We'll hear argument now number 05095 Hoffman Plastic Compounds Inc. versus the National Labor Relations Board.

Hey everyone, this is Leon from Viasco and Prologg Projects.

On today's episode of 5-4, Peter, Riannan and Michael are talking about Hoffman Plastics V NLRB,

but 2002 case in which a worker was fired from his job at a manufacturing plant after campaigning for a union.

When the case came before the NLRB, they determined that Hoffman Plastics had violated labor law by firing the worker.

But during the hearing, it was revealed that he did not have authorization to work in the United States,

which Hoffman Plastics then used to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

Liberal Justices argued that if the court ruled in favor of Hoffman Plastics, other employers could take advantage of it to abuse undocumented workers.

In the end, the court did rule in Hoffman's favor, holding that undocumented workers cannot recover lost wages under the law.

This is 5-4, a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks.

Welcome to 5-4, where we dissect and analyze the Supreme Court cases that have rendered our liberties completely immobile, like a cargo ship turned sideways in the Suez Canal.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

I am Peter. I'm here with Michael. Hey, everybody. And Riannan. What's up, everybody? Hello.

Today's case is Hoffman Plastics V National Labor Relations Board. This case is about one of the many ways in which our laws fail to protect undocumented people in this country from being systematically and systemically abused by this country's oligarchic institutions.

In this case, a company was unknowingly employing an undocumented worker, Jose Castro.

Company fired him for participating in union activities. And it's illegal to do that, by the way. You can't fire people for participating in union activities.

So Castro sues under the National Labor Relations Act, and he wins and is awarded back pay, which is the legal term for wages he would have earned if he hadn't been fired.

But the court in a 5-4 decision written by Mr. Chief Justice William Rennquist says that he can't be paid his lost wages because he was not legally working in the first place.

In this case is important because it is the intersection of anti-immigrant and anti-labour sentiment to cornerstones of the conservative agenda.

We get to see them just crash together, like two enormous waves in the middle of an ocean, you know? And it's depressing. It's dark.

I just wanted to give you guys a heads up on how my brain is operating today. I know this guy's name is Jose Castro because I've read the case and done preparation for this episode.

But when Peter said an undocumented worker and said his name, when I heard his who's a Castro, and I was like, is that a weird way to refer to a Cubans?

...