With all due respect Judge Kocoras, this is a problem of common sense. The Court, as a matter of its own decisions, does not have the power to determine the best course of action.
The Judge in the case stated that because of the case in California, it was “difficult” having to make a decision for the state’s interests. The issue is one we can easily dispute but is a bit strange for a court to be telling us we cannot resolve a disagreement within it. However, the Ninth Circuit in a ruling in the State of Arizona, found the ruling made in that case to be “extraneous” and “irrelevant.”
I’ve been writing in favor of the right of consumers to form associations with other consumers. In some cases, I’ve been critical of the fact that many of these associations were created outside a legal process of collective bargaining. After all, is not the concept of “collective bargaining” predicated on the presumption that collective bargains should occur between members of the association? I find that distinction ridiculous on the grounds that no such collective bargains could exist as there are no members. I’d also like to point out that any business that has a “membership agreement” will create a business association with any number of members. We also need to consider the fact that in a situation where an association is created that is not based on a commercial agreement, and there is a business relationship that develops which is not based on an association, then the business should be considered to be an “organization” rather than a “business.”
It’s worth noting that a similar point has been raised in regards to the “unionization” of employees in places like Costco. These are separate, non-commercial associations where members have the right to organize a union, they only meet to discuss issues and concerns that are related to working conditions. When the Costco employees union is formed, a large portion of the expenses associated with it comes from the union budget, with a union organizer and any “unions” being considered “unconscionable business practices” for Costco and “unlawful union activities.” This is not the case, of course, with a business having an association.
In the case in California, if the decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of California, had also been handed down in favor of the State of Arizona, the result of the majority of Arizonans would have been that a large portion of their taxes would have gone to the federal government. It would have come at a great cost to them. And it would be bad policy to allow tax payments into the federal treasury.
One of the many criticisms that have been made of the government by people who are not consumers is that they don’t do a good job delivering on their promises. But, as consumers we should not have to worry about a system that is intended to serve us, but we do have to worry about one that is not working.