July 10, 2025
The constitution, properly interpreted, protects the workers. But the Trump administration is not going to take these protection measures if the work work is not struggling.
Over the past half a century, the Supreme Court has constantly perverted the constitution into a document that is invalid to the workers. In 2020. Conservative most on The court used the fifth amendment To get rid of the California law, which made it possible to talk to the organizers of the trade unions with the farm workers. Two years before that The court used the first amendment To the COPBL of the State Sector Trade Unions, striker at the source of financing. And just two months ago the court ruled that caused considerable concern it can use article II Constitution To stop the independent functioning of the National Council on Labor Relations.
These perverted interpretations of our founder, with amendments – together with other important factors – have succeeded in the disappointment of most Americans who want to join the union. Fifty -nine percent of the workersAs reported in 2022, I would like to increase the union in their workplace and further support trade unions as a common cause. But partly thanks to the constitutional obstacles that are on their way of the conservative court and the frame of well -funded anti -union lawyers, only approximately 11 percent Workers were able to win the union representation.
As a result, the US has incredible low Trade union workers’ density compared to peers. As Paul Krugman notes, it leads to “Ordinary workers lag behind the economic growth“The low density of trade unions depresses compensation. By 13.5 percent more In wages, which trade union workers earn average compared to peers in non -ninnted workplace in the same sector with a similar education, occupation and experience. In the public sector, the reduction of the association leads to a decrease in wages and safety of jobs, which impedes public workers to ensure all of us the public service we hoped for.
The interpretation of the Constitution that undermines the ability of workers to organize and act collectively, as it aggravates their ability to equally participate in social, economic and political life. But besides, it is wrong As a law. It becomes a constitution completely backward.
As ERA, which define the exhibitors of the constitutional meaning, such as Abraham Lincoln, Republican, and Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat, who understood our fundamental document supports the rights of workers. Lincoln once described it FREE Constitutional Vision of Labor– What he offered as an alternative to the southern slave – as “a work system where the worker can strike if he wants!” He added, “I would like God to prevail all over the world.”
Current Issue
Roosevelt was even more obvious. On Constitution Day in 1937, he claimed that if “constitutional democracy” survives and continues to defend the freedom of the American people, it “must correspond to the perseverance of the large mass of our people, which will increase economic and social security and the level of American life.” In other words, as he stated in the next speech, “true freedom of man cannot exist without economic security and independence.”
While elected officials, such as Lincoln and Roosevelt, have announced these grand principles, it fell on scientists and judges – having started a replica from public movements – to help report the correct legal interpretation of specific constitutional provisions and amendments. In A lost promise of civil rightsRiza Golubof claims that in the 1930s and the 40s, legal practices were increasingly acknowledged that the guarantee of the Freedom Constitution had economic and political meaning. For example, Edward Corwin, who leads the constitutional scientist of the era, wrote that the interpretation of the Supreme Court “Liberty” included “special concern of the rights of labor”, namely the rights to organization, agreement and strike.
This recognition included different provisions of the Constitution. In Hague vs CIOFor example, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the privileges and immunity of the 14th amendments defend the right of trade unions to the organization. Similarly, in Thornhill v. AlabamaThe court found that the first amendment defended the right to picket. In another row of cases including Bailey against Alabama and Pollock v. Williams, The court applied the 13th amendment to the prohibited working conditions similar to the slave. And, in Nlrb v. Jones & LaughlinThe court found that the constitution defended the ability of the workers to engage in “self -organization and choose representatives of their own choice in collective negotiations or other mutual protection without restriction and coercion by its employer.” This is, in court, “is a major right.”
In all these cases, the court acknowledged that there are more on the card than the conditions of any specific employment contract. Rather, the judges understood the rights of labor that would be closely linked to the implementation of the constitutional democracy for all people. For example in ThornhillThe court found that picketing is not just an important means of resolving the work dispute, but “indispensable for effective and reasonable use of the popular government.”
It is common sense – but legally strict – understanding the protection of the Constitution of the rights has reached the most clear articulation in the era of the new transaction. Since then, conservative attorneys, judges and politicians have done their best to translate the constitution through false legal arguments and scholarships. In this, unfortunately, they succeeded: if after he defended the rights of the workers, they are now limited.
But just because a healthy understanding of the Constitution was transmitted does not mean that it is wrong. On the contrary, today it remains just as exactly as in the time of Roosevelt and Lincoln, that the ability of workers to organize and act collectively to improve their lives is important for constitutional democracy.
Popular
“Spend on the left below to view more authors”Spend →
However, it is not enough to be correct in what the constitution means. In order to win An argument, supporters of workers should make The argument. Professor Kate Andrios notes that the work is already starting “Submit the initial problem”To the Supreme Court’s Twisted, Anti-Worker View of the Constitution. But more is needed. We know from history that constitutional arguments like the ones Levels –ie, when movement leaders magnify these arguments in their public speaking, when elected offician raise these arguments in the halls of congress and in statety across the counthry, what Make The Case in their Writings, Pleadings, and Rabbits.
Perhaps the most important subjects in this process are the workers themselves. If they want to restore this vision of the Constitution, they must increase their voice and loudly claim their prerogatives to restore their legal rights. In the end, according to President Roosevelt, the Constitution is a “document of a non -professional, not a lawyer’s contract.”
We write this at the moment when the deep economic, social and political inequality has caused serious damage to American democracy. We need to intensify the constitutional power of work and rethink the construction of the best democracy for all.
More than Nation
If there is a silver lining, then the blue states and municipalities double the defense of the workers.
A recent rise in the organization should be noted, but workers cannot afford to rest.
But although both should be noted, there are still no labels of the hard organizational works necessary to conclude contracts that change life.
Of all the Biden administration members, NVRB general lawyer Jennifer Aburutsi may have caused the biggest changes for US workers.
