Thursday, January 27, 2005

Lecture at Cleveland-Marshall

The 2004-2005 Employment and Labor Law Speaker Series at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law presents:

Eric M. Tucker, Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. Professor Tucker will be speaking on Great Expectations Defeated? Divergence in north-American Labor and Employment Law post NAFTA.

Tuesday February 8, 2005.

January 27, 2005 in Conferences & Colloquia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

New Labor blog

Check out Unions-Firms-Markets, an excellent blog by Mathias bolton (a union analyst for a labor union in NYC). The blog chronicles and analyzes "the changing relationships, structures, and powers of unions, fimrs and markets in the 21st century."

An example of a recent post on union decline activities:

"Blogs on Union Decline

The topic of deunionization has been featured on a number of blogs this week. It is interesting to see this topic discussed by scholars and other folks whose primary discipline and interests are not labor or industrial relations. Here are a few:

Marginal Revolution: Why are labor unions declining?

Asymmetrical Information: Whither Labor?

80/20club: Whither Unions

Market Power: Tyler Cowen on Labor Unions"

I look forward to continue reading this blog.

January 27, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, January 26, 2005


Stephen Barr (Washington Post) reporting on a recent dispute between the Department of Labor and AFGME.

Here's an update on the man-bites-dog file:

The Labor Department, which filed an unfair labor practice complaint against a federal union, has won its case.

In a recent ruling, Richard A. Pearson, an administrative law judge at the Federal Labor Relations Authority, concluded that Local 12 of the American Federation of Government Employees "committed an unfair labor practice by its conduct."

Labor Department Prevails in Bargaining Dispute With Local 12

January 26, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Human Rights Watch Report

Workers in the U.S. meat and poultry industry endure unnecessarily hazardous work conditions, and the companies employing them often use illegal tactics to crush union organizing efforts, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today.

The 175-page report, “Blood, Sweat, and Fear: Workers’ Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants,” shows how the increasing volume and speed of production coupled with close quarters, poor training and insufficient safeguards have made meat and poultry work so hazardous. On each work shift, workers make up to 30,000 hard-cutting motions with sharp knives, causing massive repetitive motion injuries and frequent lacerations. Workers often do not receive compensation for workplace injuries because companies fail to report injuries, delay and deny claims, and take reprisals against workers who file them. 

The report's author is Lance Compa, professor at Cornell's School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

January 26, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Notice and Invitation to File Amicus Curiae Briefs

Notice and Invitation to File Amicus Curiae Briefs

The Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance is currently considering an appeal regarding the appropriate framework to be utilized in analyzing reprisal and intimidation claims raised pursuant to Section 207(a) of the Congressional Accountability Act, 2 U.S.C. 1317(a). The parties to this matter are not identified due to the confidentiality provisions of the Congressional Accountability Act. See Section 416(c), 2 U.S.C. 1416(c).

Specifically, the Board is considering whether the appropriate framework to be used may be that set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) applied in Title VII cases, or the framework applied by the Federal Labor Relations Authority in Letterkenny Army Depot and IBPO, Local 358, 35 FLRA 113 (1990).

Interested amici are invited to file briefs with the Board in Washington, D.C., which must be received on or before March 14, 2005, addressing questions regarding the appropriate standard of review as outlined below. No extensions of time will be granted for the filing of these briefs, which shall not exceed 30 pages in length without prior approval of the Board. Ten copies of the brief should be submitted to: Board of Directors, Office of Compliance, 110 2nd Street, SE, Room LA-200, Washington, D.C. 20540. Please note that, due to the requirement that mail be irradiated, first class mail and overnight package service deliveries to the Office of Compliance sometimes take several weeks. If you wish further information regarding delivery of briefs to the Office, call the Office at 202-724-9250.

The parties to the appeal pending before the Board shall be provided the opportunity to file responses to these briefs on or before March 28, 2005. The parties' response briefs may not exceed 10 pages.

Submitted briefs should address any one or all of the following issues:

1. Should a single framework be adopted for all claims raised pursuant to Section 207(a) of the Congressional Accountability Act, or should an approach be adopted by which the tribunal would look to the framework(s) applied to claims of retaliation under the laws made applicable to the Legislative Branch by the Congressional Accountability Act?

2. If the second approach set forth in question #1 is adopted, how should it apply when a Section 207(a) claim involves activity that is allegedly protected under laws to which different analytical frameworks apply, e.g., the claim asserts that retaliation or intimidation occurred because of activity allegedly protected by Section 201(a) and by Section 220(a) of the Congressional Accountability Act ?

3. If a single framework is adopted for all Section 207(a) claims, should the McDonnell Douglas, Letterkenny Army Depot, or other framework be adopted as the framework for analyzing reprisal claims raised pursuant to Section 207(a) of the Congressional Accountability Act?

4. What employment actions constitute "adverse actions" for reprisal claims under Section 207(a)?

5. If the McDonnell Douglas framework is adopted, to what extent does Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa , 539 U.S. 90 (2003) affect that framework as applied to reprisal claims under Section 207(a), specifically those that involve a mixed-motive claim?

January 24, 2005 BOARD OF DIRECTORS


January 25, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

New LawProf Blogs

Three new blogs are now online as part of the Law Professor Blogs Network (

Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog
, edited by Gerry Beyer (St. Mary's)

, edited by Cristina Corcos (LSU)
Media Law Prof Blog

, edited by Joe Hodnicki (Cincinnati)
Law Librarian Blog

These blogs combines both (1) regularly-updated permanent resources and links, and (2) daily news and information.  I hope you will check out the sites and pass along the links to your colleagues and friends in these fields.

The other law professor blogs in our network are:

AntitrustProf Blog
(since 10/18/04)

Shubha Ghosh (SUNY Buffalo) (since 11/4/04)
ContractsProf Blog (Official Blog of the AALS Contracts Section)
Carol Chomsky (Minnesota)
Frank Snyder (Texas-Wesleyan)  (since 11/1/04)
CrimProf Blog
Jack Chin (Arizona)
Mark Godsey (Cincinnati) (since 11/8/04)
Health Law Prof Blog
Betsy Malloy (Cincinnati)
Tom Mayo (SMU)

(since 10/1/04)
LaborProf Blog
Rafael Gely (Cincinnati)  (since 6/28/04)

Sentencing Law & Policy Blog
Douglas Berman (Ohio State)  (since 4/15/04)

TaxProf Blog
Paul Caron (Cincinnati)

(since 11/1/04)
White Collar Crime Prof Blog
Peter Henning (Wayne State)
Ellen Podgor (Georgia State)

January 25, 2005 in Teaching | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, January 24, 2005

Working Blogs

"Be careful what you blog. It could get you fired" - so counsels Todd Wallack at SFGate.Com.

"Peter Whitney said Wells Fargo dismissed him after co-workers discovered his online journal. Delta Airlines flight attendant Ellen Simonetti said she got the boot for hers. Even a staffer at Friendster, the social networking site in Mountain View that encourages users to post detailed personal information about themselves online, said she was fired for her blog. "

Beware If Your blog Is Related to Work

January 24, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, January 23, 2005

Employee Benefits News

From the Employee Benefits Research Institute, a report on Changes in Wealth for Americans Reaching or Just Past Normal Retirement Age:

This Issue Brief provides a first step in determining how retirees now starting to retire -- those first to be affected by the shift to lump-sum payments and 401(k) asset accumulation ¾ are managing their wealth. Americans born from 1931-1941 are the focus of this study, since these Americans ranged in age from 51-61 in 1992 (at the beginning of the study period) and had reached age 61-71 by 2002 (the end of the study period). These Americans have been affected by fundamental changes in the employment-based retirement plan market, as fewer people are covered by defined benefit pension plans and more people are covered by defined contribution plans, principally the 401(k) plan.

January 23, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)