in nine of thirteen appellate courts now controlled by Democrat appointees.
Once more, these are lifetime appointments. Don't try and make this into another Obama bitch. Facts are facts, and the fact is that the 329 judges appointed by Obama represent forty percent of the Federal Judiciary. If you have a complaint about the way arbitration cases are being handled, complain to the Democratic majority in the Federal Judiciary.

straightUp Loc: California

You're tap dancing Loki. I already described the court case as a battle in a bigger war and I gave you plenty of connections between TrumpCo and the pro-arbitration side of this war. Your point about the Federal Judiciary being a Democratic majority has no bearing on any of that other than the distraction that you meant it to be.

straightUp Loc: California

Swapping out the object of a sentence is changing the meaning of the sentence and this applies to ALL grade-levels. When you can get to the point of your post BEFORE trying to insult me with stupidity, I'll start actually reading them.

Loki Loc: Georgia

It means that most cases have a far better chance of being heard by a Liberal judge in the lower courts, and only a small fraction of the cases that are requested are actually heard by the SCOTUS. You are trying to lay the blame for Court decisions you don't agree with on Trump when in fact he had almost nothing to do with it. Very few decision actually make it to the Supreme Court, and almost all are decided by a lower court which are still mostly Democrat appointed and approved.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Well, then, no trophy for you!

I'd hoped to avoid having to give you yet another simple grammar lesson, but alas...

1. Joe paid $5 for his hamburger.

2. The restaurant charged $5 for Joe's hamburger.

In sentence 1, Joe is the subject. In sentence 2, the restaurant is the subject. In sentence one, the verb is 'paid'. In sentence 2 the verb is 'charged'.

The meaning of both sentences, with different subjects, is the same.

Language is a tool to convey thoughts. You repeatedly demonstrate a fundamental lack of ability to understand simple English, which likely explains your idiotic beliefs.

straightUp Loc: California

Loki... TRY to pay attention... The decision in question was not decided by a lower court. It was decided by the Supreme Court. Even if ALL the other judges in the world are liberals THAT fact doesn't change.

Loki Loc: Georgia

So Trump called up the SCOTUS and ordered them to decide the case in a certain way, and they did. I see your point. That was very dastardly of him to influence the SCOTUS that way.

straightUp Loc: California

Says the guy who responds to my point about swapping the OBJECT of a sentence with a pedantic "lesson" about swapping SUBJECTS in a sentence. The OBJECT in both your sentences is the hamburger, Sparky. You DO understand the difference between the object and the subject, right?

Here's how ridiculous this argument has been... (objects in red, subjects in blue).

You: do you still support the right of all employees to pay confiscatory union dues, whether they want to or not?

Me : You're asking if I support a mandatory right... Is that like forcing someone to have a right to free speech?

You: I'll try again in a simpler manner, without any sarcasm or nuances which so easily confuse you. Do you support the right of unions to force workers to pay confiscatory union dues, whether the workers want to or not?

I didn't say you swapped the subject, the subject is clearly the same in both sentences... I said you swapped the OBJECT, which you did, and that DOES change the meaning of the sentence. Your second sentence made sense because you are asking if I think unions have a right to force workers to pay dues. The first sentence did NOT make sense because you were asking if employees have a right to be forced to pay dues.

If you are a smart as you seem to think you are you would have noticed your error and it would have been very easy to just say something like "may bad, let me rephrase." I wouldn't have thought anything about it... people make grammatical mistakes all the time. But you chose to be insulting... and you continued to attack MY understanding of the language because I pointed out your error. I was just going to let it go, but when you put on the sock puppets I decided to put this whole argument to rest and now you have to deal with being b*tch-slapped because of a stupid grammatical error.