Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Human Rights Law

Seattle University School of Law

Labor

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

“They Outlawed Solidarity!”, Richard Blum May 2016

“They Outlawed Solidarity!”, Richard Blum

Seattle University Law Review

In attacking § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)’s ban on secondary labor picketing in support of a consumer boycott as a violation of the First Amendment, critics have repeatedly condemned the Supreme Court’s reliance on a supposed distinction between “pure speech” and “speech plus conduct,” such as a picket. The Court’s invocation of an “unlawful objectives” doctrine to defend banning speech contrary to public policy has also been repeatedly criticized. After all, picketing has been recognized as protected expressive activity and it is entirely lawful for consumers to choose to boycott the target of a picket. However, commentators have not sought to argue that …


A Positive Right To Free Labor, Rebecca E. Zietlow May 2016

A Positive Right To Free Labor, Rebecca E. Zietlow

Seattle University Law Review

This Article seeks to resurrect a lost thread in our civil rights tradition: the idea that workers have a positive right to free labor. A positive right to free labor includes the right to work for a living wage free of undue coercion and free from discrimination based on immutable characteristics. Not merely the negative guarantee against the state’s infringement on individual equality and liberty, a positive right to free labor is immediately enforceable against state and private parties. A positive right to free labor is rooted in the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude …


The Last Legally Beaten Servant In America: From Compulsion To Coercion In The American Workplace, Lea Vandervelde May 2016

The Last Legally Beaten Servant In America: From Compulsion To Coercion In The American Workplace, Lea Vandervelde

Seattle University Law Review

Historically, the law of master-servant allowed corporal punishment. Today it seems strange to contemplate that intentionally inflicted violence was ever an acceptable method of compelling workers to labor in America. Strange as it seems, the practice of striking servants to discipline them was considered a legitimate, implicit part of the relationship between masters and servants. Servants, as well as slaves, could be subjected to cuffings and even severe beatings as means of “correction” and compulsion to labor. Menial servants, apprentices, and domestic servants could be beaten with hands, fists, straps, sticks, and sometimes whips, all in the name of correction …