Chuck Darwin<p><a href="https://c.im/tags/Amazon" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Amazon</span></a>, <a href="https://c.im/tags/SpaceX" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>SpaceX</span></a>, <a href="https://c.im/tags/Starbucks" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Starbucks</span></a> and <a href="https://c.im/tags/TraderJoe" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>TraderJoe</span></a>’s have all responded to allegations that they have <a href="https://c.im/tags/violated" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>violated</span></a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/labor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>labor</span></a> #<a href="https://c.im/tags/laws" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>laws</span></a> with the same bold argument. </p><p>The National Labor Relations Board, they assert in several ongoing legal proceedings, is <a href="https://c.im/tags/unconstitutional" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>unconstitutional</span></a>.</p><p>SpaceX, for example, says that the <a href="https://c.im/tags/NLRB" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>NLRB</span></a> is engaging in “an unlawful attempt … to subject Space X to an administrative proceeding whose structure violates Article II, the Fifth Amendment, and the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.”</p><p>If these companies prevail, the entire process for holding union elections and for prosecuting employers who break labor laws <br>— in place since the days of the New Deal <br>— could collapse. </p><p>That would leave U.S. workers more vulnerable to exploitation.</p><p>The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the board nearly a century ago, soon after President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the law that created the NLRB and made clear that workers have the right to organize and bargain collectively. </p><p>Justices have also rejected similar arguments in cases involving other agencies.</p><p>As a law professor who researches labor law and constitutional law and a former labor organizer, I am deeply concerned, but not surprised, by these attacks on the federal agency that has protected U.S. workers’ right to organize unions and bargain collectively with their employers since the 1930s.</p><p>These corporations seem to believe they will find a sympathetic audience before the conservative justices that occupy six of the Supreme Court’s nine seats. </p><p>In a series of prior cases, the conservative justices have already weakened administrative agencies and cut back on workers’ rights.</p><p>👍Growing support for unions👍</p><p>The corporate attack on the NLRB also seems to be a response to growing support for unions among Americans.</p><p>Workers at the companies that are challenging the NLRB’s constitutionality have all begun to organize unions in recent years, with numerous, high-profile, union-organizing wins. </p><p>Workers across numerous sectors, including auto, education, health care and Hollywood, have recently held successful strikes.</p><p>What’s more, the NLRB has been more assertive in prosecuting employers for violating workers’ rights, and it has been revising rules in ways that make it easier for workers to organize.</p><p>For example, it has made it possible for the unionization process to move faster and has sought to quickly reinstate workers who are illegally fired for organizing unions, rather than waiting years for litigation to play out.</p><p>The Supreme Court and big business</p><p>This is not the first time that big business has tried to use constitutional law arguments in an effort to stop union organizing and limit workers’ rights.</p><p>From the 1890s to the 1930s, during what is known as the “Lochner era,” corporations argued that laws protecting workers’ rights, including the right to organize unions or be paid a minimum wage, violated their “freedom to contract” and exceeded Congress’ power under the Constitution.</p><p>Back then, the Supreme Court routinely sided with business.</p><p>It struck down hundreds of laws, including minimum wage laws, overtime laws and laws prohibiting child labor. </p><p>It prohibited strikes, including in the railroad and mining industries. </p><p>It allowed labor leaders to be jailed.</p><p>These rulings helped corporations grow wealthier and more powerful.</p><p>Only after mass uprisings by over 1 million workers, economic distress wrought by the Great Depression and overwhelming popular support for the New Deal did the Supreme Court finally change course, recognizing that it had made a mistake.</p><p>During the <a href="https://c.im/tags/New" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>New</span></a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/Deal" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Deal</span></a>, the justices ruled that Congress has the power under the Constitution to pass minimum labor standards and to create agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board, to protect workers and consumers.</p><p><a href="https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/amazon-spacex-and-others-are-arguing-that-the-nlrb-is-actually-unconstitutional" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/ama</span><span class="invisible">zon-spacex-and-others-are-arguing-that-the-nlrb-is-actually-unconstitutional</span></a></p>