Ley laboral de Estados Unidos

La legislación laboral de los Estados Unidos establece los derechos y deberes de los empleados, los sindicatos y los empleadores en los EE. UU. El objetivo básico de la legislación laboral es remediar la " desigualdad del poder de negociación " entre empleados y empleadores, especialmente los empleadores "organizados en la corporación u otras formas de asociación de propiedad". ^[1] Durante el siglo XX, la ley federal creó derechos sociales y económicos mínimos y alentó a las leyes estatales a ir más allá del mínimo para favorecer a los empleados. ^[2] La Ley de Normas Laborales Justas de 1938 requiere un salario mínimo federal , actualmente $ 7.25 pero más alto en 29 estados y DC, y desalienta las semanas laborales de más de 40 horas a través del pago de horas extras de tiempo y medio . No hay leyes federales, y pocas leyes estatales, que requieran vacaciones pagadas o licencia familiar paga . La Ley de Licencia Médica y Familiar de 1993 crea un derecho limitado a 12 semanas de licencia sin goce de sueldo en los empleadores más grandes. No existe un derecho automático a una pensión ocupacional más allá de la Seguridad Social garantizada por el gobierno federal ^[3] , pero la Ley de Seguridad de Ingresos de Jubilación de Empleados de 1974 exige estándares de gestión prudente y buena gobernanza si los empleadores aceptan proporcionar pensiones, planes de salud u otros beneficios. La Ley de Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional de 1970 exige que los empleados tengan un sistema de trabajo seguro.

Un contrato de trabajo siempre puede crear mejores condiciones que los derechos mínimos legales. Pero para aumentar su poder de negociación y conseguir mejores condiciones, los empleados organizan sindicatos para la negociación colectiva . La Ley Clayton de 1914 garantiza a todas las personas el derecho a organizarse, ^[4] y la Ley Nacional de Relaciones Laborales de 1935 crea derechos para que la mayoría de los empleados se organicen sin perjuicios a través de prácticas laborales injustas . Según la Ley de Información y Divulgación de la Gestión Laboral de 1959 , la gobernanza de los sindicatos sigue principios democráticos. Si la mayoría de los empleados de un lugar de trabajo apoyan a un sindicato, las entidades empleadoras tienen el deber de negociar de buena fe . Los sindicatos pueden emprender acciones colectivas para defender sus intereses, incluida la retirada de su mano de obra en huelga. Todavía no existen derechos generales para participar directamente en la gobernanza empresarial, pero muchos empleados y sindicatos han experimentado con la obtención de influencia a través de fondos de pensiones, ^[5] y representación en los consejos corporativos . ^[6]

Desde la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964 , todas las entidades empleadoras y los sindicatos tienen el deber de tratar a los empleados por igual, sin discriminación basada en "raza, color, religión, sexo u origen nacional". ^[7] Existen reglas separadas para la discriminación sexual en la remuneración según la Ley de Igualdad Salarial de 1963. Se agregaron grupos adicionales con "estatus protegido" mediante la Ley de Discriminación por Edad en el Empleo de 1967 y la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades de 1990. No existe una ley federal que prohíba toda discriminación por orientación o identidad sexual , pero 22 estados habían aprobado leyes en 2016. Estas leyes de igualdad generalmente previenen la discriminación en la contratación y los términos de empleo, y hacen que el despido debido a una característica protegida sea ilegal. En 2020, la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos dictaminó en Bostock v. Clayton County que la discriminación basada únicamente en la orientación sexual o la identidad de género viola el Título VII de la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964. No existe una ley federal contra el despido injustificado , y la mayoría de los estados tampoco tienen una ley con plena protección contra el despido injustificado del empleo . ^[8] Los convenios colectivos realizados por los sindicatos y algunos contratos individuales exigen que las personas solo sean despedidas por una " causa justa ". La Ley de Notificación de Ajuste y Reentrenamiento de Trabajadores de 1988 exige que las entidades empleadoras den un aviso de 60 días si más del 50 o un tercio de la fuerza laboral puede perder su trabajo. La ley federal ha tenido como objetivo alcanzar el pleno empleo a través de la política monetaria y el gasto en infraestructura. La política comercial ha intentado poner los derechos laborales en los acuerdos internacionales, para garantizar que los mercados abiertos en una economía global no socaven el empleo justo y pleno .

Historia

La legislación laboral estadounidense moderna proviene principalmente de estatutos aprobados entre 1935 y 1974 , y de interpretaciones cambiantes de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos . ^[9] Sin embargo, las leyes regulaban los derechos de las personas en el trabajo y de los empleadores desde la época colonial en adelante. Antes de la Declaración de Independencia en 1776, el derecho consuetudinario era incierto u hostil a los derechos laborales. ^[10] Los sindicatos se clasificaban como conspiraciones y potencialmente criminales. ^[11] Toleraba la esclavitud y la servidumbre por contrato . Desde la Guerra Pequot en Connecticut desde 1636 en adelante, los nativos americanos fueron esclavizados por colonos europeos. Más de la mitad de los inmigrantes europeos llegaron como prisioneros o en servidumbre por contrato , ^[12] donde no eran libres de dejar a sus empleadores hasta que se hubiera pagado un bono de deuda . Hasta su abolición, la trata de esclavos del Atlántico llevó a millones de africanos a realizar trabajos forzados en las Américas.

Sin embargo, en 1772, el Tribunal de King's Bench de Inglaterra sostuvo en Somerset v Stewart que la esclavitud debía presumirse ilegal según el derecho consuetudinario. ^[13] Charles Stewart de Boston , Massachusetts, había comprado a James Somerset como esclavo y lo había llevado a Inglaterra . Con la ayuda de los abolicionistas , Somerset escapó y demandó un recurso de hábeas corpus (que "retener su cuerpo" había sido ilegal). Lord Mansfield , después de declarar que debería " dejar que se haga justicia sea cual sea la consecuencia ", sostuvo que la esclavitud era "tan odiosa" que nadie podía tomar "un esclavo por la fuerza para venderlo" por ninguna "razón". Esta fue una de las principales quejas de los estados esclavistas del sur, que condujo a la Revolución estadounidense en 1776. ^[14] El censo de los Estados Unidos de 1790 registró 694.280 esclavos (17,8 por ciento) de una población total de 3.893.635. Después de la independencia, el Imperio Británico detuvo el comercio de esclavos en el Atlántico en 1807 , ^[15] y abolió la esclavitud en sus propios territorios , pagando a los dueños de esclavos en 1833. ^[16] En los EE. UU., los estados del norte abolieron progresivamente la esclavitud. Sin embargo, los estados del sur no lo hicieron. En Dred Scott v. Sandford, la Corte Suprema sostuvo que el gobierno federal no podía regular la esclavitud, y también que las personas que eran esclavas no tenían derechos legales en los tribunales. ^[17] La Guerra Civil estadounidense fue el resultado. La Proclamación de Emancipación del presidente Lincoln en 1863 convirtió la abolición de la esclavitud en un objetivo de guerra, y la Decimotercera Enmienda de 1865 consagró la abolición de la mayoría de las formas de esclavitud en la Constitución. Los antiguos dueños de esclavos también tenían prohibido mantener a las personas en servidumbre involuntaria por deudas por la Ley de Peonaje de 1867 . ^[18] En 1868, la Decimocuarta Enmienda garantizó la igualdad de acceso a la justicia, y la Decimoquinta Enmienda exigió que todos tuvieran derecho a votar. La Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1875 también pretendía garantizar la igualdad en el acceso a la vivienda y al transporte, pero en los Casos de Derechos Civiles , la Corte Suprema la consideró "inconstitucional", asegurando que la segregación racial continuaría. En su opinión discrepante, el Juez Harlan dijo que la mayoría estaba dejando a la gente "prácticamente a merced de las corporaciones". ^[19]Incluso si las personas eran formalmente libres, en los hechos seguían dependiendo de los propietarios para obtener trabajo, ingresos y servicios básicos.

El trabajo es anterior e independiente del capital . El capital es sólo el fruto del trabajo, y nunca podría haber existido si el trabajo no hubiera existido primero. El trabajo es superior al capital, y merece una consideración mucho más alta... El principiante prudente y sin dinero en el mundo trabaja por un salario durante un tiempo, ahorra un excedente con el que comprar herramientas o tierra para sí mismo, luego trabaja por cuenta propia otro tiempo, y al final contrata a otro principiante nuevo para que lo ayude. Este es el sistema justo, generoso y próspero que abre el camino a todos, da esperanza a todos y, en consecuencia, energía, progreso y mejora de la condición de todos. No hay hombres vivos más dignos de confianza que aquellos que trabajan duro desde la pobreza ; ninguno está menos inclinado a tomar o tocar algo que no han ganado honestamente. Que tengan cuidado de no entregar un poder político que ya poseen, y que, si lo entregaran, seguramente se utilizaría para cerrar la puerta del progreso a los que son como ellos y para fijarles nuevas discapacidades y cargas hasta que se pierda toda la libertad .

— Abraham Lincoln , Primer mensaje anual (1861)

Al igual que la esclavitud, la represión de los sindicatos por parte del derecho consuetudinario tardó en deshacerse. ^[20] En 1806, Commonwealth v. Pullis sostuvo que un sindicato de zapateros de Filadelfia que se declaraba en huelga por salarios más altos era una "conspiración" ilegal, ^[21] aunque las corporaciones (combinaciones de empleadores) eran legales. Los sindicatos todavía se formaban y actuaban. La primera federación de sindicatos, la National Trades Union , se estableció en 1834 para lograr una jornada laboral de 10 horas , pero no sobrevivió al creciente desempleo del pánico financiero de 1837. En 1842, Commonwealth v. Hunt sostuvo que Pullis estaba equivocado, después de que la Boston Journeymen Bootmakers' Society hiciera huelga por salarios más altos. ^[22] El juez de primera instancia dijo que los sindicatos "volverían insegura la propiedad y la convertirían en el botín de la multitud, aniquilarían la propiedad y envolverían a la sociedad en una ruina común". Pero en la Corte Suprema Judicial de Massachusetts , Shaw CJ sostuvo que las personas "son libres de trabajar para quien quieran, o de no trabajar, si así lo prefieren" y podían "acordar juntos ejercer sus propios derechos reconocidos, de tal manera que mejor sirva a sus propios intereses". Esto detuvo los casos penales, aunque los casos civiles persistieron. ^[23] En 1869 una organización llamada Knights of Labor fue fundada por artesanos de Filadelfia, a la que se unieron los mineros en 1874 y los comerciantes urbanos a partir de 1879. Tenía como objetivo la igualdad racial y de género, la educación política y la empresa cooperativa, ^[24] pero apoyó la Ley de Contrato Laboral Extranjero de 1885 que suprimía a los trabajadores que migraban a los EE. UU. bajo un contrato de trabajo.

Los conflictos industriales en los ferrocarriles y telégrafos a partir de 1883 llevaron a la fundación de la Federación Estadounidense del Trabajo en 1886, con el simple objetivo de mejorar los salarios de los trabajadores, la vivienda y la seguridad laboral "aquí y ahora". ^[25] También pretendía ser la única federación, para crear un movimiento laboral fuerte y unificado. Las empresas reaccionaron con litigios. La Ley Antimonopolio Sherman de 1890 , que pretendía sancionar a los cárteles empresariales que actuaban en restricción del comercio , ^[26] se aplicó a los sindicatos. En 1895, la Corte Suprema de los EE. UU. en In re Debs afirmó una orden judicial, basada en la Ley Sherman, contra los trabajadores en huelga de la Pullman Company . El líder de la huelga, Eugene Debs, fue encarcelado. ^[27] En un notable disenso entre los jueces, ^[28] Holmes J argumentó en Vegelahn v. Guntner que cualquier sindicato que tomara acción colectiva de buena fe era legal: incluso si las huelgas causaban pérdidas económicas, esto era igualmente legítimo que la pérdida económica de las corporaciones que competían entre sí. ^[29] Holmes J fue elevado a la Corte Suprema de los EE. UU ., pero nuevamente estaba en minoría en materia de derechos laborales. En 1905, Lochner v. New York sostuvo que Nueva York limitando la jornada laboral de los panaderos a 60 horas semanales violaba la libertad de contrato de los empleadores . La mayoría de la Corte Suprema supuestamente desenterró este "derecho" en la Decimocuarta Enmienda , de que ningún Estado debería "privar a ninguna persona de la vida, la libertad o la propiedad, sin el debido proceso legal". ^[30] Con Harlan J , Holmes J disintió, argumentando que "la constitución no está destinada a incorporar una teoría económica particular" sino que está "hecha para personas con puntos de vista fundamentalmente diferentes". En cuestiones de política social y económica, los tribunales nunca deberían declarar que una legislación es "inconstitucional". Sin embargo, la Corte Suprema aceleró su ataque al trabajo en Loewe v. Lawlor , al sostener que un sindicato en huelga debía pagar daños triples a sus empleadores en virtud de la Ley Sherman de 1890. [ ^31] Esta línea de casos fue finalmente anulada por la Ley Clayton de 1914 §6. Esta eliminó al trabajo de la legislación antimonopolio , afirmando que "el trabajo de un ser humano no es una mercancía".o artículo de comercio" y nada "en las leyes antimonopolio" prohibiría el funcionamiento de las organizaciones laborales "con fines de ayuda mutua". ^[32]

En su discurso sobre el Estado de la Unión de 1944, el presidente Franklin D. Roosevelt instó a que Estados Unidos desarrollara una Segunda Carta de Derechos mediante legislación, incluido el derecho al empleo justo, el fin de la competencia desleal, la educación, la salud y la seguridad social.

A lo largo de los primeros años del siglo XX, los estados promulgaron derechos laborales para promover el progreso social y económico. Pero a pesar de la Ley Clayton y los abusos de los empleadores documentados por la Comisión de Relaciones Industriales a partir de 1915, la Corte Suprema anuló los derechos laborales por inconstitucionales, dejando a los poderes de gestión virtualmente irresponsables. ^[33] En esta era de Lochner , los tribunales sostuvieron que los empleadores podían obligar a los trabajadores a no pertenecer a sindicatos, ^[34] que un salario mínimo para mujeres y niños era nulo, ^[35] que los estados no podían prohibir que las agencias de empleo cobraran honorarios por el trabajo, ^[36] que los trabajadores no podían hacer huelga en solidaridad con colegas de otras empresas, ^[37] e incluso que el gobierno federal no podía prohibir el trabajo infantil. ^[38] También encarceló a activistas socialistas que se opusieron a los combates en la Primera Guerra Mundial , lo que significa que Eugene Debs se presentó como candidato del Partido Socialista a la presidencia en 1920 desde la prisión. ^[39] Críticamente, los tribunales sostuvieron que los intentos estatales y federales de crear la Seguridad Social eran inconstitucionales. ^[40] Debido a que no pudieron ahorrar en pensiones públicas seguras, millones de personas compraron acciones de corporaciones, lo que provocó un crecimiento masivo en el mercado de valores . ^[41] Debido a que la Corte Suprema impidió la regulación de la buena información sobre lo que la gente estaba comprando, los promotores corporativos engañaron a las personas para que pagaran más de lo que realmente valían las acciones. El desplome de Wall Street de 1929 acabó con los ahorros de millones de personas. Las empresas perdieron inversiones y despidieron a millones de trabajadores. Las personas desempleadas tenían menos para gastar en las empresas. Las empresas despidieron a más personas. Hubo una espiral descendente hacia la Gran Depresión .

Esto llevó a la elección de Franklin D. Roosevelt como presidente en 1932, quien prometió un " New Deal ". El gobierno se comprometió a crear pleno empleo y un sistema de derechos sociales y económicos consagrados en la ley federal. ^[42] Pero a pesar de la abrumadora victoria electoral del Partido Demócrata , la Corte Suprema continuó anulando la legislación, en particular la Ley de Recuperación Industrial Nacional de 1933 , que regulaba la empresa en un intento de garantizar salarios justos y prevenir la competencia desleal . ^[43] Finalmente, después de la segunda victoria abrumadora de Roosevelt en 1936, y la amenaza de Roosevelt de crear más puestos judiciales si sus leyes no se mantenían, un juez de la Corte Suprema cambió de posición . En West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, la Corte Suprema encontró que la legislación del salario mínimo era constitucional, ^[44] permitiendo que el New Deal continuara. En derecho laboral, la Ley Nacional de Relaciones Laborales de 1935 garantizó a todos los empleados el derecho a sindicalizarse, negociar colectivamente salarios justos y emprender acciones colectivas, incluso en solidaridad con los empleados de otras empresas. La Ley de Normas Laborales Justas de 1938 creó el derecho a un salario mínimo y al pago de horas extras de tiempo y medio si los empleadores pedían a los trabajadores que trabajaran más de 40 horas semanales. La Ley de Seguridad Social de 1935 dio a todos el derecho a una pensión básica y a recibir seguro si estaban desempleados, mientras que la Ley de Valores de 1933 y la Ley de Intercambio de Valores de 1934 garantizaron que los compradores de valores en el mercado de valores tuvieran buena información. La Ley Davis-Bacon de 1931 y la Ley de Contratos Públicos Walsh-Healey de 1936 exigían que, en los contratos del gobierno federal, todos los empleadores pagaran a sus trabajadores salarios justos, más allá del mínimo, a las tarifas locales vigentes. ^[45] Para alcanzar el pleno empleo y salir de la depresión, la Ley de Asignación de Ayuda de Emergencia de 1935 permitió al gobierno federal gastar enormes sumas de dinero en la construcción y creación de puestos de trabajo. Esto se aceleró cuando comenzó la Segunda Guerra Mundial . En 1944, cuando su salud se estaba deteriorando, Roosevelt instó al Congreso a trabajar en pos de una " Segunda Carta de Derechos " mediante una acción legislativa, porque "a menos que haya seguridad aquí en casa no puede haber una paz duradera en el mundo" y "habremos cedido al espíritu deEl fascismo aquí en casa." ^[46]

El presidente Lyndon B. Johnson explica la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964 tal como fue firmada, para poner fin a la discriminación y la segregación en la votación, la educación, los servicios públicos y el empleo.

Aunque el New Deal había creado una red de seguridad mínima de derechos laborales y tenía como objetivo permitir un salario justo a través de la negociación colectiva , un Congreso dominado por los republicanos se rebeló cuando Roosevelt murió. Contra el veto del presidente Truman , la Ley Taft-Hartley de 1947 limitó el derecho de los sindicatos a tomar medidas de solidaridad y permitió a los estados prohibir los sindicatos exigiendo que todas las personas en un lugar de trabajo se conviertan en miembros del sindicato. Una serie de decisiones de la Corte Suprema, sostuvo que la Ley Nacional de Relaciones Laborales de 1935 no solo creó estándares mínimos, sino que detuvo o " preemptó " a los estados que permitieran mejores derechos sindicales, a pesar de que no existía tal disposición en el estatuto. ^[47] Los sindicatos fueron ampliamente regulados por la Ley de Informes y Divulgación de Gestión Laboral de 1959. La prosperidad de la posguerra había elevado los niveles de vida de las personas, pero la mayoría de los trabajadores que no tenían sindicato o derechos de seguridad laboral seguían siendo vulnerables al desempleo. Además de la crisis desencadenada por Brown v. Board of Education , ^[48] y la necesidad de desmantelar la segregación, la pérdida de empleos en la agricultura, particularmente entre los afroamericanos , fue una de las principales razones del movimiento por los derechos civiles , que culminó en la Marcha sobre Washington por el Empleo y la Libertad liderada por Martin Luther King Jr. Aunque la Orden Ejecutiva 8802 de Roosevelt de 1941 había prohibido la discriminación racial en la industria de defensa nacional, las personas aún sufrían discriminación debido a su color de piel en otros lugares de trabajo. Además, a pesar del creciente número de mujeres en el trabajo, la discriminación sexual era endémica. El gobierno de John F. Kennedy introdujo la Ley de Igualdad Salarial de 1963 , que exigía la igualdad salarial para mujeres y hombres. Lyndon B. Johnson introdujo la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964 , que finalmente prohibía la discriminación contra las personas por "raza, color, religión, sexo u origen nacional". Lentamente, se extendió una nueva generación de leyes de igualdad de derechos. A nivel federal, esto incluyó la Ley de Discriminación por Edad en el Empleo de 1967 , la Ley de Discriminación por Embarazo de 1978 y la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades de 1990 , ahora supervisada por la Comisión de Igualdad de Oportunidades en el Empleo .

Bernie Sanders se convirtió en el candidato presidencial socialista demócrata más exitoso desde Eugene Debs , al ganar 22 estados y el 43,1% de los votos en las primarias demócratas de 2016. Fue coautor de la plataforma demócrata de 2016, ^[49] antes de que Hillary Clinton perdiera el colegio electoral ante Donald Trump .

Aunque las personas, en campos limitados, podían reclamar un trato igualitario, los mecanismos para un salario y un trato justos fueron desmantelados después de la década de 1970. La última ley laboral importante, la Ley de Seguridad de Ingresos de Jubilación de Empleados de 1974 creó derechos a pensiones ocupacionales bien reguladas , aunque solo cuando un empleador ya había prometido proporcionar una: esto generalmente dependía de la negociación colectiva de los sindicatos. Pero en 1976, la Corte Suprema en Buckley v. Valeo sostuvo que cualquiera podía gastar cantidades ilimitadas de dinero en campañas políticas, como parte del derecho de la Primera Enmienda a la " libertad de expresión ". Después de que el presidente republicano Reagan asumiera el cargo en 1981, despidió a todo el personal de control de tráfico aéreo que se declaró en huelga y reemplazó a los miembros de la Junta Nacional de Relaciones Laborales por hombres pro-gerencia. Dominada por los republicanos, la Corte Suprema suprimió los derechos laborales, eliminando los derechos de los profesores, maestros de escuelas religiosas o inmigrantes ilegales a organizarse en un sindicato, ^[50] permitiendo que los empleados fueran registrados en el trabajo, ^[51] y eliminando los derechos de los empleados a demandar por mala praxis médica en su propia atención médica. ^[52] Sólo se hicieron cambios estatutarios limitados. La Ley de Reforma y Control de la Inmigración de 1986 criminalizó a un gran número de inmigrantes. La Ley de Notificación de Ajuste y Reentrenamiento de Trabajadores de 1988 garantizó a los trabajadores algún aviso antes de un despido masivo de sus trabajos. La Ley de Licencia Familiar y Médica de 1993 garantizó el derecho a 12 semanas de licencia para cuidar a los niños después del nacimiento, todas sin remuneración. La Ley de Protección del Empleo de las Pequeñas Empresas de 1996 redujo el salario mínimo, al permitir a los empleadores tomar las propinas de su personal para subsidiar el salario mínimo. Una serie de propuestas de políticos demócratas e independientes para promover los derechos laborales no se implementaron, ^[53] y Estados Unidos comenzó a quedarse atrás de la mayoría de los demás países desarrollados en materia de derechos laborales. ^[54]

En relación con la contratación del gobierno federal , el presidente Barack Obama emitió el 31 de julio de 2014 la Orden Ejecutiva 13673, titulada Pago justo y lugares de trabajo seguros . Contenía "nuevos requisitos diseñados para aumentar la eficiencia y el ahorro de costos en el proceso de contratación federal", ^[55] refiriéndose específicamente a "contratar con fuentes responsables que cumplan con las leyes laborales". ^[56] La Administración de Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional publicó una guía el 25 de agosto de 2016. ^[55] La orden enumeraba 14 leyes federales que se definían como "leyes laborales" y ampliaba la cobertura a "leyes estatales equivalentes". Una violación de cualquiera de estas leyes durante el período de tres años anterior a la adjudicación del contrato se trataba como incumplimiento; para un contrato valorado en más de $500,000, los funcionarios de contratación debían considerar dichas violaciones, y cualquier acción correctiva tomada por la empresa en cuestión, al determinar la adjudicación del contrato. Se incorporaron disposiciones similares en los acuerdos de subcontratación. Para respaldar el cumplimiento, cada agencia federal debía designar un "Asesor de Cumplimiento Laboral". ^[56]^{: Sec. 3} La orden fue revocada por el presidente Donald Trump el 27 de marzo de 2017 bajo la Orden Ejecutiva 13782. [ ^57]

Contrato y derechos en el trabajo

Los contratos entre empleados y empleadores (en su mayoría corporaciones ) generalmente inician una relación laboral, pero a menudo no son suficientes para un sustento decente. Debido a que las personas carecen de poder de negociación , especialmente contra corporaciones ricas, la ley laboral crea derechos legales que anulan los resultados arbitrarios del mercado. Históricamente, la ley hizo cumplir fielmente los derechos de propiedad y la libertad de contrato en cualquier condición, ^[59] ya sea que esto fuera ineficiente, explotador e injusto o no. A principios del siglo XX, a medida que más personas favorecían la introducción de derechos económicos y sociales determinados democráticamente por sobre los derechos de propiedad y contrato, los gobiernos estatales y federales introdujeron reformas legales. Primero, la Ley de Normas Laborales Justas de 1938 creó un salario mínimo (ahora $ 7.25 a nivel federal, más alto en 28 estados) y un pago de horas extra de una vez y media. Segundo, la Ley de Licencia Familiar y Médica de 1993 crea derechos muy limitados para tomar licencia sin goce de sueldo. En la práctica, los buenos contratos de empleo mejoran estos mínimos. En tercer lugar, si bien no existe el derecho a una pensión laboral ni a otros beneficios, la Ley de Seguridad de Ingresos de Jubilación de Empleados de 1974 garantiza que los empleadores garanticen esos beneficios si se los prometen. En cuarto lugar, la Ley de Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional de 1970 exige un sistema de trabajo seguro, respaldado por inspectores profesionales. A menudo, los estados individuales están facultados para ir más allá del mínimo federal y funcionar como laboratorios de democracia en materia de derechos sociales y económicos, donde no han sido limitados por la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos .

Alcance de la protección

El derecho consuetudinario , los estatutos estatales y federales suelen otorgar derechos laborales a los "empleados", pero no a las personas que son autónomas y tienen suficiente poder de negociación para ser "contratistas independientes". En 1994, la Comisión Dunlop sobre el futuro de las relaciones entre trabajadores y dirección: Informe final recomendó una definición unificada de empleado en todas las leyes laborales federales, para reducir los litigios, pero esto no se implementó. Tal como están las cosas, los casos de la Corte Suprema han establecido varios principios generales, que se aplicarán según el contexto y el propósito del estatuto en cuestión. En NLRB v. Hearst Publications, Inc. , ^[60] los repartidores de periódicos que vendían periódicos en Los Ángeles afirmaron que eran "empleados", por lo que tenían derecho a negociar colectivamente según la Ley Nacional de Relaciones Laborales de 1935. Las corporaciones periodísticas argumentaron que los repartidores de periódicos eran "contratistas independientes" y que no tenían el deber de negociar de buena fe . La Corte Suprema sostuvo que los repartidores de periódicos eran empleados y que las pruebas de empleo de derecho consuetudinario, en particular el resumen en la Restatement of the Law of Agency, Second §220, ya no eran apropiadas. No eran "contratistas independientes" debido al grado de control que tenían los empleadores. Pero la Junta Nacional de Relaciones Laborales podía decidir por sí misma quién estaba cubierto si tenía "una base legal razonable". El Congreso reaccionó, primero, modificando explícitamente el NLRA §2(1) para que los contratistas independientes estuvieran exentos de la ley y, segundo, desaprobó que el derecho consuetudinario fuera irrelevante. Al mismo tiempo, la Corte Suprema decidió United States v. Silk , ^[61] sosteniendo que se debe tener en cuenta la "realidad económica" al decidir quién es un empleado según la Ley de Seguridad Social de 1935. Esto significaba que un grupo de cargadores de carbón eran empleados, teniendo en cuenta su posición económica, incluida su falta de poder de negociación , el grado de discreción y control, y el riesgo que asumían en comparación con las empresas de carbón para las que trabajaban. Por el contrario, la Corte Suprema encontró que los camioneros que poseían sus propios camiones y brindaban servicios a una empresa de transporte eran contratistas independientes. ^[62] Por lo tanto, ahora se acepta que múltiples factores de las pruebas tradicionales de derecho consuetudinario no pueden reemplazarse si una ley no brinda una definición adicional de "empleado" (como es habitual, por ejemplo, la Ley de Normas Laborales Justas de 1938 , la Ley de Seguridad de Ingresos de Jubilación de Empleados de 1974 , la Ley de Licencia Familiar y Médica de 1993).). Junto con el propósito de la legislación laboral de mitigar la desigualdad del poder de negociación y corregir la realidad económica de la posición de un trabajador, deben considerarse los múltiples factores que se encuentran en la Restatement of Agency , aunque ninguno es necesariamente decisivo. ^[63]

Las pruebas de la agencia de derecho consuetudinario para determinar quién es un "empleado" tienen en cuenta el control del empleador, si el empleado está en un negocio distinto, el grado de dirección, la habilidad, quién proporciona las herramientas, la duración del empleo, el método de pago, el negocio regular del empleador, lo que creen las partes y si el empleador tiene un negocio. ^[65] Algunas leyes también hacen exclusiones específicas que reflejan el derecho consuetudinario, como para los contratistas independientes, y otras hacen excepciones adicionales. En particular, la Ley Nacional de Relaciones Laborales de 1935 §2(11) exime a los supervisores con "autoridad, en interés del empleador", para ejercer discreción sobre los trabajos y términos de otros empleados. Esta fue originalmente una excepción limitada. Polémicamente, en NLRB v. Yeshiva University , ^[66] una mayoría de 5 a 4 de la Corte Suprema sostuvo que los profesores de tiempo completo en una universidad estaban excluidos de los derechos de negociación colectiva, sobre la teoría de que ejercían discreción "gerencial" en asuntos académicos. Los jueces disidentes señalaron que la gestión estaba en realidad en manos de la administración de la universidad, no de los profesores. En NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. , ^[67] la Corte Suprema sostuvo, nuevamente por 5 a 4, que seis enfermeras registradas que ejercían estatus de supervisión sobre otras personas caían dentro de la exención "profesional". Stevens J , por la disidencia, argumentó que si "el 'supervisor' se interpreta demasiado ampliamente", sin tener en cuenta el propósito de la Ley, la protección "se anula efectivamente". ^[68] De manera similar, bajo la Ley de Normas Laborales Justas de 1938 , en Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. , ^[69] la Corte Suprema sostuvo por 5 a 4 que un vendedor médico viajero de GSK durante cuatro años era un "vendedor externo", y por lo tanto no podía reclamar horas extra. Las personas que trabajan ilegalmente a menudo se consideran cubiertas, para no alentar a los empleadores a explotar a los empleados vulnerables. Por ejemplo, en Lemmerman v. AT Williams Oil Co.^[70], bajo la Ley de Compensación de los Trabajadores de Carolina del Norte, un niño de ocho años estaba protegido como empleado, aunque era ilegal que los niños menores de ocho años trabajaran. Sin embargo, en Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB^[71] , la Corte Suprema sostuvo por 5 a 4 que un trabajador indocumentado no podía reclamar el pago retroactivo de su salario, después de haber sido despedido por organizarse en un sindicato. La retirada gradual de cada vez más personas del ámbito de aplicación de la legislación laboral, por una escasa mayoría de la Corte Suprema desde 1976, significa que Estados Unidos está por debajo de los estándares del derecho internacional y de los estándares de otros países democráticos.sobre los derechos laborales fundamentales, incluidoslibertad de asociación . ^[72]

En septiembre de 2015, la Agencia de Desarrollo Laboral y de la Fuerza Laboral de California determinó que los conductores de Uber están controlados y sancionados por la empresa y, por lo tanto, no son trabajadores autónomos. ^[73]

Las pruebas de derecho consuetudinario eran a menudo importantes para determinar quién era, no sólo un empleado, sino los empleadores relevantes que tenían " responsabilidad indirecta ". Potencialmente puede haber múltiples empleadores conjuntos que compartan la responsabilidad, aunque la responsabilidad en el derecho de responsabilidad civil puede existir independientemente de una relación laboral. En Ruiz v. Shell Oil Co , ^[74] el Quinto Circuito sostuvo que era relevante qué empleador tenía más control, de quién era el trabajo que se estaba realizando, si había acuerdos en vigor, quién proporcionaba las herramientas, tenía derecho a despedir al empleado o tenía la obligación de pagar. ^[75] En Local 217, Hotel & Restaurant Employees Union v. MHM Inc^[76] surgió la cuestión bajo la Ley de Notificación de Ajuste y Reentrenamiento de Trabajadores de 1988 de si una subsidiaria o corporación matriz era responsable de notificar a los empleados que el hotel cerraría. El Segundo Circuito sostuvo que la subsidiaria era el empleador, aunque el tribunal de primera instancia había encontrado responsable a la matriz al tiempo que señalaba que la subsidiaria sería el empleador bajo la NLRA . En virtud de la Ley de Normas Laborales Justas de 1938 , 29 USC §203(r), cualquier "empresa" que esté bajo control común contará como entidad empleadora. Otros estatutos no adoptan explícitamente este enfoque, aunque la NLRB ha determinado que una empresa es empleadora si tiene "una gestión, un propósito comercial, una operación, un equipo, clientes y una supervisión sustancialmente idénticos". ^[77] En South Prairie Const. Co. v. Local No. 627, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO , ^[78] la Corte Suprema determinó que el Circuito de DC había identificado legítimamente a dos corporaciones como un único empleador dado que tenían un "grado cualitativo muy sustancial de control centralizado de la mano de obra", ^[79] pero que la determinación adicional de la unidad de negociación relevante debería haberse remitido a la NLRB . Cuando se contratan empleados a través de una agencia, es probable que el empleador final sea considerado responsable de los derechos legales en la mayoría de los casos, aunque la agencia puede ser considerada como un empleador conjunto. ^[80]

Contratos de trabajo

Cuando las personas comienzan a trabajar, casi siempre habrá un contrato de trabajo que rige la relación del empleado y la entidad empleadora (generalmente una corporación , pero ocasionalmente un ser humano). ^[81] Un "contrato" es un acuerdo exigible por ley. Muy a menudo puede escribirse o firmarse, pero un acuerdo oral también es un contrato completamente exigible. Debido a que los empleados tienen un poder de negociación desigual en comparación con casi todas las entidades empleadoras, la mayoría de los contratos de trabajo son " estándar ". ^[82] La mayoría de los términos y condiciones son fotocopiados o reproducidos para muchas personas. La negociación genuina es rara, a diferencia de las transacciones comerciales entre dos corporaciones comerciales. Esta ha sido la principal justificación para la promulgación de derechos en la ley federal y estatal. El derecho federal a la negociación colectiva , por parte de un sindicato elegido por sus empleados, tiene como objetivo reducir el poder de negociación inherentemente desigual de los individuos contra las organizaciones para hacer convenios colectivos . ^[83] El derecho federal a un salario mínimo y a un aumento de las horas extras por trabajar más de 40 horas semanales fue diseñado para garantizar un "nivel mínimo de vida necesario para la salud, la eficiencia y el bienestar general de los trabajadores", incluso cuando una persona no pudiera obtener un salario lo suficientemente alto mediante la negociación individual. ^[84] Estos y otros derechos, incluidos los permisos familiares , los derechos contra la discriminación o los estándares básicos de seguridad laboral , fueron diseñados por el Congreso de los Estados Unidos y las legislaturas estatales para reemplazar las disposiciones de los contratos individuales. Los derechos legales prevalecen incluso sobre un término escrito expreso de un contrato, generalmente a menos que el contrato sea más beneficioso para un empleado. Algunas leyes federales también prevén que los derechos de la ley estatal pueden mejorar los derechos mínimos. Por ejemplo, la Ley de Normas Laborales Justas de 1938 faculta a los estados y municipios a establecer salarios mínimos más allá del mínimo federal. Por el contrario, otras leyes como la Ley Nacional de Relaciones Laborales de 1935, la Ley de Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional de 1970 , ^[85] y la Ley de Seguridad de Ingresos de Jubilación de los Empleados de 1974 , ^[86] han sido interpretadas en una serie de sentencias polémicas por la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos para " prevenir " las promulgaciones de leyes estatales. ^[87]Estas interpretaciones han tenido el efecto de "detener la experimentación en cuestiones sociales y económicas" y detener a los estados que quieren "servir como laboratorio" mejorando los derechos laborales. ^[88] Cuando no existen derechos mínimos en los estatutos federales o estatales, se aplicarán los principios del derecho contractual y, potencialmente , los de responsabilidad civil civil .

Además de los términos de los acuerdos orales o escritos, los términos pueden incorporarse por referencia. Dos fuentes principales son los convenios colectivos y los manuales de la empresa. En JI Case Co v. National Labor Relations Board, una corporación empleadora argumentó que no debería tener que negociar de buena fe con un sindicato y que no cometió una práctica laboral injusta al negarse, porque había firmado recientemente contratos individuales con sus empleados. ^[90] La Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos sostuvo por unanimidad que el "propósito mismo" de la negociación colectiva y la Ley Nacional de Relaciones Laborales de 1935 era "sustituir los términos de los acuerdos separados de los empleados con términos que reflejen la fuerza y el poder de negociación y sirvan al bienestar del grupo". Por lo tanto, los términos de los convenios colectivos, en beneficio de los empleados individuales, sustituyen a los contratos individuales. De manera similar, si un contrato escrito establece que los empleados no tienen derechos, pero un supervisor le ha dicho a un empleado que los tiene, o los derechos están asegurados en un manual de la empresa, generalmente tendrá derecho a un reclamo. ^[91] Por ejemplo, en Torosyan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., la Corte Suprema de Connecticut sostuvo que una promesa en un manual de que un empleado podía ser despedido sólo por una buena razón (o "causa justa") era vinculante para la corporación empleadora. Además, un empleador no tenía derecho a cambiar unilateralmente los términos. ^[92] La mayoría de los demás tribunales estatales han llegado a la misma conclusión, que los contratos no pueden ser alterados, excepto para beneficio de los empleados, sin una nueva contraprestación y un verdadero acuerdo. ^[93] Por el contrario, una ligera mayoría en la Corte Suprema de California , designada por gobernadores republicanos, sostuvo en Asmus v. Pacific Bell que una política de la empresa de duración indefinida puede ser alterada después de un tiempo razonable con un aviso razonable, si no afecta a los beneficios adquiridos. ^[94] Los cuatro jueces disidentes, designados por gobernadores demócratas, sostuvieron que este era un "resultado patentemente injusto, de hecho desmesurado, que permite a un empleador que hizo una promesa de seguridad laboral continua ... repudiar esa promesa con impunidad varios años después". Además, en todos los estados, el common law o la equidad implican un término básico de buena fe que no puede renunciarse. Este suele exigir, como principio general, que "ninguna de las partes hará nada que tenga el efecto de destruir o lesionar el derecho de la otra parte a recibir los frutos del contrato". ^[95] El término de buena fepersiste durante toda la relación laboral. Todavía no ha sido utilizado ampliamente por los tribunales estatales, en comparación con otras jurisdicciones. La Corte Suprema de Montana ha reconocido que podrían estar disponibles daños extensos e incluso punitivos por el incumplimiento de las expectativas razonables de un empleado. ^[96] Sin embargo, otros, como la Corte Suprema de California , limitan cualquier recuperación de daños a los incumplimientos contractuales, pero no a los daños relacionados con la forma de terminación. ^[97] Por el contrario, en el Reino Unido se ha encontrado que el requisito de " buena fe " ^{[98] limita el poder de despido excepto por razones justas}^[99] (pero no entra en conflicto con la ley ^[100] ), en Canadá puede limitar el despido injusto también para los trabajadores autónomos, ^[101] y en Alemania puede impedir el pago de salarios significativamente inferiores a la media. ^[102]

Por último, tradicionalmente se ha creído que las cláusulas de arbitraje no pueden desplazar ningún derecho laboral y, por lo tanto, limitar el acceso a la justicia en los tribunales públicos. ^[103] Sin embargo, en 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett , ^[104] en una decisión de 5 a 4 en virtud de la Ley Federal de Arbitraje de 1925, las cláusulas de arbitraje de los contratos de trabajo individuales deben ser ejecutadas de acuerdo con sus términos. Los cuatro jueces disidentes argumentaron que esto eliminaría derechos de una manera que la ley nunca pretendió. ^[105]

Salarios y salarios

Aunque los contratos suelen determinar los salarios y las condiciones de empleo, la ley se niega a hacer cumplir los contratos que no observan los estándares básicos de equidad para los empleados. ^[106] Hoy, la Ley de Normas Laborales Justas de 1938 tiene como objetivo crear un salario mínimo nacional, y una voz en el trabajo, especialmente a través de la negociación colectiva, debería lograr salarios justos. Un creciente cuerpo de leyes también regula el pago de los ejecutivos , aunque actualmente no está en vigor un sistema de regulación del " salario máximo ", por ejemplo mediante la antigua Ley de Estabilización de 1942. Históricamente, la ley en realidad suprimía los salarios , no de los altamente pagados, de los trabajadores ordinarios. Por ejemplo, en 1641 la legislatura de la Colonia de la Bahía de Massachusetts (dominada por los propietarios y la iglesia oficial) exigió reducciones salariales y dijo que el aumento de los salarios "tiende a la ruina de las Iglesias y la Commonwealth ". ^[107] A principios del siglo XX, la opinión democrática exigía que todos tuvieran un salario mínimo y pudieran negociar salarios justos más allá del mínimo. Pero cuando los estados intentaron introducir nuevas leyes, la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos las declaró inconstitucionales. La mayoría sostuvo que el derecho a la libertad de contrato podía interpretarse a partir de la protección que otorgan la Quinta y la Decimocuarta Enmienda contra la privación "de la vida, la libertad o la propiedad sin el debido proceso legal". Los jueces disidentes argumentaron que el "debido proceso" no afectaba al poder legislativo para crear derechos sociales o económicos, porque los empleados "no gozan de un nivel pleno de igualdad de elección con su empleador". ^[108]

Después del desplome de Wall Street y el New Deal con la elección de Franklin D. Roosevelt , la mayoría en la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos cambió. En West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish Hughes CJ sostuvo (sobre cuatro disidentes que todavía argumentaban a favor de la libertad de contrato ) que una ley de Washington que establecía salarios mínimos para mujeres era constitucional porque las legislaturas estatales deberían estar habilitadas para adoptar leyes en interés público. ^[111] Esto puso fin a la " era Lochner ", y el Congreso promulgó la Ley de Normas Laborales Justas de 1938. [ ^112] Según el §202(a), el salario mínimo federal tiene como objetivo garantizar un "nivel de vida necesario para la salud, la eficiencia y el bienestar general". ^[113] Según el §207(a)(1), la mayoría de los empleados (pero con muchas excepciones) que trabajan más de 40 horas a la semana deben recibir un 50 por ciento más de pago de horas extras en su salario por hora. ^[114] Nadie puede pagar un salario inferior al mínimo, pero en virtud del artículo 218(a), los estados y los gobiernos municipales pueden establecer salarios más altos. ^[115] Esto se hace con frecuencia para reflejar la productividad local y los requisitos de una vida digna en cada región. ^[116] Sin embargo, el salario mínimo federal no tiene un mecanismo automático para actualizarse con la inflación. Debido a que el Partido Republicano se ha opuesto a aumentar los salarios, el salario mínimo federal real es hoy más de un 33 por ciento inferior al de 1968, uno de los más bajos del mundo industrializado.

Aunque existe un salario mínimo federal, se ha restringido en (1) el alcance de quién cubre, (2) el tiempo que cuenta para calcular el salario mínimo por hora y (3) la cantidad que los empleadores pueden tomar de las propinas de sus empleados o deducir para gastos. Primero, cinco jueces de la Corte Suprema de los EE. UU. sostuvieron en Alden v. Maine que el salario mínimo federal no puede hacerse cumplir para los empleados de los gobiernos estatales, a menos que el estado haya consentido, porque eso violaría la Undécima Enmienda . ^[117] Souter J , junto con tres jueces disidentes, ^[118] sostuvo que no existía tal "inmunidad soberana" en la Undécima Enmienda . ^{[119] Sin embargo,} veintiocho estados tenían leyes de salario mínimo más altas que el nivel federal en 2016. Además, debido a que la Constitución de los EE. UU. , artículo uno , sección 8, cláusula 3 solo permite al gobierno federal "regular el comercio ... entre los varios estados", los empleados de cualquier "empresa" de menos de $500,000 que fabrique bienes o servicios que no ingresen al comercio no están cubiertos: deben confiar en las leyes estatales de salario mínimo. ^[120] FLSA 1938 §203(s) exime explícitamente a los establecimientos cuyos únicos empleados son familiares cercanos. ^[121] Según §213, el salario mínimo no se puede pagar a 18 categorías de empleados y el pago de horas extras a 30 categorías de empleados. ^[122] Esto incluye según §213(a)(1) a los empleados de " capacidad ejecutiva, administrativa o profesional de buena fe ". En el caso de Auer v. Robbins, los sargentos y tenientes de policía del Departamento de Policía de St. Louis , Missouri, afirmaron que no deberían ser clasificados como ejecutivos o empleados profesionales y que deberían recibir un pago por horas extras. ^[123] El Juez Scalia sostuvo que, siguiendo las directrices del Departamento de Trabajo , los comisionados de policía de St. Louis tenían derecho a eximirlos. Esto ha alentado a los empleadores a intentar definir al personal como más "senior" y hacerlos trabajar más horas mientras evitan el pago de horas extras. ^[124] Otra exención en el §213(a)(15) es para las personas "empleadas en empleos de servicio doméstico para proporcionar servicios de compañía". En Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke , una corporación solicitó la exención, aunque el Juez Breyer por una corte unánime estuvo de acuerdo con el Departamento de Trabajo en que solo estaba destinada a los cuidadores en hogares privados. ^[125]

En segundo lugar, debido a que el §206(a)(1)(C) dice que el salario mínimo es de $7.25 por hora, los tribunales han tenido que lidiar con qué horas cuentan como "trabajo". ^[126] Los primeros casos establecieron que el tiempo de viaje al trabajo no contaba como trabajo, a menos que estuviera controlado por, requerido por y para el beneficio de un empleador, como viajar a través de una mina de carbón. ^[127] Por ejemplo, en Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. una mayoría de cinco a dos jueces sostuvo que los empleados tenían que ser pagados por la larga caminata al trabajo a través de la instalación de Mount Clemens Pottery Co. de un empleador. ^[128] Según Murphy J este tiempo, y el tiempo de instalación de estaciones de trabajo, involucraba "esfuerzo de naturaleza física, controlado o requerido por el empleador y buscado necesariamente y principalmente para el beneficio del empleador". ^[129] En Armour & Co. v. Wantock los bomberos afirmaron que se les debía pagar completamente mientras estaban de guardia en su estación para incendios. El Tribunal Supremo sostuvo que, aunque los bomberos podían dormir o jugar a las cartas, debido a que "la disposición para servir puede ser contratada tanto como el servicio en sí" y el tiempo de espera de guardia era "un beneficio para el empleador". ^[130] Por el contrario, en 1992 el Sexto Circuito sostuvo polémicamente que la necesidad de estar disponible con poca frecuencia por teléfono o buscapersonas, donde el movimiento no estaba restringido, no era tiempo de trabajo. ^[131] El tiempo dedicado a realizar una limpieza inusual, por ejemplo ducharse para quitarse sustancias tóxicas, cuenta como tiempo de trabajo, ^[132] y también el tiempo que se pasa poniéndose el equipo de protección especial. ^[133] De acuerdo con el §207(e), el pago de las horas extras debe ser una vez y media el pago regular. En Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc. , el Tribunal Supremo sostuvo que el plan de un empleador de pagar salarios más bajos por la mañana y salarios más altos por la tarde, para argumentar que las horas extras solo debían calcularse sobre los salarios (más bajos) de la mañana era ilegal. Las horas extras deben calcularse en función del salario regular promedio. ^[134] Sin embargo, en Christensen v. Harris County, seis jueces de la Corte Suprema sostuvieron que la policía del condado de Harris, Texas, podía verse obligada a utilizar su "tiempo compensatorio" acumulado (permitiéndole tiempo libre con salario completo) antes de reclamar horas extras. ^[135] En su escrito de disidencia, Stevens J dijo que la mayoría había malinterpretado el §207(o)(2), que requiere un "acuerdo" entre empleadores, sindicatos o empleados sobre las reglas aplicables, y la policía de Texas no había estado de acuerdo. ^[136]En tercer lugar, el §203(m) permite a los empleadores deducir de los salarios sumas por concepto de comida o alojamiento que se "proporciona habitualmente" a los empleados. El Secretario de Trabajo puede determinar qué se considera un valor justo. Lo más problemático es que, fuera de los estados que han prohibido la práctica, pueden deducir dinero de un "empleado que recibe propinas" por el dinero que supere el "salario en efectivo que se le debía pagar a ese empleado el 20 de agosto de 1996", que era de 2,13 dólares por hora. Si un empleado no gana lo suficiente en propinas, el empleador debe pagar igualmente el salario mínimo de 7,25 dólares. Pero esto significa que en muchos estados las propinas no van a los trabajadores: los empleadores las toman para subsidiar los salarios bajos. Según el §216(b)-(c) de la FLSA 1938 , el Secretario de Estado puede hacer cumplir la ley, o los individuos pueden reclamar en su propio nombre. La aplicación federal es poco frecuente, por lo que la mayoría de los empleados tienen éxito si están en un sindicato. La Ley de Protección del Crédito al Consumidor de 1968 limita las deducciones o "embargos" por parte de los empleadores al 25 por ciento de los salarios, ^[137] aunque muchos estados son considerablemente más protectores. Finalmente, en virtud de la Ley Portal to Portal de 1947 , donde el Congreso limitó las leyes de salario mínimo de diversas maneras, el §254 establece un límite de tiempo de dos años para hacer cumplir las reclamaciones, o de tres años si una entidad empleadora es culpable de una violación intencional. ^[138]

Tiempo de trabajo y cuidado familiar

En Estados Unidos, la gente trabaja una de las más largas horas semanales del mundo industrializado y tiene la menor cantidad de vacaciones anuales. ^[140] El artículo 24 de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos de 1948 establece: "Toda persona tiene derecho al descanso, al ocio, a una limitación razonable de la duración del trabajo y a vacaciones periódicas pagadas ". Sin embargo, no existe una legislación federal o estatal general que exija vacaciones anuales pagadas. El Título 5 del Código de los Estados Unidos §6103 especifica diez días festivos para los empleados del gobierno federal y establece que las vacaciones serán pagadas. ^[141] Muchos estados hacen lo mismo, sin embargo, ninguna ley estatal exige que los empleadores del sector privado proporcionen vacaciones pagadas. Muchos empleadores privados siguen las normas del gobierno federal y estatal, pero el derecho a vacaciones anuales, si lo hay, dependerá de los convenios colectivos y los contratos de trabajo individuales. Se han hecho propuestas de leyes estatales para introducir vacaciones anuales pagadas. Un proyecto de ley de Washington de 2014 presentado por la miembro de la Cámara de Representantes de los Estados Unidos Gael Tarleton habría exigido un mínimo de 3 semanas de vacaciones pagadas cada año a los empleados de empresas con más de 20 empleados, después de 3 años de trabajo. Según el Convenio sobre vacaciones pagadas de 1970 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo ^[142], tres semanas es el mínimo indispensable. El proyecto de ley no recibió suficientes votos. ^[143] En cambio, los empleados de todos los países de la Unión Europea tienen derecho a al menos 4 semanas (es decir, 28 días) de vacaciones anuales pagadas cada año. ^[144] Además, no existe ninguna ley federal o estatal que limite la duración de la semana laboral. En cambio, la Ley de Normas Laborales Justas de 1938 , §207, crea un desincentivo financiero para las horas de trabajo más largas. Bajo el título "Horas máximas", el §207 establece que se debe pagar tiempo y medio a los empleados que trabajen más de 40 horas a la semana. ^[114] Sin embargo, no establece un límite real, y hay al menos 30 excepciones para categorías de empleados que no reciben pago por horas extras. ^[145] La reducción del tiempo de trabajo fue una de las demandas originales del movimiento obrero. Desde las primeras décadas del siglo XX, la negociación colectiva produjo la práctica de tener, y la palabra para, un "fin de semana" de dos días. ^[146] Sin embargo, la legislación estatal para limitar el tiempo de trabajo fue suprimida por la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en Lochner v. New York . ^[147] La Legislatura del Estado de Nueva Yorkhabía aprobado la Ley de Panaderías de 1895, que limitaba el trabajo en las panaderías a 10 horas diarias o 60 horas semanales, para mejorar la salud, la seguridad y las condiciones de vida de las personas. Después de ser procesado por hacer que su personal trabajara más tiempo en su Utica , el Sr. Lochner afirmó que la ley violaba la Decimocuarta Enmienda sobre el " debido proceso ". A pesar del disenso de cuatro jueces, una mayoría de cinco jueces sostuvo que la ley era inconstitucional. Sin embargo, la Corte Suprema confirmó el estatuto de jornada laboral minera de Utah en 1898. ^[148] La Corte Suprema del Estado de Mississippi confirmó un estatuto de jornada laboral de diez horas en 1912 cuando falló en contra de los argumentos del debido proceso de una empresa maderera interestatal. ^[149] Toda la era de jurisprudencia de Lochner fue revocada por la Corte Suprema de los EE. UU. en 1937, ^[150] pero la experimentación para mejorar los derechos de tiempo de trabajo y el " equilibrio entre el trabajo y la vida " aún no se ha recuperado.

Así como no existen derechos a vacaciones anuales pagadas o a un máximo de horas, no existen derechos a tiempo libre pagado para el cuidado de niños o licencia familiar en la ley federal. Hay derechos mínimos en algunos estados. La mayoría de los convenios colectivos, y muchos contratos individuales, prevén tiempo libre pagado, pero los empleados que carecen de poder de negociación a menudo no lo obtienen. ^[152] Sin embargo, existen derechos federales limitados a licencia sin goce de sueldo por razones familiares y médicas. La Ley de Licencia Familiar y Médica de 1993 generalmente se aplica a los empleadores de 50 o más empleados en 20 semanas del último año, y otorga derechos a los empleados que han trabajado más de 12 meses y 1250 horas en el último año. ^[153] Los empleados pueden tener hasta 12 semanas de licencia sin goce de sueldo por nacimiento de un hijo, adopción, para cuidar a un pariente cercano con mala salud o por la propia mala salud del empleado. ^[154] La licencia por cuidado de niños debe tomarse en un solo pago, a menos que se acuerde lo contrario. ^[155] Los empleados deben dar aviso de 30 días a los empleadores si el nacimiento o la adopción son "previsibles", ^[156] y para condiciones de salud graves si es factible. Los tratamientos deben organizarse "de manera que no interrumpan indebidamente las operaciones del empleador" de acuerdo con el consejo médico. ^[157] Los empleadores deben proporcionar beneficios durante la licencia sin goce de sueldo. ^[158] Según el §2652(b), los estados están facultados para proporcionar "derechos mayores de licencia familiar o médica". En 2016, California, Nueva Jersey , Rhode Island y Nueva York tenían leyes para los derechos de licencia familiar paga. Según el §2612(2)(A), un empleador puede hacer que un empleado sustituya el derecho a 12 semanas de licencia sin goce de sueldo por "licencia de vacaciones paga acumulada, licencia personal o licencia familiar" en la política de personal de un empleador. Originalmente, el Departamento de Trabajo tenía una sanción para que los empleadores notificaran a los empleados que esto podría suceder. Sin embargo, cinco jueces de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc. sostuvieron que la ley impedía el derecho del Departamento de Trabajo a hacerlo. Cuatro jueces disidentes habrían sostenido que nada impedía la regla y que era tarea del Departamento de Trabajo hacer cumplir la ley. ^[159] Después de una licencia sin goce de sueldo, un empleado generalmente tiene derecho a regresar a su trabajo, excepto los empleados que se encuentran en el 10% superior de los mejor pagados y el empleador puede argumentar que la negativa "es necesaria para evitar un daño económico sustancial y grave a las operaciones del empleador". ^[160] Los empleados o el Secretario de Trabajo pueden presentar acciones de cumplimiento, ^[161]pero no existe el derecho a un jurado para las demandas de reincorporación. Los empleados pueden reclamar daños y perjuicios por los salarios y beneficios perdidos, o el costo del cuidado infantil, más una cantidad igual de daños y perjuicios liquidados a menos que un empleador pueda demostrar que actuó de buena fe y con causa razonable para creer que no estaba infringiendo la ley. ^[162] Hay un límite de dos años para presentar demandas, o de tres años para violaciones intencionales. ^[163] A pesar de la falta de derechos a licencia, no existe el derecho a guarderías o guarderías gratuitas . Esto ha alentado varias propuestas para crear un sistema público de guarderías gratuitas, o para que el gobierno subvencione los costos de los padres. ^[164]

Pensiones

A principios del siglo XX, la posibilidad de tener una "jubilación" se hizo real a medida que las personas vivían más tiempo, ^[165] y creían que los ancianos no deberían tener que trabajar o depender de la caridad hasta que murieran. ^[166] La ley mantiene un ingreso en la jubilación de tres maneras (1) a través de un programa público de seguridad social creado por la Ley de Seguridad Social de 1935, ^[167] (2) pensiones ocupacionales administradas a través de la relación laboral, y (3) pensiones privadas o seguros de vida que las personas compran por sí mismas. En el trabajo, la mayoría de los planes de pensiones ocupacionales originalmente resultaron de la negociación colectiva durante los años 1920 y 1930. ^[168] Los sindicatos generalmente negociaban con los empleadores de un sector para juntar fondos, de modo que los empleados pudieran mantener sus pensiones si cambiaban de trabajo. Los planes de jubilación de múltiples empleadores, establecidos por acuerdo colectivo , se conocieron como " planes Taft-Hartley " después de que la Ley Taft-Hartley de 194] exigiera la gestión conjunta de los fondos por parte de empleados y empleadores. ^[169] Muchos empleadores también eligen voluntariamente proporcionar pensiones. Por ejemplo, la pensión para profesores, ahora llamada TIAA , fue establecida por iniciativa de Andrew Carnegie en 1918 con el requisito expreso de que los participantes tuvieran derechos de voto para los fideicomisarios del plan. ^[170] Estos podrían ser esquemas de beneficio definido y colectivo : un porcentaje de los ingresos de una persona (por ejemplo, el 67%) se reemplaza para la jubilación, sin importar cuánto tiempo viva la persona. Pero más recientemente, más empleadores solo han proporcionado planes individuales " 401(k) ". Estos reciben su nombre del Código de Rentas Internas § 401(k) ^[171] , que permite a los empleadores y empleados no pagar impuestos sobre el dinero que se ahorra en el fondo, hasta que un empleado se jubila. La misma regla de aplazamiento de impuestos se aplica a todas las pensiones. Pero a diferencia de un plan de " beneficio definido ", un 401(k) solo contiene lo que el empleador y el empleado aportan . Se agotará si una persona vive demasiado tiempo, lo que significa que el jubilado puede tener solo un mínimo de seguridad social. La Ley de Protección de Pensiones de 2006, §902, codificó un modelo para que los empleadores inscriban automáticamente a sus empleados en una pensión, con derecho a optar por no hacerlo. ^[172] Sin embargo, no existe el derecho a una pensión ocupacional. La Ley de Seguridad de Ingresos de Jubilación de Empleados de 1974En efecto, si se establece un seguro, se crean una serie de derechos para los empleados. También se aplica a la atención sanitaria o a cualquier otro plan de "beneficios para empleados". ^[173]

Cinco derechos principales para los beneficiarios en ERISA 1974 incluyen información, financiación , adquisición de derechos , antidiscriminación y deberes fiduciarios . Primero, cada beneficiario debe recibir una "descripción resumida del plan" en 90 días de unirse, los planes deben presentar informes anuales al Secretario de Trabajo , y si los beneficiarios hacen reclamos, cualquier rechazo debe justificarse con una "revisión completa y justa". ^[175] Si la "descripción resumida del plan" es más beneficiosa que los documentos del plan real, porque el fondo de pensiones comete un error, un beneficiario puede hacer cumplir los términos de cualquiera de los dos. ^[176] Si un empleador tiene pensiones u otros planes, todos los empleados deben tener derecho a participar después de un máximo de 12 meses, si trabajan más de 1000 horas. ^[177] Segundo, todas las promesas deben financiarse por adelantado. ^[178] La Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation fue establecida por el gobierno federal para ser una aseguradora de último recurso, pero solo hasta $ 60,136 por año para cada empleador. En tercer lugar, los beneficios de los empleados normalmente no pueden ser retirados (se " adquieren ") después de 5 años, ^[179] y las contribuciones deben acumularse (es decir, el empleado posee contribuciones) a una tasa proporcional. ^[180] Si los empleadores y los fondos de pensiones se fusionan, no puede haber reducción en los beneficios, ^[181] y si un empleado se declara en quiebra, sus acreedores no pueden tomar su pensión ocupacional. ^[182] Sin embargo, la Corte Suprema de los EE. UU. ha permitido que los empleadores retiren los beneficios simplemente modificando los planes. En Lockheed Corp. v. Spink una mayoría de siete jueces sostuvo que un empleador podía alterar un plan, para privar a un hombre de 61 años de los beneficios completos cuando fuera recontratado, sin estar sujeto a deberes fiduciarios de preservar lo que se le había prometido originalmente al empleado. ^[183] En disidencia, Breyer J y Souter J se reservaron cualquier opinión sobre esos "asuntos altamente técnicos e importantes". ^[184] Los pasos para terminar un plan dependen de si es individual o multipatronal, y en Mead Corp. v. Tilley una mayoría de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos sostuvo que los empleadores podían recuperar los beneficios excedentes pagados a los planes de pensiones una vez que se cumplieran las condiciones de la PBGC . Stevens J , en su opinión disidente, sostuvo que se deben satisfacer todos los pasivos contingentes y futuros. ^[185]En cuarto lugar, como principio general, los empleados o beneficiarios no pueden sufrir discriminación o perjuicio alguno por "la consecución de ningún derecho" en virtud de un plan. ^[186] En quinto lugar, los administradores están sujetos a responsabilidades de competencia y lealtad, llamadas " deberes fiduciarios ". ^[187] Según el §1102, un fiduciario es cualquier persona que administra un plan, sus fideicomisarios y los administradores de inversiones a quienes se les delega el control. Según el §1104, los fiduciarios deben seguir un estándar de persona " prudente ", que involucra tres componentes principales. Primero, un fiduciario debe actuar "de acuerdo con los documentos e instrumentos que rigen el plan". ^[188] Segundo, deben actuar con "cuidado, habilidad y diligencia", incluyendo "diversificar las inversiones del plan" para "minimizar el riesgo de grandes pérdidas". ^[189] La responsabilidad por descuido se extiende a hacer declaraciones engañosas sobre los beneficios, ^[190] y ha sido interpretada por el Departamento de Trabajo como que implica un deber de votar sobre los poderes cuando se compran acciones corporativas y publicar una declaración de política de inversión. ^[191] En tercer lugar, y codificando principios equitativos fundamentales, un fiduciario debe evitar cualquier posibilidad de un conflicto de intereses . ^[192] Los fiduciarios deben actuar "únicamente en interés de los participantes ... con el propósito exclusivo de proporcionar beneficios" con "gastos razonables", ^[193] y evitando específicamente el trato en beneficio propio con una "parte interesada" relacionada. ^[194] Por ejemplo, en Donovan v. Bierwirth , el Segundo Circuito sostuvo que los fideicomisarios de un fondo de pensiones que poseía acciones en la empresa de los empleados cuando se lanzó una oferta pública de adquisición , debido a que enfrentaban un posible conflicto de intereses , tenían que obtener asesoramiento legal independiente sobre cómo votar o posiblemente abstenerse. ^{[195] Sin embargo, la}Corte Suprema ha restringido los recursos para estos deberes a fin de desfavorecer los daños. ^[196] En estos campos, según el §1144, ERISA 1974 "reemplazará todas y cada una de las leyes estatales en la medida en que puedan estar ahora o en el futuro relacionadas con cualquier plan de beneficios para empleados". ^[197] Por lo tanto, ERISA no siguió el modelo de la Ley de Normas Laborales Justas de 1938 o la Ley de Licencia Familiar y Médica de 1993 , que alientan a los estados a legislar para mejorar la protección de los empleados, más allá del mínimo.La regla de prelación llevó a la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidospara derribar una ley de Nueva York que requería dar beneficios a empleadas embarazadas en los planes ERISA . ^[198] Sostuvo que un caso bajo la ley de Texas por daños y perjuicios por negar la adquisición de los beneficios fue preempted, por lo que el demandante solo tenía recursos ERISA . ^[199] Derribó una ley de Washington que alteraba quién recibiría la designación de seguro de vida en caso de muerte. ^[200] Sin embargo, bajo §1144(b)(2)(A) esto no afecta a "ninguna ley de ningún Estado que regule seguros, banca o valores ". Así, la Corte Suprema también ha declarado válida una ley de Massachusetts que requería que la salud mental estuviera cubierta por las pólizas de salud grupales del empleador. ^[201] Pero derribó un estatuto de Pensilvania que prohibía a los empleadores subrogarse en reclamos (potencialmente más valiosos) de los empleados por seguros después de accidentes. ^[202] Más recientemente, los tribunales han mostrado una mayor voluntad de evitar que las leyes sean reemplazadas, ^[203] sin embargo, los tribunales aún no han adoptado el principio de que la ley estatal no es reemplazada o "reemplazada" si es más protectora para los empleados que un mínimo federal.

Los derechos más importantes que no cubría la ERISA de 1974 eran los de quién controla las inversiones y los valores que compran los beneficiarios con sus ahorros para la jubilación. La forma más grande de fondo de jubilación se ha convertido en el 401(k) . A menudo, se trata de una cuenta individual que establece un empleador y luego se delega en una empresa de gestión de inversiones , como Vanguard , Fidelity , Morgan Stanley o BlackRock , la tarea de negociar los activos del fondo. Por lo general, también votan sobre las acciones corporativas, con la ayuda de una empresa de "asesoramiento por poder" como ISS o Glass Lewis . Según la ERISA de 1974 §1102(a), ^[206] un plan simplemente debe tener fiduciarios nombrados que tengan "autoridad para controlar y gestionar la operación y administración del plan", seleccionados por "una organización de empleadores o empleados" o ambos conjuntamente. Por lo general, estos fiduciarios o administradores delegarán la gestión a una empresa profesional, en particular porque, según la §1105(d), si lo hacen, no serán responsables de los incumplimientos de las obligaciones de un administrador de inversiones. ^[207] Estos gestores de inversiones compran una gama de activos, en particular acciones corporativas que tienen derechos de voto, así como bonos del gobierno , bonos corporativos , materias primas , bienes raíces o derivados . Los derechos sobre esos activos están en la práctica monopolizados por los gestores de inversiones, a menos que los fondos de pensiones se hayan organizado para realizar la votación internamente o para instruir a sus gestores de inversiones. Dos tipos principales de fondos de pensiones que hacen esto son los planes Taft-Hartley organizados por sindicatos y los planes de pensiones públicos estatales . Según la Ley Nacional de Relaciones Laborales enmendada de 1935 §302(c)(5)(B), un plan negociado por un sindicato tiene que ser gestionado conjuntamente por representantes de empleadores y empleados. ^[208] Aunque muchos fondos de pensiones locales no están consolidados y han tenido avisos de financiación críticos del Departamento de Trabajo , ^[209] más fondos con representación de los empleados garantizan que los derechos de voto corporativos se emitan de acuerdo con las preferencias de sus miembros. Las pensiones públicas estatales suelen ser más grandes y tienen un mayor poder de negociación para utilizar en nombre de sus miembros. Los planes de pensiones estatales revelan invariablemente la forma en que se seleccionan los fideicomisarios. En 2005, en promedio, más de un tercio de los fideicomisarios fueron elegidos por empleados o beneficiarios. ^[210] Por ejemplo, el Código de Gobierno de California§20090 requiere que su fondo de pensiones de empleados públicos, CalPERS, tenga 13 miembros en su junta, 6 elegidos por empleados y beneficiarios. Sin embargo, solo los fondos de pensiones de tamaño suficiente han actuado para reemplazar la votación de los gerentes de inversiones . Además, ninguna legislación general requiere derechos de voto para los empleados en los fondos de pensiones, a pesar de varias propuestas. ^[211] Por ejemplo, la Ley de Democracia en el Lugar de Trabajo de 1999 , patrocinada por Bernie Sanders entonces en la Cámara de Representantes de los EE. UU ., habría requerido que todos los planes de pensiones de un solo empleador tuvieran fideicomisarios designados de manera igualitaria por los empleadores y los representantes de los empleados. ^[204] Además, actualmente no existe ninguna legislación que impida que los gerentes de inversiones voten con el dinero de otras personas, ya que la Ley Dodd-Frank de 2010 §957 prohibió a los corredores-distribuidores votar sobre cuestiones significativas sin instrucciones. ^[212] Esto significa que los votos en las corporaciones más grandes que compran los ahorros para la jubilación de las personas son ejercidos abrumadoramente por administradores de inversiones, cuyos intereses potencialmente entran en conflicto con los intereses de los beneficiarios en materia de derechos laborales , salarios justos , seguridad laboral o política de pensiones.

Salud y seguridad

La Ley de Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional , ^[213] promulgada en 1970 por el presidente Richard Nixon , crea normas específicas para la seguridad en el lugar de trabajo. La ley ha generado años de litigios por parte de grupos industriales que han desafiado las normas que limitan la cantidad de exposición permitida a sustancias químicas como el benceno . La ley también prevé la protección de los "denunciantes" que se quejan a las autoridades gubernamentales sobre condiciones inseguras, al tiempo que permite a los trabajadores el derecho a negarse a trabajar en condiciones inseguras en determinadas circunstancias. La ley permite a los estados asumir la administración de la OSHA en sus jurisdicciones, siempre que adopten leyes estatales al menos tan protectoras de los derechos de los trabajadores como las de la ley federal. Más de la mitad de los estados lo han hecho.

Leyes sobre trabajo infantil en Estados Unidos

Libertades civiles

Pickering v. Board of Education , 391 US 563 (1968) 8 a 1, un maestro de escuela pública fue despedido por escribir una carta a un periódico en la que criticaba la forma en que la junta escolar recaudaba dinero. Esto violaba la Primera Enmienda y la Decimocuarta Enmienda.
En Connick v. Myers , 461 US 138 (1983) 5 a 4, una empleada de un abogado público no fue despedida ilegalmente después de distribuir un cuestionario a otros miembros del personal sobre las prácticas de gestión de un supervisor después de que fue transferida bajo protesta. En su opinión discrepante, el juez Brennan sostuvo que todos los asuntos eran de interés público y, por lo tanto, debían estar protegidos por la Primera Enmienda.
Rankin v. McPherson , 483 US 378 (1987) 5 a 4, una agente de policía de Texas tenía derecho a decir, en virtud de la Primera Enmienda, después del intento de asesinato de Ronald Reagan : "Disparad, si vuelven a por él, espero que lo atrapen". Su despido fue ilegal y tuvo que ser readmitida porque incluso los comentarios extremos (excepto los que pudieran promover el asesinato real) contra una figura política deberían estar protegidos. No podía ser despedida simplemente por ejercer un derecho que le otorga la Constitución.
Waters v. Churchill , 511 US 661 (1994) 7 a 2, una enfermera de un hospital público que declaró, fuera del trabajo durante la cena, que las políticas de capacitación cruzada del hospital eran defectuosas, podría ser despedida sin ninguna violación de la Primera Enmienda porque podría verse como una interferencia con las operaciones del empleador.
Garcetti v. Ceballos , 547 US 410 (2006) 5 a 4, no hay derecho contra el despido o libertad de expresión cuando la expresión se relaciona con un asunto de la profesión de uno
La Ley de Protección de los Empleados ante el Polígrafo (1988) prohibió el uso de detectores de mentiras por parte de empleadores privados, excepto en circunstancias estrictamente prescritas.
Ley de protección de los denunciantes (1989)
Huffman v. Oficina de Gestión de Personal , 263 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
O'Connor v. Ortega , 480 US 709 (1987) registros en el lugar de trabajo
Ciudad de Ontario v. Quon , 130 S.Ct. 2619, (2010) el derecho a la privacidad no se extendía a los dispositivos electrónicos propiedad del empleador, por lo que un empleado podía ser despedido por enviar mensajes sexualmente explícitos desde un buscapersonas propiedad del empleador.
Heffernan contra la ciudad de Paterson , 578 US __ (2016)

Participación en el lugar de trabajo

El derecho central en la ley laboral , más allá de los estándares mínimos de salario, horas, pensiones, seguridad o privacidad, es participar y votar en la gobernanza del lugar de trabajo. ^[215] El modelo estadounidense se desarrolló a partir de la Ley Antimonopolio Clayton de 1914 , ^[216] que declaró que "el trabajo de un ser humano no es una mercancía o artículo de comercio" y tenía como objetivo sacar las relaciones laborales del alcance de los tribunales hostiles a la negociación colectiva. Al carecer de éxito, la Ley Nacional de Relaciones Laborales de 1935 cambió el modelo básico, que se mantuvo durante el siglo XX. Reflejando la " desigualdad del poder de negociación entre los empleados ... y los empleadores que están organizados en la corporación u otras formas de asociación de propiedad", ^[217] la NLRA de 1935 codificó los derechos básicos de los empleados para organizar un sindicato , requiere que los empleadores negocien de buena fe (al menos en el papel) después de que un sindicato tenga apoyo mayoritario, vincula a los empleadores a los convenios colectivos y protege el derecho a emprender acciones colectivas , incluida la huelga. La afiliación sindical, la negociación colectiva y el nivel de vida aumentaron rápidamente hasta que el Congreso impuso la Ley Taft-Hartley de 1947. Sus enmiendas permitieron a los estados aprobar leyes que restringían los acuerdos para que todos los empleados de un lugar de trabajo se sindicalizaran, prohibían las acciones colectivas contra los empleadores asociados e introdujeron una lista de prácticas laborales injustas para los sindicatos, así como para los empleadores. Desde entonces, la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos decidió desarrollar una doctrina según la cual las reglas de la NLRA de 1935 prevalecían sobre cualquier otra regla estatal si una actividad estaba "discutiblemente sujeta" a sus derechos y deberes. ^[218] Si bien se les prohibió a los estados actuar como " laboratorios de la democracia ", y en particular porque los sindicatos fueron objeto de ataques a partir de 1980 y la afiliación disminuyó, la NLRA de 1935 ha sido criticada como un "estatuto fallido" a medida que la legislación laboral estadounidense se "osificaba". ^[219] Esto ha llevado a experimentos más innovadores entre los estados, las corporaciones progresistas y los sindicatos para crear derechos de participación directa, incluido el derecho a votar o codeterminar a los directores de las juntas corporativas y elegir consejos de trabajo con derechos vinculantes sobre cuestiones del lugar de trabajo.

Sindicatos de trabajadores

La libertad de asociación en los sindicatos siempre ha sido fundamental para el desarrollo de la sociedad democrática y está protegida por la Primera Enmienda de la Constitución . ^[220] En la historia colonial temprana , los sindicatos fueron suprimidos rutinariamente por el gobierno. Los casos registrados incluyen conductores de carros que fueron multados por hacer huelga en 1677 en la ciudad de Nueva York, y carpinteros procesados como criminales por hacer huelga en Savannah , Georgia en 1746. ^[221] Sin embargo, después de la Revolución estadounidense , los tribunales se apartaron de los elementos represivos del derecho consuetudinario inglés . El primer caso reportado, Commonwealth v. Pullis en 1806, encontró a los zapateros de Filadelfia culpables de "una combinación para aumentar sus salarios". ^[222] Sin embargo, los sindicatos continuaron y la primera federación de sindicatos se formó en 1834, el National Trades' Union , con el objetivo principal de una jornada laboral de 10 horas. ^[223] En 1842, la Corte Suprema de Massachusetts sostuvo en Commonwealth v. Hunt que una huelga de la Boston Journeymen Bootmakers' Society para obtener salarios más altos era legal. ^[224] El presidente de la Corte Suprema Shaw sostuvo que las personas "son libres de trabajar para quien quieran, o de no trabajar, si así lo prefieren" y "de acordar juntos ejercer sus propios derechos reconocidos". La abolición de la esclavitud por la Proclamación de Emancipación de Abraham Lincoln durante la Guerra Civil estadounidense fue necesaria para crear derechos genuinos para organizarse, pero no fue suficiente para garantizar la libertad de asociación. Usando la Ley Sherman de 1890 , que tenía como objetivo romper los cárteles comerciales, la Corte Suprema impuso una orden judicial a los trabajadores en huelga de la Pullman Company y encarceló al líder y futuro candidato presidencial, Eugene Debs . ^[225] La Corte también permitió que los sindicatos fueran demandados por daños triples en Loewe v. Lawlor , un caso que involucraba a un sindicato de fabricantes de sombreros en Danbury, Connecticut . ^[226] El Presidente y el Congreso de los Estados Unidos respondieron aprobando la Ley Clayton de 1914 para eliminar a los trabajadores de la legislación antimonopolio . Luego, después de la Gran Depresión, se aprobó la Ley Nacional de Relaciones Laborales de 1935.para proteger positivamente el derecho a organizarse y emprender acciones colectivas. Después de eso, la ley se dedicó cada vez más a regular los asuntos internos de los sindicatos. La Ley Taft-Hartley de 1947 reguló cómo los miembros podían afiliarse a un sindicato, y la Ley de Información y Divulgación de Información Laboral de 1959 creó una "carta de derechos" para los miembros de los sindicatos.

Aunque la gobernanza sindical se basa en la libertad de asociación , la ley exige normas básicas de democracia y rendición de cuentas para garantizar que los miembros sean verdaderamente libres a la hora de dar forma a sus asociaciones. ^[227] Fundamentalmente, todos los sindicatos son organizaciones democráticas, ^[228] pero se dividen entre aquellos en los que los miembros eligen a los delegados, que a su vez eligen al ejecutivo, y aquellos en los que los miembros eligen directamente al ejecutivo. En 1957, después de que el Comité McClellan del Senado de los EE. UU. encontrara pruebas de que dos ejecutivos rivales del sindicato Teamsters , Jimmy Hoffa y Dave Beck , falsificaban los recuentos de votos de los delegados y robaban fondos sindicales, ^[229] el Congreso aprobó la Ley de Informes y Divulgación de la Gestión Laboral de 1959. Según el § 411, todo miembro tiene derecho a votar, asistir a las reuniones, hablar libremente y organizarse, a no tener que aumentar las cuotas sin votar, a no ser privado del derecho a demandar ni a ser suspendido injustamente. ^[230] Según el § 431, los sindicatos deben presentar sus constituciones y estatutos al Secretario de Trabajo y ser accesibles para los miembros: ^[231] hoy en día las constituciones sindicales están en línea. Según el § 481 las elecciones deben ocurrir al menos cada 5 años, y los funcionarios locales cada 3 años, por votación secreta. ^[231] Además, la ley estatal puede prohibir que los funcionarios sindicales que tengan condenas previas por delitos graves ocupen el cargo. ^[232] Como respuesta a los escándalos de Hoffa y Beck, también existe un deber fiduciario expreso de los funcionarios sindicales para el dinero de los miembros, límites a los préstamos a los ejecutivos, requisitos de fianzas para manejar dinero y hasta $ 10,000 multa o hasta 5 años de prisión por malversación de fondos . Estas reglas, sin embargo, reafirmaron la mayor parte de lo que ya era ley y codificaron principios de gobernanza que los sindicatos ya emprendieron. ^[233] Por otra parte, de conformidad con el § 501(b), para iniciar una demanda, un miembro de un sindicato debe primero exigir al ejecutivo que corrija una mala conducta antes de poder presentar cualquier reclamación ante un tribunal, incluso por malversación de fondos, y potencialmente esperar cuatro meses. La Corte Suprema ha sostenido que los miembros de los sindicatos pueden intervenir en los procedimientos de cumplimiento iniciados por el Departamento de Trabajo de los Estados Unidos . ^[234] Los tribunales federales pueden revisar las decisiones del Departamento de proceder con cualquier procesamiento. ^[235] La variedad de derechos y el nivel de cumplimiento han significado que los sindicatos muestran estándares significativamente más altos de responsabilidad, con menos escándalos, que las corporaciones o las instituciones financieras . ^[236]

Más allá de los derechos de los miembros dentro de un sindicato, la cuestión más controvertida ha sido cómo las personas se convierten en miembros de los sindicatos. Esto afecta a las cifras de membresía sindical y a si los derechos laborales se promueven o suprimen en la política democrática. Históricamente, los sindicatos hacían acuerdos colectivos con los empleadores por los que todos los nuevos trabajadores tendrían que afiliarse al sindicato. Esto era para evitar que los empleadores intentaran diluir y dividir el apoyo sindical y, en última instancia, se negaran a mejorar los salarios y las condiciones en la negociación colectiva . Sin embargo, después de la Ley Taft-Hartley de 1947, la Ley Nacional de Relaciones Laborales de 1935 § 158(a)(3) fue enmendada para prohibir a los empleadores negarse a contratar a un empleado no sindicalizado. Se puede exigir a un empleado que se afilie al sindicato (si existe un acuerdo colectivo de este tipo) después de 30 días. ^[238] Pero el § 164(b) se agregó para codificar el derecho de los estados a aprobar las llamadas " leyes de derecho al trabajo " que prohíben a los sindicatos hacer acuerdos colectivos para registrar a todos los trabajadores como miembros del sindicato o cobrar tarifas por el servicio de negociación colectiva. ^[239] Con el tiempo, a medida que más estados con gobiernos republicanos aprobaron leyes que restringen los acuerdos de membresía sindical, ha habido una disminución significativa de la densidad sindical . Sin embargo, los sindicatos aún no han experimentado con acuerdos para inscribir automáticamente a los empleados en sindicatos con derecho a optar por no hacerlo. En International Ass'n of Machinists v. Street , una mayoría de la Corte Suprema de los EE. UU. , contra tres jueces disidentes, sostuvo que la Primera Enmienda impedía hacer que un empleado se convirtiera en miembro de un sindicato en contra de su voluntad, pero sería legal cobrar tarifas para reflejar los beneficios de la negociación colectiva: las tarifas no podrían usarse para gastar en actividades políticas sin el consentimiento del miembro. ^[240] Los sindicatos siempre han tenido derecho a hacer campaña públicamente para miembros del Congreso o candidatos presidenciales que apoyan los derechos laborales . ^[241] Pero la urgencia del gasto político se planteó cuando en 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decidió, a pesar de los poderosos disensos de White J y Marshall J , que los candidatos podían gastar dinero ilimitado en su propia campaña política, ^[242] y luego en First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , ^[243] que las corporaciones podían participar en el gasto electoral. En 2010, a pesar de cuatro jueces disidentes, Citizens United v. FEC^[244]En 2018 , en el caso de Janus v. AFSCME, la Corte Suprema determinó por 5 votos a 4 que las cuotas sindicales obligatorias de los empleados del sector público violaban la Primera Enmienda. Los jueces disidentes argumentaron que las cuotas sindicales simplemente servían para pagar los beneficios de la negociación colectiva que los no miembros recibían de forma gratuita. En el caso de Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, un tribunal unánime sostuvo que los acuerdos de seguridad sindical para cobrar cuotas a los empleados del sector público también estaban permitidos en el sector público. ^[245] Sin embargo, en Harris v. Quinn, cinco jueces de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos revocaron esta sentencia que aparentemente prohibía los acuerdos de seguridad sindical en el sector público, ^[246] y estaban a punto de hacer lo mismo para todos los sindicatos en Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association hasta que murió el juez Scalia , deteniendo una mayoría antilaboral en la Corte Suprema. ^[247] En 2018, en Janus v. AFSCME, la Corte Suprema sostuvo por 5 votos a 4 que cobrar cuotas sindicales obligatorias a los empleados del sector público violaba la Primera Enmienda. Los jueces disidentes argumentaron que las cuotas sindicales simplemente servían para pagar los beneficios de la negociación colectiva que los no miembros recibían de forma gratuita. Estos factores llevaron a que la reforma del financiamiento de campañas fuera uno de los temas más importantes en las elecciones presidenciales estadounidenses de 2016 , para el futuro del movimiento laboral y la vida democrática.

Negociaciones colectivas

Since the Industrial Revolution, collective bargaining has been the main way to get fair pay, improved conditions, and a voice at work. The need for positive rights to organize and bargain was gradually appreciated after the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. Under §6,^[248] labor rights were declared to be outside of antitrust law, but this did not stop hostile employers and courts suppressing unions. In Adair v. United States,^[249] and Coppage v. Kansas,^[250] the Supreme Court, over powerful dissents,^[251] asserted the Constitution empowered employers to require employees to sign contracts promising they would not join a union. These "yellow-dog contracts" were offered to employees on a "take it or leave it" basis, and effectively stopped unionization. They lasted until the Great Depression when the Norris–La Guardia Act of 1932 banned them.^[252] This also prevented the courts from issuing any injunctions or enforcing any agreements in the context of a labor dispute.^[253] After the landslide election of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 was drafted to create positive rights for collective bargaining in most of the private sector.^[254] It aimed to create a system of federal rights so that, under §157, employees would gain the legal "right to self-organization", "to bargain collectively" and use "concerted activities" including strikes for "mutual aid or other protection".^[255] The Act was meant to increase bargaining power of employees to get better terms in than individual contracts with employing corporations. However §152 excluded many groups of workers, such as state and federal government employees,^[256] railway and airline staff,^[257] domestic and agriculture workers.^[258] These groups depend on special federal statutes like the Railway Labor Act or state law rules, like the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975. In 1979, five Supreme Court judges, over four forceful dissents, also introduced an exception for church operated schools, apparently because of "serious First Amendment questions".^[259] Furthermore, "independent contractors" are excluded, even though many are economically dependent workers. Some courts have attempted to expand the "independent contractor" exception. In 2009, in FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB the DC Circuit, adopting submissions of FedEx's lawyer Ted Cruz, held that post truck drivers were independent contractors because they took on "entrepreneurial opportunity". Garland J dissented, arguing the majority had departed from common law tests.^[260] The "independent contractor" category was estimated to remove protection from 8 million workers.^[261] While many states have higher rates, the US has an 11.1 per cent unionization rate and 12.3 per cent rate of coverage by collective agreement. This is the lowest in the industrialized world.^[262]

At any point employers can freely bargain with union representatives and make a collective agreement. Under NLRA 1935 §158(d) the mandatory subjects of collective bargaining include "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment".^[264] A collective agreement will typically aim to get rights including a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, reasonable notice and severance pay before any necessary layoffs, just cause for any job termination, and arbitration to resolve disputes. It could also extend to any subject by mutual agreement. A union can encourage an employing entity through collective action to sign a deal, without using the NLRA 1935 procedure. But, if an employing entity refuses to deal with a union, and a union wishes, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) may oversee a legal process up to the conclusion of a legally binding collective agreement. By law, the NLRB is meant to have five members "appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate",^[265] and play a central role in promoting collective bargaining. First, the NLRB will determine an appropriate "bargaining unit" of employees with employers (e.g., offices in a city, or state, or whole economic sector),^[266] The NLRB favors "enterprise bargaining" over "sectoral collective bargaining", which means US unions have traditionally been smaller with less bargaining power by international standards. Second, a union with "majority" support of employees in a bargaining unit becomes "the exclusive representatives of all the employees".^[267] But to ascertain majority support, the NLRB supervises the fairness of elections among the workforce. It is typical for the NLRB to take six weeks from a petition from workers to an election being held.^[268] During this time, managers may attempt to persuade or coerce employees using high-pressure tactics or unfair labor practices (e.g. threatening job termination, alleging unions will bankrupt the firm) to vote against recognizing the union. The average time for the NLRB to decide upon complaints of unfair labor practices had grown to 483 days in 2009 when its last annual report was written.^[269] Third, if a union does win majority support in a bargaining unit election, the employing entity will have an "obligation to bargain collectively". This means meeting union representatives "at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms" to put in a "written contract". The NLRB cannot compel an employer to agree, but it was thought that the NLRB's power to sanction an employer for an "unfair labor practice" if they did not bargain in good faith would be sufficient. For example, in JI Case Co v. National Labor Relations Board the Supreme Court held an employer could not refuse to bargain on the basis that individual contracts were already in place.^[270] Crucially, in Wallace Corp. v. NLRB the Supreme Court also held that an employer only bargaining with a company union, which it dominated, was an unfair labor practice. The employer should have recognized the truly independent union affiliated to the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO).^[271] However, in NLRB v. Sands Manufacturing Co. the Supreme Court held an employer did not commit an unfair trade practice by shutting down a water heater plant, while the union was attempting to prevent new employees being paid less.^[272] Moreover, after 2007 President George W. Bush and the Senate refused to make any appointments to the Board, and it was held by five judges, over four dissents, in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB that rules made by two remaining members were ineffective.^[273] While appointments were made in 2013, agreement was not reached on one vacant seat. Increasingly it has been made politically unfeasible for the NLRB to act to promote collective bargaining.

Once collective agreements have been signed, they are legally enforceable, often through arbitration, and ultimately in federal court.^[275] Federal law must be applied for national uniformity, so state courts must apply federal law when asked to deal with collective agreements or the dispute can be removed to federal court.^[276] Usually, collective agreements include provisions for sending grievances of employees or disputes to binding arbitration, governed by the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925.^[277] For example, in United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co a group of employees at a steel transportation works in Chickasaw, Alabama requested the corporation go to arbitration over layoffs and outsourcing of 19 staff on lower pay to do the same jobs. The United Steelworkers had a collective agreement which contained a provision for arbitration. Douglas J held that any doubts about whether the agreement allowed the issue to go to arbitration "should be resolved in favor of coverage."^[278] An arbitrator's award is entitled to judicial enforcement so long as its essence is from the collective agreement.^[279] Courts can decline to enforce an agreement based on public policy, but this is different from "general considerations of supposed public interests".^[280] But while federal policy had encouraged arbitration where unions and employers had made agreements, the Supreme Court drew a clear distinction for arbitration over individual statutory rights. In Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. an employee claimed he was unjustly terminated, and suffered unlawful race discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court held that he was entitled to pursue remedies both through arbitration and the public courts, which could re-evaluate the claim whatever the arbitrator had decided.^[281] But then, in 2009 in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett Thomas J announced with four other judges that apparently "[n]othing in the law suggests a distinction between the status of arbitration agreements signed by an individual employee and those agreed to by a union representative."^[282] This meant that a group of employees were denied the right to go to a public court under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and instead potentially be heard only by arbitrators their employer selected. Stevens J and Souter J, joined by Ginsburg J, Breyer J dissented, pointing out that rights cannot be waived even by collective bargaining.^[283] An Arbitration Fairness Act of 2011 has been proposed to reverse this, urging that "employees have little or no meaningful choice whether to submit their claims to arbitration".^[284] It remains unclear why NLRA 1935 §1, recognizing workers' "inequality of bargaining power" was not considered relevant to ensure that collective bargaining can only improve upon rights, rather than take them away. To address further perceived defects of the NLRA 1935 and the Supreme Court's interpretations, major proposed reforms have included the Labor Reform Act of 1977,^[285] the Workplace Democracy Act of 1999, and the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009.^[286] All focus on speeding the election procedure for union recognition, speeding hearings for unfair labor practices, and improving remedies within the existing structure of labor relations.

Right to organize

To ensure that employees are effectively able to bargain for a collective agreement, the NLRA 1935 created a group of rights in §158 to stall "unfair labor practices" by employers. These were considerably amended by the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, where the US Congress over the veto of President Harry S. Truman decided to add a list of unfair labor practices for labor unions. This has meant that union organizing in the US may involve substantial levels of litigation which most workers cannot afford. The fundamental principle of freedom of association, however, is recognized worldwide to require various rights. It extends to the state, so in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization held the New Jersey mayor violated the First Amendment when trying to shut down CIO meetings because he thought they were "communist".^[287] Among many rights and duties relating to unfair labor practices, five main groups of case have emerged.

First, under §158(a)(3)–(4) a person who joins a union must suffer no discrimination or retaliation in their chances for being hired, terms of their work, or in termination.^[288] For example, in one of the first cases, NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, the US Supreme Court held that the National Labor Relations Board was entitled to order workers be rehired after they had been dismissed for organizing a union at their plant in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania.^[289] It is also unlawful for employers to monitor employees who are organizing, for instance by parking outside a union meeting,^[290] or videotaping employees giving out union fliers.^[291] This can include giving people incentives or bribes to not join a union. So in NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp the Supreme Court held it was unlawful to give 20 years extra seniority to employees who crossed a picket line while the union had called a strike.^[292] Second, and by contrast, the Supreme Court had decided in Textile Workers Union of America v. Darlington Manufacturing Co Inc that actually shutting down a recently unionized division of an enterprise was lawful, unless it was proven that the employer was motivated by hostility to the union.^[293] Third, union members need the right to be represented, in order to carry out basic functions of collective bargaining and settle grievances or disciplinary hearings with management. This entails a duty of fair representation.^[294] In NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. the Supreme Court held that an employee in a unionized workplace had the right to a union representative present in a management interview, if it could result in disciplinary action.^[295] Although the NLRB has changed its position with different political appointees, the DC Circuit has held the same right goes that non-union workers were equally entitled to be accompanied.^[296] Fourth, under §158(a)(5) it is an unfair labor practice to refuse to bargain in good faith, and out of this a right has developed for a union to receive information necessary to perform collective bargaining work. However, in Detroit Edison Co v. NLRB the Supreme Court divided 5 to 4 on whether a union was entitled to receive individual testing scores from a program the employer used.^[297] Also, in Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board the Supreme Court held 6 to 3 that an employer was entitled to prevent union members, who were not employees, from entering the company parking lot to hand out leaflets.^[298] Fifth, there are a large group of cases concerning "unfair" practices of labor organizations, listed in §158(b). For example, in Pattern Makers League of North America v. NLRB an employer claimed a union had committed an unfair practice by attempting to enforce fines against employees who had been members, but quit during a strike when their membership agreement promised they would not. Five judges to four dissents held that such fines could not be enforced against people who were no longer union members.^[299]

The US Supreme Court policy of preemption, developed from 1953,^[302] means that states cannot legislate where the NLRA 1935 does operate. The NLRA 1935 contains no clause requiring preemption as is found, for example, in the Fair Labor Standards Act 1938 §218(a) where deviations from the minimum wage or maximum hours are preempted, unless they are more beneficial to the employee.^[115] The first major case, Garner v. Teamsters Local 776, decided a Pennsylvania statute was preempted from providing superior remedies or processing claims quicker than the NLRB because "the Board was vested with power to entertain petitioners' grievance, to issue its own complaint" and apparent "Congress evidently considered that centralized administration of specially designed procedures was necessary to obtain uniform application of its substantive rules".^[303] In San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, the Supreme Court held that the California Supreme Court was not entitled to award remedies against a union for picketing, because if "an activity is arguably subject to §7 or §8 of the Act, the States as well as the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board".^[304] This was true, even though the NLRB had not given any ruling on the dispute because its monetary value was too small.^[305] This reasoning was extended in Lodge 76, International Association of Machinists v Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, where a Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission sought to hold a union liable for an unfair labor practice, by refusing to work overtime. Brennan J held that such matters were to be left to "be controlled by the free play of economic forces".^[306] While some of these judgments appeared beneficial to unions against hostile state courts or bodies, supportive actions also began to be held preempted. In Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles a majority of the Supreme Court held that Los Angeles was not entitled to refuse to renew a taxi company's franchise license because the Teamsters Union had pressured it not to until a dispute was resolved.^[307] Most recently in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown seven judges on the Supreme Court held that California was preempted from passing a law prohibiting any recipient of state funds either from using money to promote or deter union organizing efforts. Breyer J and Ginsburg J dissented because the law was simply neutral to the bargaining process.^[308] State governments may, however, use their funds to procure corporations to do work that are union or labor friendly.^[309]

Collective action

The right of labor to take collective action, including the right to strike, has been fundamental to common law,^[311] federal law,^[312] and international law for over a century.^[313] As New York teacher unions argued in the 1960s, "If you can't call a strike you don't have real collective bargaining, you have 'collective begging.'"^[314] During the 19th century, many courts upheld the right to strike, but others issued injunctions to frustrate strikes,^[315] and when the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was passed to prohibit business combinations in restraint of trade, it was first used against labor unions. This resulted in Eugene Debs, American Railway Union leader and future Socialist Presidential candidate, being imprisoned for taking part in the Pullman Strike.^[316] The Supreme Court persisted in Loewe v. Lawlor in imposing damages for strikes under antitrust law,^[226] until Congress passed the Clayton Act of 1914. Seen as "the Magna Carta of America's workers",^[317] this proclaimed that all collective action by workers was outside antitrust law under the Commerce Clause, because "labor is not a commodity or article of commerce". It became fundamental that no antitrust sanctions could be imposed, if "a union acts in its self-interest and does not combine with non-labor groups."^[318] The same principles entered the founding documents of the International Labour Organization in 1919.^[319] Finally at the end of the Lochner era^[320] the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 §157 enshrined the right "to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection" and in §163, the "right to strike".^[321]

Although federal law guarantees the right to strike, American labor unions face the most severe constraints in the developed world in taking collective action. First, the law constrains the purposes for which strikes are allowed. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 only covers "employees" in the private sector, and a variety of state laws attempt to suppress government workers' right to strike, including for teachers,^[323] police and firefighters, without adequate alternatives to set fair wages.^[324] Workers have the right to take protected concerted activity.^[325] But NLRB v. Insurance Agents' International Union held that although employees refusing to perform part of their jobs in a "partial strike" was not a failure to act in good faith, they could be potentially be discharged: perversely, this encourages workers to conduct an all-out strike instead.^[326] Second, since 1947 the law made it an "unfair labor practice" for employees to take collective action that is not a "primary strike or primary picketing" against the contractual employer.^[327] This prohibition on solidarity action includes a ban on employees of a subsidiary corporation striking in concert with employees of a parent corporation, employees striking with employees of competitors, against outsourced businesses, or against suppliers.^[328] However the same standards are not applied to employers: in NLRB v. Truck Drivers Local 449, the Supreme Court held that a group of seven employers were entitled to lock out workers of a union at once, in response to a strike at just one of the employers by the union.^[329] This said, employees may peacefully persuade customers to boycott any employer or related employer, for instance by giving out handbills.^[330] Third, a union is bound to act in good faith if it has negotiated a collective agreement, unless an employer commits an unfair labor practice. The union must also give 60 days warning before undertaking any strike while a collective agreement is in force.^[331] An employer must also act in good faith, and an allegation of a violation must be based on "substantial evidence": declining to reply to the National Labor Relations Board's attempts to mediate was held to be insubstantial.^[332]

2016 Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders joined the Communication Workers Union strike against Verizon. American workers face serious obstacles to strike action, falling below international labor law standards.

The fourth constraint, and most significant, on the right to strike is the lack of protection from unjust discharge. Other countries protect employees from any detriment or discharge for strike action,^[333] but the Supreme Court held in NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. that employees on strike could be replaced by strikebreakers, and it was not an unfair labor practice for the employer to refuse to discharge the strikebreakers after the dispute was over.^[334] This decision is widely condemned as a violation of international law.^[335] However the Supreme Court further held in NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. that the Labor Board cannot order an employer to rehire striking workers,^[336] and has even held that employers could induce younger employees more senior jobs as a reward for breaking a strike.^[337] Fifth, the Supreme Court has not consistently upheld the right to free speech and peaceful picketing. In NLRB v. Electrical Workers the Supreme Court held that an employer could discharge employees who disparaged an employer's TV broadcasts while a labor dispute was running, on the pretext that the employees' speech had no connection to the dispute.^[338] On the other hand, the Supreme Court has held there was a right to picket shops that refused to hire African-American workers.^[339] The Supreme Court declared an Alabama law, which fined and imprisoned a picketer, to be unconstitutional.^[340] The Supreme Court held unions could write newspaper publications to advocate for pro-labor political candidates.^[341] It also held a union could distribute political leaflets in non-work areas of the employer's property.^[342] In all of these rights, however, the remedies available to employees for unfair labor practices are minimal, because employees can still be locked out and the Board cannot order reinstatement in the course of a good faith labor dispute. For this reason, a majority of labor law experts support the laws on collective bargaining and collective action being rewritten from a clean slate.^[343]

Right to vote at work

While collective bargaining was stalled by US Supreme Court preemption policy, a dysfunctional National Labor Relations Board, and falling union membership rate since the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, employees have demanded direct voting rights at work: for corporate boards of directors, and in work councils that bind management.^[347] This has become an important complement to both strengthening collective bargaining, and securing the votes in labor's capital on pension boards, which buy and vote on corporate stocks, and control employers.^[348] Labor law has increasingly converged with corporate law,^[349] and in 2018 the first federal law, the Reward Work Act was proposed by three US senators to enable employees to vote for one third of the directors on boards of listed companies.^[350] In 1919, under the Republican governor Calvin Coolidge, Massachusetts became the first state with a right for employees in manufacturing companies to have employee representatives on the board of directors, but only if corporate stockholders voluntarily agreed.^[351] Also in 1919 both Procter & Gamble and the General Ice Delivery Company of Detroit had employee representation on boards.^[352] Board representation for employees spread through the 1920s, many without requiring any employee stock ownership plan.^[353] In the early 20th century, labor law theory split between those who advocated collective bargaining backed by strike action, those who advocated a greater role for binding arbitration,^[354] and proponents of codetermination as "industrial democracy".^[355] Today, these methods are seen as complements, not alternatives. A majority of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have laws requiring direct participation rights.^[356] In 1994, the Dunlop Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations: Final Report examined law reform to improve collective labor relations, and suggested minor amendments to encourage worker involvement.^[357] Congressional division prevented federal reform, but labor unions and state legislatures have experimented.

... while there are many contributing causes to unrest ... one cause ... is fundamental. That is the necessary conflict—the contrast between our political liberty and our industrial absolutism. We are as free politically, perhaps, as free as it is possible for us to be. ... On the other hand, in dealing with industrial problems, the position of the ordinary worker is exactly the reverse. The individual employee has no effective voice or vote. And the main objection, as I see it, to the very large corporation is, that it makes possible—and in many cases makes inevitable—the exercise of industrial absolutism. ... The social justice for which we are striving is an incident of our democracy, not its main end ... the end for which we must strive is the attainment of rule by the people, and that involves industrial democracy as well as political democracy.

—Louis Brandeis, Testimony to Commission on Industrial Relations (1916) vol 8, 7659–7660

Corporations are chartered under state law, the larger mostly in Delaware, but leave investors free to organize voting rights and board representation as they choose.^[358] Because of unequal bargaining power, but also because of historic caution among American labor unions about taking on management,^[359] shareholders have come to monopolize voting rights in American corporations. From the 1970s employees and unions sought representation on company boards. This could happen through collective agreements, as it historically occurred in Germany or other countries, or through employees demanding further representation through employee stock ownership plans, but they aimed for voice independent from capital risks that could not be diversified. By 1980, workers had attempted to secure board representation at corporations including United Airlines, the General Tire and Rubber Company, and the Providence and Worcester Railroad.^[360] However, in 1974 the Securities and Exchange Commission, run by appointees of Richard Nixon, had rejected that employees who held shares in AT&T were entitled to make shareholder proposals to include employee representatives on the board of directors.^[361] This position was eventually reversed expressly by the Dodd–Frank Act of 2010 §971, which subject to rules by the Securities and Exchange Commission entitles shareholders to put forward nominations for the board.^[362] Instead of pursuing board seats through shareholder resolutions the United Auto Workers, for example, successfully sought board representation by collective agreement at Chrysler in 1980.^[363] The United Steel Workers secured board representation in five corporations in 1993.^[364] Some representation plans were linked to employee stock ownership plans, and were open to abuse. At the energy company, Enron, workers were encouraged by management to invest an average of 62.5 per cent of their retirement savings from 401(k) plans in Enron stock against basic principles of prudent, diversified investment, and had no board representation. When Enron collapsed in 2003, employees lost a majority of their pension savings.^[365] For this reason, employees and unions have sought representation because they invest their labor in the firm, and do not want undiversifiable capital risk. Empirical research suggests by 1999 there were at least 35 major employee representation plans with worker directors, though often linked to corporate stock.^[366]

As well as representation on a corporation's board of directors, or top management, employees have sought binding rights (for instance, over working time, break arrangement, and layoffs) in their organizations through elected work councils. After the National War Labor Board was established by the Woodrow Wilson administration, firms established work councils with some rights throughout the 1920s.^[368] Frequently, however, management refused to concede the "right to employ and discharge, the direction of the working forces, and the management of the business" in any way,^[369] which from the workforce perspective defeated the object. As the US presidency changed to the Republican party during the 1920s, work "councils" were often instituted by employers that did not have free elections or proceedings, to forestall independent labor unions' right to collective bargaining. For this reason, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 §158(a)(2) ensured it was an unfair labor practice for an employer "to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization, or contribute financial or other support to it".^[370] This was designed to enable free work councils, genuinely independent from management, but not dominated work councils or so called "company unions".^[371] For example, a work council law was passed by the US government in Allied-occupied Germany called Control Council Law, No 22. This empowered German workers to organize work councils if elected by democratic methods, with secret ballots, using participation of free labor unions, with basic functions ranging from how to apply collective agreements, regulating health and safety, rules for engagements, dismissals and grievances, proposals for improving work methods, and organizing social and welfare facilities.^[372] These rules were subsequently updated and adopted in German law, although American employees themselves did not yet develop a practice of bargaining for work councils, nor did states implement work council rules, even though neither were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.^[373] In 1992, the National Labor Relations Board in its Electromation, Inc,^[374] and EI du Pont de Nemours,^[375] decisions confirmed that while management dominated councils were unlawful, genuine and independent work councils would not be. The Dunlop Report in 1994 produced an inconclusive discussion that favored experimentation with work councils.^[376] A Republican Congress did propose a Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995 to repeal §158(a)(2), but this was vetoed by President Bill Clinton as it would have enabled management dominated unions and councils. In 2014, workers at the Volkswagen Chattanooga Assembly Plant, in Chattanooga, Tennessee, sought to establish a work council. This was initially supported by management, but its stance changed in 2016, after the United Auto Workers succeeded in winning a ballot for traditional representation in an exclusive bargaining unit.^[377] As it stands, employees have no widespread right to vote in American workplaces, which has increased the gap between political democracy and traditional labor law goals of workplace and economic democracy.

Equality and discrimination

Since the US Declaration of Independence in 1776 proclaimed that "all men are created equal",^[378] the Constitution was progressively amended, and legislation was written, to spread equal rights to all people. While the right to vote was needed for true political participation, the "right to work" and "free choice of employment" came to be seen as necessary for "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".^[379] After state laws experimented, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Executive Order 8802 in 1941 set up the Fair Employment Practice Committee to ban discrimination by "race, creed, color or national origin" in the defense industry. The first comprehensive statutes were the Equal Pay Act of 1963, to limit discrimination by employers between men and women, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to stop discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."^[380] In the following years, more "protected characteristics" were added by state and federal acts. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects people over age 40. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires "reasonable accommodation" to include people with disabilities in the workforce. Twenty two state Acts protect people based on sexual orientation in public and private employment, but proposed federal laws have been blocked by Republican opposition. There can be no detriment to union members, or people who have served in the military. In principle, states may require rights and remedies for employees that go beyond the federal minimum. Federal law has multiple exceptions, such as ecclesiastical exception, but generally requires no disparate treatment by employing entities, no disparate impact of formally neutral measures, and enables employers to voluntarily take affirmative action favoring under-represented people in their workforce.^[381] The law has not, however, succeeded in eliminating the disparities in income by race, health, age or socio-economic background.

Constitutional rights

The right to equality in employment in the United States comes from at least six major statutes, and limited jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court, leaving the law inconsistent and full of exceptions. Originally, the US Constitution entrenched gender, race and wealth inequality by enabling states to maintain slavery,^[382] reserve the vote to white, property owning men,^[383] and enabling employers to refuse employment to anyone. After the Emancipation Proclamation in the American Civil War, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments attempted to enshrined equal civil rights for everyone,^[384] while the Civil Rights Act of 1866,^[385] and 1875 spelled out that everyone had the right to make contracts, hold property and access accommodation, transport and entertainment without discrimination. However, in 1883 the US Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases put an end to development by declaring that Congress was not allowed to regulate the actions of private individuals rather than public bodies.^[386] In his dissent, Harlan J would have held that no "corporation or individual wielding power under state authority for the public benefit" was entitled to "discriminate against freemen or citizens, in their civil rights".^[387]

By 1944, the position had changed. In Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co.,^[389] a Supreme Court majority held a labor union had a duty of fair representation and may not discriminate against members based on race under the Railway Labor Act of 1926 (or the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. Murphy J would have also based the duty on a right to equality in the Fifth Amendment). Subsequently, Johnson v. Railway Express Agency admitted that the old Enforcement Act of 1870 provided a remedy against private parties.^[390] However, the Courts have not yet accepted a general right of equality, regardless of public or private power. Legislation will usually be found unconstitutional, under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment if discrimination is shown to be intentional,^[391] or if it irrationally discriminates against one group. For example, in Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur the Supreme Court held by a majority of 5 to 2, that a school's requirement for women teachers to take mandatory maternity leave was unconstitutional, against the Due Process Clause, because it could not plausibly be shown that after child birth women could never perform a job.^[392] But while the US Supreme Court has failed, against dissent, to recognize a constitutional principle of equality,^[393] federal and state legislation contains the stronger rules. In principle, federal equality law always enables state law to create better rights and remedies for employees.^[394]

Equal treatment

Today legislation bans discrimination, that is unrelated to an employee's ability to do a job, based on sex, race,^[395] ethnicity, national origin, age and disability.^[396] The Equal Pay Act of 1963 banned gender pay discrimination, amending the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Plaintiffs must show an employing entity pays them less than someone of the opposite sex in an "establishment" for work of "equal skill, effort, or responsibility" under "similar working conditions". Employing entities may raise a defense that pay differences result from a seniority or merit system unrelated to sex.^[397] For example, in Corning Glass Works v. Brennan the Supreme Court held that although women plaintiffs worked at different times in the day, compared to male colleagues, the working conditions were "sufficiently similar" and the claim was allowed.^[398] One drawback is the equal pay provisions are subject to multiple exemptions for groups of employees found in the FLSA 1938 itself. Another is that equal pay rules only operate within workers of an "enterprise",^[399] so that it has no effect upon high paying enterprises being more male dominated, nor child care being unequally shared between men and women that affects long-term career progression. Sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy,^[400] and is prohibited in general by the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.^[401]

Beyond gender equality on the specific issue of pay, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the general anti-discrimination statute. Titles I to VI protects the equal right to vote, to access public accommodations, public services, schools, it strengthens the Civil Rights Commission, and requires equality in federally funded agencies. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans discrimination in employment. Under §2000e-2, employers must not refuse to hire, discharge or discriminate "against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."^[403] Segregation in employment is equally unlawful.^[404] The same basic rules apply for people over 40 years old,^[405] and for people with disabilities.^[406] Although states may go further, a significant limit to federal law is a duty only falls on private employers of more than 15 staff, or 20 staff for age discrimination.^[407] Within these limits, people can bring claims against disparate treatment. In Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine the US Supreme Court held plaintiffs will establish a prima facie case of discrimination for not being hired if they are in a protected group, qualified for a job, but the job is given to someone of a different group. It is then up to an employer to rebut the case, by showing a legitimate reason for not hiring the plaintiff.^[408] However, in 1993, this position was altered in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks where Scalia J held (over the dissent of four justices) that if an employer shows no discriminatory intent, an employee must not only show the reason is a pretext, but show additional evidence that discrimination has taken place.^[409] Souter J in dissent, pointed out the majority's approach was "inexplicable in forgiving employers who present false evidence in court".^[410]

Disparate treatment can be justified under CRA 1964 §2000e-2(e) if an employer shows selecting someone reflects by "religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise."^[411] Race is not included. For example, in Dothard v. Rawlinson the state of Alabama prohibited women from working as prison guards in "contact" jobs, with close proximity to prisoners. It also had minimum height and weight requirements (5"2 and 120 lbs), which it argued were necessary for proper security. Ms Rawlinson claimed both requirements were unlawful discrimination. A majority of 6 to 3 held that the gender restrictions in contact jobs were a bona fide occupational qualification, because there was a heightened risk of sexual assault, although Stewart J suggested the result might have differed if the prisons were better run. A majority held the height and weight restrictions, while neutral, had a disparate impact on women and were not justified by business necessity.^[412] By contrast, in Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., a Texas District Court held an airline was not entitled to require women only to work as cabin attendants (who were further required to be "dressed in high boots and hot-pants") even if it could show a consumer preference. The essence of the business was transporting passengers, rather than its advertising metaphor of "spreading love all over Texas", so that there was no "bona fide occupational requirement".^[413] Under the ADEA 1967, age requirements can be used, but only if reasonably necessary, or compelled by law or circumstance. For example, in Western Air Lines, Inc v. Criswell the Supreme Court held that airlines could require pilots to retire at age 60, because the Federal Aviation Administration required this. It could not, however, refuse to employ flight engineers over 60 because there was no comparable FAA rule.^[414]

We are confronted by powerful forces telling us to rely on the good will and understanding of those who profit by exploiting us. They deplore our discontent, they resent our will to organize, so that we may guarantee that humanity will prevail and equality will be exacted. They are shocked that action organizations, sit-ins, civil disobedience, and protests are becoming our everyday tools, just as strikes, demonstrations and union organization became yours to insure that bargaining power genuinely existed on both sides of the table. ...

—Martin Luther King Jr., Speech to the Fourth Constitutional Convention AFL–CIO Miami, Florida (11 December 1961)

In addition to prohibitions on discriminatory treatment, harassment, and detriment in retaliation for asserting rights, is prohibited. In a particularly obscene case, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson the Supreme Court unanimously held that a bank manager who coerced a woman employee into having sex with him 40 to 50 times, including rape on multiple occasions, had committed unlawful harassment within the meaning of 42 USC §2000e.^[415] But also if employees or managers create a "hostile or offensive working environment", this counts as discrimination. In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. the Court held that a "hostile environment" did not have to "seriously affect employees' psychological well-being" to be unlawful. If the environment "would reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive" this is enough.^[416] Standard principles of agency and vicariously liability apply, so an employer is responsible for the actions of its agents,^[417] But according to Faragher v. City of Boca Raton an employing entity can avoid vicarious liability if it shows it (a) exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment and (b) a plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of opportunities to stop it.^[418] In addition, an employing entity may not retaliate against an employee for asserting his or her rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964,^[419] or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.^[420] In University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Supreme Court held that a university was not entitled to refuse to give up peer review assessment documents in order for the EEOC to investigate the claim.^[421] Furthermore, in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. the Supreme Court held that writing a negative job reference, after a plaintiff brought a race discrimination claim, was unlawful retaliation: employees were protected even if they had been fired.^[422] It has also been held that simply being reassigned to a slightly different job, operating forklifts, after making a sex discrimination complaint could amount to unlawful retaliation.^[423] This is all seen as necessary to make equal rights effective.

Equal impact and remedies

In addition to disparate treatment, employing entities may not use practices having an unjustified disparate impact on protected groups. In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., a power company on the Dan River, North Carolina, required a high school diploma for staff to transfer to higher paying non-manual jobs. Because of racial segregation in states like North Carolina, fewer black employees than white employees had diplomas.^[424] The Court found a diploma was wholly unnecessary to perform the tasks in higher paying non-manual jobs. Burger CJ, for a unanimous Supreme Court, held the "Act proscribes not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation." An employer could show that a practice with disparate impact followed "business necessity" that was "related to job performance" but otherwise such practices would be prohibited.^[425] It is not necessary to show any intention to discriminate, just a discriminatory effect. Since amendments by the Civil Rights Act of 1991,^[426] if disparate impact is shown the law requires employers "to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity" and that any non-discriminatory "alternative employment practice" is not feasible.^[427] On the other hand, in Ricci v. DeStefano five Supreme Court judges held the City of New Haven had acted unlawfully by discarding test results for firefighters, which it concluded could have had an unjustified disparate impact by race.^[428] In a further concurrence, Scalia J said "resolution of this dispute merely postpones the evil day" when a disparate impact might be found unconstitutional, against the [[Equal Protection Clause]] because, in his view, the lack of a good faith defense meant employers were compelled to do "racial decision making" that "is ... discriminatory." In dissent, Ginsburg J pointed out that disparate impact theory advances equality, and in no way requires behavior that is not geared to identifying people with skills necessary for jobs.^[429]

Both disparate treatment and disparate impact claims may be brought by an individual, or if there is a "pattern or practice" by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Attorney General,^[430] and by class action. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 a class of people who share a common claim must be numerous, have "questions of law or fact common to the class", have representatives typical of the claimants, who would "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class".^[431] Class actions may be brought, even in favor of people who are not already identified, for instance, if they have been discouraged from applying for jobs,^[432] so long as there is sufficiently specific presentation of issues of law and fact to certify the action.^[433]

A significant practical problem for disparate impact claims is the "Bennett Amendment" in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 §703(h). Though introduced as a supposedly "technical" amendment by a Utah Republican Senator, it requires that claims for equal pay between men and women cannot be brought unless they fulfill the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 § 206(d)(1).^[434] This says that employers have a defense to employee claims if unequal pay (purely based on gender) flows from "(i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex." By contrast, for claims alleging discriminatory pay on grounds of race, age, sexual orientation or other protected characteristics, an employer only has the more restricted defenses available in the CRA 1964 §703(h).^[435] In County of Washington v. Gunther^[436] the majority of the Supreme Court accepted that this was the correct definition. In principle, this meant that a group of women prison guards, who did less time working with prisoners than men guards, and also did different clerical work, would be able to bring a claim—there was no need to be doing entirely "equal work". However Rehnquist J dissented, arguing the Amendment should have put the plaintiffs in an even worse position: they should be required to prove they do "equal work", as is stated in the first part of §703(h).^[437] Nevertheless, the majority held that the gender pay provisions could be worse because, for example, an employer could apply ""a bona fide job rating system," so long as it does not discriminate on the basis of sex", whereas the same would not be possible for other claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Given that a significant gender pay gap remains, it is not clear why any discrepancy or less favorable treatment, should remain at all.^[438]

Affirmative action

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC §2000e-(j)
United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979) 5 to 3 held that the Civil Rights Act did not prohibit preference being given to under-represented groups as a temporary measure to correct historical disadvantage. Black workers were assured half the places in an on the job training program, pursuant to a collective agreement. Rehnquist J dissented.
Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission, 733 F2d 220 (2nd 1984) the use of a separate grading curve on the New York Civil Service Commission entrance test for minority candidates was legitimate
Johnson v. Transportation Agency 480 US 616 (1987) 7 to 2, White J and Scalia J dissenting an employer was entitled to give preference to women who possessed qualifications for a job, even if not equally qualified.
Local No. 93, International Association of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland 478 US 501 (1986) a consent decree giving preference in promotions to black fireman in Cleveland was lawful under Title VII, although a District Court would not be entitled to impose a similar preference.
Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association v. EEOC 478 US 421 (1986) a district court could have a goal of minority membership in a union that had a history of race discrimination in the construction industry.
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education 476 US 267 (1986) a preference for teachers to be laid off in reverse order of seniority unless this would reduce the percentage of minority teachers was collectively agreed. Held, under strict scrutiny, the preference was unlawful under the Fourteenth Amendment because it was not based on evidence of past discrimination. Marshall J, joined by Brennan J, Blackmun J, Stevens J dissented
US v. Paradise 480 US 149 (1987) a judicially ordered preference to remedy longstanding discrimination in the Alabama Department of Public Safety hiring and promotion of state troopers was lawful.
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 US 469 (1989) 6 to 3, government contracting according to diversity criteria unlawful. Race preference is subject to strict scrutiny, or more difficult to justify than other remedies for discrimination.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 US 200 (1995) federal agency contracts and subcontracts
Piscataway School Board v. Taxman, 91 F3d 1547 (3d Cir. 1996) case dropped, on affirmative action
Morton v. Mancari 417 US 535 (1974) held preference of Native Americans in the Bureau of Indian Affairs was compatible with Title VII and the Fifth Amendment, as it was "reasonably designed to further the cause of Indian self-government and to make the BIA more responsive to the needs of its constituent groups."
EEOC, Guidelines on Affirmative Action (2009) 29 CFR §1608
OFCCP Regulations, 41 CFR §60 based on Executive Order 11246, 3 CFR 339

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, suffering from polio, required a wheelchair through his Presidency.

Veterans' Preference Act of 1944
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 USC §§705, 791–794e
Borkowski v. Valley Central School District 63 F3d 131 (2nd 1995) burden of proof
Vande Zande v. Wisconsin Department of Administration 44 F3d 538 (7th 1995)
Southeastern Community College v. Davis 442 US 397 (1979) a duty of reasonable accommodation did not apparently amount to a duty of affirmative action under §§501–3
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 USC §§12101–12213
Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp 562 US 795 (1999)
Sutton v. United Airline, Inc 527 US 471 (1999)
Albertson's Inc v. Kirkingburg 527 US 555 (1999)
Murphy v. United Parcel Service 527 US 516 (1999)
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams 534 US 184 (2002)
US Airways Inc v. Barnett 535 US 391 (2002) bad back, request for transfer against seniority system. Breyer J saying that (apparently) seniority systems "encourage employees to invest in the employing company, accepting 'less than their value to the firm early in their careers' in return for greater benefits in later years."
New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer 440 U.S. 568 (1979) Civil Rights Act of 1964, legality of discrimination against methadone users
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Equality Act of 2015

Free movement and immigration

Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823)
Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869)
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002) 5 to 4, an immigrant worker, who had arrived without permission, denied effective rights under the NLRA 1935 for helping in union organizing.
History of immigration to the United States
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 8 USC §1324b and §1324a "unlawful employment of aliens"
Illegal immigration to the United States
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007

Job security

Job security laws in the United States are the weakest in the developed world, as there are no federal statutory rights yet.^[439] Any employment contract can require job security, but employees other than corporate executives or managers rarely have the bargaining power to contract for job security.^[440] Collective agreements often aim to ensure that employees can only be terminated for a "just cause", but the vast majority of Americans have no protection other than the rules at common law. Most states follow a rule that an employee can be terminated "at will" by the employer: for a "good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all", so long as no statutory rule is violated.^[441] Most states have public policy exceptions to ensure that an employee's discharge does not frustrate the purpose of statutory rights. Although the Lloyd–La Follette Act of 1912 required that federal civil servants cannot be dismissed except for a "just cause", no federal or state law (outside Montana^[442]) protects all employees yet. There are now a growing number of proposals to do this.^[443] There are no rights to be given reasonable notice before termination, apart from whatever is stated in a contract or collective agreement, and no requirements for severance pay if an employer lays off employees for economic reasons. The only exception is that the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 requires 60 days notice is given if a business with over 100 employees lays off over 33% of its workforce or over 500 people. While a minority of theorists defend at will employment on the ground that it protects liberty and economic efficiency,^[444] the empirical evidence suggests that job insecurity hampers innovation, reduces productivity, worsens economic recessions,^[445] deprives employees of liberty and pay,^[446] and creates a culture of fear.^[447] US unemployment has historically been extremely volatile, as Republican presidents have consistently increased post-war unemployment, while Democratic presidents have reduced it.^[448]^{[citation needed]} In its conduct of monetary policy, it is the duty of the Federal Reserve to achieve "maximum employment",^[449] although in reality Federal Reserve chairs prioritize the reducing of inflation. Underemployment from growing insecurity of working hours has risen. Government may also use fiscal policy (by taxing or borrowing and spending) to achieve full employment, but as unemployment affects the power of workers, and wages, this remains highly political.^[450]

Termination and cause

The reasons or "causes" that an employer can give to terminate employment affect everything from people's income, to the ability to pay the rent, to getting health insurance. Despite this, the legal right to have one's job terminated only for a "just cause" is confined to just three groups of people. First, in the Lloyd–La Follette Act of 1912 Congress codified executive orders giving federal civil servants the right to have their jobs terminated "only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service."^[451] Second, in the mid 20th century, courts in New York developed a rule that corporate directors could only be dismissed for a "just cause", requiring reasons related to the director's conduct, competence, or some economic justification.^[452] Third, since 1987, Montana has enacted a "wrongful discharge" law, giving employees the right to damages if "discharge was not for good cause and the employee had completed the employer's probationary period of employment", with a standard probation set at 6 months work.^[442] However a right to reasons before termination has never been extended to ordinary employees outside Montana. By contrast, almost all other developed countries have legislation requiring just cause in termination.^[453] The standard in the International Labour Organization Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 requires a "valid reason" for termination of a worker contract based on "capacity or conduct" and prohibits reasons related to union membership, being a worker representative, or a protected characteristic (e.g. race, gender, etc.). It also requires reasonable notice, a fair procedure, and a severance allowance if the termination is for economic reasons.^[454] Some countries such as Germany also require that elected work councils have the power to veto or delay terminations, to neutralize the employer's potential conflicts of interest.^[455] Most countries treat job security as a fundamental right,^[456] as well as necessary to prevent irrational job losses, to reduce unemployment, and to promote innovation.^[445] An alternative view is that making it easier to fire people encourages employers to hire more people because they will not fear the costs of litigation,^[444] although the empirical credibility of this argument is doubted by a majority of scholars.^[457]

The slogan "you're fired!" was popularized by Donald Trump's TV show, *The Apprentice* before he became president. This reflects the "at will employment" doctrine that deprives employees of job security, and lets people become unemployed for arbitrary reasons.

Because most states have not yet enacted proposals for job security rights,^[458] the default rule is known as "at-will employment". For example, in 1872, the California Civil Code was written to say "employment having no specified term may be terminated at the will of either party", and even employment for a specified term could be terminated by the employer for a wilful breach, neglect of duty or the employee's incapacity.^[459] In the late 19th century, employment at will was popularized by academic writers as an inflexible legal presumption,^[460] and state courts began to adopt it, even though many had presumed that contract termination usually required notice and justifications.^[461] By the mid-20th century this was summed up to say that an employee's job could be terminated for a "good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all".^[441] However, the employer's discretion to terminate could not violate any statutory prohibition, including termination for union membership,^[462] discriminatory termination based on a protected characteristic (e.g. race, gender, age or disability),^[463] and bringing claims for occupational health and safety,^[464] fair labor standards,^[465] retirement income,^[466] family and medical leave,^[467] and under a series of other specific Acts.^[468] Many state courts also added at least four "public policy" exceptions,^[469] to ensure that the purpose of statutes in general would not be frustrated by firing. First, employees will be wrongfully discharged if are discharged after they refused to act unlawfully, for instance for refusing to perjure themselves in court.^[470] Second, employees cannot be terminated if they insist on performing public duties such as serving on a jury or responding to a subpoena even if this affects an employer's business.^[471] Third, an employee cannot be discharged for exercising any statutory right, such as refusing to take a lie detector test or filing litigation.^[472] Fourth, employees will be wrongfully discharged if they legitimately blow the whistle on unlawful employer conduct, such as violating food labelling laws,^[473] or reporting unlawful standards in a nursing home.^[474] However, none of these exceptions limit the central problem of terminations by an employer that are unrelated to an employee's conduct, capability, or business efficiency.^[475] Some states interpret the general duty of good faith in contracts to cover discharges,^[476] so that an employee cannot, for example, be terminated just before a bonus is due to be paid.^[477] However the vast majority of Americans remain unprotected against most arbitrary, irrational or malicious conduct by employers.^[478]

Despite the default, and absence of job security rights in statute, a contract may require reasons before dismissal as a matter of construction. When there is a "just cause" term in a contract, courts generally interpret this to enable termination for an employee's inadequate job performance after fair warning,^[479] and job-related misconduct where the employer consistently enforces a rule,^[480] but not actions outside of the job.^[481] An employee's job may be constructively and wrongfully terminated if an employer's behavior objectively shows it no longer wishes to be bound by the contract, for instance by unfairly depriving an employee of responsibility.^[482] If a written contract does not promise "just cause" protection against termination, statements in a handbook can still be enforceable,^[483] and oral agreements can override the written contract.^[484]

Economic layoffs

Many job terminations in America are economic layoffs, where employers believe that employees are redundant. In most countries, economic layoffs are separately regulated because of the conflicts of interest between workers, management and shareholders, and the risk that workers are discharged to boost profits even if this damages the long-term sustainability of enterprise. The ILO Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 requires a severance allowance if the termination is for economic reasons, as well as consultation with worker representatives about ways to avoid layoffs.^[454] Most developed countries regard information and consultation in the event of any economic change as a fundamental right.^[485] The United States government also helped write Control Council Law No 22 for post-war Germany which enabled unions to collectively bargain for elected work councils, which would have the right to participate in decisions about dismissals.^[486] However, there are no state or federal laws requiring severance pay or employee participation in layoff decisions. Where employment contracts or collective agreements contain "just cause" provisions, these have been interpreted to give employers broad discretion,^[487] and immunity from the social consequences for the laid off workforce.

The only statutory right for employees is for extreme cases of mass layoffs under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. The WARN Act regulates any "plant closing" where there is an "employment loss" of 33% of employees if that is over 50 employees, or any case of over 500 employee layoffs, and the business employs 100 persons or more.^[489] In these cases, employers have to give 60 days notice to employee representatives such as a union, or to each employee if they have none, and the State.^[490] Employment loss is defined to include reduction of over 50% of working time, but exclude cases where an employee is offered a suitable alternative job within reasonable commuting distance.^[491] Despite the absence of any duty to consult, employers can argue three main defenses for failure to give notice of mass layoff. First, an employer can argue that they believed in good faith that less notice was necessary to improve chances of a capital injection.^[492] Second, an employer may argue that business circumstances were unforeseen.^[493] Third, an employer can argue it had reasonable grounds for believing its failure was not a violation of the Act.^[494] The only remedies are pay that would have been due in the notice period, and a $500 a day penalty to the local governments that were not notified.^[495] States such as Massachusetts, Connecticut and Maine have statutes with slightly more stringent notice requirements, but none yet require real voice for employees before facing economic hardship.

A common cause of layoffs is that businesses are merged or taken over, either through stock market acquisitions or private equity transactions, where new managements want to fire parts of the workforce to augment profits for shareholders.^[496] Outside limited defenses in corporate law,^[497] this issue is largely unregulated. However, if an employer is under a duty to bargain in good faith with a union, and its business is transferred, there will be a duty on the successor employer to continue bargaining if it has retained a substantial number of the previous workforce. This was not made out in the leading case, Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, where the new owner of a restaurant and motor lodge business retained 9 out of 53 former employees, but hired 45 new staff of its own.^[498] The majority held there must be "substantial continuity of identity" of the business for the good faith bargaining duty to continue.

Full employment

The right to full employment or the "right to work" in a fair paying job is a universal human right in international law,^[499] partly inspired by the experience of the New Deal in the 1930s.^[500] Unemployment has, however, remained politically divisive because it affects the distribution of wealth and power. When there is full employment under 2%, and everyone can easily find new jobs, worker bargaining power tends to be higher and pay tends to rise, but high unemployment tends to reduce worker power and pay,^[501] and may increase shareholder profit. It was long acknowledged that the law should ensure nobody is denied a job by unreasonable restrictions by the state or private parties, and the Supreme Court said in Truax v. Raich that "the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity".^[502] During the New Deal with unemployment having reached 20% after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 empowered the President to create the Works Progress Administration, which aimed to directly employ people on fair wages.^[503] By 1938, the WPA employed 3.33 million people, and built streets, bridges and buildings across the country. Also created by the 1935 Act, the Rural Electrification Administration brought electrification of farms from 11% in 1934 to 50% by 1942, and nearly 100% by 1949. After war production brought full employment, the WPA was wound up in 1943.

After World War II, the Employment Act of 1946 declared a policy of Congress to "promote full employment and production, increased real income... and reasonable price stability".^[505] However the Act did not follow the original proposal to say "all Americans... are entitled to an opportunity for useful, remunerative, regular, and full-time employment".^[506] By the 1970s, there was a growing opinion that the Equal Protection Clause itself in the 14th Amendment should also mean, according to Justice Marshall in Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, that "every citizen who applies for a government job is entitled to it unless the government can establish some reason for denying the employment."^[507] The Humphrey–Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978 was passed and enabled the President to create jobs to maintain full employment: it stated "the President shall, as may be authorized by law, establish reservoirs of public employment and private nonprofit employment projects".^[508] The Act sets the goal of federal government to ensure unemployment is below "3 per centum among individuals aged twenty and over" with inflation also under 3 per cent.^[509] It includes "policy priorities" of the "development of energy sources and supplies, transportation, and environmental improvement".^[510] These powers of a job guarantee, full employment, and environmental improvement have not yet been used.^[511]

The Works Progress Administration from 1935 to 1943,^[512] created 8.5m jobs spending $1.3bn a year to get out of the Great Depression.

While the laws for a federal or state job guarantee have not yet been used, the Federal Reserve Act 1913 does require that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should use its powers "to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates."^[513] During the Great Depression it was understood that inequality in the distribution of wealth had contributed to the lack of employment, and that Federal lending policy and bank regulation should pursue a range of objectives.^[514] However, the Federal Reserve became dominated by a theory of a natural rate of unemployment, taking the view that attempts to achieve full employment would accelerate inflation to an uncontrollably high. Instead it was said by theorists such as Milton Friedman that central banks should use monetary policy only to control inflation, according to the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU).^[515] It is doubted that any natural rate of unemployment exists, because the United States and other countries have sustained full employment with low inflation before,^[516] and the US unemployment rate follows which political party is in the White House.^[517]

... my friends, after this war, there will be a great unemployment problem. The munition plants will be closed and useless, and millions of munitions workers will be thrown out upon the market... First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. And I say, courage to the strikers, and courage to the delegates, because great times are coming, stressful days are here, and I hope your hearts will be strong, and I hope you will be one hundred per cent union when it comes!

—Nicholas Klein, Biennial Convention of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (1918)

If despite fiscal and monetary policy people are unemployed, the Social Security Act of 1935 creates unemployment insurance.^[518] One of its goals is to stabilize employment by encouraging employers to retain workers in downturns. Unlike other systems, this makes social security highly dependent on employers. It is funded through a federal payroll tax, and employers that make more layoffs pay higher rates based on past experience. A laid off employee brings a claim to state unemployment office, the former employer is informed and may contest whether the employee was laid off fairly: they are given absolute privilege to communicate information regardless of how false or defamatory it is.^[519] Employees cannot get benefits if they are laid off for misconduct,^[520] and for participation in strikes,^[521] even though the reality may be the employer's fault and there are no other jobs available. Social security claimants must also accept any suitable job.^[522] Unemployment offices usually provide facilities for claimants to search for work, but many also turn to private employment agencies. The Supreme Court has held that licensing, fees and regulation of employment agencies under state law is constitutional.^[523]

Trade and international law

[The International Labour Organization ...] has for its object the establishment of universal peace, and such a peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice ... conditions of labor exist involving such injustice, hardship, and privation to large numbers of people ... and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required: as, for example, by ... a maximum working day and week, the regulation of the labor supply, the prevention of unemployment, the provision of an adequate living wage, the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment, the protection of children, young persons and women, provision for old age and injury, protection of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own, recognition of the principle of freedom of association, the organization of vocational and technical education ...

—Versailles Treaty of 1919 Part XIII

US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, Congress has the power: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
Freedom of movement under United States law
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824) and Paul v. Virginia, 75 US 168 (1869)
Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 and Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914
International Labour Organization and international labor standards
Bargaining power, race to the bottom, foreign direct investment, human development, technological change, global workforce, immigration
Tariff Act of 1890, Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, Great Depression
United States free trade agreements, United States International Trade Commission, 19 USC

Eugene V. Debs, founder of the American Railway Union and five-time presidential candidate, was jailed twice for organizing the Pullman Strike and denouncing World War I. His life story is told in a documentary by Bernie Sanders.^[524]

Trade Act of 1974, Trade Agreements Act of 1979, Trade Act of 2002, Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 and Fast track (trade)
North American Free Trade Agreement, 19 USC ch 21, §3301
World Trade Organization and Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994
Permanent normal trade relations
Trans-Pacific Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
Three potential views are:
- (1) expansion of trade is good because it increases the scope for division of labor and expanding markets. So, all customs, taxes, and equivalent restrictions against market access should be dismantled
- (2) free trade is bad because it exacerbates labor's inequality of bargaining power against global capital. Trade should be limited and regulated by systems of taxes and tariffs according to the state of other countries' development
- (3) trade, without barriers to movement of capital, goods and services, improves living standards if labor standards are improved in all countries. This (a) discourages emigration from poorer countries: as people's lives improve they may not want to leave (b) requires standards are improved at a rate to ensure stability in capital and labor flows (c) in turn requires that standard should not enable workers to be paid less than is necessary for human development and the workers' rate of productivity.

Labor law in individual states

California

In 1959, California added the Division of Fair Employment Practices to the California Department of Industrial Relations. The Fair Employment and Housing Act^[525] of 1980 gave the division its own Department of Fair Employment and Housing, with the stated purpose of protecting citizens against harassment and employment discrimination on the basis of:^[526] age, ancestry, color, creed, denial of family and medical care leave, disability (including HIV/AIDS), marital status, medical condition, national origin, race, religion, sex, transgender status and sexual orientation. Sexual orientation was not specifically included in the original law but precedent was established based on case law. On October 9, 2011, California Governor Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown signed into law Assembly Bill No. 887 alters the meaning of gender for the purposes of discrimination laws that define sex as including gender so that California law now prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.^[527]

The state also has its own labor law covering agricultural workers, the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act.

New Jersey

In 1945, New Jersey enacted the first statewide civil rights act in the entire nation. with the purpose of protecting citizens against harassment and employment discrimination on the basis of: race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, or ancestry.^[528] This has since been expanded to age, sex, disability, pregnancy, sexual orientation, perceived sexual orientation, marital status, civil union status, domestic partnership status, affectional orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, military service, or mental or physical disability, AIDS and HIV related illnesses and atypical hereditary cellular or blood traits.^[529]

Laws restricting unions

As of 2019^[update], twenty-six states plus Guam prevent trade unions from signing collective agreements with employers requiring employees pay fees to the union when they are not members (frequently called "right-to-work" laws by their political proponents).

In 2010, the organization "Save Our Secret Ballot" pushed four states: Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah to pass constitutional amendments to ban card check.

Enforcement of rights

United States Department of Labor
National Labor Relations Board
Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 364 (1939) the right of the NLRB to withdraw its submissions to the Court were at the court's discretion
In re NLRB, 304 U.S. 486 (1938) to enforce an order, the NLRB must file a petition and transcript with the courts
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 567 U.S. ___ (2012) 6 to 3, under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 federal employees have no recourse to the federal courts over wrongful discharge cases, but must instead go to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) state and federal jurisdiction in labor disputes

Notes

^ National Labor Relations Act of 1935, 29 USC §141. J. R. Commons and J. B. Andrews, Principles of Labor Legislation (Harper 1916) ch 1, The basis of labor law, 9, "where bargaining power on the one side is power to withhold access to physical property and the necessaries of life, and on the other side is only power to withhold labor by doing without those necessaries, then equality of rights may signify inequality of bargaining power."
^ Most statutes explicitly encourage this, including the FLSA 1938, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. "Federal preemption" rules have, however, restricted experimentation in key areas. These include the National Labor Relations Act 1935, as the US Supreme Court developed a doctrine not found in the Act, and Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
^ 42 USC §§301–306 on federally funded state programs and §§401–434 on federal old age, survivors and disability insurance benefits.
^ 15 USC §17, "The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws."
^ D Webber, The Rise of the Working Class Shareholders: Labor's Last Best Weapon (2018)
^ E McGaughey, 'Democracy in America at Work: The History of Labor's Vote in Corporate Governance' (2019) 42 Seattle University Law Review 697
^ CRA 1964 §703(a)(1), 42 USC §2000e-2(a), "Employers must not refuse to hire, discharge or otherwise discriminated 'against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
^ cf International Labour Organization, Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 setting out general principles on fair reasons for discharge of workers.
^ The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 to the last major statute Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. C. L. Estlund, 'The Ossification of American Labor Law' (2002) 102 Columbia Law Review 1527 argues that collective labor right "ossified" with the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, after which there was a "longstanding political impasse at the national level". E. McGaughey, 'Fascism-Lite in America (or the Social Ideal of Donald Trump)' (2018) 7(1) British Journal of American Legal Studies, 14, argues that since 1976, "No modern judiciary had engaged in a more sustained assault on democracy and human rights. In particular, its attack on labor and democratic society made inequality soar."
^ See JV Orth, Combination and conspiracy: a legal history of trade unionism, 1721–1906 (1992)
^ R v Journeymen-Taylors of Cambridge (1721) 8 Mod 10, 88 ER 9
^ C Tomlins, 'Reconsidering Indentured Servitude: European Migration and the Early American Labor Force, 1600–1775' (2001) 42 Labor History 5
^ (1772) 98 ER 499
^ AW Blumrosen, 'The Profound Influence in America of Lord Mansfield's Decision in Somerset v Stuart' (2007) 13 Texas Wesleyan Law Review 645
^ Slave Trade Act 1807
^ The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 distributed around £20 million, around $3 billion in 2017 dollars. See the UCL Legacies of British Slave-ownership page.
^ 60 US 393 (1857)
^ See also J. R. Commons, Principles of Labor Legislation (1916) ch II, 38–40
^ Civil Rights Cases, 109 US 3 (1883)
^ S Perlman, A History of Trade Unionism in the United States (1922)
^ 3 Doc Hist 59 (1806)
^ 45 Mass. 111, 4 Metcalf 111 (1842)
^ See EE Witte, 'Early American Labor Cases' (1926) 35 Yale Law Journal 829, employers brought at least three successful claims against their employees before 1863, and fifteen up to 1880 for "conspiracy". See also FB Sayre, 'Criminal Conspiracy' (1922) 35 Harvard Law Review 393. W.. Holt, 'Labor Conspiracy Cases in the United States, 1805–1842: Bias and Legitimation in Common Law Adjudication' (1984) 22 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 591. 'Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations in the Nineteenth Century' (1980) 93 Harvard Law Review 1510.
^ L Fink, Workingmen's Democracy: The Knights of Labor and American Politics (1983) xii–xiii, it declined due to a 'titanic' lack of leadership, and divisions. Members turned over quickly.
^ See U.S. Congress, Senate, Final Report and Testimony Submitted to Congress by the Commission on Industrial Relations (Government Printing Office, 1916) 64th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. 415, 2, 1526–1529
^ See TW Hazlett, 'The Legislative History of the Sherman Act Re-examined' (1992) 30 Economic Inquiry 263, 266 and H Hovenkamp, 'Labor Conspiracies in American Law, 1880–1930' (1988) 66 Texas Law Review 919
^ 64 Fed 724 (CC Ill 1894), 158 U.S. 564 (1895) imposed an injunction on the striking workers of the Pullman Company, leading to Eugene Debs being imprisoned. See the Documentary by Bernie Sanders (1979)
^ See also Oklahoma v. Coyle, 1913 OK CR 42, 8 Okl.Cr. 686, 130 P. 316 per Henry Marshall Furman
^ 167 Mass. 92 (1896) See also Plant v. Woods, 176 Mass 492, 57 NE 1011 (1900)
^ 198 US 45 (1905)
^ 208 U.S. 274 (1908)
^ Now 15 USC §17
^ On the "science" of management that developed, see FW Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (1911). Contrast LD Brandeis, 'The Fundamental Cause of Industrial Unrest' (1916) vol 8, 7659–7660 from the US Commission on Industrial Relations, Final Report and Testimony (Government Printing Office 1915)
^ Adair v. United States 208 US 161 (1908) on yellow-dog contracts being banned in the Erdman Act of 1898 §10 for railroads, not reversed until the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Also Coppage v. Kansas 236 US 1 (1915) Holmes J, Hughes J and Day J dissenting.
^ Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 US 525 (1923)
^ Adams v. Tanner, 244 US 590 (1917)
^ Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 US 443 (1921)
^ Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 US 251 (1918) on the Keating-Owen Act of 1916. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 US 20 (1922) on federal tax.
^ See Debs v. United States, 249 US 211 (1919)
^ State Board of Control v. Buckstegge, 158 Pac 837, 842 (1916) Arizona Supreme Court striking down a new state pension law. Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co., 295 US 330 (1935) striking down a compulsory contributory pension scheme for rail workers.
^ See GC Means, 'The Separation of Ownership and Control in American Industry' (1931) 46(1) The Quarterly Journal of Economics 68 and LD Brandeis, Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use It (1914)
^ See FD Roosevelt, Campaign Address on Progressive Government at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, California (1932) written by AA Berle.
^ A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 US 495 (1935)
^ 300 US 379 (1937)
^ See also Copeland "Anti-kickback" Act of 1934, 18 USC §874 and McNamara–O'Hara Service Contract Act of 1965 wage rates to be paid as prevail in the locality.
^ Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Eleventh State of the Union Address (1944)
^ a b See San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon 359 US 236 (1959) but contrast Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 522 US 60 (2008) where Breyer J and Ginsburg J dissented.
^ Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 US 483 (1954)
^ See 2016 Democratic Party Platform (July 21, 2016 Archived November 10, 2016, at the Wayback Machine)
^ NLRB v. Yeshiva University, 444 US 672, (1980), NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 US 490 (1979) 5 to 4 on the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, and Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 US 137 (2002) 5 to 4 under the NLRA of 1935
^ Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees, 468 US 491 (1984) 5 to 4 on the NLRA of 1935
^ Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 US 248 (1993) 5 to 4 under ERISA 1974.
^ e.g. the Dunlop Report of 1994, Workplace Democracy Act of 1999, Employee Free Choice Act, Paycheck Fairness Act, Equality Act of 2015
^ See Z. Adams, L. Bishop and S. Deakin, CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries) (Cambridge, Centre for Business Research 2016) 761, United States of America
^ a b Guidance for Executive Order 13673, "Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces"; Final Guidance, accessed 10 October 2022
^ a b Executive Order 13673, accessed 6 November 2022
^ [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/US_labor_law/Executive_Order_13782 accessed 6 November 2022
^ UDHR 1948 art 17
^ See Lochner v. New York 198 US 45 (1905)
^ 322 U.S. 111 (1944)
^ 331 U.S. 704 (1947)
^ See also Goldberg v. Whitaker House Cooperative, Inc, 366 US 28 (1961), on homeworkers making 'knitted, crocheted, and embroidered goods of all kinds.'
^ Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992) employee under ERISA, rejecting two-prongs of the Fourth Circuit's substitute test, based on expectations and reliance.
^ 322 U.S. 111 (1944), confirmed in United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947) and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992)
^ Restatement of the Law of Agency, Second §220 and Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 US 730 (1989)
^ 444 U.S. 672 (1980)
^ 532 U.S. 706 (2001)
^ cf Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (2003) a majority of the Supreme Court held four physician shareholders could potentially be "employees" under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Ginsburg J, joined by Breyer J dissenting on reasoning, held it was clear that they were.
^ 567 US __ (2012)
^ 350 S.E.2d 83 (1986)
^ 535 U.S. 137 (2002)
^ See International Labour Organization, Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 C087 and Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 C098
^ Hern, Alex (September 11, 2015). "Uber driver declared employee as the company loses another ruling". The Guardian.
^ 413 F.2d 310 (1969)
^ See also, Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co, 335 F3d 61 (2003) Second Circuit, Cabranes J finding joint employment.
^ 976 F.2d 805 (1992)
^ Advance Electric, 268 NLRB 1001 (1984)
^ 425 US 800 (1976)
^ Local No International Union of Operating Engineers v. National Labor Relations Board, 518 F.2d 1040 (1975)
^ e.g. Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, 96 F Supp. 2d 578 (1999) an employer who used an employment agency called "American Temp Corps", was responsible for how migrant farm workers hired in Texas to work in an Ohio chicken factory, were packed into sub-human transport and living conditions in violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act of 1983.
^ If there is no contract (written, oral, or by conduct) a quantum meruit claim for restitution can be available.
^ See F Kessler, 'Contracts of Adhesion—Some Thoughts About Freedom of Contract' (1943) 43(5) Columbia Law Review 629
^ National Labor Relations Act 1935 §1, 29 USC §151, "The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract, and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries."
^ Fair Labor Standards Act 1938, 29 USC §202
^ e.g. Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association, 505 US 88 (1992) holding 5 to 4 that OSHA 1970 preempted Illinois state law that improved training and handling hazardous waste materials.
^ e.g. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 US 133 (1990) holding 6 to 3 that ERISA 1974 precluded a Texas wrongful termination action for denying an employee benefit from the federal statute on general grounds in §514. The minority only endorsed preemption on specific ground in §510.
^ See generally B. I. Sachs, 'Despite Preemption: Making Labor Law in Cities and States' (2011) 124 Harvard Law Review 1153
^ cf New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 US 262 (1932) per Brandeis J "To stay experimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsibility. Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the nation. It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. This Court has the power to prevent an experiment."
^ JI Case Co v. National Labor Relations Board 321 US 322 (1944)
^ 321 US 322 (1944)
^ See McLain v. Great American Insurance Co, 208 Cal. App. 3d 1476 (1989) holding the parol evidence presumption will rarely apply to employment.
^ 662 A2d 89 (1995)
^ e.g. Demasse v. ITT Corp, 984 P2d 1138 (1999) in the Arizona Supreme Court
^ 999 P2d 71 (2000)
^ See Kirke La Shelle Company v. The Paul Armstrong Company et al 263 NY 79 (1933) and see Restatement (Second) of Contracts §205
^ Stark v. Circle K Corp, 230 Mont 468, 751 P2d 162 (1988)
^ See Foley v. Interactive Data Corp, 765 P2d 373 (1988)
^ This is also referred to as "mutual trust and confidence". See Eastwood v. Magnox Electric plc [2004] UKHL 35, per Lord Steyn
^ See Wilson v. Racher [1974] ICR 428
^ Johnson v. Unisys Limited [2001] UKHL 13
^ Bhasin v. Hrynew [2014] SCR 494
^ Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch §138. See also Italian Constitution, art 36
^ e.g. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974) state policy favoring arbitration, but arbitrator decision can be reviewed de novo on employment rights.
^ 556 U.S. 247 (2009)
^ See also AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) 5 to 4, binding arbitration can be imposed in class action cases for employment and consumer rights
^ On economic and political theory, see J. S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy (1848) Book V, ch XI, §§9–11 and generally Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 US 1 (1948)
^ Massachusetts Bay Colony Records (1641) vol I, 223. See also J. R. Commons, History of Labor in the United States (Macmillan 1918) vol I, ch II, 50
^ Adkins v. Children's Hospital, [www.worldlii.org/us/cases/federal/USSC/1923/78.html 261 US 525] (1923) per Taft CJ (dissenting). The majority held a minimum wage passed by Congress for young people and women in Washington, D.C. was unconstitutional. Continued in Murphy v. Sardell, 269 US 530 (1925) wage laws for young people struck down, Brandeis J dissenting and Holmes J objecting.
^ Congressional Research Service (March 2, 2023). "State Minimum Wages: An Overview". Chart on page 3.
^ a b FRED Graph. Using U.S. Department of Labor data. Federal Minimum Hourly Wage for Nonfarm Workers for the United States. Inflation adjusted (by FRED) via the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items in U.S. City Average (CPIAUCSL). Run cursor over graph to see nominal and real minimum wage by month.
^ 300 US 379 (1937)
^ United States v. Darby Lumber Co, 312 US 100 (1941) dismissed a challenge to the FLSA 1938 being constitutional.
^ FLSA 1938, 29 USC §202(a)
^ a b "[USC02] 29 USC 207: Maximum hours". uscode.house.gov.
^ a b 29 USC §218(a).
^ See the California Labor Code §1182.12, requiring a $10 per hour wage from 2016. New York Consolidated Laws LAB art 19, requires $9 per hour from 2016. Lawsuits from business groups have mostly been rejected, e.g. in New Mexicans for Free Enterprise v. Santa Fe, 138 NM 785 (2005) the City of Santa Fe enacted a minimum wage ordinance, above the federal and state wages. Businesses challenged it as being beyond the City's powers. Fry J held that the ordinance was lawful and constitutional.
^ 527 US 706 (1999)
^ Souter J, Stevens J, Ginsburg J, Breyer J dissented.
^ This brought the effective position back to National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 US 833 (1976) where 5 judges to 4, held the FLSA 1938 could not be constitutionally applied to state governments. Brennan, White, Marshall, Stevens J dissenting. Yet in Garcia v. San Antonio Metro Transit Authority, 469 US 528 (1985) 5 judges to 4 upheld extension of the FLSA 1938 to state and local government workers. There was authority under the FLSA consistent with the Tenth Amendment to extend the Act's protection to public transport employees. Blackmun J gave the majority opinion. Powell, Burger, Rehnquist, O'Connor J dissenting.
^ See today FLSA 1938, 29 USC §203(r)–(s). Previously, Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 US 564 (1943). See also AB Kirschbaum Co v. Walling 316 US 517 (1942), workers building for firms that would not do interstate commerce were not covered, and Borden Co v. Borella 325 US 679 (1945)
^ FLSA 1938, 29 USC §203(s)(2)
^ 29 USC §213 n.b. the statute does not make clear what justifications there are for any exemptions.
^ 519 US 452 (1997)
^ See Adams v. United States, 44 Fed Claims 772 (1999) and Erichs v. Venator Group, Inc 128 F Supp 2d 1255 (ND Cal 2001)
^ 551 U.S. 158 (2007)
^ Under 29 USC §211(c) employers must keep payroll records for evidence of working time.
^ Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America 325 US 161 (1945) time traveling to work through the coal mine did count as working because it (1) required physical and mental exertion that was (2) controlled and required by the employer (3) for the employer's benefit. See also, Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 US 590 (1944) travel to work, once underground, was working time.
^ 328 US 680 (1946)
^ 328 US 680 (1946) per Murphy J. See also Morillion v. Royal Packing Co, 22 Cal 4th 575 (2000) the California Supreme Court held an employer must pay for hours traveling on company vehicles.
^ 323 U.S. 126 (1944)
^ See Martin v. Onion Turnpike Commission 968 F2d 606 (6th 1992) See also Merrill v. Exxon Corp, 387 FSupp 458 (SD Tex 1974) while pep meetings are working, but Department of Labor approved standard apprenticeship mandatory training was not working time.
^ Steiner v. Mitchell 350 US 247 (1956)
^ IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 US 21 (2005) Stevens J for a unanimous court.
^ 323 US 37 (1944) Murphy J holding that higher afternoon wages did not count as "premium" pay that could be ignored.
^ 529 US 576 (2000)
^ See also Skidmore v. Swift & Co, 323 US 134 (1944) the Department of Labor's recommendations over what counted as overtime would be given a level of deference commensurate with its persuasiveness, the thoroughness of investigation, its consistency, and the validity of its reasoning.
^ 15 USC §1672
^ 29 USC §254. See McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co, 468 US 128 (1988) Stevens J, 'willful' means reckless disregard for whether conduct was forbidden by the state. Brennan J and Blackmun J dissented.
^ See R Ray, M Sanes and J Schmitt, 'No Vacation Nation Revisited' (Washington DC 2013) Center for Economic and Policy Research 1, "the average worker in the private sector in the United States receives only about ten days of paid vacation and about six paid holidays per year".
^ See the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 'Average annual hours actually worked per worker' (Retrieved August 9, 2016) showing 1790 hours per year in the US, 1674 hours in the UK, and 1371 in Germany. OECD, 'Society at a glance 2009: OECD social indicators' (2009^{[permanent dead link]}) 39, Figure 2.17
^ See 5 USC §6303. These are (1) New Year's Day (2) Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday (3) Washington's Birthday (4) Memorial Day (5) Independence Day (6) Labor Day (7) Columbus Day (8) Veterans Day (9) Thanksgiving Day (10) Christmas Day.
^ Holidays with Pay Convention 1970 (no 132)
^ See HB 2238
^ See the Working Time Directive 2003 art 7
^ FLSA 1938, 29 USC §213
^ See FT de Vyver, 'The Five-Day Week' (1930) 33(2) Current History 223. Rybczynski, Waiting for the Weekend (1991) 142
^ 198 US 45 (1905)
^ Robertson, James L. (2019). Heroes, Rascals, and the Law: Constitutional encounters in Mississippi History. Jackson, Ms: University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 9781496819949. p. 258.
^ Robertson, pp. 262 ff.
^ West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 US 379 (1937)
^ California, New Jersey, Rhode Island and New York
^ On the economic effects of rules, see J Frieson, 'The Response of Wages to Protective Labor Legislation: Evidence from Canada' (1996) 49(2) ILR Review 243 (showing empirical evidence that wages do not fall in unionized workplaces where workers have sufficient bargaining power). Contrast L Summers, 'Some simple economics of mandated benefits' (1989) 79(2) American Economic Review 177 (theorizing (without evidence) that pay will fall to compensate for the cost of any mandated benefit, such as family and medical leave).
^ But under 29 USC §2611(2) employees "at which such employer employs less than 50 employees if the total number of employees employed by that employer within 75 miles of that worksite is less than 50."
^ 29 USC §2512(a)(2) and on adoption, see Kelley v. Crosfield Catalysts 135 F2d 1202 (7th Circuit 1998) The same rules for federal employees were codified in 5 USC §§6381–6387.
^ 29 USC §2612(a)(2) and 29 USC §2612(f) mothers and fathers must share time if they work for the same employer.
^ 29 USC §2612(e)
^ 29 USC §2612(e)(2)
^ 29 USC §2614(c). If an employee quits, the employer is enabled to recoup costs.
^ 535 US 81 (2002)
^ 29 USC §2614(b). Under 29 USC §2612(b)(2) employers may transfer employees to another position with similar pay and benefits if health absences could be intermittent. Under §2618 special rules apply for employees of local educational agencies.
^ 29 USC §2617, and see Frizzell v. Southwest Motor Freight, 154 F3d 641 (6th Circuit 1998)
^ 29 USC §2617(a)(1)(A)(iii)
^ See Moore v. Payless Shoe Source (8th Circuit 1998)
^ e.g. D. Paquette, 'The enormous ambition of Hillary Clinton's child-care plan' (May 12, 2016) The Washington Post
^ See generally WC Greenough and FP King, Pension plans and public policy (1976), S Sass, The Promise of Private Pensions: The First 100 Years (Harvard University Press 1997)
^ See J. R. Commons and J. B. Andrews, Principles of Labor Legislation (1920) 423–438
^ See 42 USC ch 7
^ See L Conant, A Critical Analysis of Industrial Pension Systems (1922) and M. W. Latimer, Trade Union Pension Systems (1932)
^ See LMRA 1947, 29 USC §186(c)(5)(B)
^ This followed Carnegie's attendance the Commission on Industrial Relations in 1916 to explain labor unrest. See W. Greenough, It's My Retirement Money – Take Good Care of It: The TIAA-CREF Story (Irwin 1990) 11–37, and E. McGaughey, 'Democracy in America at Work: The History of Labor's Vote in Corporate Governance' (2019) 42 Seattle University Law Review 697
^ 26 USC §401(k)
^ On the theory behind automatic enrolment, see R Thaler and S Benartzi, 'Save more tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Savings' (2004) 112(1) Journal of Political Economy 164 and E McGaughey, 'Behavioural economics and labour law' (2014) LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 20/2014
^ ERISA 1974, 29 USC §1003(a). This could include any Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association, such as for child care cover, sick leave, fringe benefits or extra unemployment insurance.
^ 680 F2d 263 (1982)
^ ERISA 1974, 29 USC §§1022–1133
^ Rhorer v. Raytheon Engineers and Constructors, Inc 181 F3d 364 (5th 1999) a plan beneficiary can enforce terms in the summary plan description, even if the underlying document conflicts.
^ ERISA 1974, 29 USC §1052
^ ERISA 1974, 29 USC §1081–1102 Archived June 23, 2018, at the Wayback Machine, containing detailed rules.
^ ERISA 1974, 29 USC §1053. The employer can extend to 7 years, with staggered vesting and a labor union can collectively agree for up to 10 years. Most will seek the shortest period of time.
^ ERISA 1974, 29 USC §1054
^ ERISA 1974, 29 USC §1058
^ Patterson v. Shumate, 504 US 753 (1992) Blackmun J, a pension is treated like a right under a spendthrift trust, so in bankruptcy proceedings, pensions cannot be taken away. Scalia J concurred. See again, Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund, 493 US 365 (1990)
^ 517 US 882 (1996)
^ cf Imperial Group Pension Trust Ltd v Imperial Tobacco Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 589 and Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Hyman [2000] UKHL 39
^ 490 US 714 (1989)
^ 29 USC §1140, however see the highly controversial case McGann v. H&H Music Co (5th 1991) where a man diagnosed HIV positive, filed for treatment under work health care plan. The employer changed the plan to limit AIDS treatment to $5000. Fifth Circuit held the employer's motive was not specifically to injure the worker but to control costs and apparently lawful.
^ See EP Serota and FA Brodie (eds), ERISA Fiduciary Law (2nd edn 2007). In general, people who manage other people's money will be a "fiduciary" in law, and bound by special duties. The core duty is to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest. Other duties that fiduciaries have (but any agent may also have) include the duty of care, skill and competence (i.e. not to be negligent) and the duty to follow the terms of one's assignment. Discussed further in Peacock v. Thomas 516 US 349 (1996)
^ 29 USC §1104(a)(1)(D)
^ 29 USC §1104(a)(1)(B)–(C)
^ Varity Corp. v. Howe 516 US 489 (1996)
^ United States Department of Labor, Interpretive bulletin relating to written statements of investment policy, including proxy voting policy or guidelines (1994) 29 CFR 2509.94–2, "The fiduciary duties described at ERISA Sec. 404(a)(1)(A) and (B), require that, in voting proxies, the responsible fiduciary consider those factors that may affect the value of the plan's investment and not subordinate the interests of the participants and beneficiaries in their retirement income to unrelated objectives. These duties also require that the named fiduciary appointing an investment manager periodically monitor the activities of the investment manager with respect to the management of plan assets, including decisions made and actions taken by the investment manager with regard to proxy voting decisions. The named fiduciary must carry out this responsibility solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and without regard to its relationship to the plan sponsor."
^ See Meinhard v. Salmon, 164 NE 545 (NY 1928) and Keech v. Sandford [1726] EWHC Ch J76
^ 29 USC §1104(a)(1)(A)
^ 29 USC §1106
^ 680 F2d 263 (1982) per Friendly J, "We do not mean by this either that trustees confronted with a difficult decision need always engage independent counsel or that engaging such counsel and following their advice will operate as a complete whitewash. ... perhaps, after the events of late September, resignation was the only proper course."
^ e.g. Local 144, Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Demisay, 508 US 581 (1992) and Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co v. Knudson 534 US 204 (2002)
^ 29 USC §1144
^ Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc, 463 US 85 (1983) per Blackmun J
^ Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 US 133 (1990)
^ Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 US 141 (2001)
^ Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Massachusetts 471 US 724 (1985)
^ FMC Corp. v. Holliday 498 US 52 (1990) per O'Connor J. Stevens J dissented. See also District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade, 506 US 125 (1992) Stevens J dissented.
^ Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 US 355 (2002) Souter J, 5 to 4, held an Illinois statute requiring 'independent medical review' of a denial of a claim for treatment under an HMO contract was not preempted because it was insurance regulation.
^ a b See HR 1277, Title III, §301
^ See earlier, LD Brandeis, Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use It (1914) and JS Taub, 'Able but Not Willing: The Failure of Mutual Fund Advisers to Advocate for Shareholders' Rights' (2009) 34(3) The Journal of Corporation Law 843, 876
^ ERISA 1974, 29 USC §1102
^ 29 USC §1105(d)
^ 29 USC §302(c)(5)(B)
^ See US Department of Labor, Critical, Endangered and WRERA Status Notices' (Retrieved August 11, 2016)
^ See D Hess, 'Protecting and Politicizing Public Pension Fund Assets: Empirical Evidence on the Effects of Governance Structures and Practices' (2005–2006) 39 UC Davis LR 187, 195. The recommended Uniform Management of Public Employee Retirement Systems Act of 1997 §17(c)(3) suggested funds publicize their governance structures. This was explicitly adopted by a number of states, while others already followed the same best practice.
^ See, sponsored by Peter Visclosky, Joint Trusteeship Bill of 1989 HR 2664^{[permanent dead link]}. See further R Cook, 'The Case for Joint Trusteeship of Pension Plans' (2002) WorkingUSA 25. Most recently, the Employees' Pension Security Act of 2008 (HR 5754) §101 would have amended ERISA 1974 §403(a) to insert 'The assets of a pension plan which is a single-employer plan shall be held in trust by a joint board of trustees, which shall consist of two or more trustees representing on an equal basis the interests of the employer or employers maintaining the plan and the interests of the participants and their beneficiaries.'
^ This inserted a new Securities Exchange Act of 1934 §6(b)(10)
^ Text of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
^ See E. Appelbaum and LW Hunter, 'Union Participation in Strategic Decisions of Corporations' in Richard B. Freeman (ed), Emerging labor market institutions for the twenty-first century (2005) and L. W Hunter, 'Can Strategic Participation be Institutionalized? Union Representation on American Corporate Board.s' (1998) 51(4) Industrial and Labor Relations Review 557
^ Archibald Cox, D. C. Bok, Matthew W. Finkin and R. A. Gorman, Labor Law: Cases and Materials (2011)
^ 15 USC §17
^ NLRA 1935, 29 USC §151
^ See San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon 359 US 236 (1959) and previously Garner v. Teamsters Local 776, 346 US 485, 490 (1953) and most recently Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 522 US 60 (2008) Breyer J and Ginsburg J dissented.
^ BI Sachs, 'Revitalizing labor law' (2010) 31(2) Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law 333 and CL Estlund, 'The Ossification of American Labor Law' (2002) 102 Columbia LR 1527. See further BI Sachs, 'Despite Preemption: Making Labor Law in Cities and States' (2011) 1224 Harvard Law Review 1153, 1162–1163, 'Scholars have repeatedly noted the central problems. When it comes to the rules of organizing, the regime provides employers with too much latitude to interfere with employees' efforts at self-organization, while offering unions too few rights to communicate with employees about the merits of unionization. The NLRB's election machinery is dramatically too slow, enabling employers to defeat organizing drives through delay and attrition. The NLRB's remedial regime is also too weak to protect employees against employer retaliation. And, with respect to the statute's goal of facilitating collective bargaining, the regime's "good faith" bargaining obligation is rendered meaningless by the Board's inability to impose contract terms as a remedy for a party's failure to negotiate in good faith.'
^ See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958) referring to the "constitutionally protected right of association".
^ J. R. Commons, History of Labor in the United States (Macmillan 1918) vol I, ch 1, 25
^ JB Commons, A Documentary History of American Industrial Society (1910)
^ Archibald Cox, D. C. Bok, Matthew W. Finkin and R. A. Gorman, Labor Law: Cases and Materials (2006) 11. The federation collapsed during the Panic of 1837.
^ 45 Mass. 111, 4 Metcalf 111 (1842) See further EE Witte, 'Early American Labor Cases' (1926) 35 Yale Law Journal 829, finding that only three cases on conspiracy were brought between 1842 and 1863. But at least 15 cases were brought between 1863 and 1880.
^ In re Debs, 64 Fed 724 (CC Ill 1894), 158 U.S. 564 (1895)
^ a b 208 US 274 (1908)
^ cf ILO Freedom of Association Convention 1948 c 87, art 3(1) "Workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes."
^ See historically TW Glocker, The Government of American Trade Unions (1913) ch XI, and American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy in Trade Unions: A survey, with a program of action (1943)
^ See the McClellan Committee, Interim Report of the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field, S Rep No 1417, 85th Cong, 2d Sess 60 ff. Summarized by Joseph R. Grodin's Union Government and the Law: British and American Experiences (1961) 158–159. There was minor wrongdoing found in four other unions, recounted in Robert F. Kennedy's The Enemy Within (1960) 190–212. At the Bakery and Confectionery Workers, the president had doubled his salary. At the Allied Trades Unions the Vice President made a self-dealing transaction. At the International Union of Operating Engineers officials had extorted money from employers. At the United Textile Workers Union, the president and treasurer bought second homes.
^ 29 USC § 411
^ a b 29 USC § 481
^ De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144 (1960) 5 to 3, the dissenting judges argued that state law could introduce no additional requirement to those in the NLRA 1935. See also Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees, 468 US 491 (1984) 4 to 3, New Jersey could impose a requirement that all union officials in a casino had no association with organized crime, consistently with NLRA 1935 § 7. The dissent argued that the requirement was disproportionate because it applied penalties to the whole union rather than the officials.
^ e.g. JR Grodin, Union Government and the Law: British and American Experiences (1961) 159, "there is little doubt that in nearly every case [against Beck] a court would agree that conduct found by the committee to be "improper" was also a violation of the union officer's fiduciary obligation. So far as substance, as distinguished from remedy, is concerned, it appears that existing common law [was] probably adequate."
^ Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528 (1972) See also Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1 (1973) holding that if plaintiffs are successful, they can be awarded fees.
^ Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560 (1975)
^ For a contrasting set of views, compare MJ Nelson, 'Slowing Union Corruption: Reforming the Landrum–Griffin Act to Better Combat Union Embezzlement' (1999–2000) 8 George Mason Law Review 527
^ See the ITUC, Constitution (2006)
^ 29 USC § 158(a)(3)
^ 29 USC § 164(b)
^ 367 US 740 (1961), states that "a union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shop only for the costs of performing the union's statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent." See also Lincoln Fed Labor Union 19129 v. Northwestern Iron & Metal Co, 335 US 525 (1949). Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 US 735 (1988) 5 to 3 that unions could have an agreement with employers that fees be collected to pay for the union's activities, but only up to the point that it was necessary to cover its costs. Locke v. Karass, 129 S Ct 798 (2008) legitimate costs included the Maine State Employees Association's costs for in national arbitration litigation.
^ United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, 335 U.S. 106 (1948) there was no violation of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act 1910 in a union publicly advocating for particular Congress members to be elected.
^ Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976)
^ 435 US 765 (1978)
^ 558 US 310 (2010)
^ 431 US 209 (1977) See further Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, 500 US 507 (1991) 5 to 4, the union can require nonmembers to give service fee contributions only for its activities as an exclusive bargaining agent, and not for political activities. Also Davenport v. Washington Education Association, 551 US 177 (2007) state legislation could require, consistently with the First Amendment, that a union member opts into the fund for political expenditure.
^ 573 US __ (2014)
^ 578 US __ (2016)
^ "[USC02] 15 USC 17: Antitrust laws not applicable to labor organizations". uscode.house.gov.
^ 208 US 161 (1908)
^ 236 US 1 (1915)
^ In Adair, from Holmes J and McKenna J, and in Coppage from Holmes J, Day J and Hughes J
^ 29 USC §§101–115. This was approved and applied by New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 US 552 (1938)
^ 29 USC §104
^ This reenacted labor provisions from the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, after A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 US 495 (1935) struck it down.
^ NLRA 1935, 29 USC §157, "Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."
^ NLRA 1935, 29 USC §152(2). See the Federal Labor Relations Act of 1978. There are special rules for the United States Department of Homeland Security.
^ 29 USC §152(2)
^ 29 USC §158(3)
^ 440 US 490 (1979) Brennan J for the four dissenting justices said an exception for this employer was not in §152(2), it was twice rejected in 1935 and 1947, it was "invented by the Court for the purpose of deciding this case", and was a "cavalier exercise in statutory interpretation". Joined by White J, Marshall J, Blackmun J.
^ 563 F3d 492 (DC 2009)
^ R Eisenbrey and L Mishel, 'Supervisor in Name Only: Union Rights of Eight Million Workers at Stake in Labor Board Ruling' (2006) Economic Policy Institute Issue Brief #225
^ See Bureau of Labor Statistics, 'Union Members – 2015' (January 28, 2016) recording 14.8m union members, 16.4m people covered by collective bargaining or union representation. Union membership was 7.4% in private sector, but 39% in the public sector. In the five largest states, California has 15.9% union membership, Texas 4.5%, Florida 6.8%, New York 24.7% (the highest in the country), and Illinois 15.2%. See further OECD, Trade Union Density (1999–2013)
^ See H. S. Farber and B. Western, 'Ronald Reagan and the Politics of Declining Union Organization' (2002) 40(3) British Journal of Industrial Relations 385
^ NLRA 1935, 29 USC §158(d). See NLRB v. Borg-Warner Corp 356 US 342 (1958) Burton J held an employer refused to bargain unlawfully by insisting on a clause requiring a pre-strike ballot of employees. Harlan J dissented. See also First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB 452 US 666 (1981) holding there was no mandatory duty to bargain over First National Maintenance Corp's "decision to terminate its Greenpark Care Center operation and to discharge the workers". Brennan J, joined by Marshall J, dissented saying the majority "states that "bargaining over management decisions that have a substantial impact on the continued availability of employment should be required only if the benefit, for labor-management relations and the collective-bargaining process, outweighs the burden placed on the conduct of the business."... I cannot agree with this test, because it takes into account only the interests of management; it fails to consider the legitimate employment interests of the workers and their union."
^ 29 USC §153
^ 29 USC §159(b).
^ 29 USC §159(a)
^ BI Sachs, 'Revitalizing labor law' (2010) 31(2) BJELL 335–6
^ National Labor Relations Board, Seventy Fourth Annual Report Archived December 21, 2016, at the Wayback Machine (2009) 152
^ 321 US 332 (1944)
^ 323 US 248 (1944)
^ 306 US 332 (1939) 5 to 2
^ 560 US 674 (2010)
^ H.R. 1409, S. 560.
^ 29 USC §185 and see Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills 353 US 448 (1957) holding federal law is to be applied to promote national uniformity and carry out policies in the national labor laws.
^ Charles Dowd Box Co v. Courtney, 368 US 502 (1962) Also Avco Corporation v. Machinists, Aero Lodge 735, 390 US 557 (1968) suits to enforce collective agreements may be removed from state court to federal court.
^ 9 USC §§1 ff
^ 363 US 574 (1960) See also United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co. 363 US 564 (1960) construction or interpretation of an agreement is for the arbitrator, not the court to decide, and the court must order arbitration even if a claim made seems frivolous.
^ United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp. 363 US 593 (1960)
^ United Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc. 484 US 29 (1987)
^ 415 US 36 (1974)
^ 556 U.S. 247 (2009) joined by Roberts CJ, Scalia J, Kennedy J and Alito J
^ See also AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) another 5 to 4 decision on consumers.
^ S.987 and H.R.1873
^ HR 8410, 95th Cong (1977) S 1883, 95th Cong (1977)
^ HR 1409. S 560.
^ 307 US 496 (1939)
^ 29 USC §158
^ 301 US 1 (1937) Hughes CJ stated "a single employee was helpless in dealing with an employer; that he was dependent ordinarily on his daily wage for the maintenance of himself and family; that, if the employer refused to pay him the wages that he thought fair, he was nevertheless unable to leave the employ and resist arbitrary and unfair treatment; that union was essential to give laborers opportunity to deal on an equality with their employer."
^ Filler Products, Inc. v. NLRB 376 F2d 369 (4th 1967)
^ e.g. Sunbelt Manufacturing Inc, AFL-CIO, 308 NLRB 780 (1992)
^ 373 US 221 (1963)
^ 380 US 263 (1965)
^ Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild Inc., 525 US 33 (1998)
^ 420 US 251 (1975)
^ Epilepsy Foundation of North-east Ohio v. NLRB (DC 2001)
^ 440 US 301 (1979) Stevens, White, Brennan, Marshall J dissented.
^ 502 US 527 (1992)
^ 473 US 95 (1985) Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, Stevens J dissented.
^ Sources: E McGaughey, 'Do corporations increase inequality?' (2015) TLI Think! Paper 32/2016, 29. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series D 940–945 and Thomas Piketty (2014) Technical Appendices, Table S9.2
^ See further RL Hogler and GJ Grenier, Employee Participation and Labor Law in the American Workplace (1992)
^ See A Cox and MJ Seidman, 'Federalism and Labor Relations' (1950) 64 Harvard Law Review 211 called for 'an integrated public labor policy' and warned 'enforcement of ... state regulation will thwart the development of federal policy.' A Cox, Federalism in the Law of Labor Relations (1954) 67 Harvard Law Review 1297 argued for a 'rule of total federal preemption' for 'uniformity'. A Cox, 'Labor Law Preemption Revisited' (1972) 85 Harvard Law Review 1337.
^ 346 US 485 (1953) per Jackson J
^ 359 US 236 (1959)
^ 359 US 236 (1959) as Frankfurter J put it, "because the amount of interstate commerce involved did not meet the Board's monetary standards in taking jurisdiction. ... "
^ 427 US 132 (1976)
^ 475 US 608 (1986) Rehnquist J dissented.
^ 522 US 60 (2008)
^ Building & Construction Trades Council v. Associated Builders & Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island, Inc. 507 US 218 (1993)
^ B Gernigo, A Odero and H Guido, 'ILO Principles Concerning the Right to Strike' (1998) 137 International Labour Review 441. In US federal law, see the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, 29 USC §163.
^ Commonwealth v. Hunt 45 Mass. 111 (1842) decided that a union called the "Boston Journeymen Bootmakers' Society" was entitled to strike against an employer who hired non-union members. Shaw CJ held that pre-Independence English cases creating liability for "conspiracy" in organizing a union no longer applied. Contrast R v Journeymen-Taylors of Cambridge (1721) 88 ER 9
^ Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 §6 and National Labor Relations Act of 1935 §163.
^ B Gernigon, A Odero and H Guido, 'ILO Principles Concerning the Right to Strike' (1998) 137 International Labour Review 441 Archived February 24, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
^ LJ Siegel, 'The unique bargaining relationship of the New York City Board of Education and the United Federation of Teachers' (1964) 1 Industrial & Labor Relations Forum 1, 46, referring to Jules Kolodney, during teacher strikes, 'In New York, you can't have true collective bargaining without the implied threat of a strike. If you can't call a strike you don't have real collective bargaining, you have 'collective begging.' ... Never give up the right of withholding services; have a threat in the background; the leverage of a strike possibility. We must awaken the public to the fact that the largest single employer in the United States is Government. We could become a nation that can't strike, and that is moving towards Totalitarianism.' Further, A Anderson, 'Labor Relations in the Public Service' [1961] Wisconsin Law Review 601, as 'Collective conferences, collective negotiation, collective dealing, and even collective begging have been used to describe the public employer employee relations.'
^ See EE Witte, 'Early American Labor Cases' (1926) 35 Yale Law Journal 829, employers brought at least three successful claims against their employees before 1863, and fifteen up to 1880 for "conspiracy". See also F. B. Sayre, 'Criminal Conspiracy' (1922) 35 Harvard Law Review 393. W. Holt, 'Labor Conspiracy Cases in the United States, 1805-1842: Bias and Legitimation in Common Law Adjudication' (1984) 22 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 591. 'Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations in the Nineteenth Century' (1980) 93 Harvard Law Review 1510.
^ In re Debs, 64 Fed 724 (CC Ill 1894), 158 US 564 (1895)
^ See Samuel Gompers, 'Labor and the War: the Movement for Universal Peace Must Assume the Aggressive' (October 1914) XXI(1) American Federationist 849, 860.
^ United States v. Hutcheson 312 US 219 (1941) per Justice Frankfurter
^ See the Versailles Treaty 1919 art 427. The right to strike is now embedded in core Conventions of international labor law, ILO Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, No 87. See B Gernigon, A Odero and H Guido, 'ILO Principles Concerning the Right to Strike' (1998) 137 International Labour Review 441, 461–465.
^ e.g. Coppage v. Kansas 236 US 1 (1915) purported to allow employees to sign a contract with their employer promising to not join a union (a "yellow-dog contract"). Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 US 443 (1921) holding that the Clayton Act of 1914 §17 did not enable secondary action. Truax v. Corrigan 257 US 312 (1921) Brandeis J, dissenting, struck down an Arizona law under the 14th amendment that prohibited any injunction against peaceful strikes. The Norris-La Guardia Anti-Injunction Act of 1932 was subsequently passed to void contracts promising to not join a union, and articulated that no federal court could pass an injunction to stop any non-violent labor dispute. Roughly half the states have enacted their own version of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
^ NLRA 1935 29 USC §§157 and 163
^ See 'Cesar Chavez Explains Boycotts' and 'Cesar Chavez speaking at UCLA 10/11/1972'.
^ e.g. in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma it has been illegal for teachers to strike - a prohibition that violates international law - and teachers went on strike, and won anyway. See the 2018–19 education workers' strikes in the United States.
^ Notably Calvin Coolidge, then Governor of Massachusetts said in the Boston Police Strike of 1919: "There is no right to strike against the public safety, anywhere, anytime."
^ NLRA 1935 29 USC §157. n.b. NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, Inc 465 US 822 (1984) one man, Brown, without the union was allowed to refuse to work on unsafe machinery, pursuant to a collective agreement. He was protected even without the union also taking action.
^ NLRB v. Insurance Agents' International Union, 361 US 477, 495-496 (1960) interpreting NLRA 1935, 29 USC §158(b)(3)
^ NLRA 1935 29 USC §158(b)(4)(B)
^ See National Woodword Manufacturers Association v. NLRB 386 US 612 (1967) on "hot cargo" agreements under 29 USC §158(e) and work preservation under §158(b)(4)(ii)(A)-(B).
^ NLRB v. Truck Drivers Local 449, 353 US 87 (1957) workers were going strike against the employers one by one, known as a whipsaw strike.
^ Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council 485 US 568 (1988) urging a secondary boycott cannot be an unfair labor practice.
^ NLRA 1935 29 USC §158(d)
^ National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292 (1939) 5 to 2, Reed J and Black J dissented.
^ e.g. under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 article 11, the no detriment rule for union membership is seen in Wilson and Palmer v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 552. In the UK, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s 238A protects employees on strike from unfair dismissal for 12 weeks at least.
^ 304 US 333 (1938)
^ See International Labour Organization, Complaint Against the Government of the United States Presented by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) (1991 Archived March 28, 2020, at the Wayback Machine) [92] 'The right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organisations may promote and defend their economic and social interests. The Committee considers that this basic right is not really guaranteed when a worker who exercises it legally runs the risk of seeing his or her job taken up permanently by another worker, just as legally. The Committee considers that, if a strike is otherwise legal, the use of labour drawn from outside the undertaking to replace strikers for an indeterminate period entails a risk of derogation from the right to strike which may affect the free exercise of trade union rights.' P Weiler, 'A Principled Re-Shaping of Labor Law for the Twenty-First Century' [2001] University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor and Employment Law 201, Mackay is 'the worst contribution that the U.S. Supreme Court has made to the current shape of labor law in this country.'
^ NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. 306 US 240 (1939) Reed J and Black J dissented.
^ Trans World Airlines, Inc v. Flight Attendants 489 US 426 (1989) Brennan J, Marshall J, Blackmun J dissented.
^ NLRB v. Electrical Workers 346 US 464 (1953)
^ New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 US 552 (1938)
^ Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 US 88 (1940)
^ United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, 335 US 106 (1948) holding that unions advocating members vote for particular Congress candidates did not violate the Federal Corrupt Practices Act as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act.
^ Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB 437 US 556 (1978)
^ e.g. Clean Slate for Worker Power: Building a Just Economy and Democracy (2019) Labor and Worklife Program, Harvard Law School.
^ See the Reward Work Act, S.2605, sponsored by Tammy Baldwin, Elizabeth Warren, Brian Schatz, joined by Kirsten Gillibrand
^ The Sanders "Corporate Accountability and Democracy" plan proposes 45% of boards to be elected by workers for companies with over $100 million in revenue, while Warren's Accountable Capitalism Act would require 40% on large federal corporations.
^ See Bernie Sanders, "Corporate Accountability and Democracy: Shareholder Democracy". J. R. Commons, Industrial Government (1921) ch 6, L. D. Brandeis, Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use It (1914).
^ See E. McGaughey, 'Corporate Law Should Embrace Putting Workers On Boards: The Evidence Is Behind Them' (17 September 2018) Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation and 'Democracy in America at Work: The History of Labor's Vote in Corporate Governance' (2019) 42 Seattle University Law Review 697. R. L. Hogler and G. J. Grenier, Employee Participation and Labor Law in the American Workplace (1992)
^ See D. Webber, The Rise of the Working Class Shareholder: Labor's Last Best Weapon (2018) and the section above on "Pensions".
^ See the popular text by the former Dean of Harvard Law School, R. C. Clark, Corporate Law (1986) 32, 'even if your aim is not to understand all of law's effects on corporate activities but only to grasp the basic legal 'constitution' or make-up of the modern corporation, you must, at the very least, also gain a working knowledge of labor law.'
^ See the Reward Work Act, S.2605, sponsored by Tammy Baldwin, Elizabeth Warren, Brian Schatz, joined by Kirsten Gillibrand. In the House, HR 6096 was sponsored by Keith Ellison and Ro Khanna.
^ Massachusetts Laws, General Laws, Part I Administration of the Government, Title XII Corporations, ch 156 Business Corporations, §23. This was originally introduced by An Act to enable manufacturing corporations to provide for the representation of their employees on the board of directors (April 3, 1919) Chap. 0070. cf C. Magruder, 'Labor Copartnership in Industry' (1921) 35 Harvard Law Review 910, 915, mentioning the Dennison Manufacturing Co at Framingham.
^ NM Clark, Common Sense in Labor Management (1919) ch II, 29–30
^ See W. O. Douglas and C. M. Shanks, Cases and Materials on the Law of Management of Business Units (Callaghan 1931) ch 1(7) 130 and J. R. Commons, Industrial Government (1921) ch 6
^ See generally J. R. Commons and J. B. Andrews, Principles of Labor Legislation (1920) and US Congress, Report of the Committee of the Senate Upon the Relations between Labor and Capital (Washington DC 1885) vol II, 806 on Straiton & Storm.
^ See Commission on Industrial Relations, Final Report and Testimony (1915) vol 1, 92 ff, and L. D. Brandeis, The Fundamental Cause of Industrial Unrest (1916) vol 8, 7672 and Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, The History of Trade Unionism (1920) Appendix VIII
^ See further, www.worker-participation.eu, E McGaughey, 'Votes at Work in Britain: Shareholder Monopolisation and the 'Single Channel' (2018) 15(1) Industrial Law Journal 76 and 'The Codetermination Bargains: The History of German Corporate and Labour Law' (2016) 23(1) Columbia Journal of European Law 135.
^ Dunlop Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations: Final Report (1994)
^ n.b. The New Jersey Revised Statute (1957) §14.9–1 to 3 expressly empowered employee representation on boards, but has subsequently been left out of the code. See further JB Bonanno, 'Employee Codetermination: Origins in Germany, present practice in Europe and applicability to the United States' (1976–1977) 14 Harvard Journal on Legislation 947
^ e.g. RA Dahl, 'Power to the Workers?' (November 19, 1970) New York Review of Books 20
^ See B Hamer, 'Serving Two Masters: Union Representation on Corporate Boards of Directors' (1981) 81(3) Columbia Law Review 639, 640 and 'Labor Unions in the Boardroom: An Antitrust Dilemma' (1982) 92(1) Yale Law Journal 106
^ American Telephone & Telegraph Company, CCH Federal Securities Law Reporter 79,658 (1974) see JW Markham, 'Restrictions on Shared Decision-Making Authority in American Business' (1975) 11 California Western Law Review 217, 245–246
^ This was stalled by litigation in Business Roundtable v. SEC, 647 F3d 1144 (DC Cir 2011). See D Webber, The Rise of the Working Class Shareholder: Labor's Last Best Weapon (2018)
^ J. D. Blackburn, 'Worker Participation on Corporate Directorates: Is America Ready for Industrial Democracy?' (1980–1981) 18 Houston Law Review 349
^ 'The Unions Step on Board' (October 27, 1993) Financial Times
^ P. J. Purcell, 'The Enron Bankruptcy and Employer Stock in Retirement Plans' (March 11, 2002) CRS Report for Congress and JH Langbein, SJ Stabile and BA Wolk, Pension and Employee Benefit Law (4th edn Foundation 2006) 640–641
^ See RB McKersie, 'Union-Nominated Directors: A New Voice in Corporate Governance' (April 1, 1999) MIT Working Paper. Further discussion in E. Appelbaum and LW Hunter, 'Union Participation in Strategic Decisions of Corporations' (2003) NBER Working Paper 9590
^ See E Schelzig, 'Volkswagen powers up 33-acre solar park in Tenn.' (January 23, 2013) USA Today
^ National Industrial Conference Board, Works Councils in the United States (1919) Research Report Number 21, 13, found that in 1919 in a survey of 225 work council plans, 120 were created under Federal government supervision, and 105 on employers initiative.
^ NICB, Works Council Manual (1920) Supplemental to Research Report No 21, 25, Appendix, Model Article II(1)
^ NLRA 1935 §158(a)(2)
^ See further NLRB v. Newport News Shipbuilding Co. 308 US 241 (1939)
^ Control Council Law No 22 Works Councils (April 10, 1946) in Official Gazette of the Control Council for Germany (1945–1946) 43 (R498) arts III–V.
^ See San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon 359 US 236 (1959) holding that state laws are only preempted for bargaining, rather than outcomes (like setting minimum wages, pension rights, health and safety, or workplace representation) which are protected by "§7 of the National Labor Relations Act, or constitute an unfair labor practice under §8 ... When an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the Act, the States as well as the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board if the danger of state interference with national policy is to be averted."
^ 309 NLRB No 163, 142 LRRM 1001 (1992)
^ 311 NLRB No 88, 143 LRRM 1121 (1993)
^ US Department of Labor and US Department of Commerce, Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations: Final Report (1994) 22, 27, 30–31.
^ J Ramsey, 'VW Chattanooga plant union votes to approve collective bargaining' (December 6, 2015) autoblog.com and NE Boudette, 'Volkswagen Reverses Course on Union at Tennessee Plant' (April 25, 2016) NY Times
^ US Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ...
^ See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the Second Bill of Rights of 1944.
^ Civil Rights Act of 1964 §703(a)(1), 42 USC §2000e-2(a), "Employers must not refuse to hire, discharge or otherwise discriminated 'against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
^ Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC §2000e-2(j)
^ See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857). US Constitution Article IV, Section 2, "no person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." This was extended by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, limited by Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 US 539 (1842), restored by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and entrenched by Ableman v. Booth, 62 US 506 (1859)
^ On the end of this, see Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 US 663 (1966) and contrast Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 US 356, 370 (1886) referring to 'the political franchise of voting' as a 'fundamental political right, because [it is] preservative of all rights.'
^ Contrast the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36 (1873) holding that states were entitled to regulate or shut down slaughter houses, causing pollution, without violating the Fourteenth Amendment's clause that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
^ 42 USC §1981(a)
^ 109 US 3 (1883)
^ See also Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896) holding that state laws segregating black from white people in public places (or "Jim Crow laws"), such as Louisiana's Separate Car Act of 1890, were constitutional. Harlan J dissented. See also Lochner v. New York 198 US 45 (1905)
^ See the Civil Rights Cases 109 US 3 (1883) where the majority struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875
^ 323 US 192 (1944)
^ 421 US 454 (1975)
^ See Washington v. Davis 426 US 229 (1976) holding that a prima facie case of unconstitutionality would be established by evidence of intent. It was not enough that verbal tests had a disparate impact. Brennan J and Marshall J dissented.
^ 414 US 632 (1974)
^ See Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 US 307 (1976) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 US 265 (1978). Contrast Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co KG (2010) C-555/07 affirming a constitutional equality principle in EU law and Matadeen v. Pointu [1998] UKPC 9, per Lord Hoffmann discussing the principle of equality as it is potentially seen in Commonwealth jurisdictions.
^ California Fed Savings and Loan Ass v. Guerra 479 US 272 (1987) holding the California Fair Employment and Housing Act of 1959 §12945(b)(2) was not preempted.
^ e.g. Saint Francis College v. al-Khazraji, 481 US 604 (1987) an Arabic man was protected from race discrimination under CRA 1964
^ Contrast the International Labour Organization Discrimination Convention 1958 c 111, art 1(1)(b) applying to "such other distinction, exclusion or preference which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation".
^ 29 USC §206(d)(1), "No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee." §206(d)(2) expressly prevents any discrimination caused by labor unions also.
^ 417 US 188 (1974) See also Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F2d 259 (3rd 1970) if work is "substantially equal" then the work must be paid the same, regardless of the job title. See also County of Washington v. Gunther, 452 US 161 (1980).
^ FLSA 1938, 29 USC §203(r)
^ After the Supreme Court held by 6 to 3 in Geduldig v. Aiello 417 US 484 (1974) that pregnancy was not included in the concept of sex, Congress reversed the decision by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. But see AT&T Corporation v. Hulteen, 556 U.S. 701 (2009) 7 to 2, holding that maternity leave taken before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act 1978 did not need to count as time worked that will contribute to pension earnings.
^ CRA 1964, 42 USC §2000e-2
^ cf ILO Equal Remuneration Convention 1951 c 100, art 2(2) requiring the principle of equal pay through "(a) national laws or regulations; (b) legally established or recognised machinery for wage determination; (c) collective agreements between employers and workers".
^ CRA 1964, 42 USC §2000e-2(a)(1)
^ CRA 1964, 42 USC §2000e-2(a)(2)
^ ADEA 1967, 29 USC §§623 and 631
^ ADA 1990, 42 USC §12112(a)–(b)
^ CRA 1964, 42 USC §2000e(b). See Walters v. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc 519 US 202 (1997)
^ 450 US 248 (1981) and see previously McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 US 792 (1973)
^ 509 US 502 (1993)
^ Contrast O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corporation 517 US 308 (1996) on age discrimination
^ CRA 1965, 42 USC §2000e-2(e)
^ 433 US 321 (1977)
^ 517 FSupp 292 (ND Tex 1981)
^ 472 US 400 (1985)
^ 477 US 57 (1986)
^ 510 US 17 (1993) reversing the Sixth Circuit.
^ Burlington Industries Inc v. Ellerth 524 US 742 (1998) relying on Restatement of Torts §219
^ 524 US 775 (1998) n.b. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 US 75 (1998) sexual harassment was possible between members of the same sex.
^ CRA 1964, 42 USC §2000e-3
^ Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 US 474 (2008) 6 to 3.
^ 493 US 182 (1990)
^ 519 US 337 (1997)
^ Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Co. v. White, 548 US 53 (2006)
^ At the time, only 34% of white men and 12% of black men had high school diplomas: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population (1960) vol 1, Characteristics of the Population, pt. 35, Table 47. This rate, under a segregated education system, was worse than most non-segregated systems for European-Americans.
^ 401 US 424 (1971)
^ This overturned Wards Cove Packing Co, Inc v. Atonio 490 US 642 (1989) where it was held 5 to 4 that employees had the burden of showing a disparate impact did not serve an employer's "legitimate employment goals".
^ CRA 1964, 42 USC §2000e–2(k)(1)(A)
^ 557 U.S. 557 (2009) Kennedy J giving the first judgment.
^ 557 U.S. ({{{5}}} 2009) 557 (dissent) Ginsburg J, joined by Stevens J, Souter J and Breyer J
^ 42 USC §§2000e-5 to 2000e-6
^ Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23
^ e.g. International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. US 431 US 324 (1977)
^ See General Telephone Co of Southwest v. Falcon 457 US 147 (1982)
^ 29 USC §206(d)(1).
^ This exempts (i) a bona fide seniority system (ii) merit systems (iii) systems measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production.
^ 452 US 161 (1981)
^ See also Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co, 421 F.2d 259 (3rd Cir 1970)
^ Similar problems are evident in the UK's Equality Act 2010 and its separate "equal pay" provisions. It has been argued that they should be scrapped, so that a claimant can choose the most favorable legal avenue.
^ See Centre for Business Research, Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries) (2016) 763-4
^ See LE Blades, 'Employment at Will vs. Individual Freedom: On Limiting the Abusive Exercise of Employer Power' (1967) 67(8) Columbia Law Review 1404, 1411-12. Contrast the Delaware General Corporation Law §141(k) where a corporation can require a "classified board" where directors can only be removed "with cause". This happens frequently, e.g. Campbell v. Loew's, Inc., 36 Del Ch 563, 134 A 2d 852 (Ch 1957) referring to Auer v. Dressel, 306 NY 427, 118 NE 2d 590, 593 (1954)
^ a b Cusano v. NLRB 190 F 2d 898 (1951) citing NLRB v. Condenser Corp, 128 F.2d 67, 75 (3rd Cir 1942) stating "poor reason". See further Payne v. Western & Atlantic Railroad, 81 Tennessee 507 (1884)
^ a b Montana Code Annotated 2015 Title 39 ch 2 part 9, §4
^ e.g. Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, Workplace Democracy Plan (2019). Mike Siegel Congress campaign in Texas 2020, Dignity for Workers by Protecting and Growing Union Membership Archived March 22, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
^ a b e.g. R Epstein, 'In Defense of the Contract at Will' (1984) 57 University of Chicago Law Review 947
^ a b e.g. V. V. Acharya and R. P. Baghai, 'Labor Laws and Innovation' (2013) 56(4) Journal of Law and Economics 997 and V. V. Acharya, R. P. Baghai, K. V. Subramanian, 'Wrongful Discharge Laws and Innovation' (2014) 27(1) Review of Financial Studies 301
^ e.g. L. E. Blades, 'Employment at Will vs. Individual Freedom: On Limiting the Abusive Exercise of Employer Power' (1967) 67(8) Columbia Law Review 1404. C. L. Estlund, 'How Wrong Are Employees About Their Rights, and Why Does It Matter?' (2002) 77 NYU Law Review 6
^ e.g. L Ryan, 'Ten Ways Employment At Will Is Bad For Business' (October 3, 2016) Forbes.
^ See chart below.
^ Federal Reserve Act of 1913, 12 USC §225a
^ M Kalecki, 'Political aspects of full employment' (1943) 14(4) Political Quarterly 322
^ 5 USC §7513(a)
^ Campbell v. Loew's, Inc., 36 Del Ch 563, 134 A 2d 852 (Ch 1957) referring to Auer v. Dressel, 306 NY 427, 118 NE 2d 590, 593 (1954)
^ e.g. in UK labour law, see the Employment Rights Act 1996 ss 94 ff.
^ a b ILO, Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 arts 4-13
^ See the German Civil Code or Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch 1900 §622 (notice before dismissal) and the Work Constitution Act 1972 or Betriebsverfassungsgesetz 1972 (worker participation).
^ e.g. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union art 30
^ e.g. WB MacLeod and V Nakavachara, 'Can Wrongful Discharge Law Enhance Employment?' (2007) 117 Economic Journal F218, I Marinescu, 'Job Security Legislation and Job Duration: Evidence from the United Kingdom' (2009) 27(3) Journal of Labor Economics 465. On OECD studies, see E McGaughey, 'OECD Employment Protection Legislation Indicators and Reform' (2019) ssrn.com
^ cf Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, Workplace Democracy Plan (2019). Mike Siegel Congress campaign in Texas 2020, Dignity for Workers by Protecting and Growing Union Membership Archived March 22, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
^ California Civil Code (1872) §1999
^ Especially HG Wood, Master and Servant (3rd edn 1886) 134, 'With us the rule is inflexible that a general or indefinite hiring is prima facie a hiring at will, and if the servant seeks to make it out a yearly hiring, the burden is upon him to establish it by proof. A hiring at so much a day, week, month, or year, no time being specified, is an indefinite hiring, and no presumption attaches that it was for a day even, but only at the rate fixed whatever time the party may serve.'
^ In New York, Adams v. Fitzpatrick 125 NY 124 (NY 1891) 'In this country, at least, if a contract for hiring is at so much per month, it will readily be presumed that the hiring was by the month, even if nothing was said about the term of service.' But subsequently in Martin v. New York Life Insurance Co 148 NY 117 (NY 1895) the New York Supreme Court held the at will doctrine was 'correctly stated by Mr Wood.' Also Adair v. United States, 208 US 161 (1908) the minority dissenting against the lawfulness of yellow-dog contracts, but Harlan J conceding that an employer "was at liberty, in his discretion, to discharge [an employee] from service without giving any reason for doing so." Contrast EA Ross, 'A Legal Dismissal Wage' (1919) 9(1) American Economic Review 132 and AS Erofones, 'Contracts. Termination of Employment at Weekly Salary' (1927) 40(4) Harvard LR 646
^ National Labor Relations Act of 1935 §8(a)(3) preventing union discrimination
^ Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 USC §2000e-2(a). Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 USC §§621-634. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
^ Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 USC §§651-678
^ Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 USC §§20-219
^ ERISA 1974, 29 USC §§1140-41
^ Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 USC §2615
^ Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act, 38 USC §2021(a)(A)(i). Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 USC §5851. Clean Air Act of 1963, 42 USC §7622. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 USC §1367. Railroad Safety Act, 45 US §441(a). Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 USC §1674. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Act, 28 USC §1875
^ Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters 214 Cal App. 2d 155 (Cal App 1959) public policy is 'a prohibition for the good of the community against whatever contravenes good morals or any established interests of society'.
^ Ivy v. Army Times Pub Co 428 A.2d 831 (DC App 1981) declining to perjure at employer's request.
^ e.g. Nees v. Hocks 536 P2d 512 (Or 1975) refusing to seek to be excused from serving on a jury. Daniel v. Carolina Sunrock Corp 335 NC 233 (NC 1993) responding to a subpoena.
^ e.g. Perks v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co 611 F2d 1363 (3rd Cir 1979) refusing to take a lie detector test where the state prohibited it. Tacket v. Delco Remy, Division of General Motors Corp 937 F.2d 1201 (7th Cir 1992) filing litigation against the employer
^ e.g. Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc. 179 Conn. 471, 427 A.2d 385 (1980) plaintiff noticed violations of the Connecticut Uniform Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, told the employer, and was fired. Held, wrongful discharge, as he could not be required to perform an illegal act.
^ e.g. Hausman v. St Croix Care Center, Inc., 558 NW2d 893 (Wis App 1996) the Wisconsin Supreme Court noting 'a criminal penalty is no remedy to the terminated employee'. Also Fortunato v. Office of Stephen M. Silston, D.D.S., 856 A.2d 530 (Conn. Super. 2004) the Connecticut Supreme Court held that it was contrary to public policy for an employer to discharge his dental assistant because her daughter was contemplating bringing a medical malpractice against him. It was contrary to public policy because it frustrated a person's right to access the courts.
^ cf Model Employment Termination Act (8 August 1991) "§1(4) 'Good cause means (i) a reasonable basis related to an individual employee for termination of the employee's employment in view of relevant factors and circumstances, which may include the employee's duties, responsibilities, conduct on the job or otherwise, job performance, and employment record..."
^ Restatement (Second) of Contracts 1981 §205, 'Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and enforcement'
^ e.g. Fortune v. National Cash Register Co, 373 Mass 96, 364 NE 2d 1251 (1977) the employee's employment was terminated shortly before a large commission on sales fell due. Held that this breached an obligation to perform the contract in good faith. But contrast Magnan v. Anaconda Industries, Inc 193 Conn. 558, 479 A.2d 781 (1984) the Connecticut Supreme Court held that good faith was a rule of construction, which could not contradict the express terms of a contract. However, the rule of good faith did not require a good reason for a discharge under Connecticut law.
^ e.g. Bammert v. Don's Super Valu, Inc., 646 N.W.2d 365 (Wis. 2002) the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that it was not contrary to public policy for an employer to dismiss an employee on grounds of her husband's drunk driving charge. cf Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet 113 Wis. 2d 561 (Wis. 1983) employer dismissed an employee after another worker sued for sex discrimination and the case had to be settled. The Wisconsin Supreme Court acknowledged there could be public policy reasons to hold a dismissal is unlawful. Dismissal was justified in this case.
^ e.g. Wilking v. County of Ramsey 983 F. Supp. 848 (8th Cir 1998) poor performance claims are more credible if the employer shows it gave a warning about improving.
^ e.g. Taylor v. Procter & Gamble Dover Wipes (D Del 2002) terminated worker involved of serious acts that cannot be tolerated at work, like assaulting a fellow worker. Pearson v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad 1990 WL 20173 (SDNY 1990) if a rule is not consistently enforced, it cannot be relied on by the employer.
^ e.g. Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 US 57 (2000) an employee tested positive for marijuana twice. The employee's right to be dismissed for a 'just cause' under a collective agreement contained the remedy of reinstatement. The arbitrator found he was discharged without just cause and ordered reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that this could not be found contrary to public policy.
^ e.g. Lincoln v. University System of Georgia Board of Regents 697 F2d 928 (11th Cir 1983) a college took teaching away from a faculty member and assigned her to prepare a revision of a handbook and other large clerical duties for grant applications. Held, constructively terminated.
^ Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich 579 (1980) employee was told at hiring that he would be employed as long as he did his job. The handbook said the employer's policy was only to terminate for 'just cause'. Held, that both express and implied promises were enforceable, and raised legitimate expectations for the employee. See also Torosyan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 662 A2d 89 (1995)
^ e.g. Schipani v. Ford Motor Co 102 Mich 606 (1981) an employer made an oral agreement, along with personnel manuals, policies and employment practice, for an employee to work till age 65. The written contract, however, said that employment was terminable at will. The employer sought summary judgment. Michigan Court of Appeals held there would be no summary judgment. The other assurances were enough to potentially rebut the written agreement.
^ cf Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000 art 27
^ Control Council Law No 22 (10 April 1946) art V. Today see the Work Constitution Act 1972 or Betriebsverfassungsgesetz 1972 (worker participation).
^ e.g. Telesphere International Inc v. Scollin 489 So 2d 1152 (Fla App 1986) eliminating a product or service. Nixon v. Celotext Corp 693 F Supp 547 (WD Mich 1988) consolidating operations.
^ See the Control Council Law No 22 (10 April 1946) art V, in post-war Germany, now re-enacted in the Work Constitution Act 1972 or Betriebsverfassungsgesetz 1972 (worker participation in layoffs).
^ WARN Act 1988 §2101(a)(2)-(3). §2101(a)(1), the 100 employee threshold excludes part-time employees.
^ WARN Act 1988 §2102(a)
^ WARN Act 1988 §§2101(a)(6) and 2101(b)(2)
^ WARN Act 1988 §2102(b)
^ WARN Act 1988 §2102(b)(2) and see Local Union 7107, United Mine Workers v. Clinchfield Coal Co 124 F3d 639 (4th Cir 1997) cancellation of major contract in unforeseeable circumstances.
^ WARN Act 1988 §2104(a)(4). See Kildea v. Electro-Wire Products, Inc. 60 F. Supp. 2d 710 (6th Cir 1998) not giving notice to employees on a reasonable misunderstanding that they were not entitled to it counts as good faith.
^ WARN Act 1988 §2104(a)(1)-(3)
^ See E. Appelbaum and R Batt, Private Equity at Work – When Wall Street Manages Main Street (2014)
^ Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. 493 A 2d 946 (Del 1985)
^ 417 US 249 (1974)
^ Universal Declaration of Human Rights art 23(1) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 art 6
^ See also Franklin D. Roosevelt, 'Second Bill of Rights', in State of the Union Address (January 11, 1944)
^ See AW Phillips, 'The Relation between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates in the United Kingdom 1861–1957' (1958) 25 Economica 283
^ 239 US 33 (1915) per Justice Hughes. cf Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia 427 US 307 (1976) holding that an age limit of 50 years old for police in Massachusetts was constitutional.
^ The Works Progress Administration was created by Executive Order 7034, and replaced the Federal Emergency Relief Administration which was itself created by the Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933.
^ E McGaughey, 'Will Robots Automate Your Job Away? Full Employment, Basic Income, and Economic Democracy' (2018) Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, Working Paper no. 496
^ Employment Act of 1946, 15 USC §1021
^ See G. J. Santoni, 'The Employment Act of 1946: Some History Notes' (1986) 68(9) Federal Reserve of St Louis Paper 7. K. V. W. Stone, 'A Right to Work in the United States: Historical Antecedents and Contemporary Possibilities' in V Mantouvalou (ed), The Right to Work: Legal and Philosophical Perspectives (2015) ch 15.
^ Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth 408 US 564, 588 (1972) per Justice Marshall dissenting.
^ 15 USC §3116
^ 15 USC §1022a.
^ 15 USC §1022c.
^ nb in the Great Recession, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was passed to enable more spending, but not a job guarantee.
^ Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935
^ Amended by the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977, 12 USC §225a
^ See Marriner Stoddard Eccles, Beckoning Frontiers: Public and Personal Recollections (1951) "As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth ... to provide men with buying power. ... Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929–30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. ... The other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped." Also J. M. Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) ch 22, IV, pointing to "the .chronic tendency of contemporary societies to under-employment is to be traced to under-consumption; — that is to say, to social practices and to a distribution of wealth which result in a propensity to consume which is unduly low."
^ M Friedman, 'The Role of Monetary Policy' (1968) 58(1) American Economic Review 1. M Friedman, 'Inflation and Unemployment' (1977) 85 Journal of Political Economy 451-72
^ See G Marshall, The Marshall Plan Speech (5 June 1947) Harvard (on the investment plan for post-war Europe). SP Hargreaves Heap, 'Choosing the Wrong 'Natural' Rate: Accelerating Inflation or Decelerating Employment and Growth?' (1980) 90(359) Economic Journal 611.
^ E. McGaughey, 'Will Robots Automate Your Job Away? Full Employment, Basic Income, and Economic Democracy' (2018) Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, Working Paper no. 496, part 2(1)
^ Social Security Act of 1935, 42 USC §§501-4, 1101-5. Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 US 548 (1937) held unemployment benefits to be constitutional.
^ e.g. Millner v. Enck 709 A 2d 417 (Pa Super 1998)
^ e.g. Cullison v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review 444 A.2d 1330 (Pa 1982) and Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 US 872 (1988)
^ Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodary, 431 US 471 (1977)
^ Internal Revenue Code §3304(a)(5)
^ Brazee v. Michigan, 241 US 340 (1916). Contrast Adams v. Tanner, 244 US 590 (1917) where over strong dissent the majority held that a ban on private employment agencies was unconstitutional. See now the ILO, Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997
^ Bernie Sanders and Jane Sanders, Eugene V. Debs Documentary (1979)
^ Ley de Igualdad en el Empleo y la Vivienda
^ Detalles de la ley Archivado el 16 de enero de 2006 en Wayback Machine desde el sitio web del DFEH
^ Barnes & Thornburg LLP (12 de octubre de 2011). "California promulga 22 nuevas leyes laborales que afectan a todas las empresas que operan en el estado". The National Law Review.
^ Nueva Jersey, Legislatura (16 de abril de 1945). "L.1945 c.168-174. Ley relativa a los derechos civiles y que modifica las secciones 10:1-3, 10:1-6 y 10:1-8 de los Estatutos Revisados". Biblioteca Estatal de Nueva Jersey . Consultado el 15 de noviembre de 2021 .
^ La ley de Nueva Jersey contra la discriminación

Referencias

Libros

John R. Commons , Principios de la legislación laboral (1916)
John R. Commons , Historia del trabajo en los Estados Unidos (Macmillan 1918), vol. I y vol. II
R. Covington, El derecho laboral en pocas palabras (3.ª edición, 2009) ISBN 0314195408
Archibald Cox , DC Bok, Matthew W. Finkin y RA Gorman, Derecho laboral: casos y materiales (2011) ISBN 1684679818
KG Dau-Schmidt, MH Malin, RL Corrada y CDR Camron, Derecho laboral en el lugar de trabajo contemporáneo (4.ª edición, 2009)
MA Rothstein y Lance Liebman , Casos y materiales de derecho laboral (7.ª edición, Foundation 2011)
G. Rutherglen, Derecho contra la discriminación en el empleo: visiones de la igualdad en la teoría y la doctrina (3.ª edición, 2010)

Artículos

JM Feinman, 'El desarrollo de la regla del empleo a voluntad' (1976) 20(2) The American Journal of Legal History 118
Herbert Hovenkamp , 'Conspiraciones laborales en el derecho estadounidense, 1880-1930' (1988) 66 Texas Law Review 919
CW Summers, 'La democracia en un Estado de partido único: perspectivas desde Landrum-Griffin' (1984) 43 Maryland Law Review 93

Enlaces externos

Leyes laborales de las legislaturas federales y estatales en law.cornell.edu
Sinopsis de casos de derecho laboral en Estados Unidos
Beneficios típicos de un contrato sindical
Oficina de leyes federales contra la discriminación en el empleo