[bdw5204]

Even putting aside Wickard where the Supreme Court dubiously decided that a farmer growing wheat on his own land for his own personal use was "interstate commerce", I'd say that companies that sell products outside of their home state or hire employees or contractors across state lines would be considered "interstate commerce" by any reasonable definition.

If a business only sells products within Pennsylvania and only hires residents of Pennsylvania then I'd say that they're not engaged in interstate commerce. That also means no mailing or shipping orders to customers outside of Pennsylvania. In such cases, I'd say that only Pennsylvania labor law should apply to the company not federal labor law. For approximately 99.9% of companies, this would make no difference whatsoever as businesses in a modern economy are virtually always engaged in interstate commerce. It also wouldn't matter that much because most states have state labor laws that are at least as worker friendly as federal law.

So, I'd agree that Wickard is too broad and should be overturned but I don't see any reason to overturn federal labor law. I think the Roberts Court will likely take a similar position if it ever takes up such cases. Chief Justice Roberts tends to be against extremely disruptive rulings and can usually persuade one of the other conservatives.

Also, getting rid of federal labor law would probably make the "union problem" worse not better for corporations. Many of the more radical union actions that were common in the early 20th century such as wildcat strikes and general strikes were outlawed by the Wagner Act. The labor movement is currently the most popular it has been in decades and a radically anti-union Supreme Court ruling would likely lead to a massive backlash.

[phpisthebest]

there problem here is that the intent from an originalist standpoint of the commerce clause was to prevent New York from regulated commerce coming from Delaware, or vice versa.

Was to regulate, as in to make regular...

It was not to expand to allow regulations to apply to any commerce that happened to cross state lines... like your example of shipping a package.

The movement of the package may then trigger federal regulations but those regulations should not move up stream to the Person that packed the box, as that activity was wholly intrastate. The employer and the employee was both in the same state, and the transaction for the labor was enclosed into a single state.

The transaction from the consumer to the company may be interstate and that may be regulated by the Commerce clause.