ContractsProf Blog

Editor: D. A. Jeremy Telman
Valparaiso Univ. Law School

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Monday, August 15, 2011

New Collective Bargaining Agreement Ends NFL Lock-Out

Football In March the National Football League Owners (NFL) elected to lockout the players organized through the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) as the parties could not agree on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). This lead to several star players, including Tom Brady and Payton Manning, brining an antitrust suit against the NFL. Four and a half months later, as reported here on National Football Post.com, the two sides have agreed to a new CBA that will last through the 2020 season and the 2021 draft.  ESPN reports that as a condition of the new CBA, all pending litigation needed to be settled.  In the end, as ESPN reports here, NFL players agreed to release their claims without any compensation.  

National Football Post.com provides a detailed summary of the 300-page plus CBA.  The new CBA introduces several changes from the prior agreement, focusing on the players’ health and safety, benefits for retired players, the draft and free agency, compensation for rookies entering the league, and the economics surrounding the salary cap. In order to promote player health and safety, the new CBA reduces the length of off-season programs and organized team activities. If limits on-field practice time and the amount of contact practices, and increases the number of days off for players. In addition, the CBA allows current players to remain in the player medical plan for life and offers enhanced financial protection for injured players. The NFL and NFLPA also agreed to a $50 million per year joint fund for medical research, healthcare programs and charities.

Increased benefits for retired players include the creation of a “Legacy Fund” devoted to increasing the pension for those players who retired before 1993. The two sides also agreed to improve post-career medical options, the disability plan, the 88 plan (which provides assistance to disabled players and those with certain diseases developed due to playing), career transition and degree completion programs, and player care plan.  

Under the new CBA players become unrestricted free agents (UFA) after four accrued seasons in the league. Players can become restricted free agents (RFA) after three accrued seasons in the league. Teams with RFAs have a right of first refusal on players who sign an offer sheet with another team allowing teams the opportunity to match the offer or receive draft pick compensation for the players.

Another new element to the CBA is the creation of a rookie pay scale. Under the new agreement, all drafted players will receive 4 year contracts and all undrafted players receive 3 year contracts. The teams have a maximum total compensation they can spend for each draft class and there are limited contract terms within the rookie contracts. The CBA also contains strong rules against rookies holding out and not signing with the teams, and teams also have the option to extended the rookie contract of a first round draft pick to a fifth year based on an agreed upon tender amount. The money saved by teams based on this structure is creating a new fund starting in 2012 to redistribute the money to current and retired players as well as into a veteran player performance pool.  

The two sides also agreed upon a new salary cap and revenue sharing agreement that will be in place over the length of the new CBA. Starting with the 2012 season the salary cap will now be based on a share of “all revenue,” and the players are to receive 55% of the national media revenue, 45 % of NFL ventures revenue, and 40% of local club revenue.  Player minimum salaries also saw a 10% increase for this year and will continue to increase throughout the length of the agreement.

Finally,  the agreement also stipulates that there is to be no judicial oversight of the CBA, and that if there are disputes the NFL and NFLPA will employ an independent third party arbitrator which they agree upon to settle the dispute. To insure labor peace, the new agreement contains a clause stating that the players will not strike nor will the owners lock out the players during the duration of the agreement.

Boogity, boogity, boogity, Amen.

[JT & Jared Vasiliauskas]

August 15, 2011 in In the News, Labor Contracts, Science | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, March 24, 2011

The NFL Lock-Out, Part I

NFL The NFL’s owners entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the players after the 2008 season.  The agreement expired on March 4th of this year.  As ESPN.com reports, after several delays and a 16-day federal mediation, the owners locked the players out.  A lock-out means that the players can have no contact with teams or their personnel, do not get paid, and also cannot negotiate new contracts with their respective teams or any other teams. This is the NFL's first work stoppage since 1987.  

The players union has now dissolved itself, enabling individual players to bring a class-action antitrust suit in federal court.  The matter is scheduled to be heard by a federal judge on April 6.  The Washington Post reports that the owners have asked the judge to allow the lockout to continue until the National Labor Relations Board has ruled on its claim that the union's decertification was an unfair labor practice.  

As the New York Times reports, the main issue dividing the parties is revenue sharing.  Under the old deal, the players received nearly 60% of the league revenue from 2006 to 2009 after the owners took $1 billion off the top.  The owners are currently proposing a 50/50 split after the owners take $2 billion off the top.  The owners need the added money to cover the cost of building new stadiums, and the players should still make at least as much in absolute terms because the new deal would prolong the season to 18 games, thus leading to more revenue -- largely from television deals.

Sporting News provides this run-down of the two sides' positions on the other issues, including the proposed rookie pay scale, benefits for retired players, and the level of the salary cap.  The two sides' positions started off $1 billion apart.  They negotiated down to around $185 million apart, but then talks broke down when the owners refused the players' request for financial information about the various NFL franchises.

The final major dispute between the two sides is level of the salary cap.  The players have said the owners’ current offer is based on unrealistically low revenue proposals.  According to ESPN.com the owners’ have offered an increase in the salary cap from $131 million to $141 million for next season in their most recent proposal.  The players reportedly seek a cap of $151 million.  

The New Yorker's James Surowiecki is most eloquent on the reasons why "in a contest between millionaire athletes and billionaire socialists it’s the guys on the field who deserve to win."

[Jared Vasiliauskas & JT]

March 24, 2011 in In the News, Labor Contracts, Sports | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, March 11, 2011

The New Hampshire Approach to Breach of Contract Suits by State Employees

New_Hampshire All eyes have been on Wisconsin lately, as Republican Governor Scott Walker has succeeded in pushing through legislation that repeals collective bargaining rights for state employees and requires state workers to make financial contributions for their health care and retirement benefits. New York Times coverage of that saga is available here and here.  Little noticed has been New Hampshire’s push for reforming state employee benefits, as reported by the Union Ledger. The proposed plan would raise the retirement age for police and firefighters, reduce the amount of each worker’s salary included in the formula for pensions, and require workers to contribute more of their salary toward their retirement benefits.

What makes New Hampshire’s plan interesting is an amendment that was added to the bill that would effectively penalize workers who sue the state for breach of contract in court and win. These workers would pay “an additional 3% of their salary in pension contributions starting 10 days after a court victory.” Practically speaking, this provision makes a breach of contract suit by the state workers a lose-lose proposition: either pay the increased contributions, or hire a lawyer, win your lawsuit, and pay increased contributions anyway. Diana Lacey, the president of the State Employees Association, argues that punishing workers who seek to protect their rights in court is a “chilling attack on democracy.”  As reported in the Nashua Telegraph, supporters of the legislation argue that reforming state-employee retirement benefits is “essential to the long-term viability of the system.”

How likely is it that the bill will pass? Talking Points Memo points out that the New Hampshire GOP has veto-proof majorities in the State House and Senate. While it is possible that there may be some Republican defections, the State House just passed Right-to-Work legislation, which demonstrates GOP solidarity on labor issues. If Republicans don’t break ranks on the bill, Democratic Governor John Lynch will have little to no power to stop the bill’s passage.

One wonders, however if the penalty provision could survive court scrutiny.  Is it an unconstitutional state impairment of the obligation of contracts?  Is it a possible due process violation because it chills access to the courts as a remedy for contractual wrongs?

[Jon Kohlscheen & JT]

March 11, 2011 in Government Contracting, In the News, Labor Contracts | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Circuit Split on Burdens in Contracts Clause Claims

1st_circuit_seal In United Automobile, Aerospace, Agricultural Implement Workers of America International Union v. Fortuño, Puerto Rico's labor unions sued its governor in order to challenge Act No. 7, enacted to address a budget crisis through, among other things, layoffs and salary freezes.  Plaintiffs challenged this act as an unreasonable and unnecessary -- and thus unconstitutional -- infringement of the unions' collective bargaining agreements.  See  U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1 ("No State shall. . . pass any . . .Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts").

In order to determine whether the Contracts Clause has been violated, courts employ a two-part test, first determining whether the challenged state action causes a substantial impairment of contractual obligations and, if so, determining whether the impairment is reasonable and necessary to serve some government purpose.  The court assumed an affirmative answer to the first issue but nonetheless upheld the District Court's dismissal of the claim on the ground that plaintiffs had not adequately pled that the Act was not reasonable or necessary.

The First Circuit's finding turned in large part on its determination that plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that the challenged legislation is not reasonable or necessary, despite clear law that courts need not defer to legislative findings on the subject when the government is the beneficiary of the challenged contract modification.  The issue appears to be one of first impression for the First Circuit, although the court acknowledged that both it and the Supreme Court had previously used language that might be construed as placing the burden on the state.  The Sixth and Ninth Circuits place the burden on the state; the Second Circuit places the burden on plaintiffs.

Having determined that plaintiffs have the burden, the court set out a multi-factor test for determining when state action that impairs contractual relations is reasonable and necessary.  The court's application of this multi-factor test is complicated, but the upshot of it seems to be a severely heightened pleading standard, suggesting that one would have to hire economic experts and crunch some numbers in order to meet the burden and survive a motion to dismiss.

NB: In describing Act No. 7, the opinion indulges in a classic misuse of the word "plethora," viz

Finally, Phase III temporarily suspended, for a period of two years, a plethora of statutory, contractual, and other provisions governing the conditions of employment for the remaining affected public employees.

Please don't make us tell you again.  "Plethora" means "an unhealthy excess."  It does not mean "a whole bunch."

[JT]

February 23, 2011 in Government Contracting, Labor Contracts, Recent Cases | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, February 7, 2011

TSA and Unions

Scanners
Last week, we brought you news of a stand-off between the Transportation Security Administration and Congress over whether or not airports should have complete freedom to choose to hire private screeners.  Over the weekend, courtesy of The New York Times, we learned of more breaking TSA news.  According to the Times, TSA director, John Pistole, has agreed to allow a union to bargain on behalf of the working conditions of TSA employees.  

But many traditional areas of collective bargaining will be off limits, and the TSA employees cannot strike.  Although TSA employees already have the right to join a union, those unions can only represent TSA employees on individual issues; they are not currently authorized to represent employees for the purposes of collective bargaining.  

Democrats applaud Mr. Pistole's decision; Republicans decry it, calling it a gift from the Obama Administration to organized labor.  The decision may in part be prompted by surveys suggesting low morale among TSA workers.  The hope is that collective bargaining can help with morale.  As we indicated last week, private screeners' compensation packages must be equivalent to those of federal employees.  Does this mean that, if TSA employees decide to join a union, that union will also effectively represent the interests of private screeners?

[JT]

February 7, 2011 in Government Contracting, In the News, Labor Contracts | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Labor Dispute at the New York City Ballet

Balletomanes throughout the Great Flyover let out a collective "Hot Diggety!" when we learned that the New York City Ballet was to create a touring company so that the unwashed masses can soon be awash in the creations of George Balanchine and Jerome Robbins.  Alas, there is trouble in paradise.  Who'da thunk there could be tension or conflict within a dance company?  Not Natalie Portman, that's for sure!

As Crain's New York reports here, the union that represents the dancers contends that the plan to create a touring company that does not include the entire company violates the dancers' contracts.  The plan requires the union's consent, the dancers claim, and the NYCB did not get it.  In fact, the union claims that it was not even consulted before the NYCB announced its plans to create a touring company.

If I could, I would now include a video of the NYCB performing, but they are very careful not to let any of their performances make it onto YouTube, so we'll have to make due with with this video of the San Francisco Ballet performing Balanchine's "Serenade"

I have to add that, although the San Francisco ballet is absolutely fabulous, this video does not come close to capturing the emotional punch that "Serenade" packs.  You have to see it live and hopefully, once this little squabble is put behind us, audiences throughout the country will be able to do so.

[JT]

January 12, 2011 in In the News, Labor Contracts | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, January 6, 2011

AALS Meeting Affected By Labor Dispute

AALS As many readers of this blog already know, many of us are currently in San Francisco attending the annual meeting of our bricks and mortar mother ship, the Association of American Law Schools.  That meeting has been the subject of some controversy this year, as its official home is San Francisco's Hilton Union Square Hotel, which has been the subject of a union-organized boycott for over a year now.  

Unfortunately, this is not the sort of situation that lends itself to neutrality.  The workers are encouraging consumers to boycott the affected hotels rather than striking.  Consumers thus choose whether to side with management or with the union by booking at the Hilton or booking elsewhere.  And the union faces a challenge because without a strike and picket lines, boycotted hotels look pretty much like other hotels.  You would not know when you walked by or entered the hotel that it is the subject of a labor dispute.  Information about the boycott can be found here.

The AALS is caught in the middle, as it made its contractual  commitment to the Hilton long before the boycott began and apparently could not back out without incurring very high costs.  The AALS's leadership set forth their reasoning for not cancelling or relocating here.  Subsequently, the vast majority of section organizers determined that their sessions will be held elsewhere, including two very exciting sessions organized by the Contracts section, as detailed in Keith's post below.  I believe that our other regular bloggers will be in attendance, and we would all welcome the opportunity to meet with our readers and discuss ways to improve the blog.

[JT]

 

January 6, 2011 in Conferences, Current Affairs, Labor Contracts | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

A Dickensian Contract

Dickens_by_Watkins_detail I was amused to come across this 19th-century account of how "refined" people concluded contracts in the 19th century.  It comes from Little Dorrit, by Charles Dickens (left).   The exchange is between William Dorrit, recently released from the debtors prison and now (suddenly and rather mysteriously) a wealthy man, and a Mrs. General, whom he is contemplating as an agent for the cultivation of his daughters' manners -- or mannerisms.

'Might I be excused,' said Mr Dorrit, 'if I inquired--ha--what remune--'

'Why, indeed,' returned Mrs General, stopping the word, 'it is a subject on which I prefer to avoid entering. I have never entered on it with my friends here; and I cannot overcome the delicacy, Mr Dorrit, with which I have always regarded it. I am not, as I hope you are aware, a governess--'

'O dear no!' said Mr Dorrit. 'Pray, madam, do not imagine for a moment that I think so.' He really blushed to be suspected of it.

Mrs General gravely inclined her head. 'I cannot, therefore, put a price upon services which it is a pleasure to me to render if I can render them spontaneously, but which I could not render in mere return for any consideration. Neither do I know how, or where, to find a case parallel to my own. It is peculiar.'

No doubt. But how then (Mr Dorrit not unnaturally hinted) could the subject be approached.

'I cannot object,' said Mrs General--'though even that is disagreeable to me--to Mr Dorrit's inquiring, in confidence of my friends here, what amount they have been accustomed, at quarterly intervals, to pay to my credit at my bankers'.'

Mr Dorrit bowed his acknowledgements.

'Permit me to add,' said Mrs General, 'that beyond this, I can never resume the topic. Also that I can accept no second or inferior position. If the honour were proposed to me of becoming known to Mr Dorrit's family--I think two daughters were mentioned?--'

'Two daughters.'

'I could only accept it on terms of perfect equality, as a companion, protector, Mentor, and friend.'Littledorrit_serial_cover

Mr Dorrit, in spite of his sense of his importance, felt as if it would be quite a kindness in her to accept it on any conditions.  He almost said as much.

'I think,' repeated Mrs General, 'two daughters were mentioned?'

'Two daughters,' said Mr Dorrit again.

'It would therefore,' said Mrs General, 'be necessary to add a third more to the payment (whatever its amount may prove to be), which my friends here have been accustomed to make to my bankers'.'

Mr Dorrit lost no time in referring the delicate question to the county-widower, and finding that he had been accustomed to pay three hundred pounds a-year to the credit of Mrs General, arrived, without any severe strain on his arithmetic, at the conclusion that he himself must pay four. Mrs General being an article of that lustrous surface which suggests that it is worth any money, he made a formal proposal to be allowed to have the honour and pleasure ofregarding her as a member of his family. Mrs General conceded that high privilege, and here she was.

[Jeremy Telman]

November 17, 2009 in Labor Contracts, Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Executive Compensation Mystery at Sotheby's

GertrudeStein The New York Times reports that the Sotheby's auction house has refused to provide government regulators with information on bonuses paid to Sotheby's executives.  Sotheby's justifies this refusal by pointing out that if that information were to become public, its arch-rival Christie's, could use it to lure executives away from Sotheby's by offering still more lucrative compensation.  In correspondence with the SEC, posted here, Sotheby's pointed out that its "chief competitor" -- i.e., Christie's -- is a private corporation not subject to disclosure rules.  

This news fascinates me for three reasons:

1. Sotheby's and Christie's are undoubtedly at the top of the heap in the art dealing industry.  Based on my circle of acquaintances, which includes many unemployed or underemployed artists, art curators and art experts, it seems likely to me that Sotheby's and Christie's benefit from being in a buyer's market when it comes to hiring executives.  If both companies under-compensated their executives, where would those executives go?  And if they left, so what?  Couldn't Sotheby's and Christie's easily find highly competent replacements who would work on paint fumes just for the honor of getting those great auction houses on their resumes?

2. But even if I'm wrong about that, if Christie's were really interested in luring executives away from Sotheby's, couldn't they just ask the executives about what sort of compensation package it would take to motivate them to move?  Is there a number one rule of Sotheby's Club that you don't talk about Sotheby's Club?

3. In any case, didn't Sotheby's waive its right to whine about the hassles of disclosure when it went public?

[Jeremy Telman]

October 20, 2009 in Commentary, In the News, Labor Contracts | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, April 6, 2009

Another Take on Bonuses

This was sent to me by Valpo Law alumnus, Jeffrey Gordon, whose blog can be found here.

Non Sequitur

Lots of ink is now being spilled over the sanctity of contracts, which seems to cover executive compensation but not the compensation of ordinary employees.  There is a piece on Salon.com by Glenn Greenwald.  There is another by Dean Baker over at the Los Angeles Times.  And more from Joel Wendland at Political Affairs.net.

[Jeremy Telman]

April 6, 2009 in In the News, Labor Contracts | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Not everyone likes "Pay for Performance"

Bbb While the House of Representatives debates whether financial institutions that received TARP money ought to be compelled to adopt "pay for performance" criteria for compensation, the American Federation of Government Employees is urging Congress to jettison the concept when it comes to federal workers.  The 600,000-member AFGE says the Department of Defense's pay-for-performance initiative is "misguided" and "wrought with unfairness."

[Frank Snyder]

April 1, 2009 in Current Affairs, In the News, Labor Contracts | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Contracts Can Be Rewritten, Says NY Times

Dskeel Today's New York Times has a headline that would not have been news to Karl Llewellyn, "Contracts Now Seen as Being Rewritable."  But this is probably news and definitely fit to print because it provides space on page 1 of Business Day (above the fold!) for contracts prof David A. Skeel (left) to point out that it is now employment contracts that are viewed as "eminently rewritable."  The article goes on to discuss additional wrinkles in the path of contracts law: in the current financial crisis, the federal government is re-writing contracts, and municipal governments filing bankruptcy under Chapter 9 are being excused from performing their union contracts.  

Law students and recent graduates are also learning that employment contracts can be re-written.  I have now heard from many quarters of recent graduates who are being told by BigLaw that they will have to start late and take a salary cut.  And those recent graduates are the lucky ones.  Other offers of employment are being rescinded entirely.


[Jeremy Telman]

March 31, 2009 in In the News, Labor Contracts | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Non-Competes in Russia

125pxflag_of_russiajpgHave you ever wondered whether non-compete clauses are enforceable in Russia? Yury Ivanov writes in the Moscow Times:

The main problem with a non-compete clause in Russia is that it may, in certain circumstances and in certain wordings, contradict with Article 37 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It proclaims: "Labor is free. Everyone shall have the right to free use of his labor capabilities and choice of type of activity and profession." This rule of law just generally provides freedom of labor, but the Constitution to a certain extent allows restriction of this principal rule. For example, Article 55 stipulates that "human and civil rights and freedoms may be limited by federal law only to the extent necessary for protecting the rights and lawful interests of other persons."

Russian law thus provides for many restrictions on infringement of confidentiality -- the Labor Code, Civil Code, and other federal laws concerning information protection and secrecy. These rules make employees liable only for divulging only confidential information. Unfortunately, in practice, confidential information is usually defined separately from a particular person, in our case the employee. Yet during the period of employment, the employee may obtain not only information separated from him but many other skills and knowledge, as described above. Moreover, the employee may not only divulge the information, but also use it in his own business or work for another employer. Furthermore, the non-compete clause is an independent covenant in any particular labor relationship and cannot be simply reduced to a confidentiality covenant.

More here.

[Meredith R. Miller]

October 16, 2008 in Labor Contracts | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Innovative Teachers' Contracts in Danger in Denver

The Wall Street Journal reports that school teachers in Denver do not like the pay for performance concept. They are staging sick-out and there is talk of a strike. According to the Journal, the Denver School District district is willing to offer bonuses of up to $3000 as a incentive pay to teachers willing to work in impoverished schools or to teach unpopular subjects. An interesting aspect of the program is that the bonuses are not merely one-time rewards; they are added to base salary and thus are cumulative.

The Union would like to see pay increases of course, but would like to see them more evenly distributed. Also, the current policy favors the young, ambitious and mobile over more veteran teachers. This may become a big issue around the time of the Democratic National Convention, because Barack Obama has often cited the Denver pay-for-performance plan as a model.

[Jeremy Telman]

August 19, 2008 in In the News, Labor Contracts | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Writers Walk at Fox

FoxBack when The Simpsons was fresh and funny, they had an episode in which Bart and Lisa write an episode of Itchy and Scratchy for the Krusty the Clown show.  Realizing that nobody at the networks will take them seriously as a couple of kids, they decide to use Grandpa Simpson's name.  Unfortunately they don't know his name.  They ask him, and he can't remember, but whenever he can't remember his name, he just checks his underwear.  Then comes the following priceless dialogue:

Grandpa; Call me (pulling his underwear out of his pants). . . Abraham Simpson.
Lisa: Grandpa, how did you take off your underwear without taking off your pants?
Grandpa: I don't know.

I love that exchange, but it's not really relevant.  What is relevant is that when Lisa proposes that she and Bart write a script for a cartoon, he responds, "Cartoons have writers?!?"  "Sort of," she replies.  Now you might remember that joke (or a variation of it) from any number of subsequent Simpsons episodes, but that's just because they've been recycling old material for at least ten years.  Believe me, it was genuinely funny in 1993.  Today, not so much.

But oddly enough, it turns out that cartoons really do have writers and now some of those writers are on strike.  The New York Times reports that writers for a new Fox animated series about a high school, Sit Down, Shut Up walked off the job last Wednesday.  They had been working without a contract, and Sony Pictures Television, which is producing the series, just notified them that the show is not covered under the agreement recently negotiated by the Writers Guild of America. 

Now just what has become of writers?  If they're so talented, why don't they just write themselves a contract.  These guys don't even seem to have the creativity of the fictional cartoon writer characters on The Simpsons.  Those guys would have dropped an anvil on the heads of the Sony Pictures executives.  Or perhaps they would draw what looks like a tunnel on a brick wall so that the Sony executives would repeatedly walk into it.  And then when the Sony boys finally realize that it's still a brick wall, a train would come through the tunnel and run them down.  Now that's good writing!!

[Jeremy Telman]

June 18, 2008 in In the News, Labor Contracts | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Bear Market for Job Seekers

The New York Times reports that JP Morgan has notified new Bear Stearns hires that they will not be needed.  But the unemployed recruits can still keep what the Times calls a consolation prize -- they can keep their signing bonuses if they sign contracts in which they agree not to sue JP Morgan over their lost jobs.  The bonuses range from $10,000 for college seniors to $50,000 for newly-minted MBAs.  According to the Times, the students were paid these signing bonuses last fall, and JP Morgan is threatening to demand their return if the students refuse to sign the new contracts. 

[Jeremy Telman]

April 20, 2008 in In the News, Labor Contracts | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, March 20, 2008

What We Talk About When We Talk About Supporting the Troops

Recruitment MTV films is releasing Stop-Loss at the end of the month.  Here's a synopsis from the website:

Decorated Iraq war hero Sgt. Brandon King makes a celebrated return to his small Texas hometown following his tour of duty. He tries to resume the life he left behind. Then, against Brandon’s will, the Army orders him back to duty in Iraq, which upends his world. The conflict tests everything he believes in: the bond of family, the loyalty of friendship, the limits of love and the value of honor.

But for those of you who like your media old school, The Nation has published Michael Zweig's "The War and the Working Class"  The essay explores a number of contract issues in connection with the U.S. military's recruitment practices.  These issues include "stop-loss," which Zweig describes as the military reserving "the right to extend the deployment time and active-duty status of every soldier beyond the service dates prescribed in their enlistment contracts and mobilization papers."  According to Zweig, most soldiers were unaware of the stop-loss provision but by 2006, it had been enforced against 50,000 soldiers.  Zweig also reports that court challenges to the enforcement of the stop-loss provision were unsuccessful. 

Zweig also identifies another questionable practice.  The military entices recruits with promises of benefits, such as educational training and signing bonuses but reserves the right not to pay such bonuses if the soldier leaves the military before her or his commitment is over, even if the reason for the soldier leaving the military is severe combat injuries.  This seems like the sort of loophole that a legislature concerned about supporting the troops could easily close, but Congress has not done so yet.

[Jeremy Telman]

March 20, 2008 in In the News, Labor Contracts, Recent Cases | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Writers Ratify Strike Settlement

Writers_strike_2 The Associated Press reports that 93.6% of the members of the Writers Guild of America voted to ratify a three-year contract with Hollywood movie and television companies, thus ending the tragic writers' strike.  Only 4.060 of the 10,500 Guild members affected by the strike actually voted on the contract ratification, but as Jon Vitti, author of the incomparable "Lisa's Substitute" episode for The Simpsons, knows, voting's for geeks.*

Prediction: stylish writers will be sporting strike beards again in Hollywood and New York City in 2011.

[Jeremy Telman]

*In the episode in question, Bart challenges Martin for the office of class president.  Martin offers a school library featuring the ABC of science fiction; Bart promises more asbestos in the classroom.  Martin argues that a vote for Bart is a vote for anarchy; Bart counters that a vote for Bart is a vote for anarchy.  As the election approaches just before recess, Mrs. K. offers Martin the opportunity for one final campaign speech.  Martin, sweating, shaking and looking pale, can't think of anything more to say.  Bart announces a victory party under the slide.  As Bart is passing out celebratory cupcakes during recess, he asks Nelson if he voted.  "Nahh, voting's for geeks," says Nelson.  "You got that right," says Bart.  Martin wins the election by a vote of 2-0.

February 27, 2008 in In the News, Labor Contracts | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Five Illustrated Tips for Negotiating Non-Competes

Forbes.com has an article advising employees (and presumably independent contractors) in their negotiation of non-compete clauses.  I much prefer the "in pictures" version of the advice.  The 5 tips mirror my classroom teaching on the subject: (1) consult with an attorney, (2) limit the geography, (3) limit the span, (4) explore other restrictions and (5) get paid -- for the time you're locked up by the non-compete.  Funny thing, though, is much of this advice could really be characterized as for employers -- keeping geography and span reasonable only serve to make the covenant enforceable.  If the duration and geographic limits are unreasonable, the covenant won't hold up in court and the onus is on the employer to enforce it -- if the employee is a "lower level lieutenant" or "line worker" (the article's language), is the employer really going to invest the money it would take to enforce the non-compete?  (Perhaps, if only to make an example of the employee).  But, other than highly compensated employees, my impression is that the purpose of a non-compete is less about its actual enforcement and more about its in terrorem effect.

[Meredith R. Miller]

February 20, 2008 in Labor Contracts | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Love Contracts, Revisited

Hearts

Last year, on Valentine's Day, this Blog appropriately recognized the existence of "Love Contracts."  Unfortunately, due to the author's preference to wait until commercial television shows appear on DVD so that he can watch them without commercial interruption, he was unaware that the topic had already been treated in the American sitcom, "The Office."  This blog has little to add to the insights one can derive from that show pertaining to love and contracts.

600pxjan Michael_scott In the relevant episode, Michael Scott (Steve Carrell) and his supervisor, Jan Levinson (Melora Hardin), decide to go public with their sexual relationship.  In order to protect herself and the Dunder Mifflin paper company, Jan presents Michael with a document pursuant to which he agrees not to sue the company for sexual harassment in the event of an adverse employment decision.  Michael refers to the document as a "love contract."  Jan objects, but I think Michael's got it right for once.

And isn't it lovely that the writers' strike has ended so that we can see what will come next for the happy couple?  Now that's what a call a thoughtful Valentine's Day present.

[Jeremy Telman]

February 14, 2008 in Labor Contracts | Permalink | TrackBack (0)