DOCSLIB.ORG

An Analysis of Public Owner Construction Project Labor Agreements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Analysis of Public Owner Construction Project Labor Agreements An Analysis of Public Owner Construction Project Labor Agreements Second Edition The Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. is the nation's largest construction industry trade association, representing some 7,500 general contractors and 25,000 industry specialty contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and professional services member firms in 100 AGC chapters nationwide. AGC member firms provide the highest quality services to public and private sector clients in the commercial and public building, highway, heavy industrial and municipal utility construction markets, as well as in international markets. AGC represents equally construction firms that operate with collective bargaining agreements and those that operate on an open shop basis. The Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. 1957 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 © Copyright, The Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Washington, D.C., February 1998 Acknowledgements The second edition of An Analysis of Public Owner Construction Project Labor Agreements was produced by the AGC of America’s Legal Department. It updates and expands upon the first edition produced for AGC by Murphy, Smith & Polk, Chicago, Illinois, in November 1994. AGC extends its appreciation to Charles E. Murphy and Robert P. Casey of Murphy, Smith & Polk for their expertise and effort in producing the original edition that constitutes the foundation of this publication. This publication is intended to provide information about current developments on a controversial public policy and legal topic. However, it is not intended and should not be relied upon for making judgments about the legality of specific proposals in any particular jurisdiction. The Associated General Contractors of America and Murphy, Smith & Polk do not intend that any of the information in this publication will be relied upon for specific legal advice or as a substitute for attorney/client consultation, and assume no responsibility for any use of this publication. Table of Contents Page No Introduction ................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ v I. What Are Public Owner Project Labor Agreements?......................................................... 1 II. Why Are Public Owner PLAs So Controversial? .............................................................. 2 III. What's Wrong With Public Owner PLAs? ......................................................................... 2 IV. What Strategies Are Available to Counter Proposed PLAs?.............................................. 3 A. Public Owner PLAs Operate As Top-Down Organizing Tools For Construction Trade Unions And Violate The Principle That Public Owners Should Not Become Involved In Private Sector Labor Relations............... 3 B. Public Owner PLAs Also Assist Union Organizing ("COMET") Initiatives ........... 4 C. Many Public Entities in the U.S. Don't Want To Operate Under Union-Only PLAs Χ They Increase The Cost of Construction And Provide No Real Benefit to the Public Entity ........................................................... 7 D. Public Owner PLAs Raise A Host of Legal Problems That Will Generate Litigation for Years to Come .................................................................................... 11 V. Legal Issues Surrounding Public Owner PLAs .................................................................. 12 A. Understanding Boston Harbor.................................................................................. 12 B. Preemption Issues ..................................................................................................... 13 1. National Labor Relations Act Preemption....................................................... 13 2. Employee Retirement Income Security Act Preemption................................. 14 a. The "State Law" Requirement................................................................ 14 b. Cases Finding Preemption...................................................................... 14 C. State or Local Competitive Bid Statutes................................................................... 15 1. Successful Challenges ..................................................................................... 15 2. Unsuccessful Challenges................................................................................. 18 D. Federal Competitive Bid Statute............................................................................... 20 E. Hot Cargo and Pre-hire Issues .................................................................................. 21 F. Restraint of Trade Concerns ..................................................................................... 21 G. State Constitutional and Local Charters or Ordinance Issues................................... 22 H. Administrative Rulemaking ...................................................................................... 22 I. Union Security (Union Dues) Issues ........................................................................ 22 J. Union Hiring Halls.................................................................................................... 23 i Page No K. Jurisdictional Issues .................................................................................................. 23 L. Derivative Contractor Liability................................................................................. 23 VI. State Executive Orders on PLAs ........................................................................................ 24 VII. The Presidential Memorandum on PLAs for Federal Construction ................................... 25 A. Minimum Standards for Negotiating PLAs .............................................................. 26 B. Minimum Standards for any PLA............................................................................. 27 C. When a Contractual Requirement for a PLA Would Be Appropriate ...................... 27 D. GSA Standards for PLAs.......................................................................................... 28 VIII. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 29 Exhibits 1. Construction Industry Union Wage and Benefit Rate in Dollars/Union Representation Rate in Percentage (Bureau of Labor Statistics and Construction Labor Research Council Data) ........................................................................................... 35 2. Union Representation in the Construction Industry 1973-1996 (Bureau of Labor Statistics Data; AGC Graphics) ............................................................. 37 3. National Institute of Governmental Purchasing Board of Directors Resolution Against In-State Or Local Bidding Preferences In Awarding Public Contracts................. 39 4. National Institute Of Governmental Purchasing Board Of Directors Resolution Against Preferential Public Procurement Practices.......................................... 41 5. U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Letter Rejecting a Proposed Project Labor Agreement.................................................................................................... 43 6. Construction Labor Research Council Cost Analysis Of Various Proposed Public Project Labor Agreements ...................................................................................... 45 7. AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department Standard Project Labor Agreement.................................................................................................... 51 8. Proposed Model Union Security Clause Published By The National Labor Relations Board (57 Federal Register 43644, Sept. 22, 1992) ........................................... 61 9. Presidential Memorandum on PLAs for Federal Construction .......................................... 63 10. GSA Acquisition Letter on PLAs....................................................................................... 67 Endnotes.......................................................................................................................................... 71 ii INTRODUCTION This analysis was produced by AGC in support of its policy opposing public owner project labor agreements. This policy is subscribed to by AGC member firms that operate with collective bargaining agreements and by those that operate on an open shop basis. AGC policy is founded on the well-established and widely accepted principles that taxpayer financed construction must be open to competition among all qualified firms regardless of their labor policy or their employees' collective bargaining choices and that competitive collective bargaining agreements are best achieved through employer-negotiated agreements free of public agency interference. AGC's policy position on Project Labor Agreements for publicly funded construction projects is as follows: • The Associated General Contractors of America reaffirms its commitment to free and unrestricted construction markets. • Fundamental to this principle is that publicly financed contracts are to be awarded without regard to the labor relations policy of the contractor. • AGC opposes any action that interferes unlawfully or improperly with a contractor's or awarding agency's full and free exercise
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Government Mandated Labor Agreements in Public Construction
    GOVERNMENT MANDATED LABOR AGREEMENTS IN PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION Their History and Factors to Consider Table of Contents The History of Government Mandated Labor Agreements in the Construction Industry . 1 Government Mandated Labor Agreements In Public Construction: Factors to Consider . 7 THE HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT MANDATED LABOR AGREEMENTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY How Public Officials and Their Representatives Have Changed The Purposes and Effects of Construction Project Labor Agreements What are Construction Project Labor Agreements? Project labor agreements are unique to the construction industry. Unlike collective bargaining agreements between other industrial employers and their unions, collective bargaining agreements in the construction industry usually apply only to work performed by signatory contractors in specified counties or other well-defined geographic areas. Project labor agreements are even more specialized and focus on one particular construction project. They are often referred to as “prehire” agreements because they are usually negotiated between construction contractors and one or more building trade union in advance of submitting a bid for the project, and before anyone is actually hired to perform the work. The terms and conditions of a project labor agreement generally: (1) apply to all work performed on a specific project or at a specific location, (2) require recognition of the signatory union(s) as the exclusive bargaining representatives for covered workers, whether or not the workers are union members, (3) supersede all other collective bargaining agreements, (4) prohibit strikes and lockouts, (5) require hiring through union referral systems, (6) require all contractors and subcontractors to become signatory to the agreement, (7) establish standard work rules, hours and dispute resolution procedures and (8) establish wages and benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • The FLSA Final Overtime Rule ® Issue No.1|September 2016 Policies, Programs, Andservices
    Issue No. 1 | September 2016 ® The FLSA Final Overtime Rule A Resource Guide for Student Affairs Professionals Andrew Q. Morse and Holly M. Asimou OVERVIEW The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Final Overtime Rule has substantially increased the salary threshold for exemption from overtime pay. The effect of the Final Rule will be felt by colleges and universities nationwide; many employees will now be eligible for overtime pay unless their salaries are brought in line with the new $47,476 minimum salary threshold or their hours are confined to 40 hours in a given workweek. These changes, set to take effect December 1, 2016, occur at a time when many institutions face persistent budgetary pressure. Moreover, the Final Rule’s impact on new types of employees not traditionally eligible for overtime pay will create the compliance challenge of tracking irregular hours or discerning between work and nonwork activities for many employees. Leaders in student affairs are not only faced with the responsibility to comply with the (Volume 1, Issue 1) 1, Issue (Volume (Volume 1, Issue 1) 1, Issue (Volume Final Rule, but to also ensure the operational sustainability of their departments or divisions. This resource guide offers a tour through the Final Rule and existing overtime laws and regulations. Further, this guide provides considerations and cautions to support the compliance and management responsibilities of leaders in student affairs. NASPA Policy and Practice Series and Practice Policy NASPA NASPA Policy and Practice Series Series and Practice Policy NASPA 1 1 THE AUTHORS Andrew Q. Morse, PhD, is director for policy research and advocacy with NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education’s Research and Policy Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Capitalist Meltdo-Wn
    "To face reality squarely; not to seek the line of least resistance; to call things by their right names; to speak t�e truth to the masses, no matter how bitter it may be; not to fear obstacles; to be true in little thi�gs as in big ones; to base one's progra.1!1 on the logic of the class struggle;. to be bold when the hour of action arrives-these are the rules of the Fourth International." 'Inequality, Unemployment & Injustice' Capitalist Meltdo-wn Global capitalism is currently in the grip of the most The bourgeois press is relentless in seizing on even the severe economic contraction since the Great Depression of smallest signs of possible "recovery" to reassure consumers the 1930s. The ultimate depth and duration of the down­ and investors that better days are just around thecomer. This turn remain to be seen, but there are many indicators that paternalistic" optimism" recalls similar prognosticationsfol­ point to a lengthy period of massive unemployment in the lowing the 1929 Wall Street crash: "Depression has reached imperialist camp and a steep fall in living standards in the or passed its bottom, [Assistant Secretary of Commerce so-called developing countries. Julius] Klein told the Detroit Board of Commerce, although 2 'we may bump along' for a while in returningto higher trade For those in the neocolonies struggling to eke out a living levels " (New Yo rk Times, 19 March 19 31).The next month, on a dollar or two a day, this crisis will literally be a matter in a major speech approved by President Herbert Hoover, of life and death.
    [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]
  • Project Labor Agreements
    . Project Labor Agreements Gerald Mayer Analyst in Labor Policy October 4, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41310 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress . Project Labor Agreements Summary The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives most private sector workers the right to join or form a labor union and to bargain collectively over wages, hours, and working conditions. The act allows workers in the construction industry to enter into a collective bargaining agreement before a project begins. A project labor agreement (PLA) is a collective bargaining agreement that applies to a specific construction project and lasts only for the duration of the project. In February 2009, President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order (EO) that encourages federal agencies “to consider requiring” the use of PLAs on large-scale construction projects. The EO defines a large-scale project as one where the total cost to the federal government is $25 million or more. The order states that agencies are not required to use PLAs. Regulations implementing the EO went into effect in May 2010. A PLA generally specifies the wages and fringe benefits to be paid on a project, and it usually includes procedures for resolving labor disputes. PLAs generally include a provision that unions agree not to strike and contractors agree not to lock out workers. A PLA may require contractors to hire workers through a union hiring hall. If not, it may require employees to become union members after being hired. A PLA applies to all contractors and subcontractors on a project.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Labor Agreement Covering Specified New Construction of Identified City Owned Buildings and Structures
    2020 NYC AGENCY NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT COVERING SPECIFIED NEW CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTIFIED CITY OWNED BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 2020 – 2024 Execution Copy 8/12/2020 2020 NYC AGENCY NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ARTICLE 1 - PREAMBLE ......................................................................................... 1 SECTION 1. PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT ................................................... 2 ARTICLE 2 - GENERAL CONDITIONS ................................................................... 2 SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................. 2 SECTION 2. CONDITIONS FOR AGREEMENT TO BECOME EFFECTIVE ......................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 3. ENTITIES BOUND & ADMINISTRATION OF AGREEMENT ...................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 4. SUPREMACY CLAUSE ................................................................... 4 SECTION 5. LIABILITY ...................................................................................... 5 SECTION 6. THE AGENCY ................................................................................. 6 SECTION 7. AVAILABILITY AND APPLICABILITY TO ALL SUCCESSFUL BIDDERS ..................................................................................... 6 SECTION 8. SUBCONTRACTING ......................................................................
    [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]
  • Senate Senate Committee on Government
    MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Eightieth Session May 6, 2019 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chair David R. Parks at 1:30 p.m. on Monday, May 6, 2019, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to Room 4404B of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file in the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator David R. Parks, Chair Senator Melanie Scheible, Vice Chair Senator James Ohrenschall Senator Ben Kieckhefer Senator Pete Goicoechea GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Richard Daly, Assembly District No. 31 Assemblyman Jason Frierson, Assembly District No. 8 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jennifer Ruedy, Committee Policy Analyst Heidi Chlarson, Committee Counsel Suzanne Efford, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: William Stanley, Southern Nevada Building Trades Union Jeffery Waddoups, Ph.D. Paul McKenzie, Building & Construction Trades Council of Northern Nevada, AFL-CIO Danny Thompson, Operating Engineers Local 3 and Local 12 Ruben Murillo, Nevada State Education Association Senate Committee on Government Affairs May 6, 2019 Page 2 Warren Hardy, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities; Associated Builders and Contractors Nevada Chapter Craig Madole, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter Daniel Honchariw, Nevada Policy Research Institute Brian Reeder, Nevada Contractors Association Michael Pelham, Nevada Taxpayers Association David Dazlich, Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce Dylan Shaver, City of Reno CHAIR PARKS: We will open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 136.
    [Show full text]
  • Single-Employer and Multi-Employer Lockouts Under the Taft-Hartley
    SINGLE EMPLOYER AND MULTI-EMPLOYER LOCK- OUTS UNDER THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT BERNARD D. MELTZER* P HE growth of multi-employer bargaining' has been accompanied by increased litigation regarding the legality of the so-called multi-employ- . er "defensive" lockout, i.e., a lockout by the unstruck members of a multi-employer bargaining unit, who are subject to an express or implied strike threat, in response to a strike called against one or more members of their group after an impasse in negotiations for a master contract. Although such a lockout may raise anti-trust questions, 2 as well as questions under the Taft- Hartley Act, recent litigation has arisen exclusively under the Taft-Hartley Act. This litigation has made only one thing clear: The NLRB, according to the reviewing courts, is always wrong. Thus the initial position taken by a majority of the Board (pre-Eisenhower), that defensive lockouts are illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act, was rejected by the courts of appeals in three circuits. 3 A new * Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School. xFor estimates of the number of employees involved consult Collective Bargaining with Associations and Groups of Employers, 64 Monthly Lab. Rev. 397,398 (1947); Collective Bar- gaining Structures: The Employer Bargaining Unit, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1953). The former is discussed in Pierson, Prospects for Industry-Wide Bargaining, 3 Indust. & Lab. Rel. Rev. 341, 360 (1950). 2The author plans to discuss these questions in a forthcoming issue of this Review. 3Morand Bros. Beverage Co. v. NLRB, 190 F. 2d 576 (C.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Union Issues in the Solid Waste Industry
    archive LittlerThis article recently appeared in the National Solid Wastes Management Association, September 2005. Union Issues in the Solid Waste Industry by Ronald J. Holland and Philip Paturzo Summary sentatives of employees for collec- rates above the national average. In tive bargaining purposes, and the contrast, states in the Southeast and Union membership in America has bargaining process itself. It also Southwest tended to have far less been in a downward spiral for the addresses recent strikes in the in- union density. past 50 years. However, this does dustry and the ways employers can not mean that the private solid prepare in advance to reduce the Given the steady decline in union waste industry can rest easy. Be- impact of a strike. Finally, the pa- membership throughout the coun- cause the type of work performed per looks at management initiatives try, the private solid waste industry by industry employees cannot be that should be used to reduce the should not be concerned about new sent abroad to reduce labor costs possibility that employees will seek organizing efforts, right? Wrong. and the nature of the business is union representation. recession-resistant, unions recently The Teamsters boasts that it rep- have targeted solid waste compa- Background resents over 25,000 private solid nies. Specifically, the International waste industry workers.2 And it is Brotherhood of Teamsters, the larg- Labor unions have existed in not content to stop there. In 2004, est union player in the field, has America since the 1800s. By the Teamsters President James P. Hoffa publicly vowed to unionize private mid-1950s, at the height of the la- said: “It is the priority of the Team- solid waste companies nationwide bor movement, roughly 35 percent sters Union to bring justice to solid and has expended significant re- of the American workforce was waste workers throughout the coun- sources to achieve that goal.
    [Show full text]
  • Execution Copy – 8-12-2020 Project Labor Agreement
    NYS DOT PLA – VAN WYCK EXPRESSWAY ACCESS CAPACITY AND IMPROVEMENTS TO JFK AIRPORT (CONTRACT 2) PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DESIGN BUILD BUILDER AND THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF GREATER NEW YORK AND VICINITY FOR THE VAN WYCK EXPRESSWAY ACCESS CAPACITY AND IMPROVEMENTS TO JFK AIRPORT (CONTRACT 2) EXECUTION COPY – 8-12-2020 NYS DOT PLA – VAN WYCK EXPRESSWAY ACCESS CAPACITY AND IMPROVEMENTS TO JFK AIRPORT (CONTRACT 2) TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE 1- PREAMBLE .......................................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 1. PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT ................................................................................... 2 ARTICLE 2 - GENERAL CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 2. CONDITIONS FOR AGREEMENT TO BECOME EFFECTIVE .................................... 3 SECTION 3. ENTITIES BOUND & ADMINISTRATION OF AGREEMENT ..................................... 3 SECTION 4. SUPREMACY CLAUSE ................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 5. LIABILITY ........................................................................................................................ 4 SECTION 6. THE DESIGN BUILDER .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bargaining Lockout: an Impatient Warrior Robert P
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Notre Dame Law School: NDLScholarship Notre Dame Law Review Volume 40 | Issue 2 Article 1 2-1-1965 Bargaining Lockout: An Impatient Warrior Robert P. Duvin Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert P. Duvin, Bargaining Lockout: An Impatient Warrior, 40 Notre Dame L. Rev. 137 (1965). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol40/iss2/1 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]. NOTRE DAME RWVEP VOL. XL FEBRUARY, 1965 No. 2 THE BARGAINING LOCKOUT: AN IMPATIENT WARRIOR Robert P. Duvin* A lockout is a temporary refusal by an employer to furnish work to his employees. Although the word itself carries no invidious connotation, most students of collective bargaining and labor law have for many years rejected its acceptability as a negotiating pressure tactic. In the last fifteen years there have been very few cases in which the lockout was employed solely for the purpose of achieving bargaining objectives. When used in this manner, the lockout is the counterpart of the strike and, quite clearly, a potentially powerful economic weapon. Therefore, one can only assume that the infrequent appear- ance of such a potent tactic - in an arena not yet free from the stench of yester- year's hostilities - results from a widely held belief that it is illegal.
    [Show full text]