# SCOTUS just restored us to Yellow Dog contract days! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 21, 2018, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561 "2018-05-21T15:13:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/101 "2018-05-25T17:28:45Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The cases cited are meant to be viewed with the following in mind: This summary is pretty misleading. In fact, I’d say the EPI article is deliberately misleading. For example, here is what it says and for which you quoted (my bold): > [@](#): > > The drafters, legislators, and advocates of the FAA assumed that the statute applied only to business disputes. It was drafted with an eye toward trade association arbitration, not employment or consumer disputes. \*\*Indeed, the statute contains a specific exemption for “contracts of employment.” \*\* \ But that’s not accurate at all. The statue does NOT contain a specific exemption for contracts of employment generally. [Here is the part they are interpreting:](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/1) > [@](#): > > …but nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. As detailed in [Circuit City Stores v. Adams](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/105/case.html), the court determined that: > [@](#): > > The wording thus calls for application of the maxim ejusdem generis, under which the residual clause should be read to give effect to the terms “seamen” and “railroad employees,” and should be controlled and defined by reference to those terms. So the EPI link cuts off the quoted statutory text, and doesn’t expound on the reasoning why the employment application is limited to transportation workers. That’s pretty misleading. But I think this is probably the case you’d want to hang your hat on - if this was wrongly decided, then it could be said that the FAA wouldn’t apply to employment contracts. I’d need to dig into this one further to form an opinion on it. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/102 "2018-05-25T17:33:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I might have agreed with the dissent as a matter of public policy, but the controversy is exactly why we have courts. Now that the court has spoken, and settled the matter, I have no problem adopting the decision as settled law. > > But you do, I take it? It is the law. I disagree with it. Same as if Dred Scott were decided today. It might be law but I would oppose it where I could. I hope you would too. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/103 "2018-05-25T17:50:05Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So the EPI link cuts off the quoted statutory text, and doesn’t expound on the reasoning why the employment application is limited to transportation workers. They discuss it: > [@](#): > > The arbitration of employment disputes has its own history, although one that parallels the general trends described above. The FAA contains a clause that appears to exclude employment disputes from the statute’s coverage. Section 1 of the statute provides that “nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” Despite this language, in 1991, in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, the Supreme Court applied the FAA to an employment case, ruling that an employee was required to bring his age discrimination complaint to arbitration rather than to a court. The decision was ambiguous about the effect of the statutory exclusion for contracts of employment because, in that case, the arbitration clause was not in a contract between an employee and an employer, but rather was in a contract between an employee and the agency with which the employee was required to register to get the job. The Supreme Court clarified the ambiguity in 2001 in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, interpreting the exemption for “contracts of employment” exceedingly narrowly. It ruled that the statute applied to all contracts of employment except those involving workers who, like seamen and railroad workers, were engaged in transportation that crossed state lines. Since then, courts have applied the FAA to numerous employment cases. > > SOURCE: [The arbitration epidemic: Mandatory arbitration deprives workers and consumers of their rights | Economic Policy Institute](https://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/#epi-toc-5) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/104 "2018-05-25T18:09:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is the law. I disagree with it. > > Same as if Dred Scott were decided today. It might be law but I would oppose it where I could. I hope you would too. No, I would not. The judicial decision was the result of slavery being legal, and expressly contemplated in the Constitution. The way to reverse the horrible results created by correctly applying the law was for Congress to propose an amendment that eliminated the grounds for the decision: which they did, and which the states ratified in 1868. I don’t want judges creating the “right” result when the law is a bad one – I want legislators creating the law. In making the Dred Scott decision, the Court recognized that the Constitution clearly and expressly contemplated slavery. (“…three-fifths of all other Persons…” in Art I Sec 2 a compromise arising from the slave states’ desire to count slaves as a whole person even when they could not vote, and free states’ desire to not count them at all; “…The Migration and Importation of such Persons…” in Art I Sec 9; and the actual Fugitive Slave Clause in Art IV, Sec 2: “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom Service or Labour may be due.”) Now, are you hoping I’d want to see the institution of slavery ended? Yes, absolutely. But are you hoping I’d want the Court to simply decide that because its members opposed slavery as wrong, that was good enough reason to re-interpret it out of the Constitution? No. No, no, no. We can amend the Constitution if it produces results we don’t like. We cannot – or SHOULD not, anyway – grant judges the power to become super-legislators and substantively rewrite the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/105 "2018-05-25T18:59:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But are you hoping I’d want the Court to simply decide that because its members opposed slavery as wrong, that was good enough reason to re-interpret it out of the Constitution? No. No, no, no. I’m not sure I have seen anyone defend the Dred Scott decision which is widely regarded as the worst decision in supreme court history. The case had nothing to do with outlawing slavery. It had to do with whether Dred Scott could be a citizen and sue for his freedom when he was in a slavery free state. When the constitution was signed black men could vote in five of the thirteen states so clearly they could be citizens. Also, since the court determined it didn’t have jurisdiction the case should have just been dismissed. Everything Taney said was more rant than law at that point. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/106 "2018-05-25T19:47:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > We can amend the Constitution if it produces results we don’t like. We cannot – or SHOULD not, anyway – grant judges the power to become super-legislators and substantively rewrite the Constitution. Sure but apparently you are fine with them expanding a law far past what congress intended in the FAA. Imagine congress passed a law that said an employee cannot sue an employer. I imagine that would be struck down by the courts. But the supreme court has almost gotten us there in practice. Want to bring a civil suit against your employer? Well, now your employer can, with no more than a paragraph in an employment contract, deny you that right and force you to arbitration that leans heavily in their favor. It is as easy as that for them to restrict your right to access the civil court system and bring a suit. Want to band together with your fellow employees to stop rampant violations? Nope, can’t do that either. That paragraph stops you. It is ridiculous how trivially easy it is. Want to appeal the decision? You can in a regular court. You can’t here. If the arbitration court blatantly ignores the law surely you could appeal that! Nope. Can’t do that either. They have effectively created a special side of the civil court system and shunted most consumers and employees in to it. Did they all agree to this? Not really. They never got to negotiate a thing. This now enables things like widespread over billing because who is going to spend thousands of dollars to recoup several hundred dollars? It enables widespread wage theft for the same reason. Do you believe all the above is what congress intended and wrote into law? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/107 "2018-05-25T19:55:13Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’m not sure I have seen anyone defend the Dred Scott decision which is widely regarded as the worst decision in supreme court history. > > The case had nothing to do with outlawing slavery. It had to do with whether Dred Scott could be a citizen and sue for his freedom when he was in a slavery free state. > > When the constitution was signed black men could vote in five of the thirteen states so clearly they could be citizens. Also, since the court determined it didn’t have jurisdiction the case should have just been dismissed. Everything Taney said was more rant than law at that point. [With a tie-breaking vote from the mayor, the City Council in College Park approved the measure to allow undocumented immigrants, student visa holders and residents with green cards to vote in local elections, The Washington Post reports.](http://www.newsweek.com/immigrants-are-getting-right-vote-cities-across-america-664467) Can you explain why you feel that “black men could vote in five of the thirteen states so clearly they could be citizens?” (Interestingly, Justice John Mclean in dissent in Dred Scott alludes to the same argument, but I don’t know what your reasons are). Now, it’s true that the case could simply have been disposed of on jurisdictional grounds, and today we have a more clearly developed sense that courts should not address a constitutional question when the controversy can be decided on simpler grounds. But that was not the case in Taney’s time. I agree it’s an ober dicta rant, but I don’t agree it’s particularly unusual for the time. Ultimately, though, it seems to me you readily accept these processes when the result accord with your desired outcome, and decry them when they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/108 "2018-05-25T20:04:43Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Sure but apparently you are fine with them expanding a law far past what congress intended in the FAA. > . > . > . > > Do you believe all the above is what congress intended and wrote into law? The problem is that trying to peer into what Congress intended is futile. Pre-passage testimony described arbitration as “face to face,” for example. Someone might argue that this is what Congress intended, but since Congress did not write that requirement into the law, I don’t care about it. CONGRESS INTENDS WHAT IT WRITES. If 65 senators vote in favor of a law, maybe 40 intend one thing, 20 intend something different, and 5 are voting because they traded their votes on the measure for votes on something else. And what did Coolidge “intend,” when he signed it? I don’t know – is that relevant? No: the only thing that matters is looking at the words they passed, what those words meant to the people of the time, and how they are neutrally applied to the present day. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/109 "2018-05-25T20:28:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem is that trying to peer into what Congress intended is futile. Courts do it all the time: > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court has used legislative history as a tool of interpretation for nearly a century.2 Ideally, after the purpose of the statute is ascertained, the Court applies its understanding to reach a compatible result with what Congress intended when the statute was enacted. Courts have used legislative history and other extrinsic material to ascertain the purpose of the statute and the Congressional intent. > > SOURCE: [https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1639&context=nlr](https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1639&context=nlr) (PDF) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/110 "2018-05-26T12:52:18Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Courts do it all the time: Yes. And do you know the first rule the courts apply? Answer: CONGRESS INTENDS WHAT IT WRITES. > [@](#): > > [T]he meaning of the statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain, … the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms. (Quoting _Caminetti v. US_, 242 U.S. 470 (1917). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/111 "2018-05-27T00:23:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > And do you know the first rule the courts apply? > > Answer: CONGRESS INTENDS WHAT IT WRITES. > > (Quoting _Caminetti v. US_, 242 U.S. 470 (1917). Where did congress write that arbitration can be forced on another party with nothing more than a contract of adhesion? Where unconscionability of a contract is to be ignored. Where illegal contracts don’t get you out of arbitration and even if the arbitration court ignores the law the decision cannot be appealed? Where did congress say arbitration is immune to the formation of a class action? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/112 "2018-05-27T03:39:41Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Where did congress write that arbitration can be forced on another party with nothing more than a contract of adhesion? Where unconscionability of a contract is to be ignored. Where illegal contracts don’t get you out of arbitration and even if the arbitration court ignores the law the decision cannot be appealed? Where did congress say arbitration is immune to the formation of a class action? Where did Congress say you’re allowed to wear a green shirt? The answer, of course, is that Congress did not, and does not, have to explicitly allow the list you’ve mentioned. Instead, they merely have to say that the FAA permits parties to agree to classwide arbitration and that the FAA requires courts to honor parties’ agreements. The power of a state to define unconscionability must yield to Congress’ superior power – when Congress makes laws pursuant to the powers granted to them by the Constitution, the Constitution itself says that those laws are supreme - Article VI, Clause 2. So the answer to “where did Congress say…” depends. Sometimes, Congress doesn’t need to say each specific, because Congress laid out an overarching rule that includes the specific. In other cases, like unconscionability, Congress has pre-empted the issue so states cannot legislate. There is an entire body of preemption law. Are you familiar with it? ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/113 "2018-05-27T04:58:41Z")
Bricker, here’s the deal. I think you have a genuine point. Courts shouldn’t make the law, Congress should. The only raw deal here is the _timing_. So previous to this, for decades, Corporations couldn’t get away with screwing individuals over without _eventually_ facing the negative consequence of a class action. It appears that is no longer the case, and they can commit petty theft with impunity, only paying out the few times someone takes them to arbitration and wins in a rigged court. (arbiter : “can you _prove_ you didn’t ask to open this extra bank account with Wells Fargo? It says right here that you did, it’s a note in your file made by the employee at Wells Fargo who opened it…”. “for you time and hassle going to arbitration, I’ll award you back the $10/month fee you were charged for this extra account and nothing else”) That is a judgement that on the face of it sounds reasonable, in fact. But it gives Wells Fargo a license to steal since if they only have to pay back what they stole to those who go to arbitration, they net a huge profit from all the people who didn’t. Suddenly, _now_ corporations have the unlimited right to commit petty theft. And there is no way that power can be taken away from them until probably the end of Mr. Trump’s presidency, when a bill fixing this could possibly be passed and signed into law. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/114 "2018-05-27T05:01:46Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Bricker, here’s the deal. I think you have a genuine point. Courts shouldn’t make the law, Congress should. > > The only raw deal here is the _timing_. So previous to this, for decades, Corporations couldn’t get away with screwing individuals over without _eventually_ facing the negative consequence of a class action. This isn’t right either. Look at the history posted by Whack. This ruling is consistent with the long history of FAA interpretation. There’s no significant change worth this ruling. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/115 "2018-05-27T06:01:24Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Bricker, here’s the deal. I think you have a genuine point. Courts shouldn’t make the law, Congress should. > > The only raw deal here is the _timing_. So previous to this, for decades, Corporations couldn’t get away with screwing individuals over without _eventually_ facing the negative consequence of a class action. > > It appears that is no longer the case, and they can commit petty theft with impunity, only paying out the few times someone takes them to arbitration and wins in a rigged court. (arbiter : “can you _prove_ you didn’t ask to open this extra bank account with Wells Fargo? It says right here that you did, it’s a note in your file made by the employee at Wells Fargo who opened it…”. “for you time and hassle going to arbitration, I’ll award you back the $10/month fee you were charged for this extra account and nothing else”) > > That is a judgement that on the face of it sounds reasonable, in fact. But it gives Wells Fargo a license to steal since if they only have to pay back what they stole to those who go to arbitration, they net a huge profit from all the people who didn’t. > > Suddenly, _now_ corporations have the unlimited right to commit petty theft. And there is no way that power can be taken away from them until probably the end of Mr. Trump’s presidency, when a bill fixing this could possibly be passed and signed into law. If you haven’t agreed to arbitration with a corporation how have you given up any rights for a class action? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/116 "2018-05-27T06:46:34Z")
Does anyone really believe the decision was a matter of logic? That this was a mathematical exercise to resolve two postulates that seemed to conflict, and that by chance the logicians happened to split on purely partisan lines on this matter of logic? Of course not. And anyone who thinks otherwise probably thinks Scalia’s passion to sell American democracy to the highest bidder was done for noble reasons. Did any of the five anti-labor Justices say “This is a lamentable decision but our hands were tied. We hope Congress quickly fixes this problem?” I don’t think so; and if they did they were sniggering all the way to the bank. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > In the decision Gorsuch writes: > > _“It is this Court’s duty to interpret Congress’s statutes as a harmonious whole rather than at war with one another.”_ > > I am missing the “harmonious whole” Gorsuch made this as he claims is his goal. Seems he gutted the NLRA instead. > [@DavidwithanR](#): > > My reasoning is encapsulated in this: > > “Ah, but this is different from other imposed contracts - you **freely negotiated** _this_ imposed contract” > > … When the parties aren’t free to negotiate, it isn’t even a contract. U.S. courts have a long history of throwing out contract provisions when one party was too poor or incompetent to negotiate. But that was then and this is now. America now belongs to whoever can afford the most lawyers. MAGA. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/117 "2018-05-27T09:02:20Z")
> [@Jon\_in\_PDX](#): > > **Czarcasm** – I think the agency you’re looking for is the National Labor Relations Board. The current chairman of which is John F. Ring, who(according to Wiki) “…was formerly co-chair of the labor and employment law practice at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, where **his practice included collective bargaining, labor contracts, multi-employer benefit funds, and corporate restructurings** ” (bolding mine). How reassuring. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/118 "2018-05-27T11:10:05Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > If you haven’t agreed to arbitration with a corporation how have you given up any rights for a class action? Given the necessity of signing many such contracts and how few people actually _read_ things like the terms of service and fine print for what should be pretty standard contracts… I fail to see how this is in any way relevant. If every place that will hire me has a clause against class action lawsuits, then there is effectively no recourse for class action against my employer regardless of who it is. Hey, fun fact - [reading through all your EULAs would likely take _months_](http://techland.time.com/2012/03/06/youd-need-76-work-days-to-read-all-your-privacy-policies-each-year/). ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/119 "2018-05-27T14:18:21Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > That is a judgement that on the face of it sounds reasonable, in fact. But it gives Wells Fargo a license to steal since if they only have to pay back what they stole to those who go to arbitration, they net a huge profit from all the people who didn’t. [Underline mine] Only one change here. "those who _win_ arbitration. And with employers/companies able to choose the arbiters, employers are only going to pick the ones with the best track record of finding in the employer’s favor, and arbiters are going to tend to want to find in the employer’s favor in order to be more attractive in the future for employers to hire. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561/120 "2018-05-27T15:27:17Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Do you believe all the above is what congress intended and wrote into law? > [@Bricker](#): > > CONGRESS INTENDS WHAT IT WRITES. > [@Bricker](#): > > CONGRESS INTENDS WHAT IT WRITES. > [@Bricker](#): > > Where did Congress say you’re allowed to wear a green shirt? > > The answer, of course, is that Congress did not, and does not, have to explicitly allow the list you’ve mentioned. Moving the goalposts counselor. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-just-restored-us-to-yellow-dog-contract-days/814561.md?page=7)