DOCSLIB.ORG

The Case Against the Employee Free Choice Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Case Against the Employee Free Choice Act University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2009 The aC se against the Employee Free Choice Act Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "The asC e against the Employee Free Choice Act" (John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 452, 2009). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO JOHN M. OLIN LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 452 (2D SERIES) The Case against the Employee Free Choice Act Richard A. Epstein THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO January 2009 This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The Chicago Working Paper Series Index: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html and at the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. THE CASE AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT Richard A. Epstein (FORTHCOMING HOOVER PRESS 2009) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE 5 INTRODUCTION: THE EFCA INITIATIVE 7 Historical Background 7 EFCA’s Three Prongs 9 The Card Check 9 Compulsory Interest Arbitration 9 Increased Penalties for Employer Unfair Labor Practices 9 EFCA’s Economic Consequences 10 Why Unions Decline 12 CHAPTER 1: CARD CHECKS VERSUS SECRET BALLOT ELECTIONS 18 Streamlining Union Certification? 18 A Fatal Imbalance 18 The Organization Campaign 20 Neutrality Agreements 20 Salted Employees 23 Free versus Coercive Speech 24 Union Campaign Advantages 29 Secret Ballot versus Card Check Free Choice or No Choice 29 Free Choice or No Choice 29 Unfair Labor Practices in Union Elections 32 Election Results 35 The Infirmities of Card Check Campaigns 41 Card Checks Under the Current Law 41 3 Selective Use of Card Checks 45 Administrative Difficulties 46 CHAPTER 2: MANDATORY ARBITRATION OF TERMS AND RESTRICTIONS 5 0 No Modest Proposal 50 Transitional Provisions 52 Initiation of Bargaining 52 Negotiation and Mediation 53 Compulsory interest arbitration 54 A Standardless Process 54 Structure of the Arbitration Panels 55 Powers of Compulsory Arbitration 55 Scope of Compulsory Arbitration 57 Interest Arbitration Extensions? 60 Right to Work Laws 61 Economic Consequences of Interest Arbitration 61 Administrative Costs 61 Industrial Peace 62 Wh at co u nts as successful arbitration s? 64 CHAPTER 3: THE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF UNIONIZATION 69 An Interest Group Analysis 69 The Ambiguous Union Member Interest: A Large Share of a Smaller Pie 69 The Employer’s Interest Under Collective Bargaining: A Smaller Share of a Smaller Pie. 75 Third Party Effects: A Constant Share of a Smaller Pie—at best. 85 4 Allocative Effects. 85 Distributional Consequences 92 Disruption and Dislocation 93 CHAPTER 4: CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS 95 The Card Check 95 Compul sory Interest Arb itr ation 98 CONCLUSION: WSDHAT HOULD BE ONE? 103 APPENDIX: THE EMPLOYER FREE CHOICE ACT (S. 1041) 105 NOTES 110 5 PREFACE The work that I have taken to complete this book has been done on a highly compressed time schedule. During the late summer of 2008, I was approached by my friend James Franczek, senior partner at the Chicago labor law firm of Franczek, Radelet & Rose, about the possibility of doing some work on the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which passed the House of Representatives in 2008, only to die in the Senate after a procedural vote to consider the bill failed to garner the necessary 60 votes. Franczek, and others whom I met with that summer, were confident that the reintroduction of EFCA was highly likely in 2009, especially if the Democratic majority increased in the Senate and (as has turned out to be the case) Barack Obama was elected President of the United S tates. President Obama has been a persistent and outspoken supporter of this proposed legislation, and he takes office with solid labor‐backed Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. As a result, the pressure has escalated on legislators to consider EFCA, which, as will be come evident, has three major components. The first of these is an increase in the penalties for unfair labor practices by employers during the course of union organization campaigns. The second is the use of a card‐check system to authorize a union for a particular bargaining unit. The third is a system of mandatory interest arbitration which allows a panel of federal arbitrators to set the terms of a first two‐ year contract of an overtly truncated timeline of 130 days is not met. The statute would in effect bypass the protections of the secret ballot in the formation of a union and deny any employer or employee the option to refuse to deal on the terms demanded by a union. These are no small changes. I have worked in the area of labor law on and off since I was a third‐year student at the Yale Law School. I have also written and taught in the area in the years that followed. Given my previous familiarity with the field, it took me little time to realize that this proposed legislation would have the worst possible consequences for the workplace—and through it for the overall economy. The brevity of the statute conceals a host of serious difficulties about its integration with the labor laws that would remain on the books, even as it gives evidence to the massive shift of power from private ordering to state control. I wish to make it clear at the outset that I do not regard the current labor law as ideal relative to more market‐oriented approaches. But it has been relatively stable on matters of collective bargaining over the past 60 years, during which it has provided a framework to which both management and labor has been able to adapt. 6 Shortly after I spoke with Franczek, I agreed to write a detailed study of the Act. The task, however, was too large to do entirely by my own resources. I have had for several years a working affiliation with LECG consulting group, and I was able to enlist the support of one of its managing directors, Anne Layne‐Farrar, with whom I have worked on many other occasions, to help me on the project. She in turn recruited one of LECG’s crack research analysts, Mr. Sokol Vako, to assist me both in the collection of data and in a detailed review of the manuscript at every stage. Toward the end of the process, he was ably assisted by two other research analysts, Dhiren Patki and Alina Marinova. In addition to their help, I have received helpful comments along the way by a large number of individuals who have long experience and intimate involvement in labor law. In addition, to James Franczek, David Radelet and Jennifer Niemiec of Franczek, Radelet & Rose provided me with useful background information in EFCA and card check recognition and interest arbitration under Illinois law. Mr. Philip Miscimarra, a Senior Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and partner at Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, provided detailed comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Additional comments have been provided by Mr. Andrew Kramer and G. Roger King of Jones Day. I am also grateful to my long time friend John Raisian, the Director of the Hoover Institution, for speedily arranging the publication of this volume, and to Stephen Langlois, Associate Director of the Hoover Institution for speeding this volume toward publication. Finally, I have received financial support for this work from the Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs, which is comprised of the HR Policy Association (the leader of the Alliance), the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the Real Estate Roundtable, the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the International Council of Shopping Centers, and the Associated Builders and Contractors. I am grateful for their support, and for their willingness to allow me complete freedom to write the book in the manner that I chose. I know that all members of these organizations understand that the passage of EFCA is fraught with perils not only to them as employers, but to everyone in this country, be they employer or employee. The stakes on this issue are too great to remain silent. I am honored to have this opportunity to write “The Case Against the Employee Free Choice Act.” 7 INTRODUCTION The EFCA Initiative Historical Background The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is the most transformative piece of labor legislation to come before Congress since the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA). To assess the potential impact of EFCA, this blunt statement needs to be put in historical perspective. The NLRA marked the culmination of a systematic effort of the Progressive movement that dominated so much of American intellectual life during the first third of the twentieth century. Its basic purpose was to displace the earlier judge‐made regime that had previously governed labor relationships. That system did not carve out any special privileges, or impose any special burdens, on labor unions and their members. Instead it applied the same general legal principles applicable to other forms of business and economic associations organized to advance the interests of their members. The first major departure from that model in American labor law
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.
    [Show full text]
  • Employee Free Choice Act—Union Certification
    S. HRG. 108–596 EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT—UNION CERTIFICATION HEARING BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SPECIAL HEARING JULY 16, 2004—HARRISBURG, PA Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 95–533 PDF WASHINGTON : 2004 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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois MIKE DEWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES W. MORHARD, Staff Director LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi TOM HARKIN, Iowa JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ERNEST F.
    [Show full text]
  • Concessions and How to Beat Them
    a Labor Notes Book 0 ESSID 4, ad owto beat them by Jane Slaughter With a Foreword by William W. Winpisinger President, International Association of Machinists ONCE SIONS and how to beat them_____ by Jane Slaughter Labor Education & Research Project Publishers of Labor Notes Detroit Copyright © 1983 by the Labor Education & Research Project Any short, attributed quotation may be used without permission. First printing July 1983 Second printing June 1985 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 83-81803 ISBN: 0-914093-03-7 Published by the Labor Education & Research Project Designed by David McCullough 138 This book is dedicated to the members of the United Mine Workers of America, who struck against concessions in 1978, before concessions had a name. CONTENTS Acknowledgments ..........~....... vi Foreword 1 ~ntroduction 5 IFromMoretoLess 10 2 The Economics Behind Concessions. .43 3 Why Concessions Don’t Work 52 4 Resisting Concessions 66 5 An Offensive Strategy for the Labor Movement 108 GResources 125 Appendix A Union Education on Concessions . 143 Appendix B ModelLanguage on Investment. 145 Notes 147 There is a list of union abbreviations on pages 14-15 _______Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the many people who contributed information for this book or who commented on various drafts: James Bialke, Geoff Bickerton, Dave Blitzstein, Jon Brandow, Rick Braswell, Kate Bronfenbrenner, Nick Builder, Mike Cannon, Bill Carey, Dorsey Cheuvront, Elissa Clarke, Carole Coplea, Alice Dale, Gerry Deneau, Wayne Draznin, Enid Eckstein, Larry
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Perception of Members of the Use of Industrial Action In
    A SURVEY OF PERCEPTION OF MEMBERS OF THE USE OF INDUSTRIAL ACTION IN RESOLVING LABOUR DISPUTES AMONG SELECTED TRADE UNIONS IN THE EDUCATION SECTOR IN KISUMU COUNTY OUMA ONYANGO A Management Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Award of the Degree of Master of Business Administration (MBA) School of Business, University of Nairobi October, 2012 DECLARATION This Management Research Project is my original work and has not been presented for award of a degree in the University of Nairobi or any other University. Signed ………………………………………………. Date …………………………… NAME: OUMA ONYANGO Registration Number: D61/63516/2010 This Management Project has been submitted for examination with my approval as University Supervisor. Signed ………………………………………………. Date ……………………………... NAME: MR. GEORGE OMONDI Lecturer School of Business University of Nairobi i DEDICATION This Management Project is dedicated to my late father, Julius Tertius Ouma, whose belief in the power of education has lived in me up to this day, and my late mother Helen Akeyo Lamba, whose perseverance and humility motivated me. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am grateful to God for seeing me through the entire period of my study and research project. I owe my supervisor Mr. George Omondi special thanks for his immeasurable support and guidance. His positive criticism greatly enhanced and enriched this study. His uncompromising stance on quality and detail greatly motivated me. Special thanks go to my Human Resource Seminar course instructor Professor Peter K’Obonyo of the University of Nairobi for recognizing and appreciating the effort I gave the course thereby inspiring me to further my studies. Lastly, my deep gratitude goes to my family, friends and well-wishers for the belief they have in me.
    [Show full text]
  • GLOSSARY of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TERMS and SELECTED LABOR TOPICS
    GLOSSARY of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TERMS and SELECTED LABOR TOPICS ABEYANCE – The placement of a pending grievance (or motion) by mutual agreement of the parties, outside the specified time limits until a later date when it may be taken up and processed. ACTION - Direct action occurs when any group of union members engage in an action, such as a protest, that directly exposes a problem, or a possible solution to a contractual and/or societal issue. Union members engage in such actions to spotlight an injustice with the goal of correcting it. It further mobilizes the membership to work in concerted fashion for their own good and improvement. ACCRETION – The addition or consolidation of new employees or a new bargaining unit to or with an existing bargaining unit. ACROSS THE BOARD INCREASE - A general wage increase that covers all the members of a bargaining unit, regardless of classification, grade or step level. Such an increase may be in terms of a percentage or dollar amount. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE – An agent of the National Labor Relations Board or the public sector commission appointed to docket, hear, settle and decide unfair labor practice cases nationwide or statewide in the public sector. They also conduct and preside over formal hearings/trials on an unfair labor practice complaint or a representation case. AFL-CIO - The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations is the national federation of unions in the United States. It is made up of fifty-six national and international unions, together representing more than 12 million active and retired workers.
    [Show full text]
  • LABOR PEACE AGREEMENTS Local Government As Union Advocate
    LABOR PEACE AGREEMENTS Local Government As Union Advocate 2016 ABSTRACT A labor peace agreement is an arrangement between a union and an employer under which one or both sides agree to waive certain rights under federal law with regard to union organizing and related activity. While these agreements can be negotiated voluntarily, some state and local governments have attempted to impose them on employers by passing labor peace ordinances. Under these policies, a private sector employer must secure a labor peace agreement with a union as a condition of doing business at a facility or project in which a government entity asserts a “proprietary interest.” LABOR PEACE ORDINANCES IN THE UNITED STATES Labor peace ordinances come in many different forms, but they all have one essential purpose: to apply economic pressure on employers to compel them to grant organizing concessions to unions. These concessions can include card check (an employer recognizes a union based on signed cards rather than by the results of a secret ballot election), neutrality (an employer refrains from expressing negative States where a labor States where a labor peace States where labor peace States that prohibit local peace ordinance exists in ordinance exists in one or more ordinances have recently been labor peace ordinances opinions about a union and one or more jurisdictions jurisdictions and labor peace debated or unions have targeted ordinances have been debated intervening in an organizing or unions have targeted campaign), and workplace access (an employer allows outside union organizers into the workplace). In exchange, unions typically must promise not to strike, picket or otherwise disrupt an employer’s operations—at least for a time.
    [Show full text]
  • Neutrality Agreements and Card Check Recognition: Prospects for Changing Labor Relations Paradigms
    Neutrality Agreements and Card Check Recognition: Prospects for Changing Labor Relations Paradigms James J. Brudney* I. INTRODUCTION [I]t is important … [to] not[e] … what scientists never do when confronted by even severe and prolonged anomalies. Though they may begin to lose faith and then to consider alternatives, they do not renounce the paradigm that has led them into crisis … . [O]nce it has achieved the status of paradigm, a scientific theory is de- clared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place. t the heart of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”) is § 7, guaranteeing workers the right to band together for collective bargaining “through representatives of their own choosing.” This em- Aployee choice, including the right to refrain from unionizing, has long been analogized to voting in political elections. The resonance of the comparison between industrial and political democracy has helped make elections supervised by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) the dominant explanatory structure, or para- digm, for the exercise of employee choice under the NLRA. The past decade has witnessed a growing challenge to the election paradigm as the preferred approach for determining whether employees want union representation. A central component of this challenge is U.S. unions’ success securing agreements from employers to remain neutral during organizing campaigns. These agreements gener- ally provide that the employer will not demand a Board-supervised election, but will recognize the union if a majority of employees sign authorization cards. Neutrality agreements that include card check recognition provide a distinct mecha- nism for employees to select union representation.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.70.120 Work Stoppage Prohibited [STRIKES]
    3.70.120 Work stoppage prohibited [STRIKES]. A. Employees may not engage in strikes, slow downs or intentional work disruptions. Upon a finding by the mayor that employees are engaging or about to engage in a strike or other activity prohibited by this chapter, the municipal attorney may petition to the Superior Court for an injunction, restraining order, or such other order as may be appropriate. B. Prohibited acts by employees and employee representatives. No employee, employee organization, bargaining representative, labor union, association or officer thereof shall engage in, cause, instigate, encourage or condone a strike, slowdown, walkout or other form of voluntary unauthorized work disruption [COLLECTIVE WORK ACTION] against the municipality. [REGARDING ANY SERVICE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 3.70.110.A.1. NO SUCH PERSON OR ORGANIZATION SHALL TAKE SUCH ACTION WITH RESPECT TO SERVICES SPECIFIED IN SECTION 3.70.110.A.2 OR A.3 PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE PROCESS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 3.70.110.C OR THEREAFTER, IF THE COURT DETERMINES THAT SUCH ACTION HAS BEGUN TO THREATEN THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.] The municipality shall not engage in a lockout or other procedure designed to prevent willing employees from working. No party shall cause, instigate or encourage a strike by refusing to bargain in good faith over mandatory subjects as defined in this Code. C. [B] Prohibited acts by supervisory personnel. No person exercising on behalf of the municipality any authority, supervision or direction over an employee may authorize, approve, condone or consent to a strike, slowdown, walkout or other form of voluntary unauthorized work disruption by employees.
    [Show full text]
  • Adopted Resolutions 2019-2020
    Resolutions2019-2020 Adopted at the May 2019 House of Delegates Philadelphia, Pennsylvania TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL EDUCATIONAL WELFARE OF THE STATE ............................................. 1 I.1 The Resolutions Process ................................................................................................................................................ 1 A-01 SAFEGUARDING THE RESOLUTIONS PROCESS................................................................................... 1 I.2 Civil and Human Rights ................................................................................................................................................ 1 A-02 EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL ............................................................................................. 1 A-03 CIVIL RIGHTS ...................................................................................................................................... 1 A-04 ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AND STEREOTYPING ................................................................. 1 A-05 SEXUAL HARASSMENT ....................................................................................................................... 1 A-06 ATTACKS ON HUMAN DIGNITY .......................................................................................................... 1 I.3 School Funding ..............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]