Trader Joe’s Attorney Argues National Labor Relations Board Is ‘Unconstitutional’
Trader Joe’s Attorney Argues National Labor Relations Board Is ‘Unconstitutional’
A lawyer for the union says the company is aligning itself with right-wing ideologues who want to destroy the regulatory state.
A lawyer for the union says the company is aligning itself with right-wing ideologues who want to destroy the regulatory state.
Trader Joe’s is facing a litany of union-busting charges before the National Labor Relations Board. The agency’s prosecutors have accused the company of illegally retaliating against workers, firing a union supporter and spreading false information in an effort to chill an organizing campaign.
But in a hearing last Tuesday, the grocer’s attorney briefly summarized a sweeping defense it intends to mount against the charges: The labor board itself, which was created during the New Deal and has refereed private-sector collective bargaining for nearly 90 years, is “unconstitutional.”
The argument would appear to fit inside a broader conservative effort to dismantle the regulatory state, which has taken aim at agencies tasked with enforcing laws to protect workers, consumers and the environment.
The exchange, a transcript of which HuffPost obtained through a public records request, came at the start of a trial to determine whether Trader Joe’s violated workers’ rights. Trader Joe’s’ attorney, Christopher Murphy of the law firm Morgan Lewis, informed the judge, Charles Muhl, that there was “one final thing” the grocery chain wanted to add to its defense before proceedings began.
You're viewing a single thread.
Republicans won't be happy until the only regulations are on who you can love, what you can read, where you can (and are required to) worship and how you can dress.
Republicans won’t be happy until the only regulations are on
who you can love, what you can read, where you can (and are required to) worship and how you can dress.liberals, minorities, and poor people.The rest of that is just smoke screens and wedge issues. All they really want is for the rich white people to be in charge and able to do anything they want while being served by everyone else.
Oh I don't know about that, they would be very happy to see every LGBT+ person in the country marched into the gas chambers.
A law that says LGBT+ people are to be executed is a law on a minority.
It’s astounding. The original GOP was about small government and personal freedoms. Now, they want government involved in restricting those personal freedoms and have added a new layer of corporate protectionism.
The original GOP was about ending slavery and was allied to Karl Marx. Its brief flirtation with libertarianism in the 70s died with Goldwater.
And even then, Goldwater was a right wing neolibertarian. Only concerned with his freedom from the influence of others. Ie his privilege. Completely unconcerned with the ability and freedom of others to do things. Not a true libertarian or good person.
I don’t think the politicians ever actually believed what they were saying. It’s dog whistles and straight up lies all the way down….
Some regular Joe’s on the street might “believe” in the ideals of small government but it’s far easier to say things like family values and small government, words that without policy don’t actually mean anything.
The original GOP was a lie. A putrid clown car of ridiculous evil just waiting for an enormous shit-smelling rapist fraud slathered in greasy orange paint to lead them.
Seriously though, whatever reasonable arguments they may have claimed were rendered moot forty+ years ago.
The wall street putch insists you push That date back another 3 or 4 decades.
The Republican party was never about that. Or at least there's no evidence of that. It was great Republicans punitively freed the slaves as retaliation to the Confederacy. But it is important to understand that they were also fine with allowing the slave states to continue to exist. Only opposed to new slave states. Specifically because it would dilute their power. Which is something. But not champions of freedom or small government. I mean Lincoln was literally about big government and oppressing rights many at the time perceived they had. The rights of states and individuals to own people. Looking back we may agree with the outcome. But it wasn't what it's often portrayed as.
Also, personal freedom is just codewords for privilege. If everyone isn't able to do something, it's a privilege not a freedom. No freedom is "personal"