Now I don't know squat about labor law or how to successfully interpret x vs y in a dispassionate manner (just ask This Kossack; heh + sorry sir).
But here is an article noting that Thomas' opinion may have opened the door to SCOTUS-driven unionization...WTF?
Jump the mangled orange results of partisan ideology distorting clean legal thinking :o)
UPDATE: Dang it - Per request our orange legal beagles have given their input. The unanimous decision = Mr Downes (source OP) is smoking some unserious (and legally fatuous) sh*t. There is no silver lining to this SCOTUS ruling. :o(
Oh, well. I had a moment or three of hope.
Writing at Addicting Info, Nathaniel Downes:
In writing the opinion of Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. vs. Busk et. al, Justice Clarence Thomas clearly was not thinking about handing unions a powerful new tool for unionizing. Instead he was thinking about how it was fine for any company to restrain and employee for hours each week without any compensation. But, in his wording, he may have just struck down right-to-work laws nationwide without realizing it.
These arguments are properly presented to the employer at the bargaining table, see 29 U.S.C., 254(b)(1), not to a court in an FLSA claim.
Per this section of US Code, the issue of a workplace retaining an employee without compensation for hours each week is one which must be handled in negotiations between the employer and the employee, their agent or their collective bargaining representative. This statement, as simple as it is, has a lot of weight behind it due to the nature of the case behind it. By retaining the full text of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), combined with this decision, the entire workplace dynamic for collective bargaining just changed overnight.
This was, of course, the recent case where SCOTUS ruled Amazon could require their warehouse workers to spend significant unpaid time each workday waiting in lines to be checked for stolen Amazon property.
Clarence Thomas just put into acourt decision that workplace issues involving compensated time must be handled in negotiations, the cornerstone of collective bargaining and unions, and not the courts. By blocking the courts, but with FLSA itself upheld This also means that companies can no longer fail to engage in negotiations, relying upon the courts to handle such matters – the Supreme Court just ordered them to the bargaining table. Tactics to block unionizing now can, and will be considered unconstitutional per this decision.
Seems delicious. Thoughts from our orange legal beagles?