Regulating employer use of permanent striker replacements: empirical analysis of NLRA and RLA strikes 1935-1991
Article Abstract:
The hiring of permanent replacement workers by employers faced with striking employees should not be banned, as unions want, but the right to hire replacements should be limited through regulation. Analysis of strikes since the 1938 US Supreme Court ruling in NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. indicates that hiring of replacement workers has occurred continuously but increased sharply in the 1980s. Neither the ban unions want or the absolute right to hire permanent replacements that employers want would preserve employee rights and promote equal power between labor and management.
Publication Name: Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 1067-7666
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
The demise of the Chaplinsky fighting words doctrine: an argument for its interment
Article Abstract:
The Chaplinsky doctrine, which established a 'fighting words' exception to the First Amendment, should be overruled. The doctrine included both 'breach of the peace' and 'inflict injury' prongs, of which only a limited 'breach of the peace' exception has survived. Even in its present form, the doctrine gives too much discretion to law enforcement officials, with potential for abuses such as harassment of minorities or suppression of dissident speech, besides being an example of male bias in presupposing a violent response to verbal insults.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
One strike and you're out? Creating an efficient permanent replacement doctrine
Article Abstract:
Employers should be allowed to hire permanent replacement workers during strikes only when they can demonstrate that it is necessary for the company's economic survival. This policy would promote an efficient labor market better than either the current practice allowing an unrestricted right to hire permanent replacements or the proposed legislation that would absolutely prohibit it. The current practice allows employers to destroy unions whereas a ban would allow employees to extract above-market wage concessions.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Financing exploration: requirements of federal and state securities laws. Under CERCLA, government cannot collect expenses for overseeing private party cleanups
- Abstracts: Beaten before they are born: immigrants, their children, and a right to prenatal care. Whose children? A response to professor Guggenheim
- Abstracts: Corporate crisis management. The crisis of poverty law and the demands of benevolence. Crisis management from a public relations point of view
- Abstracts: Do confirmed Chapter 11 plans consummate? The results of a study and analysis of the law. Chapter 11 financial reporting rules for debtors: the impact on creditors, shareholders, new investors, and the bar
- Abstracts: Substituted judgment: medical and financial decisions by guardians. Money laundering, financial fraud, and technology: the perils of an instantaneous economy