Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Employees (2)
- Employers (2)
- Labor unions (2)
- Law reform (2)
- Organized labor (2)
-
- Boycotts (1)
- Coercion (1)
- Collective bargaining (1)
- Congress (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Employment at will (1)
- Employment; Discrimination; Social Group Issues; Employment Practice and the Law; Affirmative Action; Civil Rights (1)
- Freedom of speech (1)
- Generally; Evidence; Proof; Legal Practice and Procedure (1)
- History (1)
- Landrum-Griffin Act (1)
- NLRB v. Fruit and Vegetable Packers Local 760 [Tree Fruits] (1)
- NLRB v. Retail Clerks Local 1001 [Safeco] (1)
- National Labor Relations Act (1)
- National Labor Relations Board (1)
- Picketing (1)
- Taft-Hartley Act (1)
- Thornhill v. Alabama (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- Voluntary nature (1)
- Wrongful discharge (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Free Speech Or Economic Weapon? The Persisting Problem Of Picketing, Theodore J. St. Antoine
Free Speech Or Economic Weapon? The Persisting Problem Of Picketing, Theodore J. St. Antoine
Articles
"Peaceful picketing," the United States Supreme Court has said, "is the workingman's means of communication."' One line of analysis is that, as a means of communication, picketing is free speech and is therefore entitled to every constitutional protection afforded other forms of expression. This means that it cannot be subjected to special restrictions, such as antiboycott curbs, simply because it is picketing. The opposing line of analysis is that picketing is not simply speech; it is "speech plus." The "plus" element removes picketing from the realm of pure speech and enables it to be regulated in ways that the Constitution …
Bottom Line Defense In Title Vii Actions: Supreme Court Rejection In Connecticut V. Teal And A Modified Approach, David Yellen
Bottom Line Defense In Title Vii Actions: Supreme Court Rejection In Connecticut V. Teal And A Modified Approach, David Yellen
Articles
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against job applicants or employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The statute proscribes both intentional discrimination and facially neutral selection devices that disproportionately exclude members of minority groups from certain jobs and are unrelated to job performance. Proponents of the "bottom line defense" argue that even where the plaintiff proves that a particular step in the hiring or promotion process disparately affects minorities, title VII is not violated if the employer demonstrates that the result of the entire selection process, the …
You're Fired!, Theodore J. St. Antoine
You're Fired!, Theodore J. St. Antoine
Articles
In 1967 Professor Lawrence Blades of Kansas criticized the iron grip of the contract doctrine of employment at will, and argued that all employees should be legally protected against abusive discharge. The next dozen years saw a remarkable reaction. With rare unanimity, a veritable Who's Who of labor academics and labor arbitrators, Aaron, Blumrosen, Howlett, Peck, Stieber, and Summers, to name only some, stepped forth to embrace Blades' notion, and to refine and elaborate it. But the persons who counted the most, the judges and the legislators, hung back. In the 1960s, vast strides were taken at both the federal …
The Regulation Of Labor Unions, Theodore J. St. Antoine
The Regulation Of Labor Unions, Theodore J. St. Antoine
Articles
This year completes exactly a half century in the federalization and codification of American labor law. Before that the regulation of both the internal affairs and external relations of labor organizations was left largely to the individual states, usually through the application of common or nonstatutory law by the courts. One major exception was the railroad industry, whose patent importance to interstate commerce made it an acceptable subject for federal legislation like the Railway Labor Act.