Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled (6-2) in NLRB v. SW General. The Court held that once President Obama nominated Lafe Solomon to be the NLRB's General Counsel, he could no longer serve in his current capacity as Acting General Counsel. This is because of a provision in the Federal Vacancies Act which says that someone can only serve in an acting capacity for a covered position if they served as first assistant to that position for at least 90 days in the previous year. Because Solomon was the Acting GC--not its first assistant--when nominated, he could not continue as Acting GC.
The two dissenters (Sotomayor & Ginsburg) would have held that this provision applies only to individuals who are first appointed as acting officials--not, as was the case with Solomon, those who were already acting once nominated. In addition to a textualist argument, they stressed historical examples similar to what happened with Solomon as well as the history of the Federal Vacancies Act, which was prompted by President Clinton's nomination of Bill Lan Lee to the DOJ's Department of Civil Rights. Scotusblog has a an informative description of the case.
Under the decision, once the President nominated Solomon, he became ineligible to serve as Acting GC. This begs the larger question: what to do about all of his actions during that time (Jan. 5, 2011-Nov. 4, 2013)? Unless I missed it in the decision, the Court doesn't say anything about the practical consequences of its decision. As a result, its probably best to consult the D.C. Circuit decision, which the Court affirmed. That case vacated an unfair labor practice charge. But what of all of the other functions of the GC's office? For instance the certification of elections? Theoretically, this could be an issue for a host of other actions. The D.C. Circuit noted that the NLRB could have, but didn't, argue that the ULP in SW General was made by a regional director acting upon a delegation of authority from Solomon. If challenged, I would expect the NLRB to raise that argument, at least with regard to non-ULP cases, and maybe those too. But the NLRB may not have to rely solely on this argument. At the end of the D.C. Circuit's decision, it emphasized what it saw as an important limiting feature of its decision:
Finally, we emphasize the narrowness of our decision. We hold that the former Acting General Counsel of the NLRB, Lafe Solomon, served in violation of the FVRA from January 5, 2011 to November 4, 2013. But this case is not Son of Noel Canning and we do not expect it to retroactively undermine a host of NLRB decisions. We address the FVRA objection in this case because the petitioner raised the issue in its exceptions to the ALJ decision as a defense to an ongoing enforcement proceeding. We doubt that an employer that failed to timely raise an FVRA objection—regardless whether enforcement proceedings are ongoing or concluded—will enjoy the same success. See 29 U.S.C. § 160(e); Andrade, 729 F.2d at 1499.
This caveat notwithstanding, I do expect parties to raise SW General to try to vacate orders. I think the D.C. Circuit is right that those arguments should not prevail, but I anticipate some extra work for the NLRB to litigate this issue for a while. Also, I'm curious how many parties raised an FVRA argument--any readers have any insight on this?
Saturday, March 18, 2017
James Brudney (Fordham) has just posted on SSRN his article The Internationalization of Sources of Labor Law, 39 U. Pa. J. Int'l L. 1 (2017). The abstract is below. I think James is dead-on correct. Having attended a slew of labor conferences in the developing world recently, in both academic and governmental circles, folks are acutely aware of how their own country's labor laws measure up (or not) to ILO standards, and progress is defined as the incremental process of achieving those standards. Here's the abstract:
This article examines in depth an important but underappreciated development in international labor law: how norms promulgated by the International Labor Organization (ILO) have affected the development and implementation of domestic labor laws and practices since the early 1990s. The newly globalized focus of labor law—energized by substantial expansions in international trade and investment—has been recognized by scholars, practitioners, and governments, but it has not previously been explored and analyzed in this systematic way.
The article focuses on two central regulatory areas—child labor and freedom of association—and relies on doctrinal and policy developments in these areas, as evidenced by the actions of legislatures, courts, and executive branches in more than 20 countries. In doing so, the article addresses how international labor standards have influenced national labor law and practice in the Americas (excluding the U.S.)—directly through the soft-law route of convention ratification and ILO supervisory monitoring, and indirectly through trade agreement labor provisions that incorporate ILO norms. The resultant changes in domestic laws and practices have been evolutionary rather than transformative, and developments in law outpace those in practice, but within these parameters the changes have been substantial. The article then places this internationalizing trend in the context of two recognized theories that seek to explain the socialization of human rights law.
Friday, March 17, 2017
Jeff Hirsch (North Carolina) and Joe Seiner (South Carolina) have just posted on SSRN their extraordinarily timely article A Modern Union for the Modern Economy, ___ Fordham Law Review ___(forthcoming 2018) Here's the abstract:
Membership in traditional unions has steeply declined over the past two decades. As the White House and Congress are now completely Republican controlled, there promises to be no reversal of this trend in the near future. In the face of this rejection of traditional bargaining efforts, several attempts have been made to create alternative “quasi-union” or “alt-labor” relationships between workers and employers. These arrangements represent a creative approach by workers to have their voices heard in a collective manner, though still falling far short of the traditional protections afforded by employment and labor law statutes.
This Article critiques one such high-profile, quasi-union effort in the technology sector—the Uber Guild. While the Guild does not provide any of the traditional bargaining protections found in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), it offers Uber drivers some input over the terms and conditions under which they work. Falling somewhere between employment-at-will and unionization protected under the NLRA, the Uber Guild is a creative attempt to help both workers and the company to better understand how they can improve the working relationship.
This Article navigates the Uber Guild and other nontraditional efforts that promise a collective voice for workers in the face of a precipitous decline in union membership. Closely examining the implications of these existing quasi-union relationships, this Article explores how workers in the technology sector face unique challenges under workplace laws. We argue that these workers are particularly well situated to benefit from a nontraditional union model and explain what that model should look like. While there can be no doubt that a traditional union protected by the NLRA is the optimal bargaining arrangement, we must consider the enormous challenges workers in the technology sector face in obtaining these protections. A modern union is needed for the modern economy.
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Last night Kathy Stone (UCLA) served on a panel (moderated by Steven Greenhouse) at the Zocalo Public Forum in downtown Los Angeles on the Topic: Does Globalization Only Serve the Elites? She took the position that globalization as currently structured primarily helps elites, and that here in the U.S., we need to introduce redistributional social policies to ensure that working people and other disadvantaged groups share in globalization’s benefits. The event was taped and will air on C-Span in the near future.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Charlotte Garden (Seattle U.) has just published in The Atlantic Unions Are Wondering: Resist or Assist? Congrats to Charlotte for taking this topic -- which we all know is important -- to a wider audience (or, as she said in a Facebook post: "in which I convinced The Atlantic to let me write about NLRA Section 8(b)(4) for them"). Here's an excerpt:
The first month of the Trump administration was mostly a discouraging one for labor unions. Since taking office, the president has frozen federal hiring (though he did pledge to hire 15,000 border patrol agents) and restated his support for a national “right to work” law that would disrupt unions’ funding mechanisms. He also sought the confirmation of Andy Puzder, a fast-food CEO who’s not fond of minimum-wage or overtime rules, to head the Department of Labor, only to see him withdraw amid public outcry.
Still, some within the labor movement have cheered Trump’s use of the presidential bully pulpit to harangue employers who send jobs overseas, and voiced optimism about Trump’s stated desire to “buy American and hire American.”
This has left many labor unions with a decision about how best to serve their members going forward: Should they try to get along with Trump, in the hope that they will be able to help guide his efforts to court working-class voters? Or should they take to the streets alongside progressives calling for workplace-based actions, like the recent nationwide strikes by women and by immigrants?
Friday, March 10, 2017
Last week's The Economist ran a couple of stories on how "gender budgeting" can help persuade governments to pay more than lip service to women's rights. Below is an excerpt from the summary Making Women Count; an extended-play version is Tax is a Feminist Issue: Why National Budgets Need to Take Gender into Account.
... [S]ome policymakers have embraced a technique called gender budgeting. It not only promises to do a lot of good for women, but carries a lesson for advocates of any cause: the way to a government’s heart is through its pocket.
At its simplest, gender budgeting sets out to quantify how policies affect women and men differently. That seemingly trivial step converts exhortation about treating women fairly into the coin of government: costs and benefits, and investments and returns. You don’t have to be a feminist to recognise, as Austria did, that the numbers show how lowering income tax on second earners will encourage women to join the labour force, boosting growth and tax revenues. Or that cuts to programmes designed to reduce domestic violence would be a false economy, because they would cost so much in medical treatment and lost workdays.
Partly because South Korea invested little in social care, women had to choose between having children, which lowers labour-force participation, or remaining childless, which reduces the country’s fertility rate. Gender budgeting showed how, with an ageing population, the country gained from spending on care. Rwanda found that investment in clean water not only curbed disease but also freed up girls, who used to fetch the stuff, to go to school. Ample research confirms that leaving half a country’s people behind is bad for growth. Violence against women; failing to educate girls properly; unequal pay and access to jobs: all take an economic toll.
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
Friends of blog Leora Eisenstadt and Deanna Geddes (both of Temple University) have posted on SSRN their fascinating piece, Suppressed Anger, Retaliation Doctrine, and Workplace Culture. The abstract is below:
"Suppressed Anger, Retaliation Doctrine, and Workplace Culture is an interdisciplinary piece combining legal analysis with organizational behavior/psychology research. Suppressed Anger examines and critiques two employment law doctrines on retaliation — the “reasonable belief” doctrine and, what we call, the “manner of the complaint” doctrine and argues that beyond hindering employees’ rights as has been examined in prior scholarship, the law in this area also does a significant disservice to employers by inhibiting emotion expression and thereby negatively affecting workplace culture and productivity. The “reasonable belief” doctrine essentially dictates that for retaliatory conduct to be unlawful, the complaining party must have an objectively reasonable belief that the practices he or she opposed were unlawful, basing the assessment of reasonableness on whether a court would find the practices to be unlawful discrimination. The “manner of the complaint” doctrine arises in cases in which an employer deems the manner of the employee’s complaint regarding discriminatory practices to be insubordinate and fires the employee on that basis. In these cases, courts rarely question an employer’s claim of insubordination, ignoring the circumstances that gave rise to the complaint and focusing solely on the employer’s subjective belief that the employee’s demeanor was unacceptable. The result of both of these doctrines, we argue, is a legal framework that incentivizes employees to stay quiet and refrain from making any complaints.
This piece breaks new ground by drawing on existing scholarship in the psychology and organizational behavior field detailing the negative outcomes when employees suppress anger and other emotions in the workplace, particularly in response to perceived injustice. We use this research to argue that retaliation doctrine inhibits the useful airing of problems that require management attention, instead fomenting worker dissatisfaction and even leading to psychological and physiological issues for individual employees that negatively impact the workplace as a whole. As a result, we maintain that changing retaliation doctrine should not be a goal of workers alone but that employers, upon examining the research on expressions of anger in the workplace should find common ground with their employees."
In this paper, Leora and Deanna explore this important workplace issue which is extremely timely. I definitely recommend taking a close look if you have the opportunity. The paper is available here.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
While a number of concerns have been raised about the on-demand economy, evidence of discrimination has been especially noted and publically condemned. Airbnb, for instance, came under fire when a Harvard Business School study showed that property owners were less likely to accept those with black-sounding names as renters and non-black hosts were able to charge approximately 12% more than black hosts. Similarly, in an October 2016 working paper conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research, researchers looking at taxi-services Uber and Lyft showed that the cancellation rate for those with black-sounding names was more than twice as high as for those with white-sounding names. At the same time, largely in other parts of the country, many condemn not discrimination but the antidiscrimination laws designed to curb it, especially laws aimed at shielding those within the LGBTQ community from discrimination. Debates about discriminatory immigration policies dominate national headlines. 70% of the country is aware of the Black Lives Matter movement. We are, in short, in the midst of an important conversation about discrimination, the likes of which we have not seen since the Civil Rights Movement. Legal theorists and philosophers have taken note, arguing for changes to our current antidiscrimination law regime. But while these theorists have disagreed about the proper scope of antidiscrimination law, they have widely agreed in one crucial respect: namely, that any expansion of antidiscrimination law beyond their preferred scope is problematic on autonomy grounds.
The centrality of “autonomy” in these debates should come as no surprise. Throughout our history of racial conflict, all sides have claimed the ideal of autonomy as an ally to their cause. This is possible because of the concept’s flexibility. “Autonomy” can support a range of positions, depending on the presuppositions it’s packaged with. But when scholars invoke “autonomy” in a way that simply deploys these underlying presuppositions, instead of making these presuppositions explicit, situating them against reasonable rivals, and defending them, they fail to have what scholars at this point in time most crucially need: perspective. These scholars seem to neither notice nor understand why those who take different positions on questions of autonomy, or on specific legal interventions, do so, because the real bases of disagreement – which resides within these presuppositions – remain hidden. As a result, their rejection of certain antidiscrimination law regimes and support of others do little to move the debate about the proper scope of antidiscrimination law forward. Antidiscrimination law scholars are trapped in an ongoing cycle of autonomy assertions and as a result, the important debate about the proper scope of antidiscrimination law remains stalled. We cannot afford this.
My aim in this Essay is one of illumination and aid. I attempt to show why the mere assertion that a certain antidiscrimination law “violates autonomy” hides from view the true basis of disagreement and, in so doing, both fails to engage the relevant arguments while also failing to provide readers any reason to adopt the author’s preferred antidiscrimination law regime. I will do this by illuminating the presuppositions underpinning the two main conceptions of autonomy that are invoked in the antidiscrimination law literature. I then situate these presuppositions alongside rival possibilities. My hope is that this project will aid the development of more fruitful antidiscrimination law scholarship moving forward.
Heather has said that she would love to hear any comments on the essay that readers may have, so check it out.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Kathy Stone (UCLA) has just published Unions in the Precarious Economy:
How collective bargaining can help gig and on-demand workers (American Prospect, 2/21/17). In it, she discusses various types of precarious workers, including workers in the retail, restaurant, and hospitality industries, as well as workers who perform "gigs" as independent contractors for internet platform companies. She gives examples to show how various types of precarious workers can benefit from forming unions and bargaining collectively. Here's an excerpt:
The various forms of on-demand work tend to defeat the protections of our system of labor regulation, which assumes that employees have regular payroll employment. Seemingly, unions are also not much help, since they, too, are based on the assumption of regular jobs. But if we dig a little deeper, there is a long history of unions protecting their members from employers’ efforts to force workers to bear all the risks and costs of fluctuating demand. This is true in industries as varied as construction, airlines, hotels, and entertainment.
If the Trump administration changes rules and laws to weaken traditional unions—which it is almost certain to do—these new strategies become that much more important. Some of these are unions that organize and collectively bargain under the terms of the National Labor Relations Board. But others, in the world of so-called alt-labor, use worker centers, associations, and other worker-empowerment strategies that are not technically unions. If the Trump administration changes rules and laws to weaken traditional unions—which it is almost certain to do—these new strategies become that much more important.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Many thanks to Matthew Dimick for contributing this guest post:
A few weeks ago, OnLabor.org featured a post I wrote about the Ghent system and progressive federalism. At the end of that post, I referred to “other avenues for Ghent-type experiments” beyond the main one discussed in the article, which would require changes in the current federal-state cooperative system of unemployment insurance. Mentioning these “other avenues” prompted several queries from readers, and I will use this opportunity here at the Workplace Prof Blog to talk about those.
First, some background. To remind readers, the Ghent system is a form of union-administered (but government paid-for) unemployment insurance that has a substantial, positive impact on the rate of union membership in the countries that have it. What makes the Ghent system a prospect for union revitalization in the US is the system of unemployment insurance we have here, which basically incentivizes states to adopt, finance, and administer their own unemployment-insurance systems subject to federal guidelines and oversight by the Secretary of Labor. It also helps that states are given more latitude under federal labor law preemption when it comes to the design and administration of unemployment insurance.
I originally wrote about the Ghent system for a law review article in 2012, after Democrats had lost control of Congress, which had effectively ended any prospect of passage for the Employee Free Choice Act. Yet as long as a Democrat remained in the White House, a reform like the Ghent system at the state level didn’t need approval from a Republican Congress. I doubt Obama’s tenure is the last we will see of divided government, so I still think it is worth thinking about a progressive-federalist reform like the Ghent system. Yet since a Trump administration probably forestalls that avenue for now, it is also worth dwelling on “other avenues,” as I suggested in my other post.
One alternative is take a purely private route to a Ghent system. Despite its weakness in terms of union density, the US labor movement still has vast resources and expertise gained through administering health and pension funds. Can these resources be leveraged to create a subsidized and supplemental system of unemployment insurance for workers? Without the government subsidy and because it wouldn’t be a worker’s exclusive source of unemployment insurance, this proposal certainly wouldn’t have the impact of a full-blooded Ghent system. Yet historically, unions have filled this function, and it played an important part in the origins of the Ghent system, which was created when a municipal government came to the rescue of a union unemployment insurance fund depleted by an economic downturn.
A private option need not supply unemployment insurance. The Freelancers Union has had notable success in providing health, dental, life, and disability insurance to workers who join the union. The main difference between the Freelancers Union and a traditional labor union is that the former does not collectively bargain. It is understandable why the Freelancers Union has made this choice. At the same time, a labor organization that combined both mutual aid and bargaining functions is a powerful ideal.
Moving even further from the insurance realm, union-administered and employer- or government-funded job training also seems like a possibility. Workforce development is a goal the business community can get behind. And unions already have a template in the highly successful Culinary Academy of Las Vegas, a consortium of local hotel casinos and unions that provides job training to union members. Working closely with the union’s hiring hall, the CHA does many things the Ghent system does in terms of cultivating union membership.
In short, there are indeed many other avenues available for experimenting with Ghent-type institutions that worker advocates should consider—even with a Trump in the White House.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
In September of last year, a Texas jury, on the basis of erroneous instructions from the judge, ordered an SEIU local union of janitorial workers to pay $5.3 million in damages to a cleaning company called Professional Janitorial Services (“PJS”). This union-destroying order was based on statements made years ago as part of the Houston Justice for Janitors campaign, a campaign that succeeded, against enormous odds, in winning contracts for building cleaners in a notably hostile jurisdiction.
The implications of the verdict are devastating. Local unions of low-wage employees cannot pay multi-million dollar jury verdicts and continue to function (as evidenced by the recent bankruptcy filing of the union defendant in the PJS case), If permitted to stand the Houston verdict will inevitably have a chilling effect on labor speech during organizing campaigns. And unions must be able to organize effectively’ during these trying times, if the labor movement is to survive.
Defamation verdicts in state courts like that against the Houston janitors call for a long-overdue reexamination of the Supreme Court’s unfortunate decision in Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 US 53 (1966). The Court in Linn upheld by a five to four vote the exercise of state jurisdiction in a libel suit arising from a union organizing drive. Justice Clark, who wrote the majority opinion, insisted that such jurisdiction would not pose a threat to a union’s right of speech so long as state jurisdiction was “limited to redressing libel issued with knowledge of its falsity, or with reckless disregard of whether it was true of false.” Although he recognized the importance of a broad right of speech generally in labor disputes, Justice Clark concluded that where malice was found ‘the exercise of state jurisdiction … would be a ‘merely peripheral concern of the Labor Management Relations Act.’”
Four justices dissented. They pointed out that the Courts standard was vague and could easily be interpreted to cover actions intended to be protected by the National Labor Relations Act by simply pleading that the offending statements were made with malice. And they predicted accurately that the majority opinion ‘both underestimates the damage libel suits may inflict on the equilibrium, and overestimates the effectiveness of the restraint which will result from superimposed requirements of malice and special damages.’
The recent PJS verdict illustrates the wisdom of the dissenting justices and the danger to unions implicit in state court defamation suits arising from union organizing efforts. The statements (circulated in fliers and other campaign materials were directed at the legal rights of workers . They described allegations of actual PJS employees in a then-pending Fair Labor Standards Act case and in unfair labor practice proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board. The ultimate goal of the union’s statements and actions was not to inflict economic harm on PJS but to establish a collective bargaining relationship with it – a goal promoted by Section 2 of the NLRA. Far from being evidence of malice were the very sort of speech protected by the US Constitution and Section 7 of the NLRA. The trial judge failed to analyze the contested speech in terms of the language or policy of either the NLRA or the US Constitution and instead encouraged the jury to find defamation on the basis of irrelevant material. For example:
- The trial court allowed the company’s lawyers (over union objection) to rest the bulk of their case on two completely irrelevant and prejudicial pieces of evidence that should never have been admitted—an outdated SEIU “campaign manual” that was not in effect during the Houston campaign and that no one involved in the Houston campaign had ever seen, and an unrelated lawsuit by a different employer in a different jurisdiction alleging different claims against SEIU arising out of a different campaign that had not even begun as of 2006.
- The trial court presented the jury not the actual union flyers and statements at issue in the case but, instead, abbreviated and inaccurate summaries of those materials written by the court itself. Thus, an accurate union statements that “A new lawsuit filed on behalf of current and former employees of [PJS] charges that the company engaged in unlawful business practices and violated federal law” was reformulated in the judge’s question to the jury “Did the SEIU Local 5 disparage the business of PJS by publishing that PJS systematically failed to pay its employees for all hours worked?”
Similar errors abound. It is difficult to imagine a verdict that more blatantly overrides basic employee rights and traditional Constitutional policies. The wisdom of the dissenting Linn Justices was once more illustrated. It is time to either overrule the Linn decision or to provide for more careful regulation of state court defamation in cases arising from union organizing campaigns.
Fortunately, the union has indicated it will appeal and raise many of the issues identified above. One hopes that an appellate court will stand up for free speech and the long recognized and well-established rights of workers.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
There have been numerous news stories over the last 48 hours regarding the sexual-harassment allegations against Uber. For example, articles can be found discussing the issue in the LA Times, on CNN, and in the USA Today just to name a few. And earlier today it was announced that the company will be employing Eric Holder to defend against the allegations. Sexual harassment is a very personal and sensitive topic within employment discrimination law, and one certainly worth following here.
Paul Harpur (Melbourne) sends word that the Australian Government has announced the launch of a broad inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia. The inquiry will consider whether the introduction of anti-slavery legislation would help combat supply-chain-based slavery and human trafficking. Paul explains:
Human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices are already criminal offences in Australia. Recent slavery-like practices in Australian supply chains has motivated a new inquiry.
the Australian Federal Attorney-General referred an inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia to the Foreign Affairs and Aid Sub-Committee of the Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on February 15, 2017. The committee is tasked with strengthening and improving Australia's current regulatory regime to prevent slavery occurring in Australia and Australian natural and corporate persons engaging in slavery overseas. The Committee has called for submissions to be lodged by interested parties by 28 April 2017.
For more, see this discussion by the Australian law firm Allens.
My colleague Dallan Flake (ONU) has just posted on SSRN his article When Should Employers Be Liable for Factoring Biased Customer Feedback into Employment Decisions? Here's the abstract:
In today’s customer-centric business environment, firms seek feedback from consumers seemingly at every turn. Firms factor such feedback into a host of decisions, including employment-related decisions such as whom to hire, promote, and fire; how much to pay employees; and what tasks to assign them. Increasingly, researchers are discovering that customer feedback is biased against certain populations, such as women and racial minorities. Sometimes customers explicitly declare their biases, but more often their prejudices are harder to detect — either because they intentionally hide their biases in their ratings or because the customers do not realize their implicit biases have skewed their perceptions, and consequently their ratings, of service exchanges.
When firms rely on tainted customer feedback to make employment decisions, they indirectly discriminate against employees. Although the law makes clear that employers cannot discriminate against employees based on customers’ discriminatory preferences, it has yet to address whether and to what extent employers are liable for factoring biased customer feedback into employment decisions. I argue that employers should not get a free pass to discriminate simply because it is the customers rather than themselves who bear the discriminatory animus; but nor should employers be liable in every instance where customer feedback is shown to be biased.
To strike an appropriate balance, employers should be held to a negligence standard whereby their liability for using tainted feedback depends on whether they knew or reasonably should have known the data was compromised and if so, whether they acted reasonably in response by taking appropriate preventive or corrective measures. A major advantage of this framework is that it works in both the easy and the hard cases by tying employer liability to the ease with which customer bias can be detected. If bias is explicit, the law would hold employers to a heightened duty in terms of both knowledge and response, whereas if bias is implicit, and thus harder to detect, employers would be held to a lower standard.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
The Department of Labor is publicizing its Occupational Outlook Handbook on its website. This is a great resource (maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) which includes salary data and growth information for numerous occupations. If you are researching or writing in this area, there is some great data available in this free resource.
-- Joe Seiner
Thursday, February 16, 2017
I really like this choice. Although we have substantive differences, I have a great deal of respect for Acosta. We were both at the NLRB during his short time there and it seemed to me that he always took his job and the role of the NLRA seriously; even when I disagreed with his vote, his decisions were thoughtful and reasonable.
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
This just in: Andrew Puzder has withdrawn his name from consideration as Secretary of Labor. It sounds like the writing on the wall showed that he lacked enough Republican support in the Senate. It's interesting that this is the one cabinet nominee that failed. Allegations of domestic abuse was probably a factor, but his hiring of an undocumented domestic worker (and failure to pay her taxes) seemed to play a role for conservatives as well.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
The following conference may be of interest to readers:
The Santa Clara University School of Law, the Leavey School of Business at Santa Clara University, the University of Washington School of Law, the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, the Rutgers Center for Corporate Law and Governance and the Business and Human Rights Journal announce the Third Business and Human Rights Scholars Conference, to be held September 15- 16, 2017 at Santa Clara University in Santa Clara, California. Conference participants will present and discuss scholarship at the intersection of business and human rights issues. Upon request, participants’ papers may be considered for publication in the Business and Human Rights Journal (BHRJ), published by Cambridge University Press.
The Conference is interdisciplinary: scholars from all disciplines are invited to apply, including law, business, human rights, and global affairs. The papers must be unpublished at the time of presentation. Each participant will present his/her own paper and be asked to comment on at least one other paper during the workshop. Participants will be expected to have read other papers and to participate actively in discussion and analysis of the various works in progress.
To apply, please submit an abstract of no more than 250 words to email@example.com with the subject line “Business & Human Rights Conference Proposal.” Please include your name, affiliation, contact information, and curriculum vitae. The deadline for submission is March 15, 2017. We will begin reviewing submissions on a rolling basis on March 1, 2017. Scholars whose submissions are selected for the symposium will be notified no later than April 15, 2017. Final papers will be due August 25, 2017.
Doctoral candidates not holding current academic/research positions are not eligible for this conference, but are welcome to apply to the Young Researchers Summit (more information is available here: http://www.iwe.unisg.ch/en/initiativen+und+veranstaltungen/bhr or http://bhr.stern.nyu.edu/young-researchers).
About the BHRJ
The BHRJ provides an authoritative platform for scholarly debate on all issues concerning the intersection of business and human rights in an open, critical and interdisciplinary manner. It seeks to advance the academic discussion on business and human rights as well as promote concern for human rights in business practice.
BHRJ strives for the broadest possible scope, authorship and readership. Its scope encompasses interface of any type of business enterprise with human rights, environmental rights, labour rights and the collective rights of vulnerable groups. The Editors welcome theoretical, empirical and policy/reform-oriented perspectives and encourage submissions from academics and practitioners in all global regions and all relevant disciplines.
A dialogue beyond academia is fostered as peer-reviewed articles are published alongside shorter “Developments in the Field” items that include policy, legal and regulatory developments, as well as case studies and insight pieces.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Aaron Halegua (NYU) writes to give us the heads-up on a free, downloadable book by the ILO: Resolving Individual Labour Disputes: A Comparative Overview. Here's the ILO's description of the book:
The number of individual disputes arising from day-to-day workers’ grievances or complaints continues to grow in many parts of the world. The chapters in this book cover individual labour dispute settlement systems in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Each chapter examines and assesses the institutions and mechanisms for settlement of individual labour disputes, including the procedures and powers available, the interaction of these institutions and mechanisms with other labour market institutions (e.g. collective bargaining and labour inspection) and the broader system for resolution of legal disputes (e.g. courts of general jurisdiction, specialist commissions and tribunals).
And here's Aaron's description of the chapter he wrote on the U.S.:
I contributed a chapter on the United States, which I think provides a good overview of the role played by administrative agencies (USDOL, EEOC, NLRB, New York State DOL, NYS Division of Human Rights, etc.), federal and state courts, firm's internal efforts, and both labor and employment arbitration -- as well as how ADR is used in all those contexts. It also seeks to evaluate each one and pulls together statistics on the performance of each institution. I think that people already familiar with the United States might find the evaluation/statistics part and use of ADR in these institutions useful. I also think it would be particularly useful for people trying to understand our complex system with its web of overlapping institutions, or professors ... who might be teaching such students.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued an information request to help evaluate a "potential standard to prevent workplace violence in healthcare and social assistance settings." Details on the standard and making a submission can be found here. The deadline to submit information is April 6, 2017.
-- Joe Seiner