Wet backs and narrow backs (Irish immigrant term for their native children)
We already covered that farm workers are left out of federal labor organizing protections — therefore may be legally protected by state laws instead — IOW not subject to any assertion of federal preemption (which subject I am studying separately).
Fears of Trump loaded NLRB revoking employee status from college student research and teaching assistants led to the insight that they can also be covered by state protections instead.
Wet backs and narrow backs — complementary legislative/legislature/legislator and public capturing powers: heavy (nay, desperate) determination on the part of wet; heavy education and full fledged middle class expectations on the part of narrow demanding nothing less than full state/federal parallel labor law, like California’s (35 pp pdf). Wet appeals to blue collar supporters; narrow appeals to academic liberals (of the sort who mostly never empathize that much with labor). https://www.alrb.ca.gov/content/pdfs/formspublications/handbook/handbook0207.pdf
Upshot: even in a state as progressive as Oregon farm, farm workers missed out of state organizing protection by one vote in the legislature in 1989 and as far as I know right now it never came up again. Put wet and narrow together: no repeat.
Mmm. Next category: any category at all left out of fed organizing coverage — e.g., Uber and Lyft drivers, etc. Teamsters — who are great — working for them through regular channels now.
Brainstorm! “FedEx Express – unlike those other companies – is not covered by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) … the RLA – like the NLRA – protects the right of employees to form, join, and be represented by a union, it is far more difficult for employees to organize under the RLA than it is under the NLRA. As a result, only a small segment of the FedEx Express workforce – some 4,500–5,000 pilots – is unionized; almost 100,000 truck drivers, package handlers, dispatchers, and other FedEx Express ground transportation employees are not.” http://www.civilrights.org/publications/fedex-rla-loophole/introduction-the-fedex-loophole.html
Hey, Fed-X folks could be the clearest example for the general public of how completely non-workable fed labor law can be. 94% non-unionized in private economy means the rest cannot be that much better off. Big sales point to dispute non-working preemption.
Of course, wet/narrow accomplished state organizing protection will not be as lacking in enforcement power (toothless!) as fed so-called protection. Otherwise, why bother? Just two quick aspects. Mandating certification elections on finding of union busting, which seems to me the most common sense, almost seamless way to safeguard organizing should be added to the usual mix. The fed cannot preempt a workable state certification setup with a nonenforceable certification setup — not with a First Amendment right to commercial association at stake.
Not all that settled — when fully thought out — that the federal labor setup may preempt the state in any case (pretty ticklish having state setups whose moment-to-moment legitimacy can depend on the latest judicial reading of federal setup effectiveness/in-effectiveness). No deep reason not to have parallel state laws (er, uh, presumably of the enforceable species).
ADDENDUM
Learned so far: difference between preemption and supremacy. Supremacy is a conflict resolution machine. Preemption means the state may not enter the legislative area in the first place. Just starting on this …
… but think that just as no state or federal law can ban collective bargaining under the First Amendment — that no federal law should be able to ban parallel state law protecting collective bargaining for the same constitutional reason …
… completely aside from the can’t-preempt-something-with-nothing (federal setup) issue — which bizarrely could make legitimacy of state law dependent of latest judicial reading of effectiveness/non-effectiveness federal law; in a never ending merry-go-round.
State may protect ad hoc collections of employees who band together to bargain w/o certifying a union. And other categories left out of federal specifications — so why should preemption work for some categories and not others. States plainly are not left out of the are all together (which would seem the definition of preemption).
Back in early 2011, during the Japanese earthquake and tsunami disaster, I opened a Twitter account in order to follow an American there who was tweeting updates on it, and with the exception of comments a journalist used his twitter feed to make about a controversial Angry Bear post of mine about three years ago (which someone notified me about in an email), I never used the account until about a month ago when it was the only way I could try to get HP support help downloading a driver for my out-of-warranty printer.
But then about a couple of weeks or so ago, I started tweeting comments in Paul Krugman’s Twitter feed, responding to a couple of his tweets. But they didn’t show up in his feed or links from his feed. Then, a week or so ago I tweeted replies to a couple of his tweets, and suddenly they and other replies from nobodies began showing up in links from his tweets.
I now have six followers, including a couple of actual journalists, and two people from Angry Bear (thanks, guys!).
Wet backs and narrow backs (Irish immigrant term for their native children)
We already covered that farm workers are left out of federal labor organizing protections — therefore may be legally protected by state laws instead — IOW not subject to any assertion of federal preemption (which subject I am studying separately).
Fears of Trump loaded NLRB revoking employee status from college student research and teaching assistants led to the insight that they can also be covered by state protections instead.
Wet backs and narrow backs — complementary legislative/legislature/legislator and public capturing powers: heavy (nay, desperate) determination on the part of wet; heavy education and full fledged middle class expectations on the part of narrow demanding nothing less than full state/federal parallel labor law, like California’s (35 pp pdf). Wet appeals to blue collar supporters; narrow appeals to academic liberals (of the sort who mostly never empathize that much with labor).
https://www.alrb.ca.gov/content/pdfs/formspublications/handbook/handbook0207.pdf
Upshot: even in a state as progressive as Oregon farm, farm workers missed out of state organizing protection by one vote in the legislature in 1989 and as far as I know right now it never came up again. Put wet and narrow together: no repeat.
Mmm. Next category: any category at all left out of fed organizing coverage — e.g., Uber and Lyft drivers, etc. Teamsters — who are great — working for them through regular channels now.
Brainstorm! “FedEx Express – unlike those other companies – is not covered by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) … the RLA – like the NLRA – protects the right of employees to form, join, and be represented by a union, it is far more difficult for employees to organize under the RLA than it is under the NLRA. As a result, only a small segment of the FedEx Express workforce – some 4,500–5,000 pilots – is unionized; almost 100,000 truck drivers, package handlers, dispatchers, and other FedEx Express ground transportation employees are not.”
http://www.civilrights.org/publications/fedex-rla-loophole/introduction-the-fedex-loophole.html
Hey, Fed-X folks could be the clearest example for the general public of how completely non-workable fed labor law can be. 94% non-unionized in private economy means the rest cannot be that much better off. Big sales point to dispute non-working preemption.
Of course, wet/narrow accomplished state organizing protection will not be as lacking in enforcement power (toothless!) as fed so-called protection. Otherwise, why bother? Just two quick aspects. Mandating certification elections on finding of union busting, which seems to me the most common sense, almost seamless way to safeguard organizing should be added to the usual mix. The fed cannot preempt a workable state certification setup with a nonenforceable certification setup — not with a First Amendment right to commercial association at stake.
Not all that settled — when fully thought out — that the federal labor setup may preempt the state in any case (pretty ticklish having state setups whose moment-to-moment legitimacy can depend on the latest judicial reading of federal setup effectiveness/in-effectiveness). No deep reason not to have parallel state laws (er, uh, presumably of the enforceable species).
ADDENDUM
Learned so far: difference between preemption and supremacy. Supremacy is a conflict resolution machine. Preemption means the state may not enter the legislative area in the first place. Just starting on this …
… but think that just as no state or federal law can ban collective bargaining under the First Amendment — that no federal law should be able to ban parallel state law protecting collective bargaining for the same constitutional reason …
… completely aside from the can’t-preempt-something-with-nothing (federal setup) issue — which bizarrely could make legitimacy of state law dependent of latest judicial reading of effectiveness/non-effectiveness federal law; in a never ending merry-go-round.
State may protect ad hoc collections of employees who band together to bargain w/o certifying a union. And other categories left out of federal specifications — so why should preemption work for some categories and not others. States plainly are not left out of the are all together (which would seem the definition of preemption).
Back in early 2011, during the Japanese earthquake and tsunami disaster, I opened a Twitter account in order to follow an American there who was tweeting updates on it, and with the exception of comments a journalist used his twitter feed to make about a controversial Angry Bear post of mine about three years ago (which someone notified me about in an email), I never used the account until about a month ago when it was the only way I could try to get HP support help downloading a driver for my out-of-warranty printer.
But then about a couple of weeks or so ago, I started tweeting comments in Paul Krugman’s Twitter feed, responding to a couple of his tweets. But they didn’t show up in his feed or links from his feed. Then, a week or so ago I tweeted replies to a couple of his tweets, and suddenly they and other replies from nobodies began showing up in links from his tweets.
I now have six followers, including a couple of actual journalists, and two people from Angry Bear (thanks, guys!).
So here’s the list of my followers and my feed, and I invite all my friends from Angry Bear—but not my enemies—to follow me:
https://twitter.com/BeverlyMann19/followers
I do plan to start blogging again soon, maybe in Medium, should any of you be interested. But for now, it’s Twitter or Bust.
Should say: “… I never used the account again until ….”
Eh. What’s a comment from me w/o a typo, hah? Y’all probably would think it was posted by an impostor–someone who isn’t a habitual typo typist.