DOCSLIB.ORG

The Demise of Collective Bargaining in the USA: Reflections on the Un-American Character of American Labor Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Demise of Collective Bargaining in the USA: Reflections on the Un-American Character of American Labor Law The Demise of Collective Bargaining in the USA: Reflections on the Un-American Character of American Labor Law Reinhold Fahlbeckt Beginning with the observation that the industrial relations system of a country is a subsystem, alongside political, economic and cultural subsys- tems, the author asserts that the American industrialrelations law subsys- tem is not in harmony with its companion subsystems in American life. This disjunction is so severe, he claims, that the system of American industrial relations is doomed. While conventional wisdom and empirical studies point to unrelenting opposition to unionism on the part of employers, as well as worker indifference, as the chief reasonsfor the decline of unions, the author regards these phenomena as symptoms of deeply rooted factors of much greater magnitude. To bolster his argument that American labor law does not suit the United States, he points to Americans' traditionaldis- trust of government intervention, suspicion of concerted activity and collec- tivism in general, and hostility to compulsory membership in organizations. Finally, he maintains that within American culture there is an unspoken, though powerful, contempt for collective labor relations that expresses itself in three ways: in exemptions from labor law for certain classes of employ- ees, in the definition of bargaining units by the National Labor Relations Board and the courts, and in restrictingaccess to the legal system by union- ized workers who wish to pursue grievances apartfrom the union. In each case, the author writes, not only are workers not trusted to decide these issues, but the restrictions in themselves, by their "un-American" charac- ter, discourage workers from joining in the first place. t Dr. Reinhold Fahlbeck is professor of labor law in the Faculty of Law at Lund University, Sweden. He also teaches at the Stockholm School of Economics. Professor Fahlbeck has been a visit- ing scholar at several U.S. law schools and in 1990 he taught at Stanford Law School as a Visiting Professor. Presently he is a Visiting Professor at Sophia Faculty of Law, Tokyo, Japan. Professor Fahlbeck is an Overseas Correspondent of the National Academy of Arbitrators. A version of this essay was originally published in THE CHANGING FACE OF LABOUR LAW AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; LIBER AMICORUM FOR CLYDE W. SUMMERS (Roger Blanpain & Manfred Weiss eds., 1993). The text is used with the permission of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, Germany. © Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, Volume 15, No. 2, 1994. 308 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF EMPLOYMENT & LABOR LAW [Vol. 15:307 I. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 308 II. PURPOSE .................................................... 309 Ill. THE OVERARCHING PERSPECTIVE: CONCERTED ACTIVITY IN CONFLICT WITH AND GIVING RISE TO RESPONSES IN CONFLICT WITH FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN VALUES ......... 312 A. Freedom of Markets, Restraints of Trade ............... 314 1. Labor Law as a Kind of Antitrust Law .............. 315 2. Bargaining Structures and Bargaining Units ........ 317 3. Non-Existence of Employer Organizations........... 318 4. IndustrialActions .................................. 319 5. Sum mary .......................................... 320 B. The Role of the Federal Government ................... 321 C. Concerted Activity and the Archetypal American: the Element of Contempt .................................. 323 1. Groups of Employees not Covered by Federal Labor Law and Reasons for Non-Coverage ................ 323 2. Who Decides What Constitutes a Bargaining Unit, and Why? ......................................... 324 3. Bars to Individual Access to Justice ................ 326 4. Sum mary .......................................... 327 IV. THE INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE: LABOR LAW AS AN EXERCISE IN KEEPING INDIVIDUALS IN CHECK ......................... 327 A. Compulsion Versus Voluntarism ....................... 327 1. Compulsory Decisions on Establishing Bargaining Units .............................................. 327 2. Compulsory Union Representation .................. 329 3. Compulsory Union Membership .................... 330 B. Collectivism Versus Individualism ...................... 331 1. Exclusivity ......................................... 331 2. Fair Representation................................ 331 3. Grievance Procedure and Access to Justice ......... 332 V. CLOSING WORDS ............................................ 333 I INTRODUCTION "Comparison in labor law presents nearly insuperable problems be- cause it ultimately reaches into comparison of social structures and atti- tudes," Clyde Summers once wrote.' Elaborating on this theme in an article comparing central facets of labor and industrial relations law in Sweden and the United States, Summers added: 1. Clyde W. Summers, Comparisonsin Labor Law: Sweden and the United States, 7 INDUS. REL. L.J. 1, 2 (1985) [hereinafter Summers, Comparisons in Labor Law]. 19941 PERSPECTIVES ON AMERICAN LABOR LAW It is obviously impossible for one who has not lived and worked within an industrial relations system to have a full understanding of the complexities and nuances of that system. Because of incomplete knowledge, relevant considerations may be overlooked or misconstrued. More important, the deep-running social attitudes, political values, or historical traditions may not be fully or accurately sensed.2 The present article is concerned precisely with "the deep-running so- cial attitudes, political values, or historical traditions" of one country, the United States. Its thesis is that U.S. labor and industrial relations legislation is in stark disaccord with these principles. When undertaking comparative research, Summers has often stated that his purpose is limited to "obtaining a different perspective and better understanding of our own system."3 But, in fact, he has not confined him- self to such a relatively humble task. His articles contain analyses that slice through the social fabric of the foreign country under investigation. After emphasizing the daunting difficulties and uncertainties involved in present- ing something worthwhile about a foreign nation to its own people, he once went on to say: "The comparative study itself sharpens our awareness .... As one realizes how much he has failed to understand his own system, he must fear that he has failed to understand the other. But the value of com- parisons remains, for comparison provides a framework and focus outside either system for viewing both."4 It is on that note that I dare proceed. II PURPOSE This article attempts to uncover certain characteristics of American at- titudes and regulation of the labor and industrial relations field. Its purpose is to try to present viewpoints not commonly advanced in order to explore the demise of collective bargaining in the United States. The theme is an overarching one. To discuss properly "the demise of collective bargaining in the U.S." is a monumental task. It may seem preposterous to examine the topic in a short article, particularly if one is a foreigner. What follows, then, is not a full-fledged discussion, merely a bouquet of very brief-and somewhat baffled-observations. I have tried not to emulate articles on "the distinctive character of American labour law," either in form or in substance. 5 2. Clyde W. Summers, Worker Participationin Sweden and the United States: Some Compari- sons from an American Perspective, 133 U. PA. L. REV. 175, 177 (1984) [hereinafter Summers, Worker Participation]. 3. Summers, Comparisons in Labor Law, supra note 1, at 2. 4. Summers, Worker Participation,supra note 2, at 177. 5. See Derek C. Bok, Reflections on the Distinctive Character of American Labor Law, 84 HARV L. REV. 1394 (1971). Everyone familiar with Bok's article will immediately notice that the present article-despite an unintentional similarity in title-in no way draws on that piece. Readers of this article will also notice that I have not referred to, much less relied upon, other articles presenting 310 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF EMPLOYMENT & LABOR LAW [Vol. 15:307 Collective bargaining in the United States follows in the path of un- ions. Unions, in turn, exist where employees decide to form and/or join them. As is well known, the unionization rate in the U.S. is low, about fifteen per cent of the working population in the private sector.6 Thus, an- other way of stating the purpose of this article is to discuss why union membership in the U.S. is so low. To put the theme yet another way: The industrial relations system of any country is a subsystem within that country, along with other subsystems such as the political system, the economic system, the human relations sys- tem, and systems concerning human values (culture). A subsystem that is not in harmony with other subsystems will either change those other sys- tems so that harmony is established, or disappear. In the U.S., the system of labor and industrial relations law is not in harmony with other subsystems. Indeed, it seems to me that the American labor and industrial relations legal system is in disaccord with fundamental features of American society to such an extent that it is-and has been ever since its enactment in 1935- by and large doomed.7 Before proceeding I wish to make one thing absolutely clear. This article is based on the firm notion that classifications like "right-wrong," "good-bad" or "good-better-best" have no meaning per se when discussing legal institutions and arrangements in industrial relations. There simply
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BARGAINING the EIGHTIES a and A
    CAMPus· BARGAINING IN THE EIGHTIES A Retrospective and a Prospective Look Proceedings Eighth Annual Conference April 1980 AARON LEVENSTEIN, Editor JOEL M. DOUGLAS, Director ~ National Center for the Study of • Collective Bargaining in Higher Education 0 ~ Baruch College- CUNY CAMPUS BARGAINING IN THE EIGHTIES A Retrospective and a Prospective Look Proceedings Eighth Annual Conference April 1980 AARON LEVENSTEIN, Editor JOEL M. DOUGLAS, Director ~ National Center for the Study of • 0 • Collective Bargaining in Higher Education ~~,,,, Baruch College-CUNY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Joel M. Douglas - Introduction ............................ 5 2. Joel Segall - Welcoming Address . .. 11 3. T. Edward Hollander and Lawrence R. Marcus - The Economic Environment in the Eighties ..................................... 12 4. Gerie Bledsoe - The Economic Environment in the Eighties - The Necessity for Joint Action ....................................... 1 9 5. Aaron Levenstein - The Legal Environment: The Yeshiva Decision ................................. 24 6. Joseph M. Bress - The Legal Environment in the Eighties - The Agency Shop . ..... 39 7. John Silber - Collective Bargaining m Higher Education: Expectations and Realities - A University President's Viewpoint ........................................ 49 8. Margaret K. Chandler and Daniel Julius - Rights Issues: A Scramble for Power? ........................................ 58 9. Jerome Medalie - Faculty Relations in Non-unionized Institutions ........................... 65 I 0. Ildiko Knott - Union
    [Show full text]
  • Worker Dislovation: Who Bears the Burden? a Comparative Study of Social Values in Five Countries Clyde Summers
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 70 | Issue 5 Article 1 6-1-1999 Worker Dislovation: Who Bears the Burden? A Comparative Study of Social Values in Five Countries Clyde Summers Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Clyde Summers, Worker Dislovation: Who Bears the Burden? A Comparative Study of Social Values in Five Countries, 70 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1033 (1995). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol70/iss5/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Worker Dislocation: Who Bears The Burden? A Comparative Study of Social Values in Five Countries Clyde W. Summers A pervasive phenomenon in modern industrial societies is the instability of employment. Production methods are replaced by new processes requiring different skills; robots replace human -hands; computers replace humaff competency. Demands for popu- lar products shrink or disappear as new or substitute products push into the market. Viable production facilities are transferred to new owners who may have new workforces. Outmoded plants are closed and new plants are opened, often at new locations with new employees. Marginal enterprises are downsized and unprofit- able enterprises are driven out of business. All of these changes are accentuated by slumps in the business cycle, leaving workers stranded without jobs.' Dislocation of workers is inescapable in anything other than a closed and regimented society which prefers stagnation to in- creased living standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Anne Marie Lofaso
    Anne Marie Lofaso West Virginia University College of Law 101 Law Center Drive, Morgantown, WV 26506-6130 http://www.employmentpolicy.org/people/anne-lofaso [email protected] tel: 304-293-7356 fax: 304-293-6891 SUMMARY HIGHER EDUCATION • University of Oxford, Fulbright Scholar, D.Phil., Law, March 1997 • University of Pennsylvania Law School, J.D., 1991 • Harvard University, A.B., History and Science, magna cum laude, June 1987 CLERKSHIP The Honorable James L. Oakes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Law Clerk, July 1993-August 1994 ADMINISTRATIVE AND FACULTY POSITIONS University of Oxford Senior Academic Visitor, Faculty of Law, January 1, 2016 – June 30, 2016 Keeley Visiting Fellow, Wadham College, January 1, 2016 – June 30, 2016 West Virginia University Office of the Provost and West Virginia University Research Office Leadership Research Fellow in the Arts, Humanities, and Non-STEM Disciplines, May 15, 2015 to Dec 30, 2015 West Virginia University College of Law • Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development, July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2015 • Professor of Law, July 2011-present, Associate Professor of Law, January 2007-July 2011 New York University School of Law, Center for Labor and Employment • Research Scholar, since 2014 American University, Washington College of Law • Associate Adjunct Professor, 2004-2006, Lecturer in Law, 2001-2004 University of Oxford, St Hugh’s College, Tutor, 1996 AWARDS AND HONORS Scholarship 2014 Claude Worthington Benedum Distinguished Scholar Award 2010-11 West Virginia University College of Law Faculty Significant Scholarship Award 2010 ForeWord Book of the Year Award Finalist for REVERSING FIELD 2009-10 West Virginia University College of Law Faculty Significant Scholarship Award 2008-09 West Virginia University College of Law Faculty Significant Scholarship Award 2007-08 West Virginia University College of Law Faculty Significant Scholarship Award Teaching 2015 WEST VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW, VOL.
    [Show full text]
  • Unjust Dismissal and the Contingent Worker: Restructuring Doctrine for the Restructured Employee
    Unjust Dismissal and the Contingent Worker: Restructuring Doctrine for the Restructured Employee Mark Bergert American workers in the 1990s are finding that the employment landscape has changed dramatically. Expectations that competence and hard work lead to job security have eroded as a result of widespread labor force contractions, often involving financially healthy companies eager to improve their profit margins.' The process has been given such labels as downsizing, right-sizing, re-engineering, and corporate restructuring, and has had an impact on every segment of the workforce.2 Managers and executives, in particular, now find t Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. B.A. 1966, Columbia University; J.D. 1969, Yale Law School. The author wishes to acknowledge the valuable research assistance provided by Chris Nielsen and Brant Elsberry, third-year law students at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. 1. See Stephen E. Frank, American Express PlansLay-offs of 3,300, WALL ST. J., Jan. 28, 1997, at A2 (reporting the fourth stage of American Express layoffs since 1991, despite "solid" fourth-quarter earnings and a 23% return on equity); John J. Keller, AT&T Will Eliminate40,000 Jobs and Take a Charge of $4 Billion, WALL ST. J., Jan. 3, 1996, at A3 ("AT&T Corp., charting one of the largest single cutbacks in U.S. corporate history, said it would take a $4 billion charge to eliminate 40,000 jobs over the next three years .... In the first nine months of 1995, AT&T earned $2.82 billion.... In 1994, full-year profit was $4.7 billion ...
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Jurisdiction Over Union Constitutions After Wooddell
    Volume 37 Issue 3 Article 1 1992 Federal Jurisdiction over Union Constitutions after Wooddell James E. Pfander Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation James E. Pfander, Federal Jurisdiction over Union Constitutions after Wooddell, 37 Vill. L. Rev. 443 (1992). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol37/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Pfander: Federal Jurisdiction over Union Constitutions after Wooddell VILLANOVA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 37 1992 NUMBER 3 FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER UNION CONSTITUTIONS AFTER WOODDELL JAMES E. PFANDER* I. INTRODUCTION For the first half of this century, the task of policing the inter- nal affairs of labor organizations fell, essentially by default, to state court judges.' State courts based their authority to inter- * Associate Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law; B.A. 1978, University of Missouri; J.D. 1982, University of Virginia. I wish both to thank and to absolve Don Dripps, Kit Kinports, Martin H. Malin, Thomas M. Mengler, Laurie Mikva and Clyde W. Summers (for comments on earlier drafts), Jim Piper, Lee Reichert and Tony Rodriguez (for research assistance) and the University of Illinois (for research support). 1. The state courts' initial reluctance to hear disputes arising from the in- ternal workings of labor unions stemmed from the fact that unions were typically organized as voluntary associations.
    [Show full text]
  • Labor Arbitration Thirty Years After the Steelworkers Trilogy Martin H
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 66 Issue 3 Symposium on Labor Arbitration Thirty Years Article 3 after the Steelworkers Trilogy October 1990 Foreword: Labor Arbitration Thirty Years after the Steelworkers Trilogy Martin H. Malin IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Martin H. Malin, Foreword: Labor Arbitration Thirty Years after the Steelworkers Trilogy, 66 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 551 (1990). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol66/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FOREWORD: LABOR ARBITRATION THIRTY YEARS AFTER THE STEELWORKERS TRILOGY MARTIN H. MALIN* On June 20, 1960, the Supreme Court issued its decisions in what has become known as the Steelworkers Trilogy.' The Trilogy culminated the process of federalization of the law of collective bargaining agree- ments which began with the enactment of section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act. 2 The Court held that an employer may not defend against an action to compel arbitration on the ground that the underlying grievance is friv- olous, that grievances are presumed to be arbitrable and parties to a col- lective bargaining agreement should be compelled to arbitrate unless it can be said with positive assurance that the agreement withdrew the mat- ter from arbitration, and that a court should enforce an arbitration award as long as the award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Matthew W. Finkin
    MATTHEW W. FINKIN Swanlund Chair and Center for Advanced Study Professor of Law University of Illinois College of Law Telephone: (217) 333-3884 504 East Pennsylvania Avenue FAX: (217) 244-1478 Champaign, IL 61820 e-mail: [email protected] COLLATERAL SERVICE: Co-General Editor, Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal (1997-present) (with Sanford Jacoby) PRIOR POSITIONS: Professor of Law, University of Illinois, 1988-present; Swanlund Chair (2019-present); Harno-Cleary Chair in Law, 2006– 2019; Albert J. Harno Professor of Law, 1993–2006 Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University, 1976-1988; Associate Professor of Law, 1974-1976; Visiting Associate Professor of Law, 1973-1974 Various staff positions with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 1967-1973 HIGHER EDUCATION: LL.M., 1973, Yale Law School LL.B., 1967, N.Y.U. Law School B.A., 1963, Ohio Wesleyan University HONORS: Chevalier dans l’ordre des Palmes académiques (France) (2015) Fellow of the Labor and Employment Relations Association (U.S.) (2014) Doctor iur. honoris causa, the University of Trier (Germany) (2012) Doctor iur. honoris causa, the University of Athens (Greece) (2011) University of Illinois Center for Advanced Study Professor (2009) Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Research Prize (Germany) (1995) MATTHEW W. FINKIN Page 2 GRANTS: Resident Fellow, Institute of Advanced Studies, Nantes, France (Spring, 2016) Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Research Grant Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law Hamburg, Germany (Summer, 2005) Dartmouth Humanities Research Fellow Dartmouth College (Summer, 1999) German Marshall Fund Lecturer Konstanz University Federal Republic of Germany (Second Semester, 1989) Fulbright Professor Münster University Federal Republic of Germany (Second Semester, 1987) Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education Research Grant (1975-1976) (with David Feller) PUBLICATIONS: BOOKS: PRIVACY IN EMPLOYMENT LAW (Bloomburg BNA) (5th ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Ideological Voting on the National Labor Relations Board
    IDEOLOGICAL VOTING ON THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ronald Turner* [National Labor Relations Board Chairman Guy] Farmer acknowledged that the Board was a "political animal" and had been "since its inception." It was not that someone in the White House would tell a Board how to decide specific cases, Farmer said, but a member appointed to the Board felt pressure to implement the '"philosophy that he thought his administration wanted him to project on the Board."' The Board pretends to act like a court solemnly arriving at the correct interpretation of a legislative command, but in fact acts like politicians carrying out 2their electoral mandate to favor labor or to favor management. There is nothing wrong with the [NationalLabor Relations] Act. It just needs another Presidentand a different kind of Board.3 I. INTRODUCTION The quotations in the epigraph to this Article are representative of the view, held by many, that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or * Visiting Professor of Law, College of William & Mary School of Law; Alumnae Law Center Professor of Law, The University of Houston Law Center; [email protected]. J.D. 1984, The University of Pennsylvania Law School; B.A. magna cum laude 1980, Wilberforce University. This Article is dedicated to Professors Clyde W. Summers and William B. Gould IV. Special thanks to my colleague, Darren Bush, for illuminating discussions and his insightful comments. 1. JAMES A. GROSS, BROKEN PROMISE: THE SUBVERSION OF U.S. LABOR RELATIONS POLICY, 1947-1994, at 97 (1995) (footnote omitted) (quoting former National Labor Relations Board Chairman Guy Farmer).
    [Show full text]
  • Professionals and Unionization Marina Angel
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1982 Professionals and Unionization Marina Angel Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Angel, Marina, "Professionals and Unionization" (1982). Minnesota Law Review. 1882. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1882 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Professionals and Unionization Marina Angel* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION: THE CHANGING AMERICAN WORKPLACE .......................................... 384 II. COARCHICAL, COLLEGIAL ALTERNATIVES TO THE HIERARCHICAL, BUREAUCRATIC MODEL.. 388 A. PROFESSIONALISM ................................... 390 B. INDusTRIAL DEMOCRACY ............................ 395 C. JOB ENRICHMENT ................................... 397 D. EUROPEAN CODETERMINATION ...................... 402 MI. PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES AND THE WORKPLACE .......................................... 405 A. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ....................... 406 B. THE HEALTH CARE INDusTRY ....................... 410 C. LEGAL LIMITATIONS ON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ....................................... 414 IV. INTERPRETING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT ...................................... 416 A. THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK .....................
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching ADR in the Workplace Once and Again: a Pedagogical History
    Scholarship Repository University of Minnesota Law School Articles Faculty Scholarship 2003 Teaching ADR in the Workplace Once and Again: A Pedagogical History Laura J. Cooper University of Minnesota Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Laura J. Cooper, Teaching ADR in the Workplace Once and Again: A Pedagogical History, 53 J. LEGAL EDUC. 1 (2003), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/305. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Faculty Scholarship collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Teaching ADR in the Workplace Once and Again: A Pedagogical History LauraJ. Cooper During the summer there was a conference in Ann Arbor, sponsored by the Association of American Law Schools, to address whether law schools could better prepare students to represent the interests of employees and employ- ers. The conference planners took care to include as participants notjust law school teachers, but also practitioners who could more accurately describe the role of attorneys in representing worker and employer interests and how students could best be educated to serve those roles. Conference participants concluded that current law school courses were inappropriately focused on the adversarial role of lawyers in litigation. They decided that courses should instead emphasize lawyers' roles in more amicable means of conflict resolu- tion, such as arbitration and mediation. Teachers at the conference outlined innovative pedagogies that they had been employing successfully in their classrooms to teach these new roles, including simulated mediated negotia- tions and arbitrations.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Council of Methodist Youth
    The National Council of Methodist Youth A Christian fellowship correlating and giving national expression to the program of participating youth groups in the Methodist Church. 740 Rush Street EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS HERMAN WILL, JR. , PRES. 4855 N. LOWELL AVE. CHICAGO, ILL. THOMAS R. PENDELL JOHN M. SWOMLEY, JR. , V-PRE l^ June 27 EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 2929 BROADWAY NEW YORK, NEW YORK BEULA BRIGHAM , SECY. 2407 SOUTH 19 LINCOLN, NEBRASKA LESLIE J. Ross TREAS. TO ALL PERSONS COMECTED WITH TEE LEADERSHIP OF 'THE BATTLEGROUND, INDIANA JAMES L. FARMER, JR. IQUo FATIOFAL COHERENCE OF METHODIST YOUTH DEVOTIONAL LIFE 1027 EUCLID ST. , N.W. WASHINGTON, D. C. GRACE DEMETRIADES WORLD FRIENDSHIP 7IOO SELLERS AVE. UPPER DARBY, PA, My dear Friend: FRANKLIN H. LITTELL SOCIAL ACTION CENTRAL METHODIST CHURCH Plans for the 4 th Biennial National Conference of Method­ WOODWARD AND ADAMS DETROIT, MICHIGAN ist Youth are now nearly complete. As we look forward to this LAWRENCE EISENBERG RECREATION gathering in this critical summer, we all realize its paramount UNIV. OF CHATTANOOGA CHATTANOOGA, TENN. significance. We appreciate the part that you are having with us in making it the meaningful experience it is going to he. MEMBERS AT LARGE MILO D. HIMES, JR. 125 N. DUBUQUE Conference program. We are enclosing a copy of the main IOWA CITY, IOWA features of the conference program, the schedule of the con­ NEIL SWANSON MT. VERNON, IOWA ference, the list of commissions and their leadership, the rules MARY MOORE of procedure, and a transportation "bulletin. Make careful note 43 EAST 1ST ST. NEW YORK, N. Y.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Rights and Interests in the Workplace Dau 00 Fmt Auto4 4/30/07 10:26 AM Page Ii
    dau 00 fmt auto4 4/26/07 8:40 AM Page i Legal Rights and Interests in the Workplace dau 00 fmt auto4 4/30/07 10:26 AM Page ii Carolina Academic Press Law Casebook Series Advisory Board ❦ Gary J. Simson, Chairman Dean, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Raj Bhala University of Kansas School of Law John C. Coffee, Jr. Columbia University Law School Randall Coyne University of Oklahoma College of Law John S. Dzienkowski University of Texas School of Law Paul Finkelman Albany Law School Robert M. Jarvis Shepard Broad Law Center Nova Southeastern University Vincent R. Johnson St. Mary’s University School of Law Michael A. Olivas University of Houston Law Center Kenneth Port William Mitchell College of Law Michael P. Scharf Case Western Reserve University School of Law Peter M. Shane Michael E. Moritz College of Law The Ohio State University Emily L. Sherwin Cornell Law School John F. Sutton, Jr. Emeritus, University of Texas School of Law David B. Wexler John E. Rogers College of Law University of Arizona dau 00 fmt auto4 4/26/07 8:40 AM Page iii Legal Rights and Interests in the Workplace Clyde W. Summers Jefferson B. Fordham Professor of Law, Emeritus University of Pennsylvania Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt Willard and Margaret Carr Professor of Labor and Employment Law Indiana University-Bloomington Alan Hyde Professor of Law and Sidney Reitman Scholar Rutgers University-Newark Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina dau 00 fmt auto4 4/30/07 10:27 AM Page iv Copyright © 2007 Clyde W. Summers Kenneth G.
    [Show full text]