Thursday, January 14, 2021

Katsabian on How Tech Cam Undermine LEL Protections

KatsabianTammy Katsabian (postdoc, Harvard Labor & Worklife Program) has just posted on SSRN her article The Rule of Technology – How Technology Is Used to Disturb Basic Labor Law Protections (forthcoming 25 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. ___ (2021). [Americans should note: she uses "labor" broadly to include what we usually refer to as "employment" law.] Here's the abstract of this timely article:

Much has been written on technology and the law. Leading scholars are occupied with the power dynamics between capital, technology, and the law, along with their implications for society and human rights. Alongside that, various labor law scholars focus on the implications of smart technology on employees’ rights throughout the recruitment and employment periods and on workers’ status and rights in the growing phenomenon of platform-based work. This article aims to contribute to the current scholarship by zooming it out and observing from a bird’s-eye view how certain actors use technology to manipulate and challenge basic legal categories in labor today. This is done by referring to legal, sociological, and internet scholarship on the matter.

The main argument elaborated throughout this article is that digital technology is used to blur and distort many of the basic labor law protections. Because of this, legal categories and rights in the labor field seem to be outdated and need to be adjusted to this new reality.

By providing four detailed examples, the article unpacks how employers, giant high-tech companies, and society use various forms of technology to constantly disturb legal categories in the labor field regarding time, sphere, and relations. In this way, the article demonstrates how social media sites, information communication technologies, and artificial intelligence are used to blur the traditional concepts of privacy, working time and place, the employment contract, and community. This increased blurriness and fragility in labor have created many new difficulties that require new ways of thinking about regulation. Therefore, the article argues that both law and technology have to be modified to cope with the new challenges. Following this, the article proposes three possible ways in which to start considering the regulation of labor in the digital reality: (1) embrace flexibility as part of the legal order and use it as an interpretive tool and not just as an obstacle, (2) broaden the current legal protection and add a procedural layer to the legal rights at stake, and (3) use technology as part of the solution to the dilemmas that technology itself has emphasized. By doing so, this article seeks to enable more accurate thinking on law and regulation in the digital reality, particularly in the labor field, as well as in other fields and contexts.

rb

January 14, 2021 in Labor Law, Scholarship, Workplace Trends | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, January 12, 2021

Re-Thinking Service-Sector Work

DcleraDC LERA has another great international labor program. Christy Hoffman is the General Secretary of UNI Global Union, the global union federation for workers in services which represents 20 million members in 150 countries. She will be speaking January 19, 2021, 11:00 am - 12:00 pm. on the topic Remaking the World of Work for the Service Sector. Registration is free -- follow the instructions at this link

Thanks to Tequila Brooks for sending this along.

rb

January 12, 2021 in International & Comparative L.E.L., Labor Law, Workplace Trends | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, January 11, 2021

Trade & Labor Policy in a Biden Administration

New convoWhat has to change in U.S. trade policy to improve labor practices in global supply chains?

The Cornell ILR School’s New Conversations Project and Sandra Polaski, Senior Research Scholar at Boston University’s Global Development Policy Center, will hold a live discussion on Tuesday, 19 January 2021 from 9 – 10:15 EST on the topic of Sandra's recent paper, How Trade Policy Failed U.S. Workers--and How to Fix It. Register here.

A group of scholars and practitioners will debate the paper’s proposed changes and their possible impacts for workers. Participants include:

  • Sandra Polaski, Senior Research Scholar in the Global Economic Governance Initiative at Boston University, and member of the Independent Mexico Labor Expert Board.
  • Desiree LeClercq, Proskauer Employment and Labor Law Assistant Professor at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations.
  • Carlos Salas, Visiting Professor of Economics at Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (UNAM), Azcapotzalco, Mexico City.
  • Olabisi Akinkugbe, Assistant Professor at the Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Canada.
  • Dave Welsh, Country Director of the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center in Thailand.
  • Jason Judd (Moderator), Executive Director of Cornell University's New Conversations Project in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

rb

January 11, 2021 in International & Comparative L.E.L., Labor Law, Scholarship, Workplace Trends | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, January 9, 2021

Inaugural Issue: Contemporary Labour Law Review

Nnle2Congratulations to Giorgi Amiranashvili and his team at the NNLE Center for Contemporary Labour Law on the publication of the first issue of Contemporary Labour Law Review. Here's an introduction:

We are pleased to present the fi rst issue of the scientific-practical journal Contemporary Labour Law Review, – published by the Center for Contemporary Labour Law. The journal has been launched on 29 November 2019. The launch event, hosted by Tbilisi State University, was attended by the representatives of government and non-governmental sectors working in the field of labour law, judges, legal practitioners, academics and students. The number of attendees at the event and subsequent feedback indicates how great the public interest in the journal has been, which, in turn, obliges us to satisfy the interest of readers and give them the opportunity to read useful information on current and problematic issues of contemporary labour law. We hope that together we will face this important challenge.

Articles include:

  • Salome Uglava, Victimization as a Mechanism to Protect Employees from Discrimination

  • Salome Beridze, The Practice of the Supreme Court of Georgia on Labour Disputes (Court’s Explanations About Some
    Norms)

  • Lado Chanturia, Important Research in Civil Law - Review on the Book by Giorgi Amiranashvili

  • Andrea Borroni, The Cambridge Handbook of U.S. Labor Law for the Twenty-First Century – A Review

  • Giorgi Amiranashvili, Review on the Monograph by Dr. Zakaria Shvelidze - “The Scope of Civil Claims in Labour Discrimination Disputes”

Here's a PDF of the new issue.

rb

January 9, 2021 in International & Comparative L.E.L., Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, January 5, 2021

Travis on Rethinking the Post-Pandemic Workplace

TravisMichelle Travis (San Francisco) has posted on SSRN her article (forthcoming 64 Wash. U. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y ___ (2021)) A Post-Pandemic Antidiscrimination Approach to Workplace Flexibility. Here's the abstract:

The dramatic workplace changes in the wake of the global pandemic offer courts both an opportunity and an obligation to reexamine prior antidiscrimination case law on workplace flexibility. Before COVID-19, courts embraced an essentialized view of workplaces built upon a “full-time face-time norm,” which refers to the judicial presumption that work is defined by long hours, rigid schedules, and uninterrupted, in-person performance at a centralized workspace. By applying this presumption to both accommodation requests under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and to disparate impact claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, pre-pandemic courts systematically undermined antidiscrimination law’s potential for workplace restructuring to expand equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities and for women with disproportionate caregiving responsibilities. This Article demonstrates how employers’ widespread adoption of flexible work arrangements in the wake of COVID-19—including telecommuting, modified schedules, temporary leaves, and other flextime options—undermine these prior decisions and demand a new analysis of antidiscrimination law’s potential to advance workplace flexibility.

I think Michelle is exactly right: "with [57%] of U.S. employers now offering their employees flextime or remote work options as a result of [COVID], it is no longer tenable for courts to define work as something done only at a specified time and place." We can do better.

rb

January 5, 2021 in Disability, Employment Discrimination, Scholarship, Wage & Hour, Worklife Issues, Workplace Trends | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, January 4, 2021

Webinar: International Trade and Labour Law: the USMCA

LogoThanks to Vincenzo Pietrogiovanni (Lund University - Aarhus University) for alerting us to the webinar "International Trade and Labour Law: the USMCA", organised by the Labour Law Community - LLC together with the International Society for Labour and Social Security Law - ISLSSL, which will be held on Zoom on Thursday 14 January 2021 h 6.00 pm CET. To participate, follow this link starting at the time of the webinar. Here's a description:

The USMCA, an agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada that has replaced the NAFTA and the side agreement on labour (NAALC), represents an important advance on the path of the virtuous link between regulation of international trade and promotion of social rights. The new agreement, in fact, contains chapter no. 23 entirely dedicated to work: here the Parties go beyond the generic list of "principles" contained in the previous NAALC and expressly refer to the principles and conventions of the ILO, thus aiming for regulatory harmonisation between States through international labour law.

The opportunity to deepen the knowledge of this important Treaty with Janice Bellace and Lance Compa, distinguished scholars of labour law, appointed by the US government as members of the panel that has the task of sanctioning the non-compliant parties, is also a chance to reflect on the European economic and social model, as well as on the resumption of international trade relations in the Biden era, with the aim of relaunching the instrument of the social clause at a macro-regional but also at global multilateral level.

rb

January 4, 2021 in Conferences & Colloquia, International & Comparative L.E.L., Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, December 30, 2020

EEOC and New Data Tool

The EEOC just posted news of its new data query and mapping tool, EEOC Explore.

From the press release:

Today, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) launched EEOC Explore, a new interactive data query and mapping tool that gives users access to the most current, granular, and privacy protected aggregate EEO-1 data publicly available. EEOC Explore allows users to analyze aggregate data associated with more than 56 million employees and 73,000 employers nationwide. The user-friendly tool enables stakeholders to explore and compare data trends across a number of categories, including location, sex, race and ethnicity, and industry sector without the need for experience in computer programming or statistical analysis.

As part of its mandate under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, public and private employers, as well as local referral unions are required to submit to the EEOC periodic reports which indicate the composition of their workforces by sex and race/ethnicity. EEOC Explore visualizes these aggregate data in ways that are more intuitive and efficient than previous methods.

EEOC Explore uses aggregate information from employer EEO-1 reports which include data such as employee demographics, which are collected annually from private employers with 100 or more employees and federal contractors with 50 or more employees. EEOC Explore also allows users to dive down to county-level details, surpassing the previously available static tabular format available on the EEOC’s public website.

The tool is available at this address:  https://www.eeoc.gov/statistics/employment/jobpatterns/eeo1.

-Sandra Sperino

December 30, 2020 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, December 24, 2020

Veterans, USERRA, and War Powers Abrogation

Forgive me for a bit of self-promotion, but I wanted to flag an amicus brief that a group affiliated with UNC Law filed with the Supreme Court supporting a petition for cert. by the Plaintiff in Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety. The question centers on war powers abrogation, specifically whether state employers retain sovereign immunity in the face of congressional war powers legislation. In Torres, that legislation is USERRA, which prohibits employment discrimination based on military service and provides leave and other benefits for servicemembers called to active duty or attending training for, e.g., National Guard. Given the huge number of active and reserve servicemembers, this is an important statute even in normal times. But it's especially so now in a year that saw the greatest mobilization of National Guard troops since Wold War II.

Le Roy Torres was a Texas State Trooper who was called into active duty in Iraq. While there, he continually breathed toxic ash that made him, in addition to thousands of other veterans, very ill. So ill, he was unable to perform his usual trooper duties when he came home. According to Torres’ claim, the Texas Dept. of Safety refused to accommodate him with a desk job, instead forcing him to resign. Torres sued under USERRA, but his employer has argued that courts can’t even hear the claim because of state sovereign immunity. The Texas courts, like several other states, have agreed with this defense. But as I’ve argued in my research, which this and an earlier amicus draws on, these courts are wrong.

I actually first wrote on this topic when I was on the entry-level market. At the time, I argued that despite dicta saying that Article I can’t ever abrogate state immunity, the Court’s historical analysis leaves the door open for certain Article I powers to allow suits against states. Under this analysis, state sovereign immunity is determined by the “plan of the [Constitutional] Convention. In my earlier article, I argued that war powers should be an exception to the “no Article I abrogation” dicta. The Court has recognized that there are exceptions to state immunity; therefore, in what might be the unofficial theme of my research, “if not war powers, then what?” In other words, if there are areas in which states lack immunity, no area has a stronger claim than war powers. Indeed, subsequent to that article, the Court held in Katz that states lacked immunity when it comes to Article I’s Bankruptcy Clause. Which leads one to ask if the Bankruptcy Clause allows suits against states, then surely war powers does too.

Prompted by an earlier Torres amicus brief I wrote while the case was being considered for cert. by the Texas Supreme Court, I revisited this issue post-Katz in my new article, War Powers Abrogation, forthcoming in the George Washington Law Review. In this article, I thoroughly examined the history of the War Powers Clauses from the Articles of Confederation period, through the Constitutional Convention and text, and then the Ratification debates. The article provides the details, but the story is crystal clear: the only reasonable reading of the “plan of the Convention” is that the Founders and states adopted the Constitution fully knowing and intending states NOT to have any sovereignty when it comes to war powers. Instead, a central feature of the Constitution was assuring that the federal government was in charge of the nation’s security, free from state interference. In short, no one during that period—even those who objected to the Constitution—thought that states could interfere with the federal government’s war powers actions, including legislation like USERRA. So far, state courts (which currently have sole jurisdiction of USERRA claims against state employers) have failed to even address this history, instead siding with state immunity claims based on outdated dicta or superficial distinguishing of Katz. Our hope is that the Supreme Court will take up the issue to correct that error. So stay tuned.

Finally, I want to thank those who have helped with this brief and research (and, fingers crossed, one supporting the merits to come). This includes my research assistant, Kemper Patton, staff on the George Washington Law Review, and the several people who helped write the amicus: Elizabeth Fisher (Wiley), Rachel Grossman (UNC Law), Andy Hessick (UNC Law); and Rick Simpson (Wiley). Also thanks to the Torres’ ever-helpful counsel, including Brian Lawler (Pilot Law) and Andrew Tutt (Arnold and Porter). And, last but not least, thanks to Le Roy Torres, his wife, and the other veterans who are trying to simply get their day in court to exercise their rights under USERRA.

Jeff Hirsch

December 24, 2020 in Employment Discrimination, Labor and Employment News, Labor/Employment History, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, December 21, 2020

A Radio Story of United Steelworkers v. Weber

For employment discrimination law in the U.S., United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979), remains a key U.S. Supreme Court ruling on how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to an employer’s voluntary affirmative action plan. On the details and context of the Weber litigation, there are a lot of good secondary sources (e.g., Malamud 2006). Add to that list a recent radio story from WNPR’s United States of Anxiety and reporter Marianne McCune.

Come for the interviews with Dennis English (in charge of labor relations at Kaiser Aluminum), the son of Jim Nailor (selected for Kaiser’s training program), and Brian Weber himself. Stay for the oral argument exchange between Weber’s lawyer and Thurgood Marshall, plus commentary by Hina Shah.

–Sachin Pandya ORCID logo

References

Malamud, Deborah. 2006. “The Story of United Steelworkers of America v. Weber.” In Employment Discrimination Stories, edited by Joel Wm. Friedman. New York: Foundation Press.

December 21, 2020 in Employment Discrimination, Teaching | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, December 18, 2020

CFP: Work and Employment Relations in the Middle East and North Africa

IlrDesiree LeClerq sends word that Cornell's ILR Review has issued a call for proposals for a virtual workshop and subsequent publication on Labor Transformation and Regime Transition: Lessons from the Middle East and North Africa. Here's the detailed CFP; here's a brief description:

Scholars interested in participating should submit an abstract of up to 500 words to the conference organizers by January 22, 2021. Authors whose abstracts are accepted will be invited to present a paper at a virtual workshop co-sponsored by the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University and the Project on Middle East Political Science, to be held on April 29–30, 2021. Papers presented at this workshop should be substantially completed, but invited participants will have the opportunity to receive feedback from scholars of industrial relations and the politics of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) at the workshop. Based on this workshop, a subset of authors will be asked to submit their paper to the ILR Review to be considered for part of a special themed section in a future issue of the journal.

rb

December 18, 2020 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, December 15, 2020

New Book: Worldwide Labor-Related Responses to COVID

Covid worldLegal Responses to COVID-19 Around the World surveys the labor-related responses of 50 countries to the COVID-19 pandemic. The book currently is available only on kindle, but will be available in hard copy within a week or so. Beyond the book's content, the table of contents provides a really nice list of labor scholars throughout the world.

Here's the complete cite: Legal Responses to Covid-19 Around the World, Cláudio Jannotti da Rocha, Flávia Fragale Martins Pepino, & Rafael Lara Martins, eds. (Lex-Magister [Brazil], 2020) . Disclosure: I contributed the U.S. chapter.

Here's the publisher's description:

This is a collection of papers from 50 countries (6 continents) about the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the economy, employment, contracts, business, people’s income, health, courts and dispute resolution systems. The book’s purpose is to allow current and future generations to find, in one place, information about the legal responses to Covid-19 around the world.

rb

December 15, 2020 in Books, International & Comparative L.E.L., International Contacts, Labor and Employment News, Labor Law, Scholarship, Wage & Hour, Workplace Safety, Workplace Trends | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, December 11, 2020

Final Respects to Bob Covington

I'm sadly reporting the news, from Alvin Goldman via Jeff Hirsch, that labor law legend Bob Covington died November 29 at the age of 84. Below is his bio from Vanderbilt, where he taught for 46 years. Please feel free to use the comment section to recall your memories of Bob.

Bob Covington joined the law school faculty immediately after his graduation from Vanderbilt Law School in 1961. During his 46-year tenure at Vanderbilt, Professor Covington established himself as a wide-ranging scholar and teacher, with a recognized expertise in labor law. In addition to his scholarship in labor law, over the course of his distinguished career, Professor Covington published books and articles on evidence, insurance, legal method and legal education. He has recently published the third edition of Employment Law in a Nutshell (Thomson West, 2009) and will publish a fourth edition of Legal Protection for the Individual Employee in late 2010 (Thomson West, forthcoming 2010, with Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, Clyde W. Summers, Alvin L. Goldman and Matthew W. Finkin). In recognition of his extraordinary contributions to the university, he received the University's Thomas Jefferson Award in 1992. Professor Covington was a visiting professor at a number of prominent law schools, including Michigan, Texas, and California. He retired from Vanderbilt's law faculty in 2007.

rb

December 11, 2020 in Faculty News | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, December 9, 2020

Union Representation of NFL Players

Dc leraDC LERA is hosting Understanding Union Representation for Professional Football Players: Mark Hyman in Conversation with Adam Richelieu of the NFLPA. It will be held Wednesday, December 16, 2020, 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm Eastern. There is no fee, but registration is required. Here's a description:

Join DC LERA for a conversation between Mark Hyman, Director of the Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism at the University of Maryland, and Adam Richelieu of the NFL Players Association – and one of the sport's leading experts on player compensation under the collective bargaining agreement – about Adam’s work behind the scenes to support players' rights. Adam will also tell a personal story, explaining his path from GWU graduate student to his current position.

Thanks to Tequila Brooks for sending this.

rb

December 9, 2020 in Labor Law, Union News | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, December 8, 2020

Cherry's JOTWELL Review of Harris' Unconsionability in Contracting for Worker Training

Miriam Cherry just published on JOTWELL her piece, "Income Sharing Arrangements and Coding Bootcamps: Boom or Bust for the Blue Collar Breadwinner?" This is a review of of Jonathan Harris' forthcoming Alabama Law Review article, Unconscionability in Contracting for Worker Training? The review came out this week. An excerpt:

In his forthcoming article, Unconscionability in Contracting for Worker Training, Jonathan Harris explores the contractual issues that arise when workers or job applicants are asked to pay for their training outside of traditional educational structures. This could arise through a training repayment agreement (TRA), which requires an existing employee to repay the employer a fixed sum expended on training if the worker quits or is fired during a set period of time. This Jot, however, will focus on the other setting in which these non-traditional training arrangements are arising, and which Harris discusses at some length in the second part of his article. These are the so-called Income Sharing Agreements (ISAs), which for-profit code academies use. ISAs are contracts that require the trainee to repay a set percentage of future income in exchange for the tuition that enables them to attend a computer coding academy or bootcamp. ...

Ultimately, in Contracting for Worker Training, Jonathan Harris shines a light on novel TRA and ISA contracts. ISA contracts could help some workers upgrade their skills. Unfortunately, as Harris notes, the ISAs could also take advantage of anxious jobseekers. Harris’s article is an illuminating and worthwhile read for those interested in the future of work and a novel application of the unconscionability doctrine.

Check out the full piece, and congrats to both Miriam and Jonathan.

Jeff Hirsch

 

 

December 8, 2020 in Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bornstein on Pregnancy Discrimination & the Meaning of Equaltiy

BornsteinStephanie Bornstein has just posted on SSRN her article The Politics of Pregnancy Accommodation, 14 Harv. Law & Policy Rev. 293 (2020). It's a great description of the history -- and likely future -- of the meaning of "equality" in the context of pregnancy. Here's the abstract:

How can antidiscrimination law treat men and women “equally” when it comes to the issue of pregnancy? The development of U.S. law on pregnancy accommodation in the workplace tells a story of both legal disagreements about the meaning of “equality” and political disagreements about how best to achieve “equality” at work for women. Federal law has prohibited sex discrimination in the workplace for over five decades. Yet, due to long held gender stereotypes separating work and motherhood, the idea that prohibiting sex discrimination requires a duty to accommodate pregnant workers is a relatively recent phenomenon—and still only partially required by federal law.

This Article documents how decades of internal political conflict about what was best for working women resulted in tortured Supreme Court precedent on, and divergent legislative approaches to, accommodating pregnancy at work. While a diverse feminist movement took a variety of strategies to support pregnant workers, this Article focuses on one core debate in antidiscrimination law: the struggle between a formal or “sameness” and a substantive or “difference” approach to gender equality around pregnancy. It then documents how a third, “reconstructive” approach helped modern advocates move beyond comparing women to men as workers and toward critiquing gendered workplace structures. Striking a hopeful tone, the Article proposes that gender advocates’ legal and political gains have now set the stage for U.S. law to close the remaining gaps in pregnancy accommodation—to fully reflect the fact that pregnant women work and that a significant portion of workers become pregnant.

rb

December 8, 2020 in Employment Discrimination, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (2)

Thursday, December 3, 2020

Ajunwa on COVID-Immunity Work Requirements and Economic Inequility

Ifeoma Ajunwa (my soon-to-be new colleague!) has just published a short piece in Harvard's Bill of Health, "OVID-19 Immunity as Passport to Work Will Increase Economic Inequality."  Some excerpts:

As scientists develop increasingly accurate tests for COVID-19 immunity, we must be on guard as to potential inequities arising from their use, particularly with respect to their potential application as a prerequisite for returning to the workplace.

A focus on immunity as a yardstick for return to work will only serve to widen the gulf of economic inequality, especially in countries like the U.S., which has severe racial health care disparities and uneven access to effective healthcare. This focus could also serve to diminish societal support for further understanding and curtailing the disease....

History has shown that immunity to disease as passport to work can draw a dividing line based on both socio-economic factors and racial group memberships. Writing for Slate, Rebecca Onion notes that “[w]hen yellow fever ravaged 19th-century New Orleans, wealthy white people who ‘acclimated’ [i.e., developed immunity] were rewarded.” White people who had survived yellow fever benefited from “immunoprivilege,” while others suffered social and economic repercussions. In the 21stcentury, a focus on coronavirus immunity rather than prevention of infection could play out similarly.

To acquire immunity, an individual must first survive the disease. Surviving the disease necessities adequate healthcare. Yet, access to healthcare services in the U.S. is unequal. While some COVID-19 patients, like President Trump, are able to receive high levels of healthcare (and even experimental drugs), others lower on the socio-economic spectrum do not have health insurance and can only receive emergency care. Thus, immunity as passport to work would only serve to increase inequality as it would reward those who could afford the care needed to survive.

It is also worth noting that people of color are generally more likely to die of the disease than their white counterparts. Could this lead to a social (even if not scientifically proven) view that white people have greater immunity to the disease than others? If so, imagine how this social view could play out in racial employment discrimination as businesses re-open. Past research shows that racial minorities have had to contend with genetic discrimination in the workplace. ...

It's definitely worth reading the entire piece, so check it out!

Jeff Hirsch

December 3, 2020 in Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, November 30, 2020

Malveaux To Give Scott Lecture December 1

Tuesday, Dec. 1 | 5:30 – 6:30 p.m. MST

Join University of Colorado Law School Professor Suzette Malveaux for a virtual lecture titled “Is it Time for a New Civil Rights Act? Addressing Modern Obstructionist Procedure.” Professor Malveaux will explore how the U.S. Supreme Court’s civil procedure jurisprudence has undermined access to justice and civil rights enforcement, and why a new civil rights law is necessary during this critical and tumultuous time in our country.

The United States is in the midst of the largest civil rights movement since that of the 1960s, and calls for justice for Black and marginalized communities are stronger than ever. Many decry the violence such communities have experienced as a result of centuries of systemic racism and discrimination, which has led to significant, though insufficient, legislative gains. What has received comparatively scant attention, however, is the violence done to those legislative gains, and to civil rights more generally, through the Supreme Court’s increasingly obstructionist procedural jurisprudence. This year’s Scott Lecture explores whether a new civil rights act is the answer.

Named for Austin Scott, a member of the law school faculty for 20 years, this annual lecture features a member of the Colorado Law faculty selected by the dean who is engaged in a significant scholarly project.

Tuesday, Dec. 1
5:30-6:30 p.m. MST

Cost: Free
Register: https://cu.law/RegisterDec1

One general CLE credit is pending for Colorado attorneys.

Hat tip: Brooke Coleman

-- Sandra Sperino

November 30, 2020 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, November 28, 2020

NYU Conference: Re-Training America for the Future of Work

NYU Law School's Center for Labor & Employmet Law is holding an interesting conference this week on "Re-Training America for the Future of Work." The info:

Thursday, December 3 | 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. (Eastern) -- Zoom 
Co-Organizers: Profs. Samuel Estreicher and Jonathan Harris.

The introduction of artificial intelligence, and machine learning in the workplace has sparked vigorous debate around the extent of worker displacement that could result. Imbedded in these conversations is a consensus on the need for major efforts at worker training, retraining, upskilling, and reskilling. The discussants will cover varying approaches to workforce training to meet the demands of employers for skilled workers while ensuring that high quality career paths await the trainees. The discussants will highlight barriers to quality jobs, including unnecessary licensure requirements, and obstacles to establishing effective training programs. They will also evaluate various approaches to workforce development, including private-sector initiatives, community college-led training, training intermediaries, union and DOL-backed Registered Apprenticeship, a new Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Program, regional investment, and other models that encourage collective investment in training today’s and tomorrow’s workers. REGISTER

Hon. John P. Pallasch, Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training at the U.S. Department of Labor, will share opening remarks. Other confirmed discussants include:
  • Daniel Bustillo, Director, Healthcare Career Advancement Program (H-CAP)
  • Robert Chiapetta, Director of Government Relations, Toyota USA
  • Prof. Morris Kleiner, AFL-CIO Chair in Labor Policy, University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs
  • Dr. Livia Lam, Senior Fellow and Director of Workforce Development Policy, Center for American Progress
  • James Murphy, Esq., Spivak Lipton 
  • Amy Peterson, Executive Director, NYC Mayor's Office of Workforce Development
  • Paul Salvatore, Esq., Proskauer
  • Teresita Wisell, Vice President and Dean for Workforce Development and Community Education, Westchester Community College

Jeff Hirsch

November 28, 2020 in Labor/Employment History, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, November 21, 2020

EREPJ Call for Papers!

Great call for papers opportunity with EREJP!  From Michael Green...

CALL FOR PROPOSED PAPERS: Final papers due February 1, 2021, Employee Rights & Employment Policy Journal, Annual Symposium: “What Matters for Black Workers after 2020?” As we approach the end of a tumultuous year for all of us and, in particular for black workers, we are seeking papers for publication in Issue 1, Volume 25 of the Employee Rights & Employment Policy Journal on the topic of “What Matters for Black Workers after 2020?”

In 2020, we saw the senseless killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and so many others that led to national and international protests in support of Black Lives Matter (BLM). Unions and many black workers joined in further BLM solidarity during the Strike for Black Lives Matter held on July 20, 2020. Black athletes have engaged in several prominent acts supporting BLM, including kneeling by Colin Kaepernick and other NFL players, the longstanding activism efforts by members of the WNBA, and the NBA wildcat strike in response to the Jacob Blake shooting. Likewise, COVID-19 disproportionately affected black individuals, many of whom were considered essential workers, in substantial and different ways than other groups.

Divisive political actions created many hostilities for black workers in 2020, including the issuance of an executive order banning discussions of implicit bias and critical race theory in training programs of federal contractors as well as the increasing prevalence of white supremacist and militias groups who openly carried weapons threatening many black protesters and poll workers. Unfortunately, 2020 resulted also in the loss of many black civil rights leaders including John Lewis, Elijah Cummings, C.T. Vivian, and Joseph Lowery. After the 2020 election, there remains considerable uncertainty about legislative, executive, and judicial actions in response to the political appointments and agendas of the last four years that may create significant benefits or burdens for black workers. Black persons also continue to have lower salaries and levels of employment with greater opportunities to be arrested or imprisoned.

With these topics and any others that may affect black workers in mind, we ask all the phenomenal, experienced, developing, and budding scholars who have an intellectual interest in matters that affect black workers as we end 2020 to consider this call for proposals to submit a paper. If you are working on or contemplating writing about the above issues or any other key issues that black workers will have to face after 2020, please consider submitting your work for publication. We would like to have initial proposals by December 11, 2020 and final drafts, by Monday, February 1, 2021. This Symposium on “What Matters for Black Workers after 2020?” is sponsored by The Labor Law Group, a non-profit trust of labor and employment scholars who collaborate on various educational projects. Labor Law Group member Michael Green (Texas A&M) will serve as Symposium editor working with journal co-editors and Labor Law Group members, Martin Malin (Chicago Kent) and Noah Zatz (UCLA).

Submission Format and Instructions. We know this is a short window. But to know what the prospects for consideration are, we ask you by Friday, December 11, 2020 to please submit a Microsoft Word document as an abstract, précis, and/or introduction of the article that is developed enough to allow the editors to evaluate the thesis and proposed execution of the project as a proposal to Michael Z. Green, at mzgreen@law.tamu.edu and Andrea Hudson at ahudson@law.tamu.edu. Selected authors of proposals will be notified by December 21, 2020, if not sooner, of the interest in potential publication. Completed papers will be expected by the Monday, February 1, 2021 deadline. Any inquiries about the Call for Papers should be submitted to Michael Z. Green at mzgreen@law.tamu.edu.

Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal is a faculty-edited, peer-reviewed journal co- published by The Labor Law Group and IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law’s Institute for Law and the Workplace. Authors uniformly praise the Journal’s editing process. The Journal has a student staff who provide cite checking and Bluebooking, but their work is reviewed by the faculty editors, and authors do not deal directly with students.

November 21, 2020 in Conferences & Colloquia, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, November 20, 2020

Acevedo & others on Regulating the Gig Economy

BeyondCongratulations to Deepa Das Acevedo (Alabama) on the publication of her edited volume Beyond the Algorithm: Qualitative Insights for Gig Work Regulation (Cambridge University Press, 2020). Here's the publisher's description:

In Beyond the Algorithm: Qualitative Insights for Gig Work Regulation, Deepa Das Acevedo and a collection of scholars and experts show why government actors must go beyond mass surveys and data-scrubbing in order to truly understand the realities of gig work. The contributors draw on qualitative empirical research to reveal the narratives and real-life experiences that define gig work, and they connect these insights to policy debates being fought out in courts, town halls, and even in Congress itself. The book also bridges academic and non-academic worlds by drawing on the experiences of drivers, journalists, and workers' advocates who were among the first people to study gig work from the bottom up. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in gig work, the legal infrastructure surrounding it, and how that infrastructure can and must be improved.

Look for a paperback edition to be published in about six months, priced at about $35-40.

rb

November 20, 2020 in Books, Employment Common Law, Scholarship, Wage & Hour, Worklife Issues, Workplace Trends | Permalink | Comments (0)