- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A lawyer for the union says the company is aligning itself with right-wing ideologues who want to destroy the regulatory state.
Trader Joeās is facing a litany of union-busting charges before the National Labor Relations Board. The agencyās prosecutors have accused the company of illegally retaliating against workers, firing a union supporter and spreading false information in an effort to chill an organizing campaign.
But in a hearing last Tuesday, the grocerās attorney briefly summarized a sweeping defense it intends to mount against the charges: The labor board itself, which was created during the New Deal and has refereed private-sector collective bargaining for nearly 90 years, is āunconstitutional.ā
The argument would appear to fit inside a broader conservative effort to dismantle the regulatory state, which has taken aim at agencies tasked with enforcing laws to protect workers, consumers and the environment.
The exchange, a transcript of which HuffPost obtained through a public records request, came at the start of a trial to determine whether Trader Joeās violated workersā rights. Trader Joeāsā attorney, Christopher Murphy of the law firm Morgan Lewis, informed the judge, Charles Muhl, that there was āone final thingā the grocery chain wanted to add to its defense before proceedings began.
The Republican party was never about that. Or at least thereās no evidence of that. It was great Republicans punitively freed the slaves as retaliation to the Confederacy. But it is important to understand that they were also fine with allowing the slave states to continue to exist. Only opposed to new slave states. Specifically because it would dilute their power. Which is something. But not champions of freedom or small government. I mean Lincoln was literally about big government and oppressing rights many at the time perceived they had. The rights of states and individuals to own people. Looking back we may agree with the outcome. But it wasnāt what itās often portrayed as.
Also, personal freedom is just codewords for privilege. If everyone isnāt able to do something, itās a privilege not a freedom. No freedom is āpersonalā