I'm mad.
This is what I mean when I say the right-wing Supreme Court just pulls stuff out of its ass. It's also another case where the hero worship of federal preemption was wielded to mercilessly bludgeon all that challenges corporate tyranny.
In 2000, California passed a law saying that companies that receive taxpayer funds from the state can't use the money on union-busting activities. The law was sensible indeed.
Naturally, Coprorate (sic) America totally lost its shit when this law was enacted. It cried that the law violated corporations' "rights" about anything and everything.
Sorry, but corporations ain't supposed to have no rights. Our constitutional rights club is only for living, breathing organisms - not corporations.
But today the U.S. Supreme Court overturned California's innovative law, citing a federal law that supposedly contradicts it.
Oh yeah? I thought conservatives were supposed to be the ones who were for states' rights. The states clearly have the constitutional power to pass laws like the California statute.
An AFL-CIO lawyer said, "We don't believe Congress ever intended to force the states to provide taxpayer money to fight workers who are trying to organize a union." Knowing Congress, however, who really knows? The more important issue is that even if Congress intended it, they have no constitutional power to make the states fund union busters.
What if you don't want your tax dollars going to greedy corporations for them to suppress unions? According to the Supreme Court, you're shit out of luck now. In the SCrOTUS's fucked-up world, you now have to work harder for less so your employer can use your tax dollars against you so you can work even harder for even less!
If Big Business wants to greedily break up unions so badly, why can't they do it by spending their own ill-gotten loot instead of doing it on the taxpayers' dime?
With the Supremes' decree that taxpayer money must fund anti-union campaigns, I think America has just about attained pure corporatism - a political model where nothing exists outside the corporate world and where the government exists exclusively to foster corporate interests.
In light of the latest ruling, I also think maybe it's time for a constitutional amendment to restore laws like the California law. (Not like the Supreme Court has paid much attention to the Constitution lately.)
(Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/19/BA0P11C0TK.DTL&tsp=1)
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Supremes say corporations have right to spend your money to fight workers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hi Tim, I'm looking forward to reading about your next Roads Scholaring trip and hope to see a new issue of the Last Word soon.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, I was hoping you could clarify something. If corporations have no rights, as you believe, does that then mean unions also have no rights because neither fits your conservative definition of the word "people"?
LOL at ScheffBoyarDee. How is Bandit 'conservative'? He hasn't even claimed to be 'conservative'.
ReplyDeleteA union is not a corporation Scheff. I assume you knew that part.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis time I'm going to break from my usual practice of ignoring your comments when you commence with childish name calling. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't know any other way to say it other than to be blunt. So here goes ...
ReplyDeleteYou need to educate yourself, friend. You do not understand the word "conservative" in the sense the word was used. I can't help you other than to suggest you consult a dictionary, and tell you that I was not referring to a social or political ideology.
The question asked was for Tim Brown, the author of this blog.
This answer is from Tim Brown, the author of this blog: A union is not the same as a corporation. A corporation forms under corporate law. A union is different in that it is run by and for its members.
ReplyDeleteThere is a very thin line here when you're talking about what the law calls juristic persons.
By the way, what does this have to do with compelling the taxpayers to fund militant suppression of unions? That is the real issue here.
Tim,
ReplyDeletePublicly traded corporations are run by and for their shareholders. Or in the case of privately held companies, it's usually owned by a family or small group of people.
While I disagree with your claim that corporations' rights, including free speech, are not protected by the law (because that would mean their owners/shareholders have no rights), in a way I actually agree with your point here. No private entity -- corporate, nonprofit group, labor union, etc. -- should be receiving taxpayer money. Therefore, no taxpayer money should be used in a labor fight. The exception is if the government contracts with a company for work (such as highway construction). Then it is now the company's money and it can to do with the money as it pleases.