HEY! THAT MEANS THAT ANY CATEGORY OF WORKERS DEFINED OUTSIDE THE FED SETUP IS ELIGIBLE FOR SEPARATE STATE LABOR ORGANIZING SETUP!!!!!!!!!!!!
State labor setup could add something oh, so every day practicable. State NLRB substitute could MANDATE certification elections upon a finding of union busting. States should also take union busting as seriously in criminal law as fed takes taking a movie in the movies — that FBI warning on your DVD comes alive and you are gone for couple of years if caught.
But mandating certification elections has so much more an everyday, natural businesslike feel that it could sail relatively smoothly through state legislatures. Nota bene: Wisconsin mandates re-certification of public employees unions annually (51% of membership required; not just voters) — nothing too alien about mandating union elections.
State set up might ACTUALLY go the last practical mile and actually force employers to actually bargain with certified unions — which refusal to bargain remains the last impassable barrier associated with the fed no-enforcement mechanism. See Donald Trump in Vegas.
When I was in San Francisco a decade or so ago a union demonstration was going on in front of a hotel on Fourth Street all day, every day: “San Francisco should beware (chanted the leader); Hotel Marriot is unfair (membership responded) — Hotel Marriot, you’re no good; sign that contract like you should.”
A concierge I was taxicabing to work one morning, later, told me that part of the deal to allow the Marriot build was to allow a union. Good luck.
State setups to conduct union organizing can illustrate for the rest of the country the shape of real labor market protection. Limit federal definition of employee: wonderful state and local opportunity.
******************************************************
“Third gear” doctrine of state labor law?
Asserting that a state labor law setups (replicating) conducting union certification elections and (uniquely) forcing employers to actually bargain with the union — do not violate federal preemption on the theory that you cannot preempt something (enforceable) labor law with nothing (unenforceable) …
… (assuming this holds up in court) this sets up a very tricky future for the courts. Every time federal labor law morphs — the enforceability and practicability of fed law might need to be judged all over again to decide whether state setups may continue to operate (not be preempted). Pretty wacky state of things.
Given that states may add enforceablity to current federal law (e.g., by making union busting a felony);
Given that states may add to their current separate certification setups (today, for farm workers) any classification that the NLRB combs out of federal definition of employees (tomorrow, graduate student instructors and college athletes — NOW THAT IT OCCURS TO US THAT WE CAN DO THIS);
Given that states can replicate the entire federal setup as long as the federal setup remains a road to nowhere …
… it seems state and federal labor laws could be approaching pretty closely meshed.
For the sake of workability it might make sense for courts to allow, for instance, states to set a 7 day election requirement to for an election after card check — to supplement a (theoretical here) 30 day federal requirement.
Could call this a “third-gear” doctrine.
At this point there might not be much light showing between state and federal labor law jurisdiction. Maybe courts could bring on the final meshing by, say, not allowing states to overrule a finding in favor of certification — but allowing states to overrule a finding against certification: a relative of can’t preempt something with nothing.
Not perfectly clear doctrine, but we have to do something.
Now that Trumps cabinet selection is nearly complete one change is clear. His administration is changing direction from anti-business to very pro-business.
This old Fed can see the direction of those questions. Identify low hanging fruit. Expect some organizational/budget pruning of these low hanging functions not central to agency core mission(s). Expect similar action in other agencies.
The approach appears similar to that of many takeovers/mergers in industry. Remove duplication, assign experienced managers familiar with these kinds of change, and cut until only core mission(s) are supported.
FLASH:
Just read that Trump stacked NLRB could walk back teaching and research assistants category as employees. Hey; we know states may conduct their own union certification setups for farm workers because farm workers were left off FDR’s ship.
https://onlabor.org/2016/12/09/what-will-a-trump-nlrb-mean-for-graduate-teaching-and-research-assistants/
HEY! THAT MEANS THAT ANY CATEGORY OF WORKERS DEFINED OUTSIDE THE FED SETUP IS ELIGIBLE FOR SEPARATE STATE LABOR ORGANIZING SETUP!!!!!!!!!!!!
State labor setup could add something oh, so every day practicable. State NLRB substitute could MANDATE certification elections upon a finding of union busting. States should also take union busting as seriously in criminal law as fed takes taking a movie in the movies — that FBI warning on your DVD comes alive and you are gone for couple of years if caught.
But mandating certification elections has so much more an everyday, natural businesslike feel that it could sail relatively smoothly through state legislatures. Nota bene: Wisconsin mandates re-certification of public employees unions annually (51% of membership required; not just voters) — nothing too alien about mandating union elections.
State set up might ACTUALLY go the last practical mile and actually force employers to actually bargain with certified unions — which refusal to bargain remains the last impassable barrier associated with the fed no-enforcement mechanism. See Donald Trump in Vegas.
When I was in San Francisco a decade or so ago a union demonstration was going on in front of a hotel on Fourth Street all day, every day: “San Francisco should beware (chanted the leader); Hotel Marriot is unfair (membership responded) — Hotel Marriot, you’re no good; sign that contract like you should.”
A concierge I was taxicabing to work one morning, later, told me that part of the deal to allow the Marriot build was to allow a union. Good luck.
State setups to conduct union organizing can illustrate for the rest of the country the shape of real labor market protection. Limit federal definition of employee: wonderful state and local opportunity.
******************************************************
“Third gear” doctrine of state labor law?
Asserting that a state labor law setups (replicating) conducting union certification elections and (uniquely) forcing employers to actually bargain with the union — do not violate federal preemption on the theory that you cannot preempt something (enforceable) labor law with nothing (unenforceable) …
… (assuming this holds up in court) this sets up a very tricky future for the courts. Every time federal labor law morphs — the enforceability and practicability of fed law might need to be judged all over again to decide whether state setups may continue to operate (not be preempted). Pretty wacky state of things.
Given that states may add enforceablity to current federal law (e.g., by making union busting a felony);
Given that states may add to their current separate certification setups (today, for farm workers) any classification that the NLRB combs out of federal definition of employees (tomorrow, graduate student instructors and college athletes — NOW THAT IT OCCURS TO US THAT WE CAN DO THIS);
Given that states can replicate the entire federal setup as long as the federal setup remains a road to nowhere …
… it seems state and federal labor laws could be approaching pretty closely meshed.
For the sake of workability it might make sense for courts to allow, for instance, states to set a 7 day election requirement to for an election after card check — to supplement a (theoretical here) 30 day federal requirement.
Could call this a “third-gear” doctrine.
At this point there might not be much light showing between state and federal labor law jurisdiction. Maybe courts could bring on the final meshing by, say, not allowing states to overrule a finding in favor of certification — but allowing states to overrule a finding against certification: a relative of can’t preempt something with nothing.
Not perfectly clear doctrine, but we have to do something.
Now that Trumps cabinet selection is nearly complete one change is clear. His administration is changing direction from anti-business to very pro-business.
With the list of 70+ questions issued to the Dept of Energy, it appears business processes that require justification and measurement toward goals will also be prevalent. http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/12/trump-transition-team-memo-hints-at-fossil-friendly-energy-policy/
This old Fed can see the direction of those questions. Identify low hanging fruit. Expect some organizational/budget pruning of these low hanging functions not central to agency core mission(s). Expect similar action in other agencies.
The approach appears similar to that of many takeovers/mergers in industry. Remove duplication, assign experienced managers familiar with these kinds of change, and cut until only core mission(s) are supported.