DOCSLIB.ORG

''Workplace Fairness: Has the Supreme Court Been

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

S. HRG. 111–396 ‘‘WORKPLACE FAIRNESS: HAS THE SUPREME COURT BEEN MISINTERPRETING LAWS DE- SIGNED TO PROTECT AMERICAN WORKERS FROM DISCRIMINATION?’’ HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 7, 2009 Serial No. J–111–55 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 56–089 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 07:39 May 11, 2010 Jkt 056089 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56089.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania AL FRANKEN, Minnesota BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 07:39 May 11, 2010 Jkt 056089 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56089.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 185 Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 3 WITNESSES de Bernardo, Mark A., Partner, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Washington, DC ............. 8 Foreman, Michael, Professor & Director, Civil Rights Appellate Clinic, Dickin- son Section of Law, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Penn- sylvania ................................................................................................................. 12 Fox, Michael W., Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Steward, P.C., Austin, Texas ............................................................................................... 10 Gross, Jack, Des Moines, Iowa ............................................................................... 7 Jones, Jamie Leigh, Founder/Chief Executive Officer, The Jamie Leigh Foun- dation, Spring, Texas ........................................................................................... 5 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Mark A. de Bernardo to questions submitted by Senator Ses- sions ...................................................................................................................... 28 Responses of Michael W. Fox to questions submitted by Senator Sessions ....... 42 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Coleman, Francis T., Waffling Circuits, article ..................................................... 46 Davis, Daniel J., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Washington, DC, article ...... 53 de Bernardo, Mark A., Partner, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Washington, DC ............. 59 Foreman, Michael, Professor & Director, Civil Rights Appellate Clinic, Dickin- son Section of Law, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Penn- sylvania ................................................................................................................. 81 Fox, Michael W., Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Steward, P.C., Austin, Texas ............................................................................................... 95 Gross, Jack, Des Moines, Iowa ............................................................................... 136 Hill, Elizabeth, Dispute Resolution Journal, May/July 2003, article .................. 142 JAMS, Washington, DC: June 26, 2009, article 150 August 2002, article 153 July 15, 2009, article 156 Jones, Jamie Leigh, Founder/Chief Executive Officer, The Jamie Leigh Foun- dation, Spring, Texas ........................................................................................... 176 LexisNexis, New York University Law Review, Albany, New York: Estreicher, Samuel, December 1997, article .................................................. 187 Maltby, Lewis L., Fall 1998, article ................................................................ 213 Mogilnicki, Eric J. and Kirk D. Jensen, Spring 2003, article .............................. 237 Townsend, John M., U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, Washington, DC, October 2006, agreements ............................................................................ 257 U.S. District Court, Judicial Case load Profile, report ......................................... 286 Westlaw, Dianne LaRocca, report .......................................................................... 287 (III) VerDate Nov 24 2008 07:39 May 11, 2010 Jkt 056089 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56089.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC VerDate Nov 24 2008 07:39 May 11, 2010 Jkt 056089 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56089.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC ‘‘WORKPLACE FAIRNESS: HAS THE SUPREME COURT BEEN MISINTERPRETING LAWS DE- SIGNED TO PROTECT AMERICAN WORKERS FROM DISCRIMINATION?’’ WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2009 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The Committee met, Pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room SD– 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chair- man of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Specter, Franken, Sessions, and Grassley. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Chairman LEAHY. Good morning. This week the U.S. Supreme Court met to officially begin its new term. While I talked about this yesterday at another Committee I thought we would have this hearing to highlight how decisions of the Supreme Court affect the everyday lives of Americans. And what we see on the headlines about a U.S. Supreme Court decision may look one way, but with the average Americans it can have quite an effect. Our hearing will focus on how a bare majority of the Supreme Court has overridden statutory protections to make it more difficult to prove age discrimination in the workplace. In two narrowly di- vided 5/4 decisions the conservative majority of the court threatens to eliminate more of America’s civil rights in the workplace. Just as it eliminated Lilly Ledbetter’s claim to equal pay, basically said a woman does not have to be paid the same as a man until Con- gress stepped in to set the law right. It is difficult that we have these laws on the books. For some time it worked very well to protect Americans and then time and time again, the very, very activist, Supreme Court, overturns them. Their recent decisions make it more difficult for victims of employ- ment discrimination to seek relief in court, more difficult for those victims to get their day in court to vindicate their rights. For anyone that doubts that there is this activism in our courts and the effect it is having, they need to look no further than the decisions that are affecting two of our witnesses, Jamie Leigh Jones and Jack Gross. The Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the Federal Arbitra- tion Act in the Circuit City case threatens to undermine the effec- tive enforcement of our Civil Rights laws. (1) VerDate Nov 24 2008 07:39 May 11, 2010 Jkt 056089 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56089.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 2 When Congress passed the Arbitration Act, passed by a bipar- tisan majority, it intended to provide sophisticated businesses an alternative venue to resolve their disputes. That is what was in- tended. I know what was not intended. Congress never intended the law to become a hammer for corporations to use against their employ- ees. But in Circuit City the Supreme Court allowed for just that. Now, after the Circuit City decision, employers are able to unilat- erally strip their employees of their Civil Rights by including arbi- tration clauses in every employment contract they draft. Some have estimated that at least 30 million workers have unknowingly waived their constitutional and guaranteed right to have Civil Rights claims resolved by a jury by accepting employment which necessarily meant signing a contract that included such a clause in the fine print. There is no rule of law in arbitration. There are no juries, there are no independent judges in the arbitration industry. There is no appellate review. There is no transparency. And we are going to hear from Jamie Leigh Jones today, there is no justice. We will also hear from Mr. Gross. His case shows that for those employees who are able to preliminary open the courtroom doors, the Supreme Court then placed additional obstacles on the path to justice. Let me just tell you a little bit about it. After spending 32 years working for an Iowa subsidiary of a major financial company, Jack Gross was demoted, and his job duties were reassigned to a young- er worker who was significantly less qualified. In his lawsuit under the Age Discrimination Act, a jury con- cluded that age had been the motivating factor in his demotion and they awarded him nearly $50,000 in lost compensation. But a slim, activist, conservative majority of the Supreme Court overturned the jury verdict and decided to rewrite the law. The five justices adopted
Recommended publications
  • 6 What's Wrong with the Employee Free Choice Act?

    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

    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.
  • The Employee Free Choice Act: the Biggest Change in Labor Law in 60 Years by Robert Quinn and John Leschak

    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.
  • Congressional Record—Senate S5220

    Congressional Record—Senate S5220

    S5220 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 22, 2010 mom, an immigrant to this country, That is what we believe in on the know what the facts say. They know and my dad, from a farm family, never Democratic side of the aisle. The Re- the history. I hope they do not embrace borrowed money, scared to death of publicans say: Oh, deficit spending. the Republican approach which will debt, because they saw the Great De- Stop. We cannot do that. Then what drive us further into unemployment pression and they saw it destroy peo- happens? The business fails. The jobs and recession. ple. Franklin Roosevelt came in as are lost. The people draw unemploy- I yield the floor. President in those days. He came in in ment and, in desperation, wait for The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- March of 1933. He said, we are going to something to happen. pore. The Senator from Maryland. change this. We are going to get Amer- You know what the Republicans are f ica back on its feet. You have nothing up to now? Last week we asked them: KAGAN NOMINATION to fear but fear itself. We are going to Would you please extend unemploy- put people back to work. We are going ment benefits for these millions of Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, this to give them government jobs if we Americans who are out of work. In my Monday the Senate Judiciary Com- cannot find them jobs in the private State the unemployment rate is 10.8 mittee will begin the confirmation sector. We are going to tell our farm- percent.
  • Nomination Hearing for Deputy Secretary of Labor and Members of the National Labor Relations Board

    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

    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

    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?

    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.
  • In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division)

    In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division)

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (HOUSTON DIVISION) JAMIE LEIGH JONES § Plaintiffs, § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:07-cv-2719 § HALLIBURTON COMPANY d/b/a § KBR KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT § (KBR); KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT§ SERVICES, INC.; KELLOGG § BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL,§ INC.; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, § LLC; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, § INC.; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, § S. de R.L.; KELLOGG BROWN & § ROOT (KBR), INC.; KBR § TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.; § OVERSEAS ADMINISTRATIVE § SERVICES, LTD.; ERIC ILER, § CHARLES BOARTZ; and SEVERAL § JOHN DOE RAPISTS § Defendants. § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT NOW COMES, Jamie Leigh Jones, and files this suit against Halliburton Company d/b/a KBR Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root International, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root, S. de R.L., Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), Inc., KBR Technical Services, Inc. (hereinafter, collectively 1 “KBR”); Overseas Administrative Services (OAS); Eric Iler, Charles Boartz, and Several other attackers, whose identities are currently only known as “John Doe”, complaining about the sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual assault, rape, physical injury and other personal injuries to Jamie Leigh Jones. For clarification, this case is not about a pinch on the backside, or a few politically incorrect jests at the office. Jamie Leigh Jones was first forced into a sexual relationship, against her will, with her supervisor, or risk losing her job at a time when her mother was incapable of supporting them and Jamie was the sole source of income. After escaping that environment, she was harassed, and threatened in Baghdad, before she was ultimately the subject of a brutal sexual attack by several attackers who first drugged her, then repeatedly raped and injured her, both physically and emotionally.
  • “Are Unions Dead?” by Kenneth R

    “Are Unions Dead?” by Kenneth R

    NEW JERSEY COALITION OF AUTOMOTIVE RETAILERS “Are Unions Dead?” By Kenneth R. Gilberg, Esq. is introduced they are also attempting to gain the necessary votes to override an Much has been written in the news of late about the de- anticipated veto from President Bush. clining membership of labor unions in the United States. Employee Free Choice Act Unions and other pro labor organizations had hoped that Unions have already stepped up their ef- the Employee Free Choice Act (“EFCA”) recently passed by forts to increase union membership, but if the U.S. House of Representatives with a 241 to 185 majority the EFCA had passed it would have made union organizing much easier. Under the would also be passed by the Senate. EFCA, instead of a National Labor Rela- tions Board (NLRB) supervised, secret ballot election, employers would have to recognize a union when a majority of the t missed passage by only 9 votes. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) had origi- company’s employees in a representative nally proposed such legislation in 2003 and again in 2005. While the Employee Free IChoice Act previously did not have much momentum or attention, it does now. Not ■ are unions dead? only are the supporters of the EFCA expecting to gain majority vote the next time it ⎥ continued on page 32 July/August 2007 www.njcar.org 30 NEW JERSEY COALITION OF AUTOMOTIVE RETAILERS ■ are unions dead? ⎥ continued from page 30 What Can You Do Now? Write to your Congressperson and support management trade unit signed union authorization cards. If a union was certified organizations.
  • ILWU Solidarity for Dutch Dockers

    ILWU Solidarity for Dutch Dockers

    Published by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union DISPATCHER www.ilwu.org Vol 67, No 2 • February 2009 THE INSIDE NEWS LETTERS TO DISPATCHER 2 Rite Aid workers and the Employee Free Choice Act 3 TransAfrica celebrates the fight for justice 4 LeRoy King at Obama inauguration 5 MEMBERS SPEAK OUT 5 TRANSITIONS 6 Remembering Ah Quon 7 Tragic Vancouver incident 7 ILWU BOOKS & VIDEO 8 Coast solidarity: Committeemen Ray Ortiz, Jr., (R) and Leal Sundet (L) attended the Dutch docker rally on Jan 12th. “The Coast stands 100% Niek Stam, General Secretary of the Dutch dockers union (FNV Bondgenoten) called for solidarity and action behind the Dutch dockers,” they said. at a rally organized by the ILWU and Teamsters in front of San Francisco’s Transamerica pyramid building on January 12th. ILWU International President Bob McEllrath emceed the noontime rally. ILWU solidarity for Postmaster: Send address changes to The Dispatcher, 1188 Franklin St., San Francisco, CA 94109-6800. Postmaster: Send address changes to The Dispatcher, Dutch Dockers hen dockers in the turn the pension funds. That’s when building in downtown San Francisco Netherlands discov- the Dutch dockers decided it was on January 12th. The Teamsters time to go public, expose Aegon’s provided a 16-wheeler with a sound ered that their pen- W misdeeds, and start building com- stage, and a 20-foot tall inflatable sion funds had been stolen by a munity support on a global scale. “fat cat” to illustrate the growing big multi-national corporation, In the United States, the dockers danger of corporate greed.
  • AFL-CIO Legislative Guide

    AFL-CIO Legislative Guide

    AFL-CIO Legislative Guide Freedom to112th Form Congress Unions • Health(2011–2012) Care • Economic Recovery • Retirement Security • Education • Fair Elections • Workers’ Rights • Job Safety • Civil Rights • Freedom to Form Unions • Health Care • Economic Recovery • Retirement Security • Education • Fair Elections • Workers’ Rights • Job Safety • Civil Rights • Freedom to Form Unions • Health Care • Economic Recovery • Retirement Security • Education • Fair Elections • Workers’ Rights • Job Safety • Civil Rights • Freedom to Form Unions • Health Care • Economic Recovery • Retirement Security • Education • Fair Elections • Workers’ Rights • Job Safety • Civil Rights • Freedom to Form Unions • Health Care • Economic Recovery • Retirement Security • Education • Fair Elections • Workers’ Rights • Job Safety • Civil Rights • Contents 1. AFL-CIO About the AFL-CIO 1.1 2. THE ECONOMY The Economic Crisis: How Did We Get Here? 2.1 Financial Re-regulation 2.5 Revitalizing U.S. Manufacturing 2.9 Clean Energy Jobs 2.13 Climate Change, Energy and Environment 2.17 Federal Investment in U.S. Transportation System and Infrastructure 2.21 Corporate Bankruptcy Reform 2.25 Mortgage and Foreclosure Relief 2.29 Unemployment Insurance 2.31 Worker Training and Skills Development 2.33 State Budgets and Public Employees’ Pensions 2.37 State Fiscal Relief 2.41 3. FREEDOM TO FORM A UNION The Employee Free Choice Act 3.1 The ‘Secret Ballot’ 3.3 The Union Advantage 3.7 The Union Advantage for Women, Latinos and African Americans 3.9 4. HEALTH CARE The Affordable Care Act 4.1 Building on the Affordable Care Act 4.5 Health Care Cost Containment vs. Cost Shifting: Proposals to Reduce the Federal Deficit 4.9 Health Care Workforce 4.13 5.