PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Aids The Powerful



Qtec
06-21-2011, 10:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Walmart Case: Supreme Court Aids The Powerful </div></div>

read it (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/walmart-case-supreme-court-aids-powerful_n_881301.html)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The court suggested that the Walmart workers could pursue relief to their claims by filing their own individual lawsuits, <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>but that is no option for low-wage employees who typically earn so little that many rely upon food stamps,</u> say labor experts. (Another wonderful American story: <span style="color: #000099">Taxpayers subsidizing giant, publicly traded corporations by keeping their low-wage employees alive.</span></span> But I digress.)

For the workers, this legal "solution" amounts to the equivalent of asking Walmart to negotiate directly with every factory that produces its products on an individual basis, and not impose the price by wielding the power of its scale.

For the labor movement, this is a distressing development. Another crucial weapon in a diminishing arsenal -- the class action lawsuit -- has been effectively blunted, even as corporate employers gain new powers. <u>Last year, the Supreme Court decreed that corporations can essentially funnel as much money into political campaigns as they choose, unlike individuals.</u> The realities of increasingly global trade has added to the options that management can employ as it arbitrages labor costs across every community, putting workers in Detroit in direct competition with their counterparts in Shenzhen.

And for American society writ large, the decision is nothing short of a disaster, a formal affirmation from the Supreme Court that huge corporations enjoy special rights denied to the people who depend on their wages to pay their bills.

<span style="color: #990000">Not lost on anyone is the simple fact of widening inequality, with increasing shares of the spoils of American commerce accruing to a narrowing group of people. Chief executives of huge companies are seeing their pay soar, while rank-and-file employees watch another year go by with essentially no raise -- if they are fortunate enough to be employed at all.</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>We are indeed becoming more like a gated community for the wealthiest Americans, with manicured lawns for those on the inside, and dumpster diving for the working class - -yes, class, a designation that exists by dint of economic reality, no high court affirmation required. The Supreme Court just reinforced the front gate.</span> </div></div>

One law for the rich, another for the poor ?

Q

eg8r
06-22-2011, 08:36 AM
Nope same law for everyone.

I was surprised by the outcome though and it does make it tough for individuals to go after a giant like Walmart. What this will do however is keep the workers a bit more honest. Instead of trying to get every single woman, who has ever worked for one hour at Walmart, to join in the lawsuite they might have a chance. I personally think in this case it was the lawyers who were getting greedy and trying to "up" the numbers unrealistically and it blew up on them.

eg8r

LWW
06-22-2011, 08:50 AM
What a spoon fed pant load.

BTW ... why didn't you include this from your link?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Strip away the myriad technicalities, and what the Supreme Court essentially decreed this week is that Walmart's employees -- or really any group of people who happen to work for a colossal corporation -- are not entitled to organize themselves similarly to enhance their power to pursue their own interests. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #000099">Proven to be false in the very next 2 paragraphs from the very same author.</span></span>

The court ruled that female workers may not be considered a class for the purposes of a lawsuit in which they accuse the company of years of gender discrimination, because they worked in many different stores in many different American communities, making their experiences effectively individual.

"Respondents wish to sue for millions of employment decisions at once," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the lead opinion for the court in the five votes to four decision supporting the giant retailer. "Without some glue holding together the alleged reasons for those decisions, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims will produce a common answer to the crucial discrimination question." <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #000099">What that means is that workers in fact CAN file a class action against the company, but they must also demonstrate that their grievances are related to the same cause. The lawyers simpky failed to make the case that every female employee of WALMART was discriminated against.</span></span>

As if to underscore the absurdity of this disparity, Scalia noted that Walmart has a written policy barring discrimination: The mere act of writing this down at headquarters somehow confers immunity against claims of a breach of that policy -- not that there's any glue providing coherence to the experience of workers as a class! <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #000099">And then the author demonstrates their abject stupidity. If the company has a stated policy of no discrimination, then the suit must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that WALMART never enforced said policy. Obviously the court felt that WALMART had enforced their policy. This makes each individual grievance a separate and isolated incident. At no point did the court claim that no instance of discrimination ever occurred. What they did say was that the accused conspiracy was not demonstrated.</span></span> </div></div>

Gayle in MD
06-22-2011, 09:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Walmart Case: Supreme Court Aids The Powerful </div></div>

read it (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/walmart-case-supreme-court-aids-powerful_n_881301.html)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The court suggested that the Walmart workers could pursue relief to their claims by filing their own individual lawsuits, <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>but that is no option for low-wage employees who typically earn so little that many rely upon food stamps,</u> say labor experts. (Another wonderful American story: <span style="color: #000099">Taxpayers subsidizing giant, publicly traded corporations by keeping their low-wage employees alive.</span></span> But I digress.)

For the workers, this legal "solution" amounts to the equivalent of asking Walmart to negotiate directly with every factory that produces its products on an individual basis, and not impose the price by wielding the power of its scale.

For the labor movement, this is a distressing development. Another crucial weapon in a diminishing arsenal -- the class action lawsuit -- has been effectively blunted, even as corporate employers gain new powers. <u>Last year, the Supreme Court decreed that corporations can essentially funnel as much money into political campaigns as they choose, unlike individuals.</u> The realities of increasingly global trade has added to the options that management can employ as it arbitrages labor costs across every community, putting workers in Detroit in direct competition with their counterparts in Shenzhen.

And for American society writ large, the decision is nothing short of a disaster, a formal affirmation from the Supreme Court that huge corporations enjoy special rights denied to the people who depend on their wages to pay their bills.

<span style="color: #990000">Not lost on anyone is the simple fact of widening inequality, with increasing shares of the spoils of American commerce accruing to a narrowing group of people. Chief executives of huge companies are seeing their pay soar, while rank-and-file employees watch another year go by with essentially no raise -- if they are fortunate enough to be employed at all.</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>We are indeed becoming more like a gated community for the wealthiest Americans, with manicured lawns for those on the inside, and dumpster diving for the working class - -yes, class, a designation that exists by dint of economic reality, no high court affirmation required. The Supreme Court just reinforced the front gate.</span> </div></div>

One law for the rich, another for the poor ?

Q </div></div>


Yes, exactly. OUR RW radical activist Supreme Court exists only to enhance the Repiglican philosophy of social engineering.


Their Decision which provided Corporations the right to buy their politicians, in secret, and even with money from corporations whose foreign interests are greater than any interest in the American Economy, roved their fascist leanings.

One person, one vote, is gone, along with the principles of democracy.

Money now rules all. Hence the oceans are dying, our water is being destroyed, our air is full of toxins, our natural resources are being destroyed, all for the sake of corporate CEO profits.

Only the brain washed right are too uninformed to get it.
Repiglicans have shown they are against American workers, and all for the pigs who destroy our country, and deny the rights of the people, for the sake of their campaign dollars.


The Shock Doctrine on steroids.

G.

eg8r
06-22-2011, 10:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One person, one vote, is gone, along with the principles of democracy.
</div></div>LOL, when did this happen? Actually your quote, "The Shock Doctrine on steroids" explains your whacked out view of Reps perfectly.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-22-2011, 10:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One person, one vote, is gone, along with the principles of democracy.
</div></div>LOL, when did this happen? Actually your quote, "The Shock Doctrine on steroids" explains your whacked out view of Reps perfectly.

eg8r </div></div>

Do you ever watch the news, Ed?

Look in the Archives, it's all there.

I'd wager you haven't even read The Shock Doctrine, nor even bothered watching the documenntary of the book.

We already have on righties on this forum who "Pretends" to have read books, he has never read, we don't need another one.

G.

Qtec
06-22-2011, 11:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Nope same law for everyone.</div></div>

Shows how badly informed you are.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Published on Saturday 11 June 2011 10:00

A HARBURY father-of-three was killed in a hit-and-run in the United States – but his killer will not be going to jail.

Kenneth Watkinson, 48, who lived in Percival Drive with his wife Kirsty and one of his three children, was killed instantly, along with his business partner Craig Elford, when the pair were struck from behind by a Porsche 911 Turbo in Florida two years ago.

Police later arrested the driver, 35-year-old Ryan LeVin, who had sped off at 100mph immediately after hitting the two men.

But because of a confidential money settlement between LeVin and the victims’ families, he will spend the next two years under ‘house arrest’ at his parents’ oceanfront apartment with private beach in Fort Lauderdale.

LeVin, the heir to his parents’ Chicago-based business Jewels by Park Lane, was sentenced by Broward Circuit Judge Barbara McCarthy last Friday after pleading guilty to two counts of vehicular homicide.

He was also banned from driving for life and ordered to do 1,000 hours of community service.

Prosecutors had asked for LeVin, who has previous convictions for drug and motoring offences and in 2006 injured a police officer and two others in a car chase, to be jailed for at least ten years. But under Florida law, victims’ families are able to urge leniency for defendants. It means they can avoid lengthy civil lawsuits in exchange for gaining compensation from criminals.

Jonathan Pavsner, the Florida-based lawyer for Kenneth Watkinson’s widow Kirsty, said that keeping LeVin out of prison had been a dilemma, but that it had achieved important goals, including keeping him off the roads for life, while forcing a guilty plea and financial acknowledgement of his crime.

Mr Watkinson and Mr Elford, of Ratley near Banbury, who together ran Warwick-based Concept Medical Ltd and Ingala Healthcare in Stratford, had arrived in Fort Lauderdale just hours before their deaths.

They were 50 yards from their hotel when they were hit by LeVin, who was believed to have been taking part in a ‘drag race’ at the time. Mr Watkinson had completed the Leamington Regency Run and Stratford Triathlon in 2008 and had also run the London Marathon. </div></div>

link (http://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/news/rich_hit_and_run_killer_buys_his_way_out_of_jail_1 _2757948)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Many observers were astonished by the sentence handed down to Illinois native and wealthy playboy Ryan LeVin by a Florida judge last week.

LeVin, who pled guilty to killing two British businessmen with his Porsche in a 2009 accident, was sentenced to two years of house arrest, which he will serve at one of his parents' two luxury seaside condos. He will be able to use the gym in the building and go to church.

The sentence was minimized -- <u>it could have been up to 45 years in prison</u> -- in part because LeVin wrote a check for an undisclosed sum to the widows of the victims, settling a related civil suit.

"<u>It is clear you can buy justice in Broward County,</u>"

</div></div>

My Fact versus Your Fiction.



The guy has more than 50 convictions for driving offences. He bought his freedom.

Q

eg8r
06-22-2011, 12:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you ever watch the news, Ed?
</div></div>Yep and I choose to watch it from both sides, I would suggest you do it once in a while so that your "shock doctrine on steroids" style responses would tone down.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-22-2011, 12:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you ever watch the news, Ed?
</div></div>Yep and I choose to watch it from both sides, I would suggest you do it once in a while so that your "shock doctrine on steroids" style responses would tone down.

eg8r </div></div>

I suggest you read the book, or watch the documentary, before making rash statements about my views on the subject, and I know damn well, you have done neither.

G.

eg8r
06-22-2011, 01:02 PM
Yep because you are foolish enough to actually believe that all your books and documentary's did not have a preconceived agenda and were willing to drop out any info that did not support their cause. Pathetic. Again, I watch and listen from both sides which is something I highly recommend you try doing.

eg8r

LWW
06-22-2011, 03:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One person, one vote, is gone, along with the principles of democracy.
</div></div>LOL, when did this happen? Actually your quote, "The Shock Doctrine on steroids" explains your whacked out view of Reps perfectly.

eg8r </div></div>

I think it died in 2000 when the democrooks tried to disenfranchise our soldiers.

Gayle in MD
06-23-2011, 10:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yep because you are foolish enough to actually believe that all your books and documentary's did not have a preconceived agenda and were willing to drop out any info that did not support their cause. Pathetic. Again, I watch and listen from both sides which is something I highly recommend you try doing.

eg8r </div></div>

No you don't, Ed. You only take in what Republicans lay out for you to embrace.

I don't believe you read ANY books about what's going on in this country.

You level of denial, gives you away.

In fact, you are seldom up on current events.

Most of your esponses to questions asked of you, or statements made by others from the left, are mothing but sarcastic and truly pointless attacks, for which you provide no documentation, at all.

G.