View this post on the web at [link removed]

“Companies that engage in union-busting will applaud this ruling [ [link removed] ].” - Labor reporter and author of “Beaten Down, Worked Up” Steven Greenhouse.  
Yesterday in a 8-1 decision the Supreme Court weakened the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a case dealing with union organizers at Starbucks that were terminated. [ [link removed] ] In short, the ruling will make it harder for the NLRB to utilize its authority to require companies to reinstate employees alleged to have been fired for union activity (a common intimidation tactic of employers) while NLRB investigations are underway. As Lynne Fox President of Workers United said in response to the ruling [ [link removed] ], “Working people have so few tools to protect and defend themselves when their employers break the law.” This ruling damages one of those tools.
But I want to zoom out and focus on a broader issue this ruling highlights, which is our corporatist judiciary. We already know the Supreme Court has a conservative majority, but the only justice to dissent yesterday (and even she concurred with the overall judgement) was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson who in addition to being the first black woman to serve on the court, is also the first public defender on the high court. This lack of professional diversity is not just a Supreme Court problem, it hinders our entire judicial system and has serious impacts on working people. 
In 2019 a study found that 60 percent of sitting judges had a corporate law background. [ [link removed] ] This can have serious consequences in cases touching on corporate power. For example, an analysis done in 2021 [ [link removed] ] found that judges appointed by former President Barack Obama with corporate backgrounds have been 36% less likely to rule on behalf of workers. That same year The Wall Street Journal found that 130 judges had collectively presided over 685 lawsuits in which they had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the case [ [link removed] ]. These judges had been appointed by both Democrats and Republicans from Lyndon Johnson to Trump. 
Social issues have dominated evaluations of judges in recent decades but their positions on economic ones have often been overlooked. Caroline Frederickson, who lead the American Constitution Society (a progressive alternative to the conservative Federalist Society) and worked for NARAL, wrote about this dynamic and her role in it last year for the Atlantic [ [link removed] ] and summed up the situation this way: 
“Progressives, especially, must recognize that preserving constitutional freedoms depends on winning the fight for economic liberties. Treating them as separate goals will ultimately mean losing out on both.”
The Biden Administration had made progress in this regard as the data below demonstrates. Yet for every example of someone like Nicole Berner who was recently confirmed in the Fourth Circuit after serving as general counsel for SEIU, there are Biden appointees like Jacqueline Corley who denied the FTC’s attempt to block Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision, which later resulted in nearly 2,000 layoffs [ [link removed] ].
Last year 11 House Democrats including Jerrold Nadler (D - NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D - WA) called on the White House [ [link removed] ] to implement various procedures to better consider the competition views of nominees and ensure they align with the Biden Administration’s goal of cracking down on monopolies. A review by The American Prospect of how nominees have answered competition-related questions [ [link removed] ] before the Senate Judiciary Committee suggests nominees lack a nuanced understanding of antitrust law.
State courts are also chock full of pro-corporate judges. For example, People’s Parity Project published a report on the Arizona Supreme Court [ [link removed] ] that found that since 2021 the court has ruled in favor of corporate parties in 58% of cases. Expanding the court to pack it with more corporate lawyers and undermining what had been a model system for judicial selection turned what had previously been a pro-worker majority on the court into a rubber stamp for corporations seeking to flout the law. 
For more on what can be done, at both a state and federal level to reform judicial selection I would highly recommend checking out Demand Justice [ [link removed] ] and People’s Parity Project [ [link removed] ].
More broadly it is important to remember that this issue is a reminder that every level and lever of government has a role to play in fighting monopolies from members of Congress and state legislators to those who serve on pension boards, utility regulators and of course judges, just to name a few. Monopolies want you to believe these are boring technical issues that “experts” alone should decide, but the reality is these issues are at the heart of our constant fight to preserve democracy, which means we all have a stake and a role to play.
YOU’RE PROBABLY (ALSO) GETTING SCREWED BY:
The Wall Street Journal
You know how the Federal Trade Commission is looking out for consumers, small businesses and communities across the country? Well, Wall Street feels left out and the Wall Street Journal uses their editorial page to regularly attack the FTC. This week’s attack is about the Robinson Patman Act (to read about why we need it, here’s the National Grocers Association [ [link removed] ]). And here’s economist Hal Singer’s response to the WSJ [ [link removed] ], with my favorite quote:
“I expect the pro-monopoly WSJ editorial page to say stupid things about antitrust enforcement. And you should too. Ignore their musings. And trust the hipsters: They care about lots of things, like the freedom to compete on equal terms. And they also care about low prices.”
Corporate Lies
The Pork Industry sure is making noise about California’s Proposition 12 [ [link removed] ]. Farm Action writes: Anyone who’s stepped foot in a grocery store in recent years knows the drill: You empty your wallet without filling your cart, and each week you’re paying more for even less. [ [link removed] ]
Housing Costs
Worries about housing costs are nationwide. Pat Garofalo writes about the “5 Ways Corporate Power Is Wrecking Housing Markets [ [link removed] ].”
Multinational Corporations
This week a landmark verdict against Chiquita marks first time a major US company was held liable for funding human rights abuses abroad [ [link removed] ]. A Florida court has ordered Chiquita Brands International to pay $38m to the families of eight Colombian men murdered by a paramilitary death squad, after the US banana giant was shown to have financed the terrorist organization from 1997 to 2004.
The landmark ruling late on Monday came after 17 years of legal efforts and is the first time that the fruit multinational has paid out compensation to Colombian victims, opening the way for thousands of others to seek restitution.
Noncompetes
Even with the FTC approving rules to ban noncompetes, states can play a big role in complementing that work. The American Economics Liberties Project just released a memorandum to provide model legislation and relevant context for state lawmakers seeking to protect workers, small businesses, and consumers from the harmful effects of noncompete agreements [ [link removed] ].
Workers Unhappiness
Ikea’s boss solved the Swedish retailer’s global ‘unhappy worker’ crisis by raising salaries, introducing flexible working and subsidizing childcare [ [link removed] ]… What a concept… We hope more corporations take notice.
Billionaires Meddling in Elections
$800,000 wire transfer from billionaire donor to US Chamber raises curtain on dark money [ [link removed] ]…
“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce received an $800,000 wire transfer from billionaire donor Hank Meijer days after it endorsed his son, then-Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.), in a contentious 2022 primary, according to previously unreported internal emails reviewed by The Hill. 
Within days of the transfer, the Chamber spent $381,000 on “Media Advertisement – Energy and Taxes – Mentioning Rep. Peter Meijer,” according to a report filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). 
But because the ad — titled “Thank you, Rep. Peter Meijer” — does not explicitly advocate for his election or defeat, the pro-business lobbying giant did not have to legally disclose the donation from Hank Meijer, the co-chair and CEO of the Meijer chain of superstores. It also did not have to disclose any other potential contributions behind the $1.8 million it told the FEC it spent on “electioneering communications” that cycle.”
Amazon
This headline: “Amazon Fresh to cut grocery prices by as much as 30% to bring back inflation-battered customers.” [ [link removed] ]
So these huge corporations can just drop prices?!?!? AKA they’re part of the reason why inflation is impacting us…
Private Equity
So private equity is apparently behind the radical revisions to Delaware law that would let Boards contract around shareholder governance [ [link removed] ]...
SOME GOOD NEWS
Good Investment
Investment in clean energy this year is set to be twice the amount going to fossil fuels [ [link removed] ].
Making Booze Cheaper
The Federal Trade Commission lawsuit against Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits would be aimed at lowering costs for consumers — in this case on alcohol — and ensuring mom-and-pop shops have a level playing field against big chains [ [link removed] ].
BEFORE YOU GO
Before you go, I need two things from you: 1) if you like something, please share it on social media or the next time you have coffee with a friend. 2) Ideas, if you have any ideas for future newsletter content please comment below. Thank you.
Break ‘Em Up, 
Justin Stofferahn
Thanks for reading You're Probably Getting Screwed! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?