Wednesday, November 3, 2010

State Secret Ballot Measures

NLRB Justin Keith, at Greenberg Traurig’s Labor & Employment Blog, has posted on successful ballot measures in Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utahthat would require secret ballot elections for union recognition.  We've posted on the attempts before (see here and here), but yestersay's election has ramped things up.

I'm still of the view that these measures are obvious candidates for premption, but it looks like we'll have a more official word soon enough.  Stay tuned.

-JH

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2010/11/state-secret-ballot-measures.html

Labor Law | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef013488b21ee7970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference State Secret Ballot Measures:

Comments

It's certainly interesting that you hold that these efforts are preempted, while others on this blog hold that states can bar so-called "captive audience" meetings conducted by employers.

It seems to me that the only reasonable analysis is that BOTH fail on preemption grounds.

Posted by: James Young | Nov 7, 2010 7:56:55 PM

Others on this blog (hi Paul) and me have held different views on the captive-audience preemption issue, among others. So I actually agree that both should fall to preemption, although the secret ballot measures are a much clearer case than the captive audience speech measures (e.g., the former directly conflicts with the NLRA's text, while the latter does not). Just another reminder that the blog doesn't speak as a single voice.

Posted by: Jeff Hirsch | Nov 7, 2010 9:19:57 PM

James Young took the words right out of my mouth!

Posted by: Tom Trachsel | Nov 7, 2010 9:20:14 PM

Post a comment