Faculty Bibliography

Citizens United upends much of campaign finance law, but it maintains at least one feature of that legal regime: the equal treatment of corporations and unions. Prior to Citizens United, that is, corporations and unions were equally constrained in their ability to spend general treasury funds on federal electoral politics. After the decision, campaign finance law leaves both equally unconstrained and free to use their general treasuries to finance political expenditures. But the symmetrical treatment that Citizens United leaves in place masks a less visible, but equally significant, way in which the law treats union and corporate political spending differently. Namely, federal law prohibits a union from spending its general treasury funds on politics if individual employees object to such use-employees, in short, enjoy a federally protected right to opt out of funding union political activity. In contrast, corporations are free to spend their general treasuries on politics even if individual shareholders object-shareholders enjoy no right to opt out of financing corporate political activity. This Article assesses whether the asymmetric rule of political opt-out rights is justified. The Article first offers an affirmative case for symmetry grounded in the principle that the power to control access to economic opportunities-whether employment or investment based-should not be used to secure compliance with or support for the economic actor's political agenda. It then addresses three arguments in favor of asymmetry. Given the relative weakness of these arguments, the Article suggests that the current asymmetry in opt-out rules may be unjustified. The Article concludes by pointing to constitutional questions raised by this asymmetry, and by arguing that lawmakers would be justified in correcting it.

Making Equal Rights Real brings together leaders from around the world who have been working effectively to increase equal economic and social rights, ranging from rights in the workplace to property ownership and education. The contributors tell the detailed stories of effective approaches to implementing equal rights for racial and ethnic minorities in North America, women in Africa, children in the Middle East and sexual minorities in Asia. They also describe approaches taken around the world to increase equal rights for people living in poverty, for those living with disabilities and for all people seeking the information they need to hold their government accountable for implementing everyone's rights. The book addresses what can be done by policymakers, civil society, non-governmental organizations, lawyers seeking to implement equal rights legislation and advocates working in the community, as well as those developing constitutions and negotiating international agreements. - This volume focuses on evidence of what has proven effective in increasing equal rights globally - Presents unprecedented scope which addresses equity based on gender, disability, race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation and income, from - the international to the grassroots levels, in contexts that span the geographic and political spectrum Combines experience-based recommendations from global leaders and in-depth case studies that provide vivid details of successful programs

This Research Handbook assembles the original work of leading legal and economic scholars, working in a variety of traditions and methodologies, on the economic analysis of labor and employment law. In addition to surveying the current state of the art on the economics of labor markets and employment relations, the volume's 16 chapters assess aspects of traditional labor law and union organizing, the law governing the employment contract and termination of employment, employment discrimination and other employer mandates, restrictions on employee mobility, and the forum and remedies for labor and employment claims.

This Tribute essay explores Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s labor and employment jurisprudence, arguing that the jurisprudence is defined by a consistent substantive vision of what labor and employment law intends to accomplish and by a particular method of interpreting these laws. Three cases highlight these twin themes. The first concerns the scope of the anti-retaliation clause of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The second deals with the ability of undocumented workers to assert rights granted by Title VII. And the third addresses the ability of unions to spend dues money on organizing new members. The essay also comments on these cases’ broader significance to the fields of labor and employment law.

Seventy years after Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the scholarly consensus is that American labor law has become ossified. As I have argued elsewhere, however, while the NLRA is undoubtedly dysfunctional, the blockage of this traditional channel for collective action has led not to ossification, but to a hydraulic effect: unable to find an outlet through the NLRA, the continuing demand for collective action has forced open alternative legal channels. This article explores the first of these new channels, which I name employment law as labor law. The article presents detailed accounts of collective campaigns in which workers turn to employment law, in particular the Fair Labor Standards Act and Title VII, as the legal architecture that facilitates and protects their collective activity. This legal architecture, provided here by employment statutes, is one we conventionally call labor law. Drawing upon and moving beyond these descriptive accounts, the article offers a theoretical model that explains how employment law's individual rights regime can galvanize, insulate, and generate workers' collective action. By revealing employment law's capacity to foster collective action, moreover, the article provides a new way of understanding the relationship between labor law and employment law. The model developed here disputes the claim that labor and employment law constitute distinct - and inimical - regulatory regimes. Finally, the article contends that employment law's ability to foster collective action invites future inquiry into the possibility for a great trade in labor law reform: a new regime that provides strong safeguards for the early stages of collective action but retreats from the cradle-to-grave regulation that has defined, and ultimately undermined, the NLRA.

This essay challenges the conventional wisdom that American labor law has reached a dead end. I argue that the dysfunctionality of the National Labor Relations Act has led not to "ossification" - as many believe - but to a hydraulic effect: unable to find an outlet through the NLRA, the continuing demand for collective action has forced open alternative legal channels. The essay outlines three examples to illustrate these emerging trends. The first involves the ability of several thousand janitors in Houston to secure wage increases and health benefits through a unionization campaign governed entirely by private agreement. The second concerns several hundred thousand home care and child care workers who unionized under a regime of state and local labor law. And the third is the story of an immigrant garment worker who relied on a quintessential employment law statute to lead a collective effort for overtime wages at her Brooklyn factory. These accounts illustrate labor law's new dynamism. They also reveal that American labor law is no longer a regime defined by a single federal statute administered by a single federal agency. Rather, the field is increasingly constituted by private processes, state and local regulation, and multiple federal statutes - most notably employment laws like Title VII and the Fair Labor Standards Act - enforced by multiple actors. The essay proposes that we treat each of these decentralizing trends as a productive form of experimentation. Self-consciously embracing this experimental potential will provide new insight into a series of practical questions central to labor law reform. These experimental developments also will help us resolve structural and conceptual quandaries at the core of the field: the appropriate function of private agreement in labor law; the role that states and localities should play in the design of labor policy; and the relationship between individual rights and collective action.