My colleague Glenn Gogoleski has an unapologetic history a defending corporate interests. Luckily for corporate America they have plenty of money to defend themselves. Mr. Gogoleski's recent surge in posting targets the injustice of the justice system from a corporate standpoint. This includes a case brought by the NLRB against Boeing, a case about work place chairs, and a case against Wal-Mart.
In the case of the NLRB versus Boeing Mr. Gogoleski states that this a "legal overstep by the NLRB". In the case of the chairs for workers in California Mr. Gogoleski goes to the standard scare tactic of "(Californians) will now be paying substantially more for retail goods". In the case of the class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Mr. Gogoleski goes all in with conservative rhetoric calling it "another frivolous, job killing class action lawsuit".
According to a US courts government web site the purpose of the American court system is to apply and interpret laws. Contrary to what Glenn would have you believe these are all valid questions regarding the interpretation of laws. Is it illegal to threaten unions? Yes. Did Boeing threaten their union? Maybe. Maybe not. Is there a law on the books regarding chairs for employees in California? Yes. Are corporations following the law? Maybe. Maybe not. Is it against the law to treat women different in the workplace? Yes. Did Wal-Mart, as a corporation, have a policy of treating women unfairly? No, according to the Supreme Court. Did certain Wal-Mart stores have unfair labor practices regarding women? Maybe. Maybe not. Future litigation will probably answer that question.
Luckily here in the greatest country on earth we have a justice system to help settle disputes instead of having to rely on Mr. Gogoleski's opinion of what does and what does not qualify as a valid court case. Does Glenn believe all of these cases represent "overreaching government" or are "frivolous"? His posts and subsequent comments would suggest he does. Does that make it true? Maybe. Maybe not. I would guess that Glenn is not particularly concerned about government overreach in the case of taxing pensions or emergency financial managers. Those disputes will also be decided by a court. How convenient to claim government overreach when it suits you and act like you know better than the judges and juries that heard the arguments and interpreted the laws.
Glenn also loves to point out how much it costs the companies involved in lawsuits as though that should prohibit legal action against a company. If a company breaks the law should it be precluded from lawsuits simply because that might increase the cost of products to customers? Trial lawyers are a free market entity not a government operation. Suing a company like Wal-Mart is not free. If you are going to take on a company of this size you better have a hefty sum of money handy and be fairly certain you can win. Lawyers are businessman. The average Lawyer Salary in 2006 was just over $100,000 (corporate lawyers have the highest average salaries btw). They don't make that kind of money by taking on every case that walks through their door.
Does that mean that every case is valid? No. But in the free market there is a cost in failing to make your case. I hope Glenn as a "Libertarian-leaning, capitalist-loving conservative" isn't suggesting that the government add in more laws and regulations to stop frivolous lawsuits.
Glenn is very excited about his new line of posts and considers these a "first in a series" but they will all tell the same story of how Glenn doesn't like lawsuits against companies. They will have little to nothing to do with the actual validity of the cases. They will instead focus on the unsupported opinions of Glenn and how much Americans and corporations suffer from being held accountable.
No comments:
Post a Comment