It's a little disheartening to think back to last year, when Labor -- and the Chamber of Commerce -- were convinced the Free Choice Act was going to pass. Below is a link to an article I just published examining what an amended EFCA might look like:
http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticlePA.jsp?hubtype=TopStories&id=1202443831406
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Only in Arkansas
While the editorial is right on, only at the Arkansas Times can they get away with quoting George Wallace -- and not in a good way:
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=56b5dd6e-cfe0-4231-a5ea-4f3076311370
Saying that no one will "out-union" Blanche Lincoln doesn't quite have the same tone as the Wallace quote though.
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=56b5dd6e-cfe0-4231-a5ea-4f3076311370
Saying that no one will "out-union" Blanche Lincoln doesn't quite have the same tone as the Wallace quote though.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Appoint Becker Now
In a previous post I urged confirmation of Craig Becker for chair of the National Labor Relations Board. Alas, despite majority support in the Senate, the Republicans filibustered and would not permit a vote on this extremely qualified candidate.
The battle isn't over yet. Under the peculiar rules of the Senate Obama can make a recess appointment when Congress is having a recess, as it is now. Hell, 7 out of 8 Bush Jr. Board appointments were recess appointments. Say what you like about Bush, he at least had the balls to stand by those who stood by him.
Obama can and should appoint Becker now -- he has until the end of the week to make the appointment. By doing so he would be showing the labor movement that he supports our aims. More importantly, Obama would be showing the do-nothing Congress that he has a spine and won't be pushed around and gridlocked to death. Write your Congressman or call the Prez and tell him to do the right thing.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/campaign/80949-no-deal
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33015.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/the_white_houses_troubled_rela.html
The battle isn't over yet. Under the peculiar rules of the Senate Obama can make a recess appointment when Congress is having a recess, as it is now. Hell, 7 out of 8 Bush Jr. Board appointments were recess appointments. Say what you like about Bush, he at least had the balls to stand by those who stood by him.
Obama can and should appoint Becker now -- he has until the end of the week to make the appointment. By doing so he would be showing the labor movement that he supports our aims. More importantly, Obama would be showing the do-nothing Congress that he has a spine and won't be pushed around and gridlocked to death. Write your Congressman or call the Prez and tell him to do the right thing.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/campaign/80949-no-deal
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33015.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/the_white_houses_troubled_rela.html
Monday, February 8, 2010
The Case of the Curious Arbitrator
Arbitration is an informal process, which means that arbitrators can, and do ask questions of witnesses sometimes. But should they? Today I had a case in which it annoyed me that the arbitrator was asking questions, and almost all of them helped the employer's case.
There are two schools of thought on this. One is that arbitrators are there as judges, simply to hear the cases that the lawyers present. The other is that arbitration is a type of truth finding process, so the arbitrator can, and should ask questions to discern the truth.
I believe for the most part that arbitrators should hear the cases presented to them and make decisions based on the cases the lawyers make. Of course, is something is confusing, or needs to be clarified, I welcome questions by the arbitrator. What I don't like is when an arbitrator helps the other side make their case, particularly in a discharge case.
Today, for example, I had a discharge case involving an employee who was accused of theft. He had an explanation for what he did, and the explanation was not unreasonable. The employer's lawyer finished cross examination, then rested. Then the arbitrator jumped in.
The arbitrator was asking questions and stumped the grievant on a few of them. The witness, perhaps feeling slightly intimidated by the arbitrator, struggled with his answers. It didn't kill my case, but it sure didn't help. The point though, was that no one asked the arbitrator for her help with the witness.
I don't know how the case is going to come out. I do know, though, that an arbitrator that asks too many questions won't make it to the top of my list in the future.
There are two schools of thought on this. One is that arbitrators are there as judges, simply to hear the cases that the lawyers present. The other is that arbitration is a type of truth finding process, so the arbitrator can, and should ask questions to discern the truth.
I believe for the most part that arbitrators should hear the cases presented to them and make decisions based on the cases the lawyers make. Of course, is something is confusing, or needs to be clarified, I welcome questions by the arbitrator. What I don't like is when an arbitrator helps the other side make their case, particularly in a discharge case.
Today, for example, I had a discharge case involving an employee who was accused of theft. He had an explanation for what he did, and the explanation was not unreasonable. The employer's lawyer finished cross examination, then rested. Then the arbitrator jumped in.
The arbitrator was asking questions and stumped the grievant on a few of them. The witness, perhaps feeling slightly intimidated by the arbitrator, struggled with his answers. It didn't kill my case, but it sure didn't help. The point though, was that no one asked the arbitrator for her help with the witness.
I don't know how the case is going to come out. I do know, though, that an arbitrator that asks too many questions won't make it to the top of my list in the future.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Free Craig Becker!
For the first time in over thirty years, a nominee to the National Labor Relations Board will have to defend himself and his academic writings before the Senate. Craig Becker, one of Obamas's three nominees to the NLRB has had his nomination held up for months by John McCain. Through procedural manuvers, the Senate sent Becker's nomination back to President Obama; Obama resubmitted his nomination and prompted a demand from McCain to hold hearings on the nominee. On February 2d Becker will face the Senate HELP committee and the hostility of McCain and his allies.
Mr. Becker is a very talented and smart labor lawyer who represents the Service Employees Union and the AFL-CIO. As is traditional, the sitting president selects three members for the NLRB, and two are selected from the opposing party. Mr. Becker was nominated last year along with labor lawyer Mark Pearce, and Republican nominee Brian Hayes. Rather than confirming the nominations, McCain has placed a hold on the nominees because he is opposed to Craig Becker. Thus, the NLRB has been run by two members who have issued decisions -- however, their authority to issue decisions has been challenged and is now going to be heard by the Supreme Court.
McCain is pretending to be opposed to Becker because of a law review article he wrote in 1993 when he was a professor. In the article, Becker postulated that employers have no interest in union elections, and therefore should be limited in their ability to campaign. McCain and some on the right are now using that article and the Becker nomination as a proxy for their opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.
Democratic leaders need to buck up and support Becker now. If we've learned one thing from the health care fiasco, it's that coming to the middle in an attempt to compromise before the other side has offered anything is a mistake. When Bush was in office he nominated and pushed through individuals from the far right, Congress be damned. Clinton, in contrast, often appointed moderates in the hope of appeasing his right-wing opposition. If there's one thing we've learned from the health care fiasco, it's that this President's opponents will oppose him no matter what. So he might as well just push for what, and whom, he believes in.
Mr. Becker is a very talented and smart labor lawyer who represents the Service Employees Union and the AFL-CIO. As is traditional, the sitting president selects three members for the NLRB, and two are selected from the opposing party. Mr. Becker was nominated last year along with labor lawyer Mark Pearce, and Republican nominee Brian Hayes. Rather than confirming the nominations, McCain has placed a hold on the nominees because he is opposed to Craig Becker. Thus, the NLRB has been run by two members who have issued decisions -- however, their authority to issue decisions has been challenged and is now going to be heard by the Supreme Court.
McCain is pretending to be opposed to Becker because of a law review article he wrote in 1993 when he was a professor. In the article, Becker postulated that employers have no interest in union elections, and therefore should be limited in their ability to campaign. McCain and some on the right are now using that article and the Becker nomination as a proxy for their opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.
Democratic leaders need to buck up and support Becker now. If we've learned one thing from the health care fiasco, it's that coming to the middle in an attempt to compromise before the other side has offered anything is a mistake. When Bush was in office he nominated and pushed through individuals from the far right, Congress be damned. Clinton, in contrast, often appointed moderates in the hope of appeasing his right-wing opposition. If there's one thing we've learned from the health care fiasco, it's that this President's opponents will oppose him no matter what. So he might as well just push for what, and whom, he believes in.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Stuy Town and You
The thing that is roiling politics right now, and may have gotten a Republican elected senator in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts is the obvious asymmetry in how bankers and the super-rich are treated compared to the rest of us.
Last week the Tishman Speyer real estate empire simply walked away from a 5.4 billion dollar investment in the Stuyvesant Town development. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/nyregion/26stuy.html?em. Of course, Tishman Speyer only had 112 million into the deal; other investors carried the rest of the debt, including some pension funds.
Stuyvesant Town was built in the mid-40s by Metropolitan Life to provide low-cost housing for workers and returning WWII vets. Rents were low, and working people could afford to live in New York. During the latest real estate boom, Met Life sold the property for 5.4 billion to Tishman. Turns out that Tishman couldn't turn a profit on the deal -- so it simply walked away, screwing the investors and the many tenants who were evicted so Tishman could charge higher rents. They weren't making money so they just walked.
Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of people have lost their homes the past few years after they (sometimes foolishly) got mortgages they could not afford after the balloon payments started, or more tragically, people lost their homes who had paid off their homes then took out second mortgages they could not pay. Most of these folks tried desperately to keep their homes. Despite the Obama mortgage "reforms," most banks refused to work with people by modifying loans.
Even greater in number than those who lost their homes are those who are still paying their mortgages even though it makes no economic sense to do so. They do this through a sense of moral obligation. They do so because they have are responsible neighbors and citizens, even though some have suggested that they simply act like the corporations and the banks that hector them to "do the responsible thing" and walk awa from their obligation. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/magazine/10FOB-wwln-t.html?scp=2&sq=mortgage&st=cse
This is why people are so angry right now. People can see that the Masters of the Universe are playing by different rules than they are, and suffering no consequences. While workers have had stagnant wages over the last decade, higher health care costs, or even had health care taken away, banks have enjoyed TARP bailouts, paid its executives ginormous bonuses and increased the ratio between CEO pay and worker pay. Obama tapped into this anger before he got into office and then, many feel, turned over economic policy to Wall Street. If he wants to stay in office he'd be wise to figure out a way to help working Americans in real, not symbolic terms.
Last week the Tishman Speyer real estate empire simply walked away from a 5.4 billion dollar investment in the Stuyvesant Town development. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/nyregion/26stuy.html?em. Of course, Tishman Speyer only had 112 million into the deal; other investors carried the rest of the debt, including some pension funds.
Stuyvesant Town was built in the mid-40s by Metropolitan Life to provide low-cost housing for workers and returning WWII vets. Rents were low, and working people could afford to live in New York. During the latest real estate boom, Met Life sold the property for 5.4 billion to Tishman. Turns out that Tishman couldn't turn a profit on the deal -- so it simply walked away, screwing the investors and the many tenants who were evicted so Tishman could charge higher rents. They weren't making money so they just walked.
Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of people have lost their homes the past few years after they (sometimes foolishly) got mortgages they could not afford after the balloon payments started, or more tragically, people lost their homes who had paid off their homes then took out second mortgages they could not pay. Most of these folks tried desperately to keep their homes. Despite the Obama mortgage "reforms," most banks refused to work with people by modifying loans.
Even greater in number than those who lost their homes are those who are still paying their mortgages even though it makes no economic sense to do so. They do this through a sense of moral obligation. They do so because they have are responsible neighbors and citizens, even though some have suggested that they simply act like the corporations and the banks that hector them to "do the responsible thing" and walk awa from their obligation. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/magazine/10FOB-wwln-t.html?scp=2&sq=mortgage&st=cse
This is why people are so angry right now. People can see that the Masters of the Universe are playing by different rules than they are, and suffering no consequences. While workers have had stagnant wages over the last decade, higher health care costs, or even had health care taken away, banks have enjoyed TARP bailouts, paid its executives ginormous bonuses and increased the ratio between CEO pay and worker pay. Obama tapped into this anger before he got into office and then, many feel, turned over economic policy to Wall Street. If he wants to stay in office he'd be wise to figure out a way to help working Americans in real, not symbolic terms.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Campaign Reform For All?
I haven't had the time or inclination to read yesterday's Supreme Court case that eliminated certain limits on election spending by corporations. The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, overturned decades of precedent and held that corporations could finance ads for or against political candidates. I have, however, noticed the news coverage, almost all of which mention that the case means corporations and unions can now spend as much as they like, implying somehow that unions and corporations have an equal ability to influence elections through their spending. They don't.
Although it is true that unions spent freely to try to elect candidates in the last election cycle, it is also true that unions do not have unlimited funds. Corporations practically do. Opensecrets.org estimates that in the 2008 election cycle all unions combined spend less than half of what the Chamber of Commerce spent supporting or opposing candidates. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/02/labor-and-business-spend-big-o.html. These figures only count the Chamber of Commerce on the business end of things; once corporations begin to spend in earnest it will dwarf the 80 million the Chamber spent in 2008. Unions, on the other hand, will not be able to afford to lobby and spend at anything close to the same level.
The influence of corporations and business and their money can be seen in the effort to reform health care. Heatlh care firms and their lobbyists spend 1.4 million dollars a day trying to influence the effort. And influence it they did: the bill as currently written drives more consumers into the arms of insurance companies, and there is no countervailing public option to keep private insurers honest and efficient. This is a preview of coming attractions for how corporations will influence policy. As one lobbyist read the decision, lobbyists will be able to go to politicians and say “We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?ref=todayspaper
To quote Anatole France, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Likewise, the Supreme Court decision does remove restrictions on unions and corporations from certain spending restrictions. But let's not pretend that this decision places them in an equal position.
Although it is true that unions spent freely to try to elect candidates in the last election cycle, it is also true that unions do not have unlimited funds. Corporations practically do. Opensecrets.org estimates that in the 2008 election cycle all unions combined spend less than half of what the Chamber of Commerce spent supporting or opposing candidates. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/02/labor-and-business-spend-big-o.html. These figures only count the Chamber of Commerce on the business end of things; once corporations begin to spend in earnest it will dwarf the 80 million the Chamber spent in 2008. Unions, on the other hand, will not be able to afford to lobby and spend at anything close to the same level.
The influence of corporations and business and their money can be seen in the effort to reform health care. Heatlh care firms and their lobbyists spend 1.4 million dollars a day trying to influence the effort. And influence it they did: the bill as currently written drives more consumers into the arms of insurance companies, and there is no countervailing public option to keep private insurers honest and efficient. This is a preview of coming attractions for how corporations will influence policy. As one lobbyist read the decision, lobbyists will be able to go to politicians and say “We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?ref=todayspaper
To quote Anatole France, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Likewise, the Supreme Court decision does remove restrictions on unions and corporations from certain spending restrictions. But let's not pretend that this decision places them in an equal position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)