Posts Tagged ‘public employment’

Labor and employment law roundup

  • Maryland: “Montgomery County Police ‘Effects’ Bargaining Bludgeons Public Safety” [Trey Kovacs, CEI, earlier] Time to revisit “effects” bargaining for other employee groups too [Gazette]
  • “A New Whistleblower Retaliation Statute Grows Up: Dodd-Frank is the new Sarbanes-Oxley” [Daniel Schwartz]
  • Proposal for disclosure of “persuaders” would threaten many employers [Michael Lotito/The Hill, earlier]
  • Judge greenlights union suit challenging new Indiana right to work law [RedState]
  • “Discovery of Immigration-Status Denied in FLSA Case” [Workplace Prof]
  • “Same Song, Umpteenth Verse – No Discrimination, Retaliation Worth $2 Million” [Fox/Employer’s Lawyer; Ithaca, N.Y.]
  • NLRB on collision course with Indian tribal sovereignty [Fred Wszolek, Indian Country Today]

A CALPERS power grab for private pensions?

Coyote has some questions about a sweeping yet underpublicized new California law.

P.S. Josh Barro writes via Twitter (adapted), “I don’t buy this. Worker participation is voluntary, and if it looks like they’re paying into a slush fund, they’ll withdraw. I’d worry more that CALPers will start offering a tax-backed defined benefit to private workers, atop public promises. I think it would be a fine idea to let people participate in the CALPers investment fund, with the participant bearing all risk. Big pension funds do have real administrative cost advantages over 401(k)s. The problem is they get in the risk-shifting business. The bill says California must ‘secure private underwriting and reinsurance to manage risk and insure the retirement savings rate of return.’ I think that means there’s no reliance on a taxpayer guarantee — risk must be borne by a private firm and therefore priced right.”

P.P.S. Scott Shackford at Reason has further analysis, calling attention to “guaranteed return” language as well as to the AP’s description of the program’s must-make-an-effort-to-get-out structure: “The program directs employers to withhold 3 percent of their workers’ pay unless the employee opts out of the savings program, which can be done every two years.”

Chicago teachers’ strike

It’s so obvious that teachers’ strikes hurt kids (not to mention adults) that even the New York Times’ editorialists, even Kevin Drum at Mother Jones, can’t really stomach this one. It’s likely to heighten the contradictions within the Democratic Party, which is simultaneously expected to represent the interests of public employees and of big city dwellers. It will also further questions (raised by my Cato colleague Andrew Coulson) about unions’ role in keeping American education monopolistic. And it’s already evoking the example of earlier officials who vindicated the rights of the public against such unions, including Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan, and Scott Walker. Is Rahm Emanuel made of that kind of stuff?

A couple of videos, one from the Illinois Policy Institute:

And from Reason.tv:

Andrew Grossman: “Chicago parents: Stand in solidarity with your fellow workers and refuse to teach your children. Don’t be a scab!”

Sued if you do dept.: unhappy town hall in New Jersey

Parsippany, N.J. hired a new town clerk last year, but her tenure does not seem to have proved a long or happy one: four office employees soon filed complaints against her, “charging her with making racial, sexual and religious statements that left them feeling uncomfortable in the workplace,” and she filed counter-complaints. “All of the grievances were dismissed by township administration, and both sides filed suit against the town.” Now the town has paid $200,000 to resolve the former town clerk’s claims, which she has not elaborated publicly on advice of counsel, while the status of the office workers’ $4 million claim is not clear. [Parsippany Patch via NJLRA]

Labor and employment roundup

Labor and employment roundup

  • Why is the U.S. Department of Labor funding Restaurant Opportunities Center United (ROC), a group that stages protests in front of restaurants and has “harassed” patrons? Rep. Darrell Issa wants to know [Chamber-backed Legal NewsLine, Daily Caller]
  • Connecticut public workers who wrongly took food stamps get their jobs back, and no, you can’t read the arbitration decisions [Raising Hale]
  • Michael Fox’s pioneering employment law blog turns 10;
  • “Why Defending Employment Lawsuits Can Be So Expensive” [Daniel Schwartz]
  • What lawprofs are up to: proposal to gut the employee-misconduct defense [Pandya, Workplace Prof]
  • Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute explains why he sees no contradiction in opposing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA] while supporting gay marriage. Related: Jacob Sullum;
  • Hyper-regulation of employment in Italy cries out for reform [John Cochrane, Tom Smith, one deterrent]

“10 Days in the Police Academy, 14 Years on Disability”

The Cato Institute recently began providing a home to the previously freestanding National Police Misconduct Reporting Project, which compiles an astounding and varied collection of allegations of misconduct, inefficiency and questionable employment practices in law enforcement. Among them: this report from the Chicago Sun-Times noted by my colleague Tim Lynch. If you have any interest in the topic, you’ll want to add the site to your RSS, Facebook or Twitter feeds.

Miami-area cop jailed three times, fired six

Accusations against the Opa-locka officer include

cracking the head of a handcuffed suspect, beating juveniles, hiding drugs in his police car, stealing from suspects, defying direct orders and lying and falsifying police reports. He once called in sick to take a vacation to Cancún and has engaged in a rash of unauthorized police chases, including one in which four people were killed.

Although he’s “joked about his record of misconduct,” the “Miami-Dade Police Benevolent Association has successfully fought Bosque’s dismissals.” [Miami Herald via Tim Lynch, Cato Police Misconduct Project] However, we know from Canadian Auto Workers economist Jim Stanford’s recent column in the Globe and Mail that in right-to-work states, which include Florida, unions are “effectively prohibited.” So it seems there’s no need to worry about a Florida police union’s having too much power.

From the Globe and Mail

The Toronto Globe and Mail prints my letter to the editor correcting some misrepresentations of U.S. labor law by Canadian Auto Workers union economist Jim Stanford. The text of the letter as it ran, slightly abridged, in the paper:

Jim Stanford says that in the 23 states with “right to work” laws, unions are “effectively prohibited; indeed, in right-to-work states, private-sector unionism is virtually non-existent” (Wisconsin’s Disease Crosses The Border – July 3).

This would come as a surprise to millions of employees in those 23 states who join and are represented at their workplace by unions. In Alabama, for example, which has had a right-to-work law since 1953, 183,000 workers (about 11 per cent of the labour force) are represented by unions, including 84,000 workers in the private sector. (source)

Emboldened or otherwise, Republicans in the states have no authority to alter the 1935 Wagner Act or other federal laws. In states like Wisconsin, they have sought to alter laws prevailing in about two-thirds of states that prescribe collective bargaining by public employees; these laws are of much more recent vintage than the New Deal, often dating to the 1960-85 period. Given Franklin Roosevelt’s well-documented skepticism toward collective bargaining by government employees, it is no surprise that he did not see fit to build any such element into his New Deal.

Walter Olson, senior fellow, the Cato Institute, Washington