March 02, 2013
DOJ Comments on Noel Canning
We are now beginning to see how the Justice Department will attack the D.C. Circuit's recent Noel Canning decision. As is appropriate, DOJ views this as a problem that is much bigger than the NLRB. In a recent brief to the Third Circuit, written on behalf of the NLRB, the DOJ strongly criticizes the decision based on its constitutional interpretation and dismissal of the long history of recess appointment. The Legal TImes notes some of the brief's points:
"The Noel Canning decision conflicts with nearly two centuries of Executive Branch practice and the decisions of three other Courts of Appeals, two of them sitting en banc," Beth Brinkmann, a top DOJ Civil Division appellate lawyer, [ . . . ] The ruling's constitutional conclusions, Brinkmann continued, "threaten a serious disruption of the separation of powers." [. . .]
That interpretation narrows the scope of when a president can use the recess appointment power. In the papers in the Third Circuit, Brinkmann said the word "the" doesn't carry the specificity the D.C. Circuit assigned to it. [. . . ]
"The real threat to the separation of powers comes from Noel Canning, because it would seemingly allow the Senate to eliminate the President’s recess appointment power" by turning all recesses into intrasession ones, DOJ's legal team said. (The D.C. Circuit ruling limits recess appointment power to intersessions—the time between two sessions of Congress.)
DOJ lawyers said that under Noel Canning every intrasession recess appointment in the country's history—including ten federal trial judges, a CIA director and five appellate judges—would be unconstitutional.
The department also takes issue with the part of the Noel Canning opinion that restricts recess appointment power to vacancies that arise during a recess, not those that existed at the time of a recess.
"By confining the Clause to vacancies that arise during a recess,Noel Canning makes the President’s ability to fill offices turn on the happenstance of when the previous holder left office," Brinkmann wrote. "That approach disserves the purpose of the Clause."
No word yet on whether DOJ will seek a rehearing en banc in the D.C. Circuit (they have until March 8), or will just file a cert. petition. Stay tuned.
Hat Tip: Patrick Kavanagh
March 01, 2013
Torres-Spelliscy on SCOTUS Inconsistency on Union/Corporate Speech
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy (Stetson) has just posted on SSRN her article Taking Opt-In Rights Seriously: What Knox v. SEIU Could Mean for Post-Citizens United Shareholder Rights (72 Montana Law Review 101 (2013)). Below is an excerpt from her abstract. Readers interested in this topic should also see Fisk & Chemerinsky's article described here.
This article will explore the implications of the Supreme Court’s disparate treatment of similarly-situated, politically active corporations and unions. Two paths lead to more equitable treatment of these two groups: either (1) corporate political speech should be regulated more or (2) union political speech should be regulated less. This piece argues in favor of the former. In particular, corporate political spending lacks the transparency and consent mechanisms present in union political spending. Policymakers should address both of these failings in the corporate context.
* * *
February 21, 2013
Tiraboschi on Younger Workers in Recessionary Times, ADAPT, and E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies
In cooperation with Pietro Manzella, I am delighted to start a series of international and comparative labor law posts emanating from ADAPT, a non-profit labor and employment studies organization in Italy, and its E-Journal of International and Comparative Labor Studies.
First, today's featured paper from the E-Journal of International and Comparative Labor Studies is by Professor Michele Tiraboschi entitled: Young Workers in Recessionary Times: A Caveat (to continental Europe) to Reconstruct its Labour Law?
Here is the abstract:
The current debate taking place in continental Europe on the need to reform labour law to reduce the duality between labour market insiders and outsiders, thus giving new employment opportunities to young people seems to be, at its best, a consequence of the crisis, or at its worst, an excuse. The considerable emphasis placed on the power of legislation to reduce youth unemployment prevents real labour market problems from being clearly identified, thus reducing the scope to adopt more effective measures. Action is certainly required to help young people during the current crisis, yet interventions should not be exclusively directed towards increased flexibility and deregulation. This paper questions the “thaumaturgic power” wrongly attributed to legislative interventions and put forward a more holistic approach to solve the problem of youth employment, by focusing on the education systems, school-to-work transition and industrial relations. As a comparative analysis demonstrates, in order to effectively tackle the issue of youth employment, it is not enough to reform labour law. High quality education systems, apprenticeship schemes, efficient placement and employment services, cooperative industrial relations and flexible wage determination mechanisms are the key to success when it comes to youth employment, not only in times of recession.
Clearly a high relevant and interesting labor law article for all who care about youth employment opportunities throughout the globe.
As far as the E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies, it is an open-access review promoted by ADAPT University Press and run by Malcolm Sargeant and Michele Tiraboschi. It is generally concerned with issues in employment relations, human resource management, health and safety, psychology, sociology, labour economics, politics, labour law and history. More info at firstname.lastname@example.org or www.adapt.it.
ADAPT is a non-profit organisation founded in 2000 by Professor Marco Biagi with the aim of promoting studies and research in the field of labour law and industrial relations from an international and comparative perspective. Their purpose is to encourage and implement a new approach to academic research, by establishing long-term relationships with other universities and advanced studies institutes, and promoting academic and scientific exchange programs with enterprises, institutions, foundations and associations. More info is availabe at www.adapt.it.
We hope you enjoy the comning articles from this new collaboration between Workplace Prof Blog, ADAPT, and the E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies.
February 19, 2013
Lobel & Lofaso Provide a Global Perspective on 8(a)(2)
Orly Lobel (San Diego) and Anne Lofaso (West Virginia) have just posted on SSRN their chapter Systems of Employee Representation: The US Report in Systems of Employee Representation at the Enterprise: A Comparative Study (Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations Series, Roger Blanpain, Hiroya Nakakubo and Takashi Araki Editors) (Kluwer 2012). This is a terrific addition to the 8(a)(2) literature. Here's the abstract:
Although employee-representation systems coexist with a collective-bargaining framework in continental Europe for many years, US labor advocates have looked upon those representations systems with suspicion. The reasons for this suspicion are historical: US employee-representation systems have their roots in company-dominated unions that the National Labor Relations Act was designed to prohibit. The National Labor Relations Board, the independent agency created by the New Deal Congress to administer the NLRA, has interpreted that legislation’s prohibition to essentially make unlawful most, if not all, employer-initiated employee-representation systems and many other types of employee-representations systems. While Congress’s and the Board’s efforts to prohibit employer-dominated employee-representation systems have been noble and are grounded in values designed to preserve employees’ right to workplace participation to the greatest extent, these efforts have, in fact, muffled employee voice. The problem arises in part from differences in two competing values: employee voice and employee self-organization. The article, part of a comparative study of systems of employee representation around the world, argues that while at first blush, those values appear to be co-extensive, in reality, employee voice, which focuses on employee participation and industrial democracy, is a broader concept than self-organization, which focuses on employee autonomy. That section of the NLRA that prohibits company-dominated unions values self-organization, or worker autonomy, over employee voice, or participation. Other sections of the NLRA, such as its exclusivity principle, whereby the union that the majority selects or designates is the exclusive employee representative, further serve to stifle employee voice. Against a backdrop of understanding the instrumental and principled rationale for employee-representation systems, the article asks which types of systems function well within the US legal framework, which systems do not fit within this framework, and to what extent the framework needs to change to accommodate greater participation in contemporary markets.
February 18, 2013
Herbert on Social Media & Public Sector Labor Law
William A. Herbert just posted on SSRN his article (presented at the NKU Chase Law & Informatics Symposium last week) Can't Escape from the Memory: Social Media and Public Sector Labor Law. Here's the abstract:
The Web 2.0 communicative revolution is impacting many fields of law including labor and employment law. This article focuses upon the application and impact of statutory and constitutional doctrines on the use of social media in public employment in the United States. It examines social media under public sector labor law through a cross-sectoral analysis of two primary issues: the scope of protected social networking activities, and the contours of employer policies. The article compares and contrasts developments under the National Labor Relations Act with developments under collective bargaining laws and due process statutes in three states, and under the First Amendment. Through this comparative analysis, the article highlights the distinctions and similarities of public sector labor law and their implications for the future.
February 13, 2013
NLRB Members Renominated
Today, the White House renominated Sharon Block and Richard Griffin to the NLRB (as well as Richard Cordray to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection). Those appointees, of course, were the subject of the D.C. Circuit's recent Noel Canning decision, which held that the President's power to make recess appointments is severely limited. It's good to see an attempt to remove the cloud over those members' appointments, although I'd still like to see nominees for the other two empty seats. I don't know whether the holdup on those is the White House or Republicans (who would normally play a large role in naming the appointees for those two, Republican, seats), but it's ridiculous that a federal agency constantly has to deal with not only being understaffed at its leadership level but having its ability to carry out its most basic functions constantly in doubt.
Speaking of which, the House Republican leadership and related committee chairs have sent the White House a letter urging appointees for all open Board seats, and citing the importance of having a full Board. Although I have some doubts about their sincerity--especially because the main purpose of the letter is to emphasize their support for the Noel Canning limits on the President's appointment power, not to mention that House Republicans haven't shown much support for the NLRB in the past--the language stressing the Board's role in the workplace is nice. Oh, and in case there's any doubt that they are more concerned with the appointments process than anything else, the same leaders also sent a letter to the Board urging them to stop issuing decisions until the Supreme Court decides the issue or the Senate confirms more members. No word on whether the Republicans leaders sent their Senate counterparts a letter urging them to work on getting new members appointed.
Hat Tip: Joshua Glick, Patrick Kavanagh, and others.
February 08, 2013
Porter on Women and Unions
Improving the working conditions of all American workers must include considering the voices of one group traditionally underrepresented in union ranks and leadership — women. In this paper, I explore the interrelationship between women, unions, and women’s willingness to negotiate. Despite the tumultuous history of women’s involvement in the unionized labor market, women’s participation in unions is increasing relative to men. Recent studies also reveal that women significantly benefit from union representation, even more significantly than men. One reason for this disparity is that many women have not been very successful in negotiating on their own behalf. For many reasons explored in this paper, many women have been socialized to be uncomfortable negotiating for what they deserve. Thus, women benefit by participating in unions, where the negotiation is done on their behalf, and we should be encouraging women’s involvement in unions. Furthermore, women are still grossly underrepresented in union leadership roles. Because studies show that women are more likely to join a union when there are more women leaders, increasing the number of female union leaders should lead to an increase in women’s participation in unions. More women in leadership roles also has the potential to improve the overall success of the union, garner more attention to issues important to women, and bring a new perspective to union/management negotiation. Even though the negotiation literature suggests that women are often unwilling to negotiate on their own behalf, this paper will demonstrate they are very willing to and effective at negotiating on behalf of others. Finally, I will demonstrate how effective women can be as leaders and advocates when they work together to reach a common goal.
February 05, 2013
Goldberg on Noel Canning Recess Appointment Decision in Labor Notes
Michael Goldberg (Widener (Wilmington)) has posted a brief analysis in Labor Notes on the DC Circuit's recent decision in Noel Canning, which found the 2012 recess appointments to the NLRB by President Obama to be unlawful.
After discussing the decision, Michael points out that the combination of the lack of filibuster reform in the Senate and the narrow reading of what it means for there to be a "recess," means that the Board will have a exceedingly difficult time having its orders enforced until it has at least three Senate-confirmed members or the Noel Canning decision is overturned by en banc or US Supreme Court review.
This is because Section 10(f) of the NLRA allows any employer to appeal an adverse Board decision to the DC Circuit (which will find such orders to be null and void) and because it is unlikely that Senate Republicans will permit any NLRB nominee through, regardless of their merits, since they can effectively shut down a federal agency they have no love for by not confirming anyone.
Labor relations law in the United States has reached Kafka-esque proportions.
In any event, read Michael's entire Labor Notes piece.
February 01, 2013
Chamber Urges Employers to Appeal Prior Adverse Board Rulings
Jeff discussed in an earlier post the effect of Noel Canning, in which the D.C. Circuit held that recess appointments to the NLRB are unconstitutional. Now Laura Cooper (Minnesota) sends word that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is urging its members to use Noel Canning to challenge recent -- and even longstanding -- pro-employee Board decisions.
Here's an excerpt from what appears to be a Wall Street Journal article reprinted by the Chamber [but check out the date on the document!]:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is advising companies to try to reverse rulings the National Labor Relations Board made against them in the past year, following a court decision that has undermined the federal panel.
The chamber's push, outlined in a memo the business trade group began distributing to its members Wednesday, is the latest fallout from last week's federal court ruling that voided President Barack Obama's three recess appointments to the five-slot labor board.
NLRB General Counsel: NYC Bus Strike Not Unlawful
The NLRB Office of General Counsel has found that a strike by union bus operators against a group of New York school bus companies does not violate the National Labor Relations Act because the union has a primary labor dispute with the employers.
In a charge filed with the NLRB Brooklyn office on January 16, the group of 20 bus companies alleged that a strike called by Local 1181-1061 of the Amalgamated Transit Union was unlawful because the union’s primary dispute was with the New York Department of Education, which contracts with the bus companies for service to area schools. The NLRA prohibits unions from striking secondary employers in order to pressure the employer with whom they have a dispute.
In an Advice Memorandum issued today, however, the Office of General Counsel found that the bus companies, which maintained collective bargaining agreements with the union for many years before they expired in December, are primary employers in the labor dispute, along with the Department of Education. “It is well established that more than one employer may be a primary employer” under the NLRA, the memo explained.
Accordingly, the Regional Office will dismiss the charge alleging an illegal secondary strike.
Good news for the striking drivers, although it's still not clear whether a resolution is in sight.
January 31, 2013
Josh Eidelson has a really good article at The American Prospect on Alt-Labor. These are groups, like worker centers, that represent workers but do not attempt to engage in collective bargaining on their behalf. The article delves into their history, their rise in numbers, and prospects for the future. An excerpt:
The [Restaurant Opportunities Center] ROC is a labor group. But it’s not a union. It represents a new face of the U.S. labor movement—an often-ignored, little-understood array of groups organizing workers without the union label. As unions face declining membership these workers’ groups—like the mostly union-free job sectors they organize—are on the rise, particularly in New York. Because of their efforts, more restaurant workers in the city get paid sick days, domestic workers receive overtime pay, and taxi drivers will soon have health insurance.
Twenty years ago, when Rutgers labor professor Janice Fine first set out to count the nonunion groups that were organizing and mobilizing workers, she found just five in the entire country. Today, her tally stands at 214. These groups organize farmworkers and fashion models. They go by names like “workers’ centers” and “workers’ alliances.” Some are rooted in the immigrant-rights movement as much as the labor movement. Lacking the ability to engage in collective bargaining or enforce union contracts, these alternative labor groups rely on an overlapping set of other tactics to reform their industries. The ROC teaches workers their rights and also restaurant skills; advises and publicizes model employers; and helps organize protests like the ones at Capital Grille, making customers aware of what goes on behind the dining room. The ROC also lobbies state and local lawmakers for reforms and helps workers take legal action when all else fails. . . .
January 30, 2013
Walsh Named Philadelphia Regional Director
The NLRB announced yesterday that Dennis Walsh has been named Regional Director in Philadelphia From the announcement:
National Labor Relations Board Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce and Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon announced their selection of Dennis P. Walsh to serve as Regional Director of the Agency’s Region 4 office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Mr. Walsh will be responsible for enforcement of the nation’s primary labor law covering private sector employees in the jurisdiction of Region 4, which serves 22 counties in eastern Pennsylvania, 8 counties in southern New Jersey, and 1 county in Delaware. He replaces Regional Director Dorothy Moore-Duncan, who retired in January 2013.
Mr. Walsh was appointed to serve as the Deputy General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority in December 2009. Previously, Mr. Walsh had a distinguished career with the Board, during which he performed nearly every aspect of the Board’s work from field attorney to Board member. Mr. Walsh served as a Member of the NLRB on three occasions: January 2006 to December 2007, December 2002 to December 2004, and December 2000 to December 2001. He also served as a Special Assistant in the Division of Enforcement, Deputy Assistant General Counsel in the General Counsel’s Division of Operations, Chief Counsel to both Member Wilma Liebman (1997-2000) and Member Margaret A. Browning (1994-1997), and Counsel to Member Patricia Diaz Dennis. Mr. Walsh began his legal career in 1984 as an NLRB attorney in the Office of Representation Appeals, and continued to work for various NLRB offices, including the Appellate Court Branch and Region 4. From 1989 to 1994, Mr. Walsh engaged in the private practice of law in Philadelphia. He has also served as an Adjunct Professor of Labor Law at Howard University School of Law. Mr. Walsh is a 1983 cum laude graduate of Cornell Law School, where he was an Editor of the Law Review, and a 1976 summa cum laude graduate of Hamilton College.
Dennis' labor accomplishments are obviously impressive, and I'm excited to see what he does in Philadelphia. I should also note that, like some other Board members, he also was active in academic circles, both by writing and presenting at conferences. On a more personal note, as readers of my NLRB posts are well aware, Dennis has been a font of information and new developments in labor law. That's been a great help to this blog and me personally, so I wanted to take this opportunity to thank him.
January 25, 2013
D.C. Circuit Holds NLRB Recess Appointments Unconstitutional
UPDATE: Chairman Pearce just released a statement that is in line with my prediction that the NLRB would continue to decide cases despite the ruling (not that my prediction was particularly bold; the Board is just doing what it did during the two-member issue).
The D.C. Circuit just struck down the NLRB recess appointments. I haven't had time to more than glance at the decision, but it obviously has major ramifications, as--like the New Process, two-member Board issue--it holds the prospect of voiding decisions. It also could play a role with the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which also had a recess appointment at the time. I suspect that what we will see next is a reprise of the New Process situation, in which the NLRB uses its nonacquiescence policy and continues to issue decisions and we'll have to wait for the Supreme Court to see what happens to those decisions. I did a rough Westlaw search and came up with 499 cases in which Members Block, Flynn, or Griffin participate, so we're talking about a lot of cases that could be in jeapardy, including subsequent ones if the Board does what I just predicted it will do.
In Noel Canning, the court agreed with the NLRB's substantive findings in the case, but that was mooted by its holding that the NLRB recess appointments were unconstitutional. After holding that it had jurisdiction to decide the matter--no small thing given the separation of power tensions at play--the court essentially held that the Senate really wasn't in recess. They defined recess as when Congress isn't in one of its regular two or three sessions. The decision is a long one and reaches out to other related appointment practices (prompting a concurrence that objected to overreach). Moreover, in a 2004 case, the 11th Cir. held to the contrary, so we might expect a Supreme Court grant of cert. if the D.C. Circuit doesn't take this en banc. On that note, the panel was quite conservative (Sentelle, Henderson, and Griffith--who, coincidentally, filled the slot that a lawyer in the case, Miguel Estrada, was originally nominated for), so it's not impossible that the full court will re-examine this. Stay tuned.
Hat Tip: Michael Lightner
January 23, 2013
Recently Published Scholarship: OSJDR Symposium on ADR in Public-Sector Labor Disputes
vol. 28 #1 (2013)
Symposium 2012: The Role of ADR Mechanisms in Public Sector Labor Disputes: What Is at Stake, Where We Can Improve, and How We Can Learn from the Private Sector
- Michael Carrell & Richard Bales, Considering Final Offer Arbitration to Resolve Public Sector Impasses in Times of Concession Bargaining, p. 1.
- Howard S. Bellman, The Importance of Impasse Resolution Procedures to Recent Revisions of Wisconsin Public Sector Labor Law, p. 37.
- Charles B. Craver, The Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques to Resolve Public Sector Bargaining Disputes, p. 45.
- Ariel C. Avgar, J. Ryan Lamare, David B. Lipsky, & Abhishek Gupta, Unions and ADR: The Relationship between Labor Unions and Workplace Dispute Resolution in U.S. Corporations, p. 63.
- Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld & Saul A. Rubinstein, Innovation and Transformation in Public Sector Employment Relations: Future Prospects on a Contested Terrain, p. 107.
- Martin H. Malin, Two Models of Interest Arbitration, p. 145.
- Lamont E. Stallworth & Daniel J. Kaspar, Employing the Presidential Executive Order and the Law to Provide Integrated Conflict Management Systems and ADR Processes: The Proposed National Employment Dispute Resolution Act (NEDRA), p. 171.
January 17, 2013
An Upcoming Supreme Court Section 302 Case?
The Supreme Court this week asked for the Solicitor General's views on a cert. petition that raises an LMRA Section 302 issue. As we've noted before, courts have typically rejected arguments that an employer's neutrality promise to a union constitutes an unlawful provision of something "of value" to a union under Section 302. However, in Mulhall, the case under review, the 11th Circuit stated that a neutrality agreement could violate Section 302 if the employer intends to improperly influence the union, such as part of a bribery or extortion attempt.
The Court rejected a similar cert. petition in 2009, so it's a bit curious why there's more attention this time around. It could be simply that Mulhall presents a circuit split. Or, the Court may be more interested in expanding the traditional scope of Section 302, which could be a big deal for unions. But, at this point, it's anyone's guess. Stay tuned.
Hat Tip: Joshua Glick
January 13, 2013
Estreicher on "Right to Work"
Sam Estreicher recently published an essay in the National Law Journal, entitled "Right to Work is a Misnomer." In the essay, Estreicher provides a nice, brief explanation of why the right to work rhetoric is off base. Most readers are aware of the problem, but it's nice to see an explanation that clearly explains it for non-labor experts. The concluding paragraph is particular apt:
"When opponents insist on a right to free ride on union representation, they have seized the rhetorical high ground of liberty and job growth to conceal a more prosaic, and often politically partisan, motive — to deprive unions of a justifiable funding mechanism so that they no longer can play a useful collective-bargaining role in our society."
January 06, 2013
NHL Is Back
The NHL and the NHLPA announced that they reached a tentative deal today, ending the lockout. The deal would be for 10 years, with an 8-year opt-out option. The players' share of NHL revenue--a major part of the negotiations--will drop from 57% to 50%. Also among the provisions are a new salary cap and 7- or 8-year limit on player contracts.
Assuming the agreement is ratified, play is expected int he next couple of weeks for something around a 50-game season.
January 03, 2013
Last week the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in Richards v. NLRB, in which the employee plaintiffs (it was a dues objection case) had challenged the constitutionality of President Obama's recess appointments to the NLRB. The court didn't decide this issue because it help that the employees lacked standing. The reason was that the NLRB had already struck down the unions' annual renewel poilicies, which were the only source of alleged harm in the case.
In other NLRB news, the Board (with Member Hayes dissenting) just issued a decision in American Baptist Homes, on witness statements in employee discipline cases. Basically, the Board reversed its per se rule against giving unions access to statements of witnesses who gave information to the employer during its investigation. The Board determined that using the more general balancing test that is used for most information requests was more appropriate than a rule that always made those statements inaccessible to the union.
Hat Tip: Rob Walkowiak & Dennis Walsh
December 28, 2012
California Supreme Court Upholds Peaceful Labor Picketing on Private Sidewalks
Update: Here is a link to the actual decision.
From the Los Angeles Times today, this interesting decision on peaceful labor picketing on private sidewalks by the California Supreme Court:
Signature gatherers and protesters may be ejected from privately owned walkways outside a store, but labor unions may picket there peacefully, the California Supreme Court decided Thursday. The state high court unanimously agreed that private walkways in front of stores, unlike public areas in shopping malls, are not open forums accessible to anyone who wants to assemble to express a view. But the justices split, 6 to 1, in upholding two state laws that prevent courts from issuing injunctions against peaceful labor pickets on private property. The laws protecting labor pickets are justified "by the state's interest in promoting collective bargaining to resolve labor disputes," Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote for the court California "may single out labor-related speech for particular protection or regulation" as an exercise in the economic regulation of labor relations, Kennard wrote.
Of course, this is an area not subject to federal labor law preemption (since it deals with state property rights) and an area where California has been particularly solicitious of the rights of labor picketers in such situations (see also the Fashion Valley Mall decision). On the other hand, this decision only applies in California.
Hat Tip: Daniel Mitchell and Joe Slater
December 27, 2012
Kalmanovitz Intiative 2013 Practitioner Fellowship
Friend of the blog, Katie Corrigan (Georgetown) writes to tell us about the Kalmanovitz Initiative 2013 Practitioner Fellowship. They’ve just posted the application for 2013 (attached) and here’s additional information, including video interviews with recent fellows.
Katie look at the fellowship as a fantastic opportunity for folks in the labor movement or other worker rights cause to work up a new idea or creative project in a supportive, university environment. Please share the information about the fellowship with anyone you think has an interesting idea — particularly around organizing and bargaining. The deadline is February 15 but the committee will start looking at applications in mid-January.