Before we get into whether or not these systems and ideologies are good/bad, the point was whether or not they are unconstitutional at a Federal level. I don't know whether they are, I haven't studied much of the constitution in any great detail - but if they are, something needs to change (either removal/reform of the systems to make them comply with the constitution, or reforming the constitution so that it complies with the existence of the system). The precedent set forward by Government's ignoring the constitution and getting away with it for decades on end is a worrying one, and, frankly, removes the legitimacy of the constitution as a means for governing the country.
-----
Now, let's get onto the area of discussion that is (wrongly) causing the most controversy:
Working time, sick pay, vacation, and wage control legislation are all ridiculously focused on the extreme short-term, and it's obvious why: the short-term is the only term politicians can focus on, when they face the public vote every few years. Of course, it really leads you to question the motives of the politicians when they seem to favour saving their, and their party's, hides over the long-term benefit of the people that they're supposed to be working for.
Fortunately, in the UK, we have now got a Government in who's priorities are slightly more in-line than they would usually be, and are now focussing on reforming many key sectors, and tackling the deficit now - before the markets have forced them (which is something that cannot be said for most of the rest of the world). Of course, they still promised to "preserve" the NHS... which is quite possibly the largest time-bomb in the country, I just hope that they win the confidence in the people enough in this term to allow them to reform the NHS in the next.
Back on-topic, though, the main issues of worker's rights policies is that they stifle economic growth. Basically, anything done to inflate the employment market now, will cause the market to rectify itself in the long run. By saying that these two guys can get paid a minimum of £x per hour, which will most probably be above what the market deems their contribution to be worth, we increase the costs to the firm, which will have a distortion effect which ripples throughout the entire economy, reduces profitability, and, therefore, reduces further investment: by forcing a firm to pay these two guys £x this year, we could preventing a third guy from getting a job at all next year.
Essentially, by inflating things artificially today, we cause tomorrow to be slightly worse. The questions remain: would society be better or worse off today if it wasn't for systems such as Social Security, minimum wage legislation, and all sorts of other employment legislation. Well, that all depends. Employment in the southern states wouldn't be as attacked from illegal migration today as it is now, and the USA wouldn't be losing as many jobs to Asia as it currently is. On the whole, the USA is still probably better off today than it would have been without the systems, but we are the tipping point. As Asian development picks up, jobs will be lost at ever-greater paces, and the deficit holes left by SS/Medica(ir/id) will cripple the country over the coming decades.
Just look at places like Detroit, Michigan - one of the most "progressive" parts of the USA. Went from being a flag-runner of USA capitalism, to becoming one of the worst places in the USA to live, in a really short space of time. It had some of the most favourable employment rights in the country, and now its key sector (automobiles, for those who really didn't know), is now being shredded to pieces by foreign firms.
