Bernie Sanders Calls for Worker-Ownership of Means of Production

iluvatar5150 said:

Unless I'm just grossly misunderstanding what you're saying, that statement appears to run completely counter to Darby. The whole thing is about how Congress can regulate firms that engage in interstate commerce whether or not the specific thing being regulated is, itself "interstate commerce". The decision even acknowledges the authority of Congress to regulate intrastate commercial activities that impact interstate commerce.

Click to expand...

To the contrary, my statement Congress’ “power isn’t to regulate those who participate in interstate commerce” is entirely consistent with Darby.

First, the statute at issue in Darby did not include any exercise of Congressional power that said any and all businesses participating in interstate commerce must pay X amount of dollars/hr . That statute would not have been constitutional as Congress isn’t regulating interstate commerce at all.

Indeed, the Court in Darby spills a lot of ink to explain the basis of the statutory scheme is Congress regulating interstate commerce. You’ve misunderstood Darby.

Rather, Darby says a corollary of the power to regulate interstate commerce is a power to exclude articles from interstate commerce. Congress, then, can prohibit articles, objects and products from entering commerce when they are entered under certain prohibited conditions, even if the conditions are intrastate activities, which is what was going on in Darby. Darby is not and never has been a case involving Congress regulating entities participating in interstate commerce. Rather, Darby is a case in which Congress was regulating interstate commerce by excluding items and products from entering commerce under certain conditions.

Which is to say Congress said companies, businesses, etcetera, may ship their goods, products, and objects, in interstate commerce so long as X, Y, Z conditions are met, but the basis for the conditions was a regulation of commerce and attached to regulating commerce.

NotreDame said:

To the contrary, my statement Congress’ “power isn’t to regulate those who participate in interstate commerce” is entirely consistent with Darby.

First, the statute at issue in Darby did not include any exercise of Congressional power that said any and all businesses participating in interstate commerce must pay X amount of dollars/hr . That statute would not have been constitutional as Congress isn’t regulating interstate commerce at all.

Indeed, the Court in Darby spills a lot of ink to explain the basis of the statutory scheme is Congress regulating interstate commerce. You’ve misunderstood Darby.

Rather, Darby says a corollary of the power to regulate interstate commerce is a power to exclude articles from interstate commerce. Congress, then, can prohibit articles, objects and products from entering commerce when they are entered under certain prohibited conditions, even if the conditions are intrastate activities, which is what was going on in Darby. Darby is not and never has been a case involving Congress regulating entities participating in interstate commerce. Rather, Darby is a case in which Congress was regulating interstate commerce by excluding items and products from entering commerce under certain conditions.

Which is to say Congress said companies, businesses, etcetera, may ship their goods, products, and objects, in interstate commerce so long as X, Y, Z conditions are met, but the basis for the conditions was a regulation of commerce and attached to regulating commerce.

Click to expand...

I still don't see how your distinction makes any difference.

If Congress can exclude from interstate commerce things that were produced under certain conditions, then that means that Congress can regulate the parties that participate in interstate commerce. The law may not be worded that way, but that's the practical effect of it.

Sanders said his campaign is working on a plan to require large businesses to regularly contribute a portion of their stocks to a fund controlled by employees, which would pay out a regular dividend to the workers. Some models of this fund increase employees’ ownership stake in the company, making the workers a powerful voting shareholder. The idea is in its formative stages and a spokesman did not share further details.

Click to expand...

This is why Sanders will win. Biden is just John Kerry/Hilary Clinton Stage 3.

While I'd be happy with Liz Warren or Tulsi Gabbard, neither of them would propose something this bold. They're half-progressives like Obama. They want a little change, but not a scary amount.

Sanders just bowls straight through with whatever is best to advance the public's needs no matter what.

iluvatar5150 said:

I still don't see how your distinction makes any difference.

If Congress can exclude from interstate commerce things that were produced under certain conditions, then that means that Congress can regulate the parties that participate in interstate commerce. The law may not be worded that way, but that's the practical effect of it.

Click to expand...

Your rationale would allow Congress to pass a law that dictates directly to any entity participating in interstate commerce without regulating anything, a power they are not vested with.

Based on your rationale, Congress could target specific companies, even by name, to the exclusion of all others, and dictate terms exclusively to them, without regulating any interstate commerce. This would be an exercise in power not vested to Congress.

So, the distinction, while subtle, is significant.

iluvatar5150 said:

Again, says you.



I only have access to the final decision in US v Darby, and as far as that goes, it doesn't contain any definitions at all. The original text of the FSLA doesn't explicitly define "labor conditions" and doesn't restrict the definition of the term to just the matters that the law dealt with (i.e. child labor, minimum wages, and overtime). It merely describes those matters as a subset of labor conditions and leaves the full extent of "labor conditions" undefined.



Nor are you entitled to just make up restrictions to definitions.



okay



If your whole argument is "I don't like your definition", that's fine.



Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say that I have confused "labor conditions" with "condition of employment" and that, in this case, the distinction matters. (There seems to be much overlap between the two phrases, for example, with the original FLSA using "labor conditions" to cover wages, among other things, while other laws use "conditions of employment" to describe the things for which employees can collectively bargain, including wages)

But, again, let's suppose the distinction matters. The government can also regulate "conditions of employment", can it not? I fail to see the problem.




What sources? This?

"collective bargaining agreements, business dictionary, some case law, scholar articles (on JSTOR), ILO"​

I can claim that some book somewhere says something, too.



I've described the meaning of the words themselves. You've yet to point to a single specific source refuting even the feasibility of my interpretation.



And yet you haven't named a single one.



And yet, when I search google, I find sources that treat the phrase as a vague umbrella term that could cover lots of things:





That second link is pretty interesting. I can't c&p it, and I'm not going to type out the rest, but the gist is that the author finds the term frustratingly vague and proposes defining it more clearly. He lists things that he believes are pretty clearly covered by the phrase, and then some that are a little more grey and that will probably be settled by the parties themselves. Among those grey areas is the amount of control that the workers have over the foremen and over the industry itself. That strikes me as awfully similar to board representation.



I don't really care where the argument goes. I entered this thread because it's my understanding that the government has broad authority (either via explicit law or legal decisions) to regulate a host of business activities far more banal and minute than what Bernie was describing. I was legitimately surprised when you took such a hard stance against something I thought was so obvious.

Click to expand...

To be brief, the sources you cited, which I’ve read and was referencing, do not include board of trustee appointments. That’s the point. The phrase “labor conditions” treated synonymously with “working conditions” has no source attributing any meaning identical or similar to your own meaning such that sitting on the board of directors is a labor/working condition.

Among those grey areas is the amount of control that the workers have over the foremen and over the industry itself. That strikes me as awfully similar to board representation.

Click to expand...

I read the same article, and control over the foremen isn’t remotely close or parallel to sitting on the board of directors. The fact is the article itself doesn’t have any support for your special, unique meaning, such that sitting on the board of directors is a labor/working conditions.

Of course, it makes perfect sense you could not find any source in support of your view because there is a common sense component to the phrase labor/working conditions.

Those sources you found conceptualize the phrases in a manner consistent with what I have been saying. None of those sources support your view.

It is perhaps best because, as I said previously, the position you’ve taken is asinine and leads to some absurd results of what constitutes as labor/work conditions.

I entered this thread because it's my understanding that the government has broad authority (either via explicit law or legal decisions) to regulate a host of business activities far more banal and minute than what Bernie was describing. I was legitimately surprised when you took such a hard stance against something I thought was so obvious.

Click to expand...

“Obvious” based upon what exactly? What you’ve said certainly is not “obvious” based on the original meaning of, “To regulate commerce...among the several States.”

KCfromNC said:

Meanwhile, back here in reality I'm not sure how well your argument would stand up against reality.

Click to expand...

A part of the reality is the Constitution, and that reality has no provision containing any language vesting to Congress a power to regulate anyone or anything “participating in interstate commerce.” So, my argument is rooted in reality, your position, not so much.

Weird, my employer makes a point of including the stock they grant me in my total compensation calculations. But what do the people who run the compensation paid by a private corporation know about compensation paid by a private corporation?

Click to expand...

Good for you! But your employer isn’t Bernie, and what your employer has done isn’t the same as what Bernie is proposing. There are some poignant factual differences between Bernie’s proposal and what your employer has done. Thanks for the edifying but pointless information.

NotreDame said:

A part of the reality is the Constitution, and that reality has no provision containing any language vesting to Congress a power to regulate anyone or anything “participating in interstate commerce.” So, my argument is rooted in reality, your position, not so much.

Click to expand...

In my reality we have minimum wage laws and worker safety standards. Which to believe - your claims or my lyin' eyes?

There are some poignant factual differences between Bernie’s proposal and what your employer has done.

Click to expand...

None of which you seem willing or able to enumerate. That says a lot.

NotreDame said:

Your rationale would allow Congress to pass a law that dictates directly to any entity participating in interstate commerce without regulating anything, a power they are not vested with.

Click to expand...

And yet, that seems to describe with a high degree of accuracy the reality I see before me.

Based on your rationale, Congress could target specific companies, even by name, to the exclusion of all others, and dictate terms exclusively to them, without regulating any interstate commerce. This would be an exercise in power not vested to Congress.

Click to expand...

Isn't that degree of specificity prohibited elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g. ban on Bills of Attainder)?

NotreDame said:

To be brief, the sources you cited, which I’ve read and was referencing, do not include board of trustee appointments.

Click to expand...

And we're back to arguing about whether that means they exclude board appointments.

I read the same article, and control over the foremen isn’t remotely close or parallel to sitting on the board of directors. The fact is the article itself doesn’t have any support for your special, unique meaning, such that sitting on the board of directors is a labor/working conditions.

Click to expand...

Wow, really?

No, control over the foremen may or may not be a board issue, but control over the industry certainly is and the author quite clearly put that in the category of plausible grey areas that'll have to be sorted out later. Your assessment of the article is just false.

Ya know, it's one thing to not enumerate your sources and then claim that you've provided them - that's annoying, but whatever. But it's another thing entirely to gaslight me with a dishonest spin of a document that I've already read and that you know I've already read. I've been wondering why it's so frustrating having a dialog with someone as intelligent as you appear to be, but if that's how you roll, then I guess it makes sense.

iluvatar5150 said:

And yet, that seems to describe with a high degree of accuracy the reality I see before me.



Isn't that degree of specificity prohibited elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g. ban on Bills of Attainder)?



And we're back to arguing about whether that means they exclude board appointments.



Wow, really?

No, control over the foremen may or may not be a board issue, but control over the industry certainly is and the author quite clearly put that in the category of plausible grey areas that'll have to be sorted out later. Your assessment of the article is just false.

Click to expand...

And yet, that seems to describe with a high degree of accuracy the reality I see before me.

Click to expand...

And yet, "the reality" does not correspond with your perception, that is the problem.

Isn't that degree of specificity prohibited elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g. ban on Bills of Attainder)?

Click to expand...

It is puzzling that another provision of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Attainder, is invoked by you as a limitation on the very power you say Congress has under the commerce clause! If Congress is legitimately regulating commerce between the States, then Congress is not implicating the prohibition against Bill of Attainder. Your argument has been Congress can regulate entities participating in interstate commerce regardless of whether Congress is in fact regulating interstate commerce, and an implication of that logic is Congress can then directly single out entities participating in interstate commerce for regulation. Except, you invoke another provision of the U.S. Constitution to negate an implication of your own logic, which makes little sense. If the commerce clause allows Congress to regulate entities engaged in interstate commerce, without regulating any interstate commerce, then it follows Congress can specifically target entities for regulation that are engaged in interstate commerce since, by your logic, engaging in interstate commerce is the basis of the power for Congress to regulate the entity! Wake up!

Now, it is very doubtful the Bill of Attainder is applicable to what I have said is an implication of your reasoning, given the meaning of Bill of Attainder. However, given your demonstrated inability to properly understand complex materials, you butchered U.S. v. Darby, did not understand the scholarly article on labor conditions (more on that below), there is no sense engaging you in a dialogue about the meaning of Bills of Attainder and why they are not applicable to what I said was an implication of your argument.

No, control over the foremen may or may not be a board issue, but control over the industry certainly is and the author quite clearly put that in the category of plausible grey areas that'll have to be sorted out later. Your assessment of the article is just false.

Click to expand...

My goodness man, you do not get what you have read. My assessment was accurate and correct. your assessment is a fantasy. The author plainly tells the reader what are labor conditions, he enumerates what constitutes as labor conditions, and "control over the industry" was not one of them. Which means, guess what, presently, what you seek as a "labor condition" is not treated as a "labor condition" by the author.

Ya know, it's one thing to not enumerate your sources and then claim that you've provided them - that's annoying, but whatever. But it's another thing entirely to gaslight me with a dishonest spin of a document that I've already read and that you know I've already read. I've been wondering why it's so frustrating having a dialog with someone as intelligent as you appear to be, but if that's how you roll, then I guess it makes sense

Click to expand...

You surely have read it, too bad you did not properly understand what was said, just as you did not correctly understand what the Court said in U.S. v Darby. Do not lecture me for my faults that do not exist when the problem rests with your inability to properly understand what you have read.

The author explicitly and intentionally left "control over the industry" out of his list of what constitutes as labor conditions, which means, guess what, according to the author, presently, "control over the industry" does not qualify as a labor condition! What good is reading something if you cannot properly understand what you have read? Then, on the basis of your faulty reading of the document, you allege dishonesty on my behalf. What I said is accurate, and honest, the problem is you have not understood what was said by the author. Do not impugn my integrity because you cannot properly grasp what you have read.

KCfromNC said:

.

Click to expand...

In my reality we have minimum wage laws and worker safety standards. Which to believe - your claims or my lyin' eyes?

Click to expand...

Your false dilemma is just that, false, as I have not commented upon the "reality of minimum wage laws and worker safety standards." Your eyes doth deceive you!

None of which you seem willing or able to enumerate. That says a lot

Click to expand...

The fact you did not and do not understand the difference between the two on your own says a lot more.