Search Results for ‘labor persuader’

Labor law roundup

  • But don’t call it quotas: “New Proposal May Force Federal Contractors to Hire More People with Disabilities” [Diversity Journal]
  • Wow: SEIU local advertises job described as “Train/lead members in … occupying state buildings and banks” [Instapundit]
  • $174K/year annual pension, collected for several decades? “Public retirement ages come under greater scrutiny” [AP] “Report makes ‘progressive’ pension-reform case” [Steven Greenhut, Public Sector Inc.] “Retired Cops and Firefighters in RI Town Accept Pension Cuts in Bankruptcy Deal” [Debra Cassens Weiss/ABA Journal, earlier] New York officials move to cut off public access to information about who’s getting what [NY Post]
  • In end run around Congress: “Obama instating labor rules for home-care aides” [LAT]
  • Artificial “take home pay” rule helped some highly paid Connecticut public workers qualify for emergency food stamps [Hartford Courant, more]
  • Lawyers, business groups alarmed at Department of Labor’s proposed “labor persuader” regulations [ABA Journal, earlier]

Fighting the last war, on courts and executive power

Some on the left are still blasting judges as activist for standing up to Obama administration assertions of executive power in the regulatory sphere. That might prove shortsighted considering what’s on the agenda for the next four years, or so I argue in a piece in Sunday’s Providence Journal.

I take particular exception to a Bloomberg View column in which Noah Feldman, professor at Harvard Law, assails federal district judge Amos Mazzant III for enjoining the Department of Labor’s overtime rule for mid-level employees (earlier). In a gratuitous personal jab, Feldman raises the question of “whether Mazzant sees an opportunity for judicial advancement with this anti-regulatory judgment” in light of the election results, though he offers not a particle of evidence that the judge, an Obama appointee, is angling for higher appointment under the new administration.

The problems with the overtime rule were both substantive and procedural. As I mention in the piece, “more than 145 charitable nonprofits signed a letter begging the department to allow more than a 60-day public comment period. It refused.” That letter is here (via, see Aug. 5, 2015 entry). I also mention that a court recently struck down the Department of Labor’s very bad “persuader rule” that would have regulated management-side lawyers and consultants; more on that from Daniel Fisher, the ABA Journal, and earlier.

After pointing out that many of the rulings restraining the Obama administration have been written or joined by Democratic-appointed judges, I go on to say:

Judges rule all the time against the partisan side that appointed them.

And we’ll be glad of that when the Trump executive orders and regulations begin to hit, and Republican-appointed federal judges are asked to restrain a Republican White House, as they have often done in the past.

We should be celebrating an energetic judiciary that shows a watchful spirit against the encroachments of presidential power.

Proposal: traditional legal ethics should yield to climate interests

Speaking of infringements on what is now the scope of attorney-client privilege, an Oregon law professor has proposed to make environmental protection part of lawyers’ ethical duties. [Daily Climate; Tom Lininger, “Green Ethics for Lawyers,” Boston College Law Review, 2016; Scott Greenfield] Some backers hope the idea will encourage lawyers representing the fossil fuel industry, in particular, to disregard conventional attorney duties of loyalty to clients; indeed, it might someday serve as grounds for them to be disciplined if they refrain from betraying client interests in various situations.

September 29 roundup