5 ms·

> The attorneys also argue that NLRB proceedings deny the company a trial by a jury and violate its due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Is it really

> The attorneys also argue that NLRB proceedings deny the company a trial by a jury and violate its due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Is it really the case that NRLB rulings are not appealable to an article 3 court? If that’s so, the due process claim seems pretty reasonable —- why should an agency be able to just declare you in violation of the law without giving you a right to defend yourself at trial? Edit: it seems that as you’d expect, NLRB decisions are appealable to a circuit appeals court like federal district rulings are, making this claim seem pretty weak. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/decide-cases https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/decide-cases

cyanydeez 3y ago
Due process for _corporations_. I'll accept this argument if CEO's accept the criminal liability of due process. Otherwise, stfu, you exist for the public good and don't get the treat the constitution like a prostitute.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  Corporations are just piles of contracts signed by people. Stripping due process rights from corporations is equivalent to stripping those rights from the people who signed those contracts.
  - rfrey 3y ago
    Do the people who signed the contracts bear responsibility and consequences for the actions taken by that pile of contracts?
    - pclmulqdq 3y ago
      The owners of the corporation are materially damaged when the corporation gets sued or fined. That happens because that pile of contracts is essentially the steward of their money. However, the corporation itself doesn't take actions. It's just a pile of contracts. Managers take actions. I do agree that corporate managers have a weird form of liability shield for their bad actions, though. However, if you dig into why this happens, it's often because of things like plausible deniability and diffusion of responsibility, which you don't need a corporation to create (see the way the mob operates).
      - cyanydeez 3y ago
        unfortunately, what these corpos have learned that the best way to avoid and minimize consequences is to ensure a long and drawn out process they can manipulate with lobbiests and sheer outlasting private interests.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    No they are not, and no it is not. A corporation is a government granted liability shield intended to foster certain public policy goals. A bunch of people cooperating without adopting the liability shield of a corporation/LLC is eminently possible. It's likely that the massive scaling we've seen would be untenable if the cooperating individuals could be held responsible for the efforts of the group, but that we're suffering a lack of corporate responsibility indicates that wouldn't necessary be a bad thing and thus it's disingenuous to just equate the two.
Gibbon1 3y ago
Well we could just change the law to make the CEO's and the board liable both financially and criminally for labor law violations. Like, CEO is convicted of violating labor laws, gets 32 months on prison and banned from serving as an officer of a corporation for 10 years. These guys are so used to never facing personal consequences they don't know a good situation from a bad one.

cyanydeez 3y ago

Due process for _corporations_. I'll accept this argument if CEO's accept the criminal liability of due process. Otherwise, stfu, you exist for the public good and don't get the treat the constitution like a prostitute.

pclmulqdq 3y ago
Corporations are just piles of contracts signed by people. Stripping due process rights from corporations is equivalent to stripping those rights from the people who signed those contracts.
- rfrey 3y ago
  Do the people who signed the contracts bear responsibility and consequences for the actions taken by that pile of contracts?
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    The owners of the corporation are materially damaged when the corporation gets sued or fined. That happens because that pile of contracts is essentially the steward of their money. However, the corporation itself doesn't take actions. It's just a pile of contracts. Managers take actions. I do agree that corporate managers have a weird form of liability shield for their bad actions, though. However, if you dig into why this happens, it's often because of things like plausible deniability and diffusion of responsibility, which you don't need a corporation to create (see the way the mob operates).
    - cyanydeez 3y ago
      unfortunately, what these corpos have learned that the best way to avoid and minimize consequences is to ensure a long and drawn out process they can manipulate with lobbiests and sheer outlasting private interests.
- mindslight 3y ago
  No they are not, and no it is not. A corporation is a government granted liability shield intended to foster certain public policy goals. A bunch of people cooperating without adopting the liability shield of a corporation/LLC is eminently possible. It's likely that the massive scaling we've seen would be untenable if the cooperating individuals could be held responsible for the efforts of the group, but that we're suffering a lack of corporate responsibility indicates that wouldn't necessary be a bad thing and thus it's disingenuous to just equate the two.

Gibbon1 3y ago

Well we could just change the law to make the CEO's and the board liable both financially and criminally for labor law violations. Like, CEO is convicted of violating labor laws, gets 32 months on prison and banned from serving as an officer of a corporation for 10 years. These guys are so used to never facing personal consequences they don't know a good situation from a bad one.