Newsletter Spring 2009
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
6 What's Wrong with the Employee Free Choice Act?
6 What’s Wrong with the Employee Free Choice Act? Richard A. Epstein he first one hundred days of the Obama administration have been marked by its determination to pass the revolu- T tionary Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which was introduced in Congress on March 10, 2009. As of this writing, it looks as though the bill will not pass this year, given the unanimous Republican opposition to it in the Senate. But the issue is likely to be revived again during the Obama presidency, as it has been before, so it is important to examine its provisions because it raises important issues of principle. In addition, it has gathered an impressive level of political and intellectual support. In particular, the EFCA has received the endorsement of the Democratic National Convention Platform Committee of prominent economists, under the aegis of the Economic Policy Institute, and of President Obama and Vice President Biden. In a recent congressional hearing before the 110th Congress on February 8, the EFCA was defended as the means to return to the management-labor balance under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (the NLRA, in its original form is commonly referred to as the Wagner Act), said to be the surest way to revive the fortunes of a shrinking middle class. The reality, however, is otherwise. The EFCA would hamper the efficiency of labor markets in ways that make the road to economic 89 90 REACTING TO THE SPENDING SPREE recovery far steeper than necessary. Generally, it will severely hurt the very persons whom it intends to help. -
Senate Democrats Progress on EFCA Compromise by Jay P
Senate Democrats Progress on EFCA Compromise by Jay P. Krupin and Steven Swirsky July 2009 The past several days have brought potentially significant developments with respect to Senate Democrats’ efforts to enact labor law reform and bring the Employee Free Choice Act to a vote on the Senate floor. Reports have circulated that a consensus has begun to emerge among Senate Democrats for a bill that would remove EFCA’s controversial provisions eliminating secret ballot elections where a union has obtained signatures from more than 50 percent of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit, and instead would provide for significantly faster NLRB-conducted elections, within five to ten days of the filing of a representation petition. The bill would also provide for greater access to employees and to employer property during the campaign period. Presently, NLRB-conducted elections are typically held an average of 45 days after the union files a petition. Along with faster elections, the reported compromise would include increased access by unions to employer premises to campaign among employees, as well as increased restrictions on employer campaign rights. EFCA’s other most controversial component, compulsory binding arbitration of the economic and other terms of initial collective bargaining agreements where the parties do not quickly reach agreement, is reported to remain a part of the compromise bill. While the Democrats reached 60 votes in the Senate when Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and Al Franken was finally declared the victor over Norm Coleman in Minnesota, the fact is that there remain a substantial block of Democratic senators who have expressed doubt about EFCA’s card check language and who have indicated that they are not prepared to support a bill that would eliminate secret ballot elections. -
Women by County
WOMEN BY COUNTY Albany County Maria Van Rensselaer, 1645-1688 (Colonial and Revolutionary Eras) “Mother” Ann Lee, 1736-1784 (Faith Leaders) Harriet Myers, 1807-1865 (Abolition and Suffrage) Columbia County Margaret Beekman Livingston, 1724-1800 (Entrepreneurs) “Mother” Ann Lee, 1736-1784 (Faith Leaders) Elizabeth Freeman, “Mumbet,” 1742-1829 (Abolition and Suffrage) Janet Livingston Montgomery, 1743-1828 (Colonial & Revolutionary War Eras) Flavia Marinda Bristol, 1824-1918 (Entrepreneurs) Ida Helen Ogilvie, 1874-1963 (STEM) Edna St. Vincent Millay, 1892-1950 (The Arts) Ella Fitzgerald, 1917-1996 (The Arts) Lillian “Pete” Campbell, 1929-2017 (Reformers, Activists, and Trailblazers) Dutchess County Cathryna Rombout Brett, 1687-1763 (Entrepreneurs) Janet Livingston Montgomery, 1743-1828 (Colonial & Revolutionary War Eras) Sybil Ludington, 1761-1839 (Colonial & Revolutionary War Eras) Lucretia Mott, 1793-1880 (Abolition and Suffrage) Maria Mitchell, 1818-1889 (STEM) Antonia Maury, 1866-1952 (STEM) Beatrix Farrand, 1872-1959 (STEM) Eleanor Roosevelt, 1884-1962 (Reformers, Activists, and Trailblazers) Inez Milholland, 1886-1916 (Abolition and Suffrage) Edna St. Vincent Millay, 1892-1950 (The Arts) Dorothy Day, 1897-1980 (Faith Leaders) Elizabeth “Lee” Miller, 1907-1977 (Reformers, Activists, and Trailblazers) Jane Bolin, 1908-2007 (Reformers, Activists, and Trailblazers) Katharine Graham, 1917-2001(Entrepreneurs) Frances “Franny” Reese, 1917-2003 (Reformers, Activists, and Trailblazers) Raquel Rabinovich, b. 1929 (The Arts) Greene County Sybil Ludington, 1761-1839 (Colonial and Revolutionary War Eras) Candace Wheeler, 1827-1923 (The Arts) Margaret Newton Van Cott, 1830-1914 (Faith Leaders) Elizabeth Cochrane Seaman “Nellie Bly,” 1864-1922 (Reformers, Activists…) Ruth Franckling Reynolds, 1918-2007 (Reformers, Activists, and Trailblazers) Orange County Jane Colden, 1724-1760 (STEM) Margaret “Capt. -
The Employee Free Choice Act: the Biggest Change in Labor Law in 60 Years by Robert Quinn and John Leschak
LABOR LAW REGIONAL LABOR REVIEW, Fall 2009 The Employee Free Choice Act: The Biggest Change in Labor Law in 60 Years by Robert Quinn and John Leschak One of the most contentious proposals of the 2008 Presidential campaign and of the current Congressional season in Washington is the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Supported by President Obama and opposed by Senator John McCain and most other Republicans, EFCA would be the most significant change to federal labor law in over sixty years. First, EFCA would allow the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) to certify a union without an election if a majority of workers voluntarily sign cards authorizing a union to represent them (this provision is also known as “card check”). Second, EFCA would impose new penalties on employers who violate workers’ rights during initial organizing campaigns. And third, EFCA would permit bargaining disputes between an employer and union to be decided by arbitration during first-time contract negotiations. However, several powerful groups are opposed to any change. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has launched a vociferous campaign against EFCA’s “Card Check” provision, which they claim will lead to intimidation and coercion in the workplace.1 Congressional Republicans have also been outspoken opponents of card check. Last February, Republican Senators Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Mike Enzi (Wyo.) introduced the Secret Ballot Protection Act, S. 478. This bill would make it illegal for an employer to voluntarily recognize a union through card check and would require NLRB elections. While many are opposed to EFCA, it cannot be denied that reform is needed. -
Research Bibliography on the Industrial History of the Hudson-Mohawk Region
Research Bibliography on the Industrial History of the Hudson-Mohawk Region by Sloane D. Bullough and John D. Bullough 1. CURRENT INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY Anonymous. Watervliet Arsenal Sesquicentennial, 1813-1963: Arms for the Nation's Fighting Men. Watervliet: U.S. Army, 1963. • Describes the history and the operations of the U.S. Army's Watervliet Arsenal. Anonymous. "Energy recovery." Civil Engineering (American Society of Civil Engineers) 54 (July 1984): 60- 61. • Describes efforts of the City of Albany to recycle and burn refuse for energy use. Anonymous. "Tap Industrial Technology to Control Commercial Air Conditioning." Power 132 (May 1988): 91–92. • The heating, ventilation and air–conditioning (HVAC) system at the Empire State Plaza in Albany is described. Anonymous. "Albany Scientist Receives Patent on Oscillatory Anemometer." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 70 (March 1989): 309. • Describes a device developed in Albany to measure wind speed. Anonymous. "Wireless Operation Launches in New York Tri- Cities." Broadcasting 116 10 (6 March 1989): 63. • Describes an effort by Capital Wireless Corporation to provide wireless premium television service in the Albany–Troy region. Anonymous. "FAA Reviews New Plan to Privatize Albany County Airport Operations." Aviation Week & Space Technology 132 (8 January 1990): 55. • Describes privatization efforts for the Albany's airport. Anonymous. "Albany International: A Century of Service." PIMA Magazine 74 (December 1992): 48. • The manufacture and preparation of paper and felt at Albany International is described. Anonymous. "Life Kills." Discover 17 (November 1996): 24- 25. • Research at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy on the human circulation system is described. Anonymous. "Monitoring and Data Collection Improved by Videographic Recorder." Water/Engineering & Management 142 (November 1995): 12. -
Nomination Hearing for Deputy Secretary of Labor and Members of the National Labor Relations Board
S. HRG. 115–374 NOMINATION HEARING FOR DEPUTY SECRETARY OF LABOR AND MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HEARING OF THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON NOMINATION FOR DEPUTY SECRETARY OF LABOR AND MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD JULY 13, 2017 Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 26–334 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Nov 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\DOCS\26334.TXT CAROL HELPN-004 with DISTILLER COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania RAND PAUL, Kentucky AL FRANKEN, Minnesota SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut PAT ROBERTS, Kansas ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM KAINE, Virginia TIM SCOTT, South Carolina MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire DAVID P. CLEARY, Republican Staff Director LINDSEY WARD SEIDMAN, Republican Deputy Staff Director EVAN SCHATZ, Minority Staff Director JOHN RIGHTER, Minority Deputy Staff Director (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Nov 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 S:\DOCS\26334.TXT CAROL HELPN-004 with DISTILLER CONTENTS STATEMENTS THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2017 Page COMMITTEE MEMBERS Alexander, Hon. -
A Report on the Litigation Lobby
CENTER FOR LEGAL POLICY AT THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE C L P STREET NW A REPORT ON THE LITIGATION LOBBY 2010 A Message from the Director merica’s litigation-friendly legal system continues to im- law is, for the most part, crafted by state judges rather than en- A pose a heavy burden on our economy. The annual direct acted by state legislatures, these efforts have centered on ensuring cost of American tort litigation—excluding much securities liti- a friendly judiciary, whether appointed or elected. gation, punitive damages, and the multibillion-dollar settlement With business groups now fighting back against Trial Lawyers, reached between the tobacco companies and the states in 1998— Inc.’s longtime grip on state judiciaries, the litigation lobby has exceeds $250 billion, almost 2 percent of gross domestic prod- turned its attention to state legislatures, where it is not only block- uct.1 The indirect costs of excessive litigiousness (for example, the ing tort reforms but working to expand its portfolio of litigation unnecessary tests and procedures characterizing the practice of opportunities. Among other things, state legislators are authoriz- “defensive” medicine, or the loss of the fruits of research never ing new kinds of lawsuits, raising damage caps, and giving private undertaken on account of the risk of abusive lawsuits) are prob- lawyers authority to sue on behalf of the state. ably much greater than the direct costs themselves.2 Of course, the growth in federal regulation and law has made Of course, tort litigation does do some good, and it does deter it necessary for Trial Lawyers, Inc. -
Employee Free Choice Act What It Means for You
JUNE 2009 54224_P01_32_x2.indd 1 6/21/09 11:00:58 PM President’s Page Employee Free Choice Act What It Means For You uch that is written on the front pages of tively—free from coercion, intimidation, and retali- Mnewspapers all across America on the Em- ation, exactly what is needed to rebuild the middle ployee Free Choice Act (EFCA) has been about class. We know the erosion of the middle class fol- the battle lines drawn by Big Business and La- lows in the footprints of the steady decline of work- bor on this issue. It is easy to get caught up in ers’ rights over the past several decades. Below are the politics of it all, but the American public de- some of the reasons the Act is so important, and serves an answer to the question, “Is this good why the Iron Workers and the building trades have for America right now?” The U.S. House of Rep- supported passage of the EFCA in Congress: resentatives passed the EFCA on March 1, 2007 When workers in a non-union workplace at- by a 241-185 majority. However, though a ma- tempt to form support for a union, they are of- jority of the Senate supported the EFCA, a Re- ten times harassed and intimidated; 25 percent publican fi libuster blocked it. Published reports of companies unlawfully fi re pro-union workers. state approximately 60 million unrepresented The current laws against such corporate mis- Americans would join a union if given a chance. conduct are so weak companies often treat them The U.S. -
The Employee Free Choice Act – What’S an Employer to Do?
Reprinted with permission from the New York State Bar Association Journal, September 2009, Vol. 81, No. 7, published by the New York State Bar Association, One Elk Street, Albany, New York 12207. POINT OF VIEW BY EVE I. KLEIN, BRUCE J. KASTEN AND JOANNA R. VARON EVE I. KLEIN ([email protected]) is a partner at Duane Morris LLP in New York City practic- ing in the area of employment law, labor relations and litigation. She earned her law degree from Cornell Law School and her undergraduate degree, with distinction, from Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. BRUCE J. KASTEN ([email protected]) is a partner at Duane Morris LLP in Philadelphia, practicing in the areas of employment law, labor relations and employment litigation. He is a graduate of the Columbus School of Law of The Catholic University of America and earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Scranton. JOANNA R. VARON ([email protected]) is an associate at Duane Morris LLP in New York City. She received her law degree from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where she was senior articles editor of the Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal. She received her undergraduate degree, with high honors, from Rutgers University. The Employee Free Choice Act – What’s an Employer to Do? he labor movement’s top legisla- any corresponding increase in penal- cess; (3) potential revisions to EFCA; tive priority, the Employee Free ties for union misconduct. and (4) steps employers can take to TChoice Act (EFCA), proposes The chances for passage of at least be ready for the changes the EFCA is the most sweeping set of amendments some version of the EFCA this year expected to have on the organizing to the National Labor Relations Act have improved dramatically from last and collective bargaining processes. -
Labor History Theme Study: Phase Ill
. .. · wl 1 zo D ~JJ.'1S F;Je.:. · /'/PS Genera I . ':'!>7 . · 1 '·,. : .... ' . ·. ,· ••• • /·'. ·,,];. .. .· ··~ji;:;;::::::;;:.~·;:~.. - ::::--:;:3=~ . ·.. • . • .· . .,,...--,;:;:.~.::.;'£/"-::-/ ,?'.:' . Labor.H1storyTheme·Stu.dy:_·Phase Ill· · . Department of the lnte~i~r • National Park Se.rvice •·Denver Ser:'ice Center .•. ; •• . PLEASE RETURN :ro: TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER ~ DENVER SERVICE CENTER ON MICROFILM . C@Il®rr §~ffiIID~. NATIONAL P'ARK. SERVICE 1/31/~3 • Labor History Theme Study: Phase Ill .. August 1997 • I Department of the Interior • National Park Service • Denver Service Center • • This document is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Stuart Kaufman, labor historian, 1942-1997. • • Executive Summary The National Historic Landmark (NHL) Theme Study on American Labor History, Phase Ill, prepared by the Denver Service Center of the National Park Service (NPS), evaluated the following 11 sites associated with the diverse labor history of the United States: • Audiffred Building - San Francisco, California • Butte-Anaconda Mining and Smelting Complex - Butte and Anaconda, Montana • Ford Motor I River Rouge Complex - Dearborn, Michigan • Harmony Mills Historic District- Cohoes, New York1 • Kate Mullany House -Troy, New York1 • Kingsley Plantation - Jacksonville, Florida • Matewan Historic District - Matewan, West Virginia • Puckett Family Farm - Granville County, North Carolina • Pullman Historic District - Chicago, Illinois • Sloss Furnaces - Birmingham, Alabama • Tredegar Iron Works - Richmond, Virginia The National Park Service did not undertake a comprehensive Special Resource Study pro cess, but instead it has provided preliminary findings concerning the suitability and feasibility of the 11 sites. Prior to any legislation enacted by Congress regarding one or more of the 11 sites, it is recommended that the National Park Service program special resource studies for these sites. -
Heritage Development Resource Guide November 2007
Heritage Development Resource Guide November 2007 New York State Heritage Areas 198225 years2007 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Profiles 5 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation 7 Heritage New York (HNY) 9 New York State Heritage Area Program 11 Heritage Partners Alliance of National Heritage Areas (ANHA) 13 American Institute of Architects - NYS 15 Audubon New York 16 Canal New York, Inc. 18 Canal Society of New York State 20 Capital District Regional Planning Commission (CDRPC) 22 Center for Economic Growth (CEG) 24 Champlain Valley Partnership Heritage Area 26 Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor 28 Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council (G/FLRPC) 31 Hudson-Fulton-Champlain Quadricentennial Commission 33 Hudson River Environmental Society (HRES) 35 Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area 37 Lakes to Locks Passage, Inc. 40 Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway 42 Museum Association of New York (MANY) 44 National Grid 46 National Park Service (NPS) 48 National Trust for Historic Preservation 50 New York Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials (NYCOM) 52 New York Empire State Development Corporation (ESD) 54 New York Folklore Society 56 New York Heritage Area Association 58 New York State Canal Corporation 60 New York State Council on the Arts (NYSCA) 62 New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets (NYS Ag & Mkts) 64 New York State Department of Education (NYSED) 66 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 68 New York State Department of State (NYDOS) 69 New York State -
Taylor Law at 50: Bright Spots and Pressure Points Conference
Taylor Law at 50: Bright Spots and Pressure Points Conference Thursday and Friday, May 10 - May 11, 2018 Thursday, May 10 | 8:45 a.m. - 5:15 p.m. Friday, May 11 | 8:45 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. Desmond Hotel and Conference Center Albany, NY 9.5 MCLE Credits 99.5 Areas of Professional Practice Sponsored by: The New York State Public Employment Relations Board Cornell University's ILR School and Scheinmen Institute on Conflict Resolution New York State Bar Association Committee on Continuing Legal Education Labor and Employment Law Section This program is offered for educational purposes. The views and opinions of the faculty expressed during this program are those of the presenters and authors of the materials. Further, the statements made by the faculty during this program do not constitute legal advice. Copyright © 2018 All Rights Reserved New York State Bar Association Program Description The New York State Public Employment Relations Board, Cornell University’s ILR School and Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution, and the New York State Bar Association will be holding a special conference recognizing New York’s Taylor Law and its substantial influence on public sector labor relations over the past 50 years. The conference will include presentations by practitioners and scholars that showcase the Taylor Law’s significant contributions to New York State public sector labor- management relations, examine and assess areas where the Taylor Law’s effectiveness has been weakened, and document and analyze emerging and alternative legal and public policy models and frameworks. The program will include a panel of former Chairs reflecting on their time at PERB and the meaning of the Taylor Law.