Amazon Update, For March: A Lil' Late In Posting This, But After ~70 Years, And Over 1.2 Million Employees -- Amazon Claims The NLRB Is... Unconstitutional.

Unsurprisingly, Amazon has simply cribbed from a recent Elon Musk / SpaceX filing, to claim -- in its JFK8 amended answer before the NLRB -- that a federal agency, created by Congress to deal with rampant labor abuses nearly 90 years ago, and never once found to be an unconstitutional use of executive or legislative authority, in hundreds of thousands of cases. . . is unconstitutionally unfair to the behemoth's rights to force individuals of extremely limited means to either bring suit all alone, or be relegated to one-sided arbitration clauses. [In short, Amazon would read the First Amendment's "right to freely associate" out of the First Amendment. Who are these lawyers? That last link is background, from last year.]

This "I am the victim, here" claim by Amazon. . . is, of course. . . poppycock.

I debated about not quoting the specious nonsense from Amazon's lawyers, but decided the world ought to see how the billionaire Bezos abuses families making less than $40,000 a year in his warehouses and trucks. He claims (as a multi-billion corporation) that his rights are more important than those of actual "We the people" human citizens, thus:

. . .Some or all of the relief requested in the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, including but not limited to paragraphs 51(c), 51(d), 51(e), and 51(f), would violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. . . . [Ed. note: But the people's free association rights here are at least equal to Amazon's.]

The Second Amended Consolidated Complaint should be dismissed because the General Counsel’s interpretation of the Act and requests to the National Labor Relations Board in this case implicate the Major Questions Doctrine and associated principles of non-delegation and therefore violate Article I of the United States Constitution. [Ed. note: But the Congress had long ago (in the 1930s) decided this supposed "major question", by passing the National Labor Relations Act. Sheesh.]

The structure of the NLRB violates the separation of powers because its Administrative Law Judges are insulated from presidential oversight by at least two layers of “for case” removal protection, thus impeding the executive power provided for in Article II of the United States Constitution. [Ed. note: But all federal judges are never removable -- at least as bad as Amazon's purported whining.]

The structure of the NLRB violates the separation of powers because its Board Members, who are principal officers of the United States, are insulated from removal by the President except for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance of office, thus impeding the executive power provided for in Article II of the United States Constitution [Ed. note: See immediately prior bracketed material]. . . .

The guy's hubris knows no bounds. [Yeesh. When is $250 billion (in net worth) ever going to be enough, for him? Do lay a new tax on his billionaires' club tonight, Mr. Biden.]

We can only hope that, in time, justice will be visited on him (and Elon and Trader Joe's), in favor of all the members of the ALU and all other union brothers and sisters, nationwide.

Onward.

नमस्ते