Amazon says in a federal lawsuit that the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional

AP (on their own site) ^ | September 6, 2024 | HALELUYA HADERO

[Salman]

Amazon is challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board in a lawsuit that also accuses the agency of improperly influencing the outcome of a union election at a company warehouse more than two years ago.

The complaint, filed Thursday at a federal court in San Antonio, mirrors legal arguments the tech giant made in front of the agency earlier this year after NLRB prosecutors accused the company of maintaining policies that made it challenging for workers to organize and retaliating against some who did so.

In the new legal filing, attorneys for Amazon pointed back to a lawsuit the agency filed against the company in March 2022, roughly a week before voting for a union election was set to begin at a company warehouse in the New York borough of Staten Island.

...

[TonyinLA]

I’m a capitalist. But Amazon is a monopoly, should be broken up under anti-trust laws. They use their market dominance to crush competition, which itself is anti-capitalist.

[Publius]

During the first half of the 1960s, the NLRB was so totally pro-union that the companies that lost their cases appealed to the federal courts. The courts then overturned nearly 90% of the NLRB rulings. Nixon's appointees to the NLRB changed the balance on the board.

The argument that the NLRB is unconstitutional would require reversing the 1937 decision. The legal principle of stare decisis would argue against that. But you never know nowadays.

[pie_eater]

Whatever your opinion is of Amazon, the NLRB is a mess that someone needs to clean up. They pick a few targets they hate and go after them as judge and jury. The Biden administration hates Amazon and Dollar General and Starbucks and anything Elon Musk is associated with, and they use every federal power they can to punish them. They use the NLRB, OSHA, EPA, EEOC, DOL and wear them down hoping they just give up and flip over to the dark side.

[hanamizu]

The argument that the NLRB is unconstitutional would require reversing the 1937 decision.

---

I’d like a reversal of Wickard v. Fillburn if we’re going after old rulings.

[Publius]

I’d like a reversal of Wickard v. Filburn if we’re going after old rulings.

Good point. Wickard effectively repealed the 9th and 10th Amendments.

[Political Junkie Too]

Obama tried to stack the NLRB by making recess appointments when the Congress was not in recess. Interested parties sued and Obama said that Congress was in a "pro forma" session just to avoid a recess but is was for all practical purposes a recess. The Supreme Court ruled that the Congress determines when it was in recess, not the President, and they overturned Obama's appointments.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that "recess" did not mean a weeklong recess for a holiday or for to return to home-districts for electoral purposes; it meant the recess between annual sessions or between the adjournment sine die and the swearing in of a new Congress.

-PJ

[packrat35]

The NLRD should be abolished as unconstitutional interference in the workplace. They pick and choose who they don’t like and go after them with the full weight of the government.

I know older Supreme court rulings have said they are legal, but this is another one that the current Supreme Court should overturn as well.

[POGO163]

The case is not about the NLRB being unconstitutional it is about the structure being unconstitutional and the one sided actions.

[Jane Long]

Hmmm ... Amazon sounding like the lib who got mugged.

[POGO163]

Amazon is not a monopoly. Look at Walmart. Etsy, Home Depot, Costco, Target and others. Most of the sellers are small businesses who sell through Amazon.

[circlecity]

With the Chevron doctrine gone this could get interesting.

[Wuli]

Instead of passing clear and transparent “labor relation” law/laws, the Progressive/Liberals created an undemocratic agency to self-write “regulations” and in effect “legal” decisions.

Every agency created by the Progressives was to avoid messy democracy and create “expert” bodies to make “legal” decisions.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

They are both a monopoly and an monopsony. Not only do they control what people can buy, they also control how business can sell.

It's a double whammy.

[Vaduz]

Check

[dodger]

Interesting. Can either of you elaborate on Wickard and its effects on Amendments 9 and 10?

[Publius]

Using the Interstate Commerce Clause as justification, Wickard in 1942 gave Congress control over anything and everything. In some way, however distant, everything was tied to interstate commerce.

The federal government has used Wickard to pass laws that eviscerated the 9th and 10th Amendments. States' rights only exist today so far as the Supreme Court is willing to chip away at Wickard.

[hanamizu]

I’m not a lawyer, but as I understand it, Wickard said, in essence, that ‘interstate’ included items that never left a state but whose existence could influence interstate commerce were subject to regulation by Congress via the ‘commerce clause’.

This greatly expanded Congress’s power to regulate all manner of things that it previously could not. Things that used to be subject only to state regulation could now be subject to Federal law.

The 10th Amendment says that things not specifically delegated to Congress (ie. Federal) control are under the control of the states and the people. Wickard opened virtually everything up to Federal control

I’m sure someone else can explain this better.

[dodger]

Thank you for the elaborations on Wickard. Clearly on constitutional grounds this should be reversed.