Labor Relations Today : Labor & Employment Lawyers & Attorneys : Contract Administration, Collective Bargaining

Just Labour: A Canadian Journal of Work and Society is published by York University's Centre for Research on Work and Society (CRWS).  An editorial committee of academics and union officials puts the journal out a few times a year.  The most recent edition is dedicated entirely to the Employee Free Choice Act, and more specifically, the representation of the Canadian card check experience in connection with the debate.  Just Labour explains its intent is to: 

provide a more balanced and factual representation of Canada’s labour market experience (including the role and effectiveness of collective bargaining structures here) than has been forthcoming so far in the highly politicized U.S. debate.

The volume contains a pro-union “Open statement by Canadian scholars on unionization and the economic and social well-being of Canadians,” and numerous academic pieces divided into three sections. The first section contains articles which review the study released by Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar in March 2009 which suggested that EFCA would drive up unemployment in the U.S. The second section includes two articles on Quebec’s experience with card-check and first-contract arbitration. The third section contains five additional pieces regarding the links between unionization and other socio-economic concerns in the Canadian context.

This volume is certain to play a role in the debate over American labor law reform once the conversation resumes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

During a panel discussion yesterday, SEIU President Andy Stern told the audience that next year Democrats will need to decide whether they will seize upon their super-majority to pass legislation like EFCA or not:

"The Democrats really have a historic and decisive moment, for anybody who runs a business there are moments where you sort of make big choices," Stern told the audience. "They have 60 votes for the first time and probably the last time they're gonna have it. They have to decide if they are an army of one or an army of 60."

Mr. Stern seemed less than optimistic, however:

"They just have to decide, if not I think they're going to miss a historic moment that won't come back for a very long time," Stern said. "And so far I wouldn't bet with them."

Likewise, in Las Vegas, at the Global Gaming Expo, UNITE-HERE President John Wilhelm struck a skeptical tone:

"There is no possibility it comes up in the Senate this year,” said Wilhelm, also the onetime leader of the Culinary Union. “Whether it comes up next year is open to question, and whether it gets 60 votes in the Senate is open to question.”

He added: “I support it. But I don’t regard it as a magic bullet.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At Findlaw, Cornell Law Professor Michael Dorf asks the question: "Is There a Constitutional Right to Sign a Petition Anonymously?"  Professor Dorf notes the recent decision in Doe #1 v. Reed, wherein the Ninth Circuit held that 100,000 people who signed a petition in Washington state had no constitutional right to protect their identities from becoming known by the general public.  Calling it a "difficult" question, the Professor concludes that it might be more prudent to deal with the matter as a policy issue, noting "a regime of public disclosure of petition signers could have a powerful chilling effect on political participation by people holding unpopular views."

Professor Dorf notes the widespread preference for the secret ballot in public elections, yet observes:

But, of course, widespread or even universal adoption of a practice does not necessarily render that practice constitutionally obligatory. Early votes were not cast anonymously, and if the Court were to say that the First Amendment requires the secret ballot, then that ruling could cast doubt on other electoral systems that use various forms of public voting.

Consider the proposed Employee Free Choice Act, which would permit certification of a union as the representative of workers in a bargaining unit without a secret ballot (although a secret ballot could still be used). Is the proposed Act unconstitutional? And what about corporate governance laws, and other laws that permit or require people to cast their votes or otherwise state their opinions without the protection of anonymity. Are they also unconstitutional?

Perhaps the most dramatic denial of anonymity is that effected by the Sixth Amendment, which—except in extraordinarily rare circumstances—requires crime victims to testify in open court in the face of those who wronged them. A Supreme Court ruling that any reasonable fear of intimidation or harassment triggers a right to anonymity could thus have far-reaching consequences.

An interesting column well worth a read.  And should the Supreme Court take up the Doe petition, its decision would have an impact on the legal challenges that EFCA may face if it passes including a card check provision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Over the last few months as the House and Senate have turned just about the entirety of their attention to healthcare insurance legislation, the winds previously swirling about the Employee Free Choice Act have calmed considerably.  In a recent Wall Street Journal interview, new AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called it "the best stall that we've ever had," asserting "we're going to get healthcare done" first and then turn full attention to passing EFCA.  Melanie Trottman reports:

Once the health care bill is passed (Trumka is confident it will become law), unions will move immediately to EFCA, a bill they’ve been forced to push to the back burner while health care dominates the spotlight. Unions say they need the so-called “card check” bill to make sure workers can join unions without employer intimidation. They’re also keen on a provision that would allow government arbitrators to quickly settle stalled labor contract disputes.

Business trade groups are prepared to continue fighting the bill which they say would unjustly force contract terms and allow unions to intimidate employees into joining.

Elsewhere:

• in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, columnist MIchael Smerconish highlights former Rep. Dede Scozzofaza's (R-NY) support for EFCA as one of the prime reasons many conservatives and Republicans withdrew their support for her, effectively handing New York's 23rd district to the Democrats for the first time in decades.
• In the Houston Chronicle, Fisher & Phillips partner Kevin Troutman identifies elements of the pending healthcare legislation that will drive up unionization, even as EFCA idles. 
• In the Wall Street Journal, earlier this week, Kris Maher reported on various efforts to enact elements of EFCA and speculated EFCA compromise propositions in various states.  (For our earlier coverage of similar state efforts, see posts here and here.) 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link