...Under previous Court rulings, (click here) the Justices have held that an employer is
automatically liable under the 1964 Civil Rights Act for the actions of
supervisors who harass the workers under their control. If, however,
the harasser is a co-worker and not a supervisor, the company is only
liable if it was negligent in responding to a complaint. In Monday's
case, the question was who qualifies as a supervisor....
Companies and corporations are suppose to be responsible for policies and practices of their management. All of a sudden money is a citizen and corporations carry no responsibility for adverse actions toward employees.
Part of this is linked to the movement within the States to remove the rights of the workforce. This court is very political.
Right-to-work laws forbid unions and employers to enter into agreements requiring employees to join a union and pay dues and fees to it in order to get or keep a job. Twenty-one states, mostly in the South and West, have right-to-work laws.
The basis for this court majority is wrong. It could be argued successfully that The Wagner Act goes to far and unmitigated as it was written in 1935. Even FDR was worried it would interfere with economic recovery, however, it has proved to build a strong Middle Class that actually accelerated economic recovery.
The Wagner Act was followed by The Taft-Hartley Act. Taft-Hartley didn't destroy, nor attempted to destroy, unions. Taft-Hartley demanded oversight to union activities and tamed some of the anarchy existing in The Wagner Act, however, even Taft-Hartley recognizes the importance and power of unions in validating a vibrant Middle Class.
There have been laws passed that better define both these historic laws. We now have a National Labor Relations Board that mitigates injustice. I have to wonder what this decision will do to their directives, if any impact at all. The NLRB has an autonomous mission.
This decision by the court is a new direction. It does not build on Taft-Hartley or any other subsequent legislation. This is a clear change in direction by the Robert's Court that simply makes new rules. The Robert's Court clearly is a conservative activist court. This decision, above all others, makes that perfectly clear.
It is my opinion The Robert's Court found it's purpose from States' Rights. With 21 states implementing Right to Work, that was good enough for The Robert's Court. If this decision does anything it effects economic decline. The power of the employee is watered down by Right to Work. Where employees lack power to change their circumstances, they lack the power to change the circumstances of economic growth. This decision will impede economic growth.
...In summarizing the views of the four dissenters in both cases, Justice Ginsburg said that the workplace decisions diluted the strength of the federal anti-discrimination law in ways Congress could not have intended....
Exactly.
Companies and corporations are suppose to be responsible for policies and practices of their management. All of a sudden money is a citizen and corporations carry no responsibility for adverse actions toward employees.
Part of this is linked to the movement within the States to remove the rights of the workforce. This court is very political.
Right-to-work laws forbid unions and employers to enter into agreements requiring employees to join a union and pay dues and fees to it in order to get or keep a job. Twenty-one states, mostly in the South and West, have right-to-work laws.
The basis for this court majority is wrong. It could be argued successfully that The Wagner Act goes to far and unmitigated as it was written in 1935. Even FDR was worried it would interfere with economic recovery, however, it has proved to build a strong Middle Class that actually accelerated economic recovery.
The Wagner Act was followed by The Taft-Hartley Act. Taft-Hartley didn't destroy, nor attempted to destroy, unions. Taft-Hartley demanded oversight to union activities and tamed some of the anarchy existing in The Wagner Act, however, even Taft-Hartley recognizes the importance and power of unions in validating a vibrant Middle Class.
There have been laws passed that better define both these historic laws. We now have a National Labor Relations Board that mitigates injustice. I have to wonder what this decision will do to their directives, if any impact at all. The NLRB has an autonomous mission.
This decision by the court is a new direction. It does not build on Taft-Hartley or any other subsequent legislation. This is a clear change in direction by the Robert's Court that simply makes new rules. The Robert's Court clearly is a conservative activist court. This decision, above all others, makes that perfectly clear.
It is my opinion The Robert's Court found it's purpose from States' Rights. With 21 states implementing Right to Work, that was good enough for The Robert's Court. If this decision does anything it effects economic decline. The power of the employee is watered down by Right to Work. Where employees lack power to change their circumstances, they lack the power to change the circumstances of economic growth. This decision will impede economic growth.
...In summarizing the views of the four dissenters in both cases, Justice Ginsburg said that the workplace decisions diluted the strength of the federal anti-discrimination law in ways Congress could not have intended....
Exactly.
