6 ms·

Amazon Joins SpaceX in Mission to Destroy NLRB

97 points by leotravis10 3y ago

solardev 3y ago
Previous discussion from a few hours ago (149 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39398448 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39398448
nyc_data_geek 3y ago
Existing discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39398448 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39398448
fxtentacle 3y ago
"Amazon Joins Elon Musk's SpaceX In Mission to Destroy Federal Agency Protecting Workers" ... an agency, which is currently "investigating numerous unfair labor practice charges against Amazon for its anti-union activity at JFK8"
granzymes 3y ago
If you actually read Amazon’s filing, they put in a few paragraphs towards the end basically dumping a bunch of constitutional arguments that are popular right now. This is called preserving your argument for appeal. Amazon doesn’t think those arguments are going anywhere (certainly not in a proceeding before the board, is the board going to declare itself unconstitutional?), but they might get lucky and have one of these issues decided by the Supreme Court before their case is finalized on appeal. If you don’t raise the issue now, you forfeit it later even if the law develops unexpectedly in your favor. Best practice is to preserve these arguments.
- toss1 3y ago
  It's not merely 'best practice' for some hypothetical delay tactic. This is a coordinated effort to get cases in front of SCOTUS that can gut the ability of federal agencies to do anything, especially agencies that are inconvenient to large corporations by regulating labor, environment, standards, food quality, etc. See Project 2025 [0], which is a plan to reshape the executive branch of the U.S. federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The plan would perform a swift takeover of the entire executive branch under a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory — a theory proposing the president of the United States has absolute power over the executive branch. Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the entire government, particularly with regard to economic and social policy and the role of the federal government and federal agencies. They are taking every possible approach towards their goals, and this is just one line of attack. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
  - nickff 3y ago
    I think that the post is actually a move in the opposite direction, away from the unitary executive. Gutting the executive agencies would also remove many powers from the president, and transfer them (back?) to the legislative branch.
    - bwestergard 3y ago
      "I think that the post is actually a move in the opposite direction, away from the unitary executive." That's incorrect. The argument in the brief is the unitary executive argument.
  - strangattractor 3y ago
    Why bother Congress has pretty much gutted the ability of federal agencies to do anything.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    This particular argument is unrelated to the unitary executive theory. Unitary executive theory is the straightforward idea that Article II means what it says. “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” So the President has authority to hire and fire executive branch officials and bureaucrats. The arguments here are based on separation of powers. The Constitution provides for three branches of government. The NLRB is an executive branch agency. But it (and other agencies) exercise what are essentially judicial branch powers.
    - dctoedt 3y ago
      But unitary-executive is an aggressive interpretation of the words "the executive Power shall be vested." It's certainly plausible to say that "executive Power" means "such powers as are given by Article II or otherwise granted by the Congress." That could plausibly mean that Congress can cabin the executive power or even subject it to compulsory delegation to agencies, as long as the president has ultimate supervisory power — which could itself be subject to limitations, e.g., no firing without cause or without approval from Congress. (EDIT: That was why President Andrew Johnson was impeached [but not convicted], for violating the Tenure of Office Act, enacted by a Reconstruction-era Congress to protect a Cabinet officer; a later Congress repealed that statute, and the Supreme Court subsequently held that a similar statute was invalid, but Congress could use its Article III power to deprive the courts of jurisdiction to overrule such a statute.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_of_Office_Act_(1867) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_of_Office_Act_(1867)
paxys 3y ago
Glad to see that so many large corporations and billionaires can set their petty differences aside and work towards a common goal of screwing the little people.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  It is often said that the wealthy know quite well the value of solidarity, and that’s why they work so hard to prevent it in the lower social classes.
  - staplers 3y ago
    "Never be deceived that the rich will permit you to vote away their wealth." -Lucy Parsons
- infamouscow 3y ago
  Corporations don't have voting rights, they just happen to be slightly organized, and even that is highly questionable. Anyone that has worked for a large corporation knows how much of a shit-show they are, staffed entirely by unimpressive and unimaginative people that virtually guarantee mediocrity and terrible communication at every step. What you're implying is a concession the voting population is so pathetic they cannot successfully organize themselves sufficiently to overcome and push back against a handful of people.
  - jchw 3y ago
    This reminds me of the "vote with your wallet" argument. Sure, I'll just [pick a candidate|buy a product|...] that suites all of my ideals... as soon as one shows up for the first time.
    - infamouscow 3y ago
      One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. - Plato
AlbertCory 3y ago
Clickbait. Administrative agencies are not criminal courts: prosecutor, judge, and jury. All the people piling on Amazon should realize that, someday, a 2nd Trump administration could appoint people to an agency who do things you really don't like. That's why everyone should care about separation of powers.
- vkou 3y ago
  Someday a bad Congress can make bad laws. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws (or not have a Congress). This argument against executive agencies is nonsense. Complete nonsense. The executive only has power delegated to it by legislature. If it's misusing that power the legislature can always pass a law that makes the agency do something else. If Congress isn't passing such laws, it's clearly happy with the current state of the agency. If you don't like the NLRB, vote for a Congress that will dissolve it. I can't imagine that will be a popular campaign platform, but you never know... (I know why this nonsense argument is so popular these days - the Republican plan for governance is having a Congress that won't do anything - so in order to implement their reactionism, they need to do it through unelected, appointed judges, who don't need consensus when imposing their agenda.)
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    ad hominem arguments. "Those bad people are saying it, so it must be wrong." Read the Constitution and the Federalist papers someday. Also read about "Chevron deference" which is going away soon.
    - peddling-brink 3y ago
      The comment you responded to was nearly as far as you can get from ad hominem. Yes they mentioned the Republicans, but not as a reason for their arguments. They attacked the republican plans and strategies.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    We already have a set of laws—the Constitution—that governs which laws Congress is allowed to pass. What’s more, not only does the Constitution categorically blacklist certain laws (e.g. the Bill of Rights), it also specifically whitelists the limited set of purposes Congress can pass laws for (e.g. Article I, Section 8). And the Tenth Amendment makes clear that the federal government has no powers beyond the ones explicitly delegated to it by the Constitution.
dgreensp 3y ago
It really doesn’t have to be this way. Capitalism is like a game. For rich, greedy bastards, it’s literally a Monopoly game, while for the less fortunate, it can be life or death. But the point is, it has rules. Trying to change the rules and get rid of what feeble protections and regulations we have, in order to make more money, is just evil (in my personal opinion). Corporations are not people and don’t have constitutional rights. I mean, apparently it is the case that courts have applied rights like the First Amendment to companies in court cases. But this should obviously be a very limited thing. We don’t need businesses to have a right to “pursue happiness.” It’s just a business.
- abeppu 3y ago
  > Corporations are not people and don’t have constitutional rights. ... aren't the rights of corporations in part derived from the rights of individuals? Suppose Alice and Bob each have small businesses, but Alice is a sole proprietorship, and Bob incorporates. Without warning, or any kind of warrant or legal proceeding, the police come in and confiscate all of the merchandise from both businesses. Should the 4th amendment only protect Alice?
  - Tadpole9181 3y ago
    Let's not be fooled, corporate personhood is, in practice, entirely about allowing companies to bribe politicians and shielding executives from all punishment for wrongdoing the businesses commit under their purview. Bob, being the owner of the business, clearly has fourth amendment rights even if the company doesn't. Ergo the property of the company is protected (hypothetically, you seem to forget that the fourth amendment is hardly even real anymore due to rampant abuse of civil forfeiture). But, on the other hand, when the company, say, poisons a hundred people with knowingly carcinogenic products, Bob is the human being responsible. Companies being "people" is utterly ridiculous and always has been.
thimp 3y ago
I find it hard to like either of these organisations and their leadership. Surely they have PR people who realise this? Eventually they will, as other corporations have, poison themselves slowly.
- avmich 3y ago
  With anybody paying attention to the SpaceX history there should be little doubt this company did groundbreaking achievements in an important technical industry. It's sad the founder and frontman of the company, Elon Musk, demonstrates such a lack of vision. However the company itself used to maintain its course, sometimes despite Elon's actions. So now it's double sad that the company can't maintain the balance necessary for its longer term prosperity and for the benefits of people closely related to the company.
mcpar-land 3y ago
This is how I find out that Trader Joe's does union busting?
DueDilligence 3y ago
[dead]

97 points by leotravis10 3y ago

Previous discussion from a few hours ago (149 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39398448 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39398448

nyc_data_geek 3y ago

Existing discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39398448 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39398448

fxtentacle 3y ago

"Amazon Joins Elon Musk's SpaceX In Mission to Destroy Federal Agency Protecting Workers" ... an agency, which is currently "investigating numerous unfair labor practice charges against Amazon for its anti-union activity at JFK8"

granzymes 3y ago

If you actually read Amazon’s filing, they put in a few paragraphs towards the end basically dumping a bunch of constitutional arguments that are popular right now. This is called preserving your argument for appeal. Amazon doesn’t think those arguments are going anywhere (certainly not in a proceeding before the board, is the board going to declare itself unconstitutional?), but they might get lucky and have one of these issues decided by the Supreme Court before their case is finalized on appeal. If you don’t raise the issue now, you forfeit it later even if the law develops unexpectedly in your favor. Best practice is to preserve these arguments.

toss1 3y ago
It's not merely 'best practice' for some hypothetical delay tactic. This is a coordinated effort to get cases in front of SCOTUS that can gut the ability of federal agencies to do anything, especially agencies that are inconvenient to large corporations by regulating labor, environment, standards, food quality, etc. See Project 2025 [0], which is a plan to reshape the executive branch of the U.S. federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The plan would perform a swift takeover of the entire executive branch under a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory — a theory proposing the president of the United States has absolute power over the executive branch. Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the entire government, particularly with regard to economic and social policy and the role of the federal government and federal agencies. They are taking every possible approach towards their goals, and this is just one line of attack. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
- nickff 3y ago
  I think that the post is actually a move in the opposite direction, away from the unitary executive. Gutting the executive agencies would also remove many powers from the president, and transfer them (back?) to the legislative branch.
  - bwestergard 3y ago
    "I think that the post is actually a move in the opposite direction, away from the unitary executive." That's incorrect. The argument in the brief is the unitary executive argument.
- strangattractor 3y ago
  Why bother Congress has pretty much gutted the ability of federal agencies to do anything.
- rayiner 3y ago
  This particular argument is unrelated to the unitary executive theory. Unitary executive theory is the straightforward idea that Article II means what it says. “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” So the President has authority to hire and fire executive branch officials and bureaucrats. The arguments here are based on separation of powers. The Constitution provides for three branches of government. The NLRB is an executive branch agency. But it (and other agencies) exercise what are essentially judicial branch powers.
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    But unitary-executive is an aggressive interpretation of the words "the executive Power shall be vested." It's certainly plausible to say that "executive Power" means "such powers as are given by Article II or otherwise granted by the Congress." That could plausibly mean that Congress can cabin the executive power or even subject it to compulsory delegation to agencies, as long as the president has ultimate supervisory power — which could itself be subject to limitations, e.g., no firing without cause or without approval from Congress. (EDIT: That was why President Andrew Johnson was impeached [but not convicted], for violating the Tenure of Office Act, enacted by a Reconstruction-era Congress to protect a Cabinet officer; a later Congress repealed that statute, and the Supreme Court subsequently held that a similar statute was invalid, but Congress could use its Article III power to deprive the courts of jurisdiction to overrule such a statute.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_of_Office_Act_(1867) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_of_Office_Act_(1867)

paxys 3y ago

Glad to see that so many large corporations and billionaires can set their petty differences aside and work towards a common goal of screwing the little people.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
It is often said that the wealthy know quite well the value of solidarity, and that’s why they work so hard to prevent it in the lower social classes.
- staplers 3y ago
  "Never be deceived that the rich will permit you to vote away their wealth." -Lucy Parsons
infamouscow 3y ago
Corporations don't have voting rights, they just happen to be slightly organized, and even that is highly questionable. Anyone that has worked for a large corporation knows how much of a shit-show they are, staffed entirely by unimpressive and unimaginative people that virtually guarantee mediocrity and terrible communication at every step. What you're implying is a concession the voting population is so pathetic they cannot successfully organize themselves sufficiently to overcome and push back against a handful of people.
- jchw 3y ago
  This reminds me of the "vote with your wallet" argument. Sure, I'll just [pick a candidate|buy a product|...] that suites all of my ideals... as soon as one shows up for the first time.
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. - Plato

AlbertCory 3y ago

Clickbait. Administrative agencies are not criminal courts: prosecutor, judge, and jury. All the people piling on Amazon should realize that, someday, a 2nd Trump administration could appoint people to an agency who do things you really don't like. That's why everyone should care about separation of powers.

vkou 3y ago
Someday a bad Congress can make bad laws. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws (or not have a Congress). This argument against executive agencies is nonsense. Complete nonsense. The executive only has power delegated to it by legislature. If it's misusing that power the legislature can always pass a law that makes the agency do something else. If Congress isn't passing such laws, it's clearly happy with the current state of the agency. If you don't like the NLRB, vote for a Congress that will dissolve it. I can't imagine that will be a popular campaign platform, but you never know... (I know why this nonsense argument is so popular these days - the Republican plan for governance is having a Congress that won't do anything - so in order to implement their reactionism, they need to do it through unelected, appointed judges, who don't need consensus when imposing their agenda.)
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  ad hominem arguments. "Those bad people are saying it, so it must be wrong." Read the Constitution and the Federalist papers someday. Also read about "Chevron deference" which is going away soon.
  - peddling-brink 3y ago
    The comment you responded to was nearly as far as you can get from ad hominem. Yes they mentioned the Republicans, but not as a reason for their arguments. They attacked the republican plans and strategies.
- philwelch 3y ago
  We already have a set of laws—the Constitution—that governs which laws Congress is allowed to pass. What’s more, not only does the Constitution categorically blacklist certain laws (e.g. the Bill of Rights), it also specifically whitelists the limited set of purposes Congress can pass laws for (e.g. Article I, Section 8). And the Tenth Amendment makes clear that the federal government has no powers beyond the ones explicitly delegated to it by the Constitution.

dgreensp 3y ago

It really doesn’t have to be this way. Capitalism is like a game. For rich, greedy bastards, it’s literally a Monopoly game, while for the less fortunate, it can be life or death. But the point is, it has rules. Trying to change the rules and get rid of what feeble protections and regulations we have, in order to make more money, is just evil (in my personal opinion). Corporations are not people and don’t have constitutional rights. I mean, apparently it is the case that courts have applied rights like the First Amendment to companies in court cases. But this should obviously be a very limited thing. We don’t need businesses to have a right to “pursue happiness.” It’s just a business.

abeppu 3y ago
> Corporations are not people and don’t have constitutional rights. ... aren't the rights of corporations in part derived from the rights of individuals? Suppose Alice and Bob each have small businesses, but Alice is a sole proprietorship, and Bob incorporates. Without warning, or any kind of warrant or legal proceeding, the police come in and confiscate all of the merchandise from both businesses. Should the 4th amendment only protect Alice?
- Tadpole9181 3y ago
  Let's not be fooled, corporate personhood is, in practice, entirely about allowing companies to bribe politicians and shielding executives from all punishment for wrongdoing the businesses commit under their purview. Bob, being the owner of the business, clearly has fourth amendment rights even if the company doesn't. Ergo the property of the company is protected (hypothetically, you seem to forget that the fourth amendment is hardly even real anymore due to rampant abuse of civil forfeiture). But, on the other hand, when the company, say, poisons a hundred people with knowingly carcinogenic products, Bob is the human being responsible. Companies being "people" is utterly ridiculous and always has been.

thimp 3y ago

I find it hard to like either of these organisations and their leadership. Surely they have PR people who realise this? Eventually they will, as other corporations have, poison themselves slowly.

avmich 3y ago
With anybody paying attention to the SpaceX history there should be little doubt this company did groundbreaking achievements in an important technical industry. It's sad the founder and frontman of the company, Elon Musk, demonstrates such a lack of vision. However the company itself used to maintain its course, sometimes despite Elon's actions. So now it's double sad that the company can't maintain the balance necessary for its longer term prosperity and for the benefits of people closely related to the company.

mcpar-land 3y ago

This is how I find out that Trader Joe's does union busting?

DueDilligence 3y ago

[dead]