Okay, let's see what I got. I felt like I was gonna pick one this week.
I think you'll like this one from our favorite vice and it's entitled I think you'll like it.
Amazon joins Elon Musk's SpaceX in mission to destroy federal agency protecting workers.
Oh, yeah, I've been following this. It's nuts.
Have you? I actually have a reddit.
The Supreme Court's crazy enough that this just might work in the US, but let's go through the story.
Okay, I know nothing about it.
I was waiting to read this so that I could react with everybody as well.
Of course, you know, in in live time, not at the time of everyone listening.
So what starts here?
Amazon is the latest company facing labor charges to argue that the National Labor Relations Board is unconstitutional.
I don't think that was the article.
Amazon argued in a court filing on Thursday that the National Labor Relations Board is
unconstitutional as part of an ongoing case against the company for retaliation against unionized workers.
It is the third company to do so in recent months joining Trader Joe's and Elon Musk's SpaceX.
Musk's is hard to say.
The NLRB is investigating numerous unfair labor practice charges against Amazon for its anti-union activity in JFK 8,
the famed Staten Island warehouse that became the first in the US to unionize in 2022.
Despite being certified by labor officials, the union has still not managed to bring Amazon to the bargaining table.
The current case involves the allegedly illegal firing of union workers,
retaliation against organizing activities and unilateral changes made by management without negotiation.
Amazon in response argued that the NLRB's actions and structure violate the Constitution's separation of powers
and Amazon's due process right under the Fifth Amendment.
Due process right under the Fifth Amendment.
The structure of the NLRB violates the separation of powers because its administrative law judges are insulated from presidential oversight
by at least two layers for case removal protection,
thus impeding the executive power provided for the Article 2 of the United States Constitution.
Amazon's Thursday filing stated,
it said that the NLRB's structure additionally violated Article 2 of the Constitution
because its board members were insulated from removal by the president except for inefficiency,
neglect of duty, or maleficence, malfeasance, or malfeasance of office.
SpaceX made similar arguments in a lawsuit against the board.
Amazon argued that the NLRB's structure also violated its due process rights under the Fifth Amendment
because the board members quote,
currently exercise legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same administrative procedure.
I always do that and judicial powers in the same administrative proceedings and quote,
it also argued that NLRB proceedings violated Article 3 of the Constitution
by seeking to adjudicate private rights outside the Article 3 court and award a broader range of legal remedies
beyond just equitable remedies without trial by jury.
Quote, this major attack on the American labor movement said Seth Goldstein,
a lawyer at Julian Herrera, Singla, and Goldstein, who represents the fired Amazon workers
and has long worked with the Amazon labor union.
They want to knock down the whole process and make it impossible for us to organize
because if they're successful in what they're doing, the board won't be able to issue any decisions.
They're going for everything.
They think that Trump is going to get elected.
This is what the 2024 election needs to be about.
During his presidency, Trump significantly undermined workers' rights on multiple fronts.
Oh, yeah.
Amazon also argues that the case should be dismissed because it implicates the major questions doctrine.
A new principle followed by the current Supreme Court, Laura Phillips Sawyer,
a professor of law at the University of Georgia who studies antitrust,
previously told Motherboard that this doctrine asserts that the court can and will evaluate administrative rulemaking
by agencies and determine if the... God, there's so many words in here.
...promulgated rule falls within the authorities granted by Congress and the statute,
and that by virtue of the doctrine, all rulemaking might be challenged.
I can give you a brief kind of summary of what's going on with that part.
Okay.
All these law words are above my head.
What they're talking about with Trump, the big part you need to know right now is he got three justices in on the Supreme Court.
It's what is it, six to three, I believe, conservative right now or Republican appointed.
So they're doing a lot of things that are very aligned with that kind of movement.
One of them that they're doing right now, I forget what the name of the case is.
I keep wanting to say it's the Enron doctrine, it's not.
Chevron doctrine.
It's basically where a regulatory body is given authority from the government
and they'll come up with their own rules within that because they're the experts on the subject.
And generally the courts will agree that, you know what, yeah, technically elected officials didn't make this rule,
but these people know a lot more about it and these things change so fast that they need to be able to make these rules on the fly.
The Supreme Court can't remember it has already or if it's on the way to and has signaled that it's going to overturn this
and say that every regulatory body needs all powers given to it in legislation from elected officials.
Yeah, that's good, right?
No, that's terrible.
Okay, that's no.
We don't want this overturned because basically this comes from environmental protections.
Like they'll say that I forget what the name of that group is, but basically we put a regulatory body in place
that can govern and watch over environmental issues and they'll just say that you have coverage over the environment
and anything that might happen there.
Okay, okay, that just sounds good if you put it that way.
Instead of specifically stating that you can regulate CO2 or you can regulate PFOS because that just came up.
No, let's just give an overall governing body the idea of what they can regulate because they're the experts on it.
Not the people that are elected.
So they've changed it where if it doesn't say you can regulate CO2 over this many parts per million or something like that.
You're not allowed to regulate that.
Okay.
The regulators lost a lot of power.
Business people are very happy because that means there's less regulation out there, but overall it's fairly bad.
Okay.
That's why they're bringing this right now is because it looks like this could fall under the same category
in that if it wasn't specifically delegated to the NLRB, they shouldn't be able to make rules about it.
And therefore they're saying that the NLRB has no authority and therefore shouldn't be there.
The NLRB is huge because it's how you unionize and it is how you get a collective bargaining agreement
and it watches over the votes.
Although Biden has been pretty terrible in a lot of ways.
He's been very good when it comes to labor groups.
They actually just made a change to the NLRB where if you get it to a vote on whether or not you want to unionize
and it's deemed that the company who you be unionizing with tampers in that vote in any way.
It just immediately goes through.
They say, no, you know what?
You're fucking around.
So we're just going to make this a union.
Before the old rules were that if there was any tampering, they'd just have another vote.
Companies could screw around as much as they want and it'll just go to another vote and people get fed up
and they eventually end up leaving and it was much harder to unionize.
So they put this rule in place.
So just so that because I'm going to say it simply because I don't know if anyone's following it as I am.
Basically the National Labor Relations Board is in charge of the rules for unions and stuff like that.
For unionizing for bargaining and overall if there's issues between a union or unionizing
and a company that they're working for, it would go through the NLRB.
Okay. So they're trying to take it away.
Yes.
Amazon has been ardently anti-union.
Musk is ardently anti-union.
He actually owns the only major car company in North America or possibly the world.
I don't know for sure without a union.
Very sketchy business practices.
Yeah, no kidding.
So I thought that was interesting because it's big corporations letter.
Yeah.
All without unions.
Coming out for it.
And it should be noted that if this does end up getting upheld, which it could or it ruled in favor of these big companies,
it basically be impossible to unionize because the NLRB would have no authority to do it.
And someone that comes in like Trump would be in favor of it because he's...
Oh yeah.
Yeah.
His I forget who it was, but his appointment to the Secretary of Labor was incredibly pro business anti-union.
I can't remember who it was though.
Yeah.
Well.
And yeah, keep an eye on this.
It's going to be huge for employment rights, labor rights in North America as we've in America.
As we've seen, it's been a big push for centuries to get the rights that we do have in place and they're being a road.
Yeah.
So yeah, maybe we'll see some violent labor strikes.
Yes.
No longer a history of violent strikes.
And actually the UAW has a great union head right now.
He is very open and upfront about how much he believes in the past like that.
So if it's coming from everywhere, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a UAW.
I forget his name, but Sean something.
Like, if you go take a look at anything he says, it's great.
I mean, that's how you bring about radical change, I guess.
It is Sean Fain is the head.
Sean Fain and that's reading for later.
I believe he did a live stream when he was doing some of that bargaining.
The UAW just went through a strike.
I believe he had a shirt on that said eat the rich.
Like it was pretty great.
That's nice.
I do like that.
And yeah, if you've never heard of him or the UAW, I'd do some research over the next 48 hours, you know, to keep you guys busy and not lonely without us.
Exactly what I was just gonna say.
And yeah, we'll see you on Friday.
Bye.