• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Bernie Sanders Calls for Worker-Ownership of Means of Production

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by ArmenianJohn, May 29, 2019.

  1. iluvatar5150

    iluvatar5150 Newbie

    +9,100
    Other Religion
    Gotta say, I'm a little surprised that you take such a narrow view of "commerce".
     
  2. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +1,444
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    Narrow? My view is the correct view. Commerce must be involved. Commerce is, after all, the subject matter. “Regulate” is also a qualifier. Let’s remember, the purpose of enumerating Congress’ powers was to limit the powers of the government. To have a government of limited powers, limited to those expressed in ink, requires adherence to the words and their meanings. Otherwise, governmental power isn’t limited.
     
  3. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +1,444
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    Ignoring your Strawman, you invoked the word “commerce,” no doubt to reference Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. But Bernie’s plan isn’t regulating any commerce, that’s the problem. Instead, Bernie is dictating who the company must provide its commerce to, that’s not regulating commerce.

    Second, dictating who must sit on the board of directors isn’t commerce at all.
     
  4. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +1,444
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    Taxes are easily distinguishable as coming within Congress’ vested power to tax.

    Minimum wage laws are different, as the government is requiring more income for labor performed.

    Both of those are vastly different than the government dictating who must sit on the board of directors.

    Both of those are also different than government mandating the allocation of partial ownership of its own company to certain people.
     
  5. iluvatar5150

    iluvatar5150 Newbie

    +9,100
    Other Religion
    Employing labor is a form of commerce. Most forms of commerce at this point could be argued to have some sort of interstate component to them. Granted, one could argue that the "interstate" aspect has been tortured at times in the past in order to justify federal intervention in what might otherwise be seen as a local matter, but I think that when businesses scale up to the size that I assume Bernie is talking about (i.e. large enough to have a board, if not publicly traded), they're well beyond acting solely on a local scale. At that size, I would imagine they fall under a number of other federal regulations (e.g. SEC) and, thus, the "interstate" ship has already sailed, so to speak.

    Since labor is commerce and since large companies work on an interstate, if not global basis, establishing further rules regarding the relationship between employer and employee (e.g. stock/profit sharing & board representation) would seem to me to be well within the purview of the federal government.
     
  6. ArmenianJohn

    ArmenianJohn Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist

    +2,163
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Barrabas??

    People who think Bernie Sanders is a "commie" clearly don't pay attention to him at all. Easier to listen to pundits who tell you what you want to hear, I guess.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2019
  7. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +5,963
    Atheist
    Private
    No, it would be setting conditions on legal fictions who wish to participate in interstate commerce. As others pointed out, just like minimum wage laws.
     
  8. Mountainmanbob

    Mountainmanbob Goat Whisperer Supporter

    +6,769
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    That's comical.

    Worker ownership is okay but, still it takes money to build businesses and to buy businesses unless of course they're trying to take over one that's going bankrupt and usually those don't work out well.
    M-Bob
     
  9. ArmenianJohn

    ArmenianJohn Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist

    +2,163
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Not sure what any of that has to do with this thread, other than the flaming and goading.
     
  10. Mountainmanbob

    Mountainmanbob Goat Whisperer Supporter

    +6,769
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    It was directed at the post that I read on this thread. Not flaming anybody.
    M-Bob
     
  11. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +1,444
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    Participating in interstate commerce is not the Congrssional power. A salient point your reasoning misses. The power is to regulate interstate commerce and Bernie’s proposals do not constitute as regulating any commerce.

    The minimum wage laws are wages related to labor performed, which is vastly different than mandating a private entity to allocate partial ownership to employees and requiring employees have a seat at the table of directors. The two are not the same. They are not parallel, which is why your example of minimum wage does not demonstrate Congress has the power to enact Bernie’s proposal.

    The Court can easily repudiate this extraordinary exercise of Congressional power proposed by Bernie by stating the original meaning of “regulate” doesn’t contemplate Congressional power as suggested by Bernie. The Court can acknowledge while prior decisions have abandoned the original meaning of “regulate,” the Court refuses to do so here, choosing to abstain from the Alice in Wonderland’s Humpty Dumpty’s ploy of words have whatever meaning Humpty says they have.

    Second, minimum wage law under FLSA is tied to those who labor to make goods destined for interstate commerce or engaged in interstate commerce, I.E. those working to move goods from state to state. The law is tied to labor and the labor is tied to goods destined for interstate commerce or labor engaged in interstate commerce itself. That is vastly different than mandating partial ownership of the business for employees and requiring the employees have a seat at the table of directors.

    Bernie’s proposal is not remotely close to regulating any commerce.
     
  12. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +1,444
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    The word “commerce” in the Constitution does not have any meaning that would include the act of hiring someone to work. There is no court opinion in existence having ever taking such an expansive view. Your view would have shocked the framers to the point of revolting, as your view would undoubtedly mean regulation of purely interstate activity, having no relation or impact on interstate commerce, by virtue of the fact they hired people to work.

    That view you espoused is untenable Constitutionally.

    The threshold question is whether Bernie’s proposal constitutes as regulating commerce. If it doesn’t, then an entity acting “well beyond a local scale” doesn’t matter. Bernie’s proposal isn’t regulating commerce.
     
  13. iluvatar5150

    iluvatar5150 Newbie

    +9,100
    Other Religion
    I disagree and I think that a solid case could be made that, given employee mobility and the far-reaching impacts of otherwise-local labor conditions, the mere act of hiring people could have sufficient impact on interstate commerce so as to fall under the purview of federal control.

    However, I'll withdraw the claim regarding employment since it's not necessary to make my primary case and I don't really wish to argue it further.

    Instead, I'll shift the goalposts a bit and point out that regardless of whether or not the hiring of employees constitutes interstate commerce, the selling of the goods and services produced by the firms in question does constitute interstate commerce, as does the acquisition of supplies and resources necessary to facilitate that production. It seems to me that the logic laid out US v Darby would be rather applicable to Bernie's proposal and would contradict your assessment of it.
     
  14. The Faceless

    The Faceless Has A Face

    295
    +336
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Private
    The front runner's name is Joe Biden, and that fact is so funny to me.
     
  15. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +1,444
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    Sure, this is possible by invoking any meaning to the words “commerce” and “regulate” that is necessary for reaching that outcome. But it strikes me as rather irrational to have a results oriented approach to the meaning of words such that one looks to the desired goal to be attained and then reconfigures the meaning of words to meet the goal.

    U.S. v Darby concerned wages paid to laborers who made labored to manufacture goods shipped in interstate commerce, and Congress’ power to deny articles entering interstate commerce from an entity not in compliance with minimum wage law. The case has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of Bernie’s proposal.

    U.S. v Darby was a case concerning commerce, “logs,” involved “interstate” commerce as the logs were shipped between two or more states. The wages are in relation to labor, and the labor was for goods moved in interstate commerce. Wages are closely related to labor, and hence it makes sense to regulate them as they are paid for goods moved in interstate commerce. That’s not Bernie’s proposal. Bernie’s proposal requires a company to divest partial ownership to its employees and appoint some number of seats for board of directors to its employees. Bernie isn’t dealing with wages paid for labor to make goods moved in interstate commerce.

    The fact the company is involved in interstate commerce does not give the federal government broad authority to dictate to companies how it may divest it’s private peppery, divest it’s ownership, or who may sit on its board of directors.

    So, you’ll have to do better. Specifically, you’ll need to begin by arguing how the facts of U.S v Darby relate enough to Bernie’s proposal as to justify Bernie’s proposal as regulating interstate commerce.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2019
  16. iluvatar5150

    iluvatar5150 Newbie

    +9,100
    Other Religion
    I guess it's a good thing, then, that that's not what I'm doing.

    One of the issues addressed by the FLSA and Darby was "substandard labor conditions" and their impact on interstate commerce. That phrase is mentioned several times in the decision.

    As far as I understand Bernie's proposal, he'd like to place requirements on how large corporations structure their boards, specifically as they accommodate representation of labor. He'd also like wages to include some sort of profit-sharing mechanism (via stock and dividends, as I understand it). It strikes me that Bernie is addressing other manifestations of what could be argued are substandard labor conditions, with respect to workers' voice (or lack thereof) in the direction of the company.
     
  17. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +1,444
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    Oh? So, tell me what meaning of commerce and regulate are you invoking and from what source do rely upon for the meaning?

    Labor conditions, that very phrase, doesn’t encapsulate employees partially owning the company or having some fixed number of seats on board of directors. It is indeed odd to perceive working under extreme and dangerous heat on an assembly line with no fan, air conditioning, and insufficient breaks or access to liquids, a labor condition, as synonymous with being a partial owner of a company by having a share of its stock and a seat on the board of directors.

    Yeah, “could be argued” but who’d make that irrational argument? Having a voice in the company isn’t a labor condition such that he’s addressing the unsafe conditions of the work place. Sitting on the board of directors and having partial ownership of the company isn’t “labor conditions.”
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2019
  18. ArmenianJohn

    ArmenianJohn Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist

    +2,163
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Democrat
    That's the fake front runner.
     
  19. SimplyMe

    SimplyMe Senior Veteran

    +1,365
    Christian
    Married
    I'd argue that is something the Supreme Court has done on numerous occasions -- they decide what they want commerce to mean to fit their decisions. We already have US v Darby, where they push the definition to include worker wages there is Gonzales v. Raich, where they stretch the definition to include a private citizen growing marijuana for personal use (not selling/participating in "commerce" in a more traditional definition); etc.

    And I think you are kidding yourself. I understand why you feel that Darby shouldn't be stretched to include things like requiring employee ownership or the makeup of company management. At the same time, particularly in view of previous "stretching" of the definition of commerce by the Supreme Court -- such as Darby -- it isn't hard to see how the Supreme Court could once again stretch it to include these items.
     
  20. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +1,444
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    You’ve misread U.S. v Darby. The Court didn’t hold worker wages constituted as commerce. You’ve also misread Gonzales v Raich.

    But invoking Court decisions that, arguendo, make up the meaning doesn’t refute my point.

    Thanks for your irrelevant guessing as to what you “think” I’m doing. Better to adhere to the subject matter and abstain from telling me what you “think” about me.

    Perhaps, but conversely, it isn’t “hard to see” how SCOTUS can refuse to stretch the commerce clause to cover Bernie’s proposal, realizing that’s too far, there must be some limit to this power, and the prior cases having not gone to this extent, can be limited to not extend to Bernie’s proposal.

    The Roberts’ Court limited the reach of the commerce clause to mandate the purchase of health insurance, despite an existing legal framework to arguably justify the mandate under the commerce clause, and may do so again in regards to Bernie’s proposal.
     
Loading...