A lawyer for the union says the company is aligning itself with right-wing ideologues who want to destroy the regulatory state.
Trader Joe’s is facing a litany of union-busting charges before the National Labor Relations Board. The agency’s 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 grocer’s 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 “unconstitutional.”
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 Joe’s violated workers’ rights. Trader Joe’s’ attorney, Christopher Murphy of the law firm Morgan Lewis, informed the judge, Charles Muhl, that there was “one final thing” the grocery chain wanted to add to its defense before proceedings began.
The Republican party was never about that. Or at least there’s 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 wasn’t what it’s often portrayed as.
Also, personal freedom is just codewords for privilege. If everyone isn’t able to do something, it’s a privilege not a freedom. No freedom is “personal”