5 ms·
US Supreme Court backs Starbucks over fired pro-union workers
- xyst 2y agohttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-367_f3b7.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-367_f3b7.pdf
- ddoolin 2y ago> THOMAS , J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS , C. J., and ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, K AGAN, G ORSUCH, K AVANAUGH, and BARRETT , JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment. If you're curious, who.
- blakesterz 2y agoI'm always curious! I suppose we can call this one nearly unanimous? I skimmed her dissent and couldn't make much sense of it, seemed to be pretty technical?
- The_Kevin_Ruse 2y agoShe concurred in the judgement, so she agrees that Starbucks should have won. She was only dissenting on the reasoning behind it. The judgement was unanimous.
- voxic11 2y agoThe dissent concurred in the judgement just disagreed with the reasoning for how it was arrived at.
- tekla 2y agoShe agreed with everything, just didn't want to join the majority due to disliking that the court ignored the way Congress wanted the court to act.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoDespite the politics around the court and the idea that the court is divided, most Supreme Court decisions are unanimous or close to it. Opinions like this one provide alternate legal theories to use later.
- AdamH12113 2y agoThank you. Not sure why anyone would write an article about a Supreme Court decision without describing the actual vote. The immediate outcome might be the same, but there’s a big difference in context and meaning between a 5-4 decision and a 9-0 decision.
- cobrabyte 2y agoBecause they like to sow division.
- kristjansson 2y agoThe unanimity should also be an indicator of the technicality of the decision. This isn't some broad statement on the power of unions or organizing laws, it's a narrow clarification of the set of conditions the NLRB has to meet to grant preliminary injunctions.
- Waterluvian 2y agoYeah, very much this. I personally classify this kind of event as “a nothingburger that looks like a somethingburger so people will get worked up anyways.”
- throwup238 2y agoSCOTUS also ruled in the abortion pill case [1]. 9-0 decision that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue the FDA, thus the rules the FDA added to ease access to abortion pills stand. The crux of the argument being that they can present their case to the executive or legislative branches, but the courts are the wrong place to address the plaintiffs' concerns. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
- ddoolin 2y agoDoubt it matters if SCOTUS ends up gutting regulatory agency power in the next few weeks.
- cogman10 2y agoIt does matter because lack of standing is something that keeps the FDA safe from activists using the court to get their way when they can't do it through the executive or legislative system. The bigger issue with the FDA will be if a drug/food company sues them over a mandated safety procedure/requirement.
- jfengel 2y agoI'm genuinely shocked. Not because I think it's the wrong decision. I thought it was incredibly obvious. So obvious that nobody could possibly have passed such a law unless they expected a partisan court to concoct a reason to back it. At best I expected a 5-4 decision in favor of the right choice. Having all 9 justices make a decision that runs contrary to the ideology of a majority of them should make me question my belief that they will always choose ideology first and find a justification afterwards. And yet... "lack of standing" is frequently used when they know they'll look bad, so they pretend the question doesn't actually exist.
- readthenotes1 2y agoInstead of questioning that belief, research why it formed?
- cdme 2y ago[flagged]
- tekla 2y ago[flagged]
- toomuchtodo 2y agoIt’s easy to issue opinions until anyone responsible for enforcement disregards them, with my apologies to Andrew Jackson. Like a currency, the power and value is a shared delusion until it isn’t. Respect is earned. The current court is not earning a whole lot of respect at the moment.
- karmasimida 2y agoIt is a 8-1 decision though, how is it political in that sense
- cdme 2y ago[flagged]
- sickofparadox 2y agoNot even, its 9-0, Jackson agreed in judgement, but differed in her reasoning.
- jmclnx 2y ago[flagged]
- karaterobot 2y ago> In 2022, workers at a Starbucks cafe on Poplar Avenue in Memphis became among the first in the company to unionize. Early in their efforts, they allowed a television news crew into the cafe after hours to talk about the union campaign. Starbucks fired seven workers present that evening, including several who belonged to the union organizing committee. Interesting context.
- readthenotes1 2y agoBeing in a union, it seems, does not give one free rein to donas one wishes with an employer's property...
- nisegami 2y agoWhether Starbucks was engaging in unfair labor practices was not determined in this case. This case only concerns what test courts should use to determine whether granting an injunction is necessary.
- dathinab 2y agonot just interesting but very very important move the whole things for a "wtf is the US doing now" into a "okey sucks but makes sense" territory
- stopoutsourcing 2y ago[flagged]
- post-it 2y agoWhat's American tech? I'm a Canadian employed by a Canadian company that is contracted by an American company to develop software for an international, but primarily American, audience. Am I working on American tech?
- pjc50 2y agoDespite what everyone seems to think, SCOTUS isn't actually a permanent unelected legislature and can't just make interventions out of nowhere. Who would you sue to get that ruling? How do you define "American tech"? How do you propose to impose speech restrictions on Americans speaking to foreigners about it? (Personal interest: I'm a Brit working in the UK for an American parent company)
- pknomad 2y agoYou bring up a good point about the US Supreme Court. My limited understanding as a US citizen is that they are there to interpret laws, not make them. I don't know how well that works in practice so I'm willing to be swayed on that stance if someone with more legal experience can present compelling arguments. Chief Justice Roberts brought this issue up on his dissent on the Obergefell vs Hodges case few years ago. The constitution never addresses the topic on the legality of gay marriage and thus the court should not be the vehicle for delivering that decision; that responsibility falls squarely upon the legislative branch.
- pjc50 2y ago> The constitution never addresses the topic on the legality of gay marriage and thus the court should not be the vehicle for delivering that decision The constitution did not address interracial marriage either, and yet Loving v Virginia was a critical piece of liberation through litigation (and very similar arguments apply!)
- 2y ago
- marcuskane2 2y agoIt's so weird to me that legally companies can't defend themselves against employees working against them, if it's under the guise of a union. If an employee is disruptive, hostile, negative and harmful to the environment for any other reason, of course they'd be fired, but if they're agitating for a union then it all becomes protected activity. If an employee was working against the financial interests of the company in favor of the interests of a competitor, a supplier or a favored customer of course they'd be fired, but if it's a union then it becomes protected activity. To be clear, I'm not making any judgement on unions or at-will employment or anything as being good or bad, or appropriate/inappropriate in any given situation, industry, etc. I just think it's super weird that from the perspective of the employer, you have an obviously cancerous group inside your organization which is actively working to harm you, but you're not allowed to defend against. It's weird.
- willcipriano 2y agoWhy is the other way around legal, say Perdue Chicken lobbying for more foreign workers or against a minimum wage increase?
- weard_beard 2y agoThe other scenarios you have mentioned did not escalate to the point of mass organized violence in the past. If they did I would expect government intervention to prevent that kind of escalation too!
- MisterBastahrd 2y agoEmployees who attempt to organize are not doing so to help a supplier or favored customer. They're doing it to improve their relationship with their employer. When you deal with management at a large corporation, you are rarely ever dealing on a 1:1 basis with someone. You are dealing with a group of people. So why should employees not have the same opportunity?
- tomoyoirl 2y agoSome particularly weird parts of that have come when the protection of the union actively conflicts with other employer mandates, like hostile working environments — e.g. from 2015-2017 the NLRB went after Cooper Tire for firing an employee who had used racist slurs on the picket line
- cogman10 2y agoThe problem with this ruling is it's out of the Supreme court's jurisdiction. The supreme court/federal courts do not have jurisdiction over all legal cases, and they can be stripped of the ability to hear cases. That's what happened with the creation of the NLRB. Article 3 section II > In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. Congress made an exception with the creation of the NLRB which means the supreme court should not have heard this case.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoThe Supreme Court, the final arbiter of such regulations, disagrees. The court rulings about the law, are the actual law.
- cogman10 2y agoThe Supreme court isn't though. It's only the final arbiter when congress hasn't explicitly removed that power from them. This is the supreme court claiming power to itself that it has no right to by the constitution. The supreme court, according to the article I just cited, is the final arbiter by default, but not by right. Congress can strip that right from them. This is why, for example, the supreme court does not hear military tribunal cases.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoThe Supreme Court though, has the power to determine when Congress can do that, and can’t do that. In other words, the SCOTUS has authority over Congress’s ability to determine SCOTUS authority. So it’s kind of a moot point. Yes, officially they shouldn’t, in practice they do, and the law is what is practiced (otherwise adultery is still illegal in Minnesota).
- cogman10 2y ago> the SCOTUS has authority over Congress’s ability to determine SCOTUS authority. Not really. Congress can, for example, impeach 1 or all of the supreme court justices. The supreme court cannot stop themselves from being removed from the court. They can claim authority and that they have the right to do that, but they are not above congress, they are coequal. > Yes, officially they shouldn’t, in practice they do, and the law is what is practiced (otherwise adultery is still illegal in Minnesota). Agreed, ultimately the ball is in congress's court (which they will most certainly drop). Congress could decide that this is the supreme court taking too much power and remove them all, but they aren't going to do that because this is likely a decision most representatives are perfectly fine with. So nothing will likely happen here. I'm just saying that this decision is one that the court never should have heard, not that practically they have heard it, and their enforcement is likely to stand.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- BobbyTables2 2y agoWonder how many home furnishings and free coffee were given to Thomas…
- tomoyoirl 2y ago“Free coffee”? Look, if you’re going to allege corruption and votes for sale here, I think it’s a little more potent when you suggest he’s gotten better compensation than some “free coffee”
- karagenit 2y ago> For the foregoing reasons, we hold that district courts must apply the traditional four factors articulated in Winter when considering the Board’s requests for a preliminary injunction under §10(j). We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like this is just about a temporary injunction to give the employees their jobs back while the actual labor case gets decided? The lower court used the two part McKinney test to grant the injunction, and the Supreme Court said no, you have to use the four part Winter test like other district courts, go back and decide again.
- curtis3389 2y agoThe US Supreme Court has been illegitimate in my mind since Citizens United. They're nothing more than unelected politicians working for moneyed interests.
- elicksaur 2y agoFor anyone getting just reading the headline, the thing at issue was an injunction to “reinstate the workers while the agency's in-house administrative case against the Seattle-based company proceeds”. With the SCOTUS ruling, the decision on that injunction will just occur again, but with a different legal test. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) could still get the same injunction for the workers under the new test, though it is apparently more difficult. The overall case against Starbucks could still be won or lost, and the legal tests for that haven’t changed. The decision was essentially 9-0 with Justice Jackson dissenting in part but concurring in judgement.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 6510 2y ago2 fun angles I hardly ever hear any talk about: There is the company, there are the employees but you rarely hear the customer get organized in a permanent way. How bad does the coffee have to get? The other angle is the size of the corporation. You can easily demonstrate that economy of scale is beneficial for many industries. Making all local coffee places the same is a horrible idea. It reminds me of Magnasanti the dystopian mega city where people don't flee because everything is exactly the same everywhere.