The Push for a New OSHA Rule on Toxic Substances

Osha_logo_xsm He may be the lamest of all lame ducks, but President Bush and his administration are not going out without trying to make it harder for workplaces to regulate toxic substances.

From the New York Times:

The Labor Department is racing to complete a new rule, strenuously opposed by President-elect Barack Obama, that would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job.

The rule, which has strong support from business groups, says that in assessing the risk from a particular substance, federal agencies should gather and analyze “industry-by-industry evidence” of employees’ exposure to it during their working lives. The proposal would, in many cases, add a step to the lengthy process of developing standards to protect workers’ health.

Public health officials and labor unions said the rule would delay needed protections for workers, resulting in additional deaths and illnesses.

Continue ReadingThe Push for a New OSHA Rule on Toxic Substances

Appreciating Our Professors: The Georgetown Experimental Curriculum

As much as I would like to single out one person who had the most influence during my law school experience at Georgetown, like Kali Murray, I am going to break the rules here a little bit.

The greatest influence on me was, in fact, the course of study that I chose to pursue in my first year of law school. While most 1L’s take the traditional torts, contracts, property, etc., I was treated to a different group of classes that included: Bargain, Exchange & Liability; Property in Time; and Democracy & Coercion, to name a few. In addition, I took a small 1L Seminar on the different schools of legal thought (Critical Race Theory, Legal Process, Law & Economics), as well as a jurisprudence class called Legal Theory (where we read books like Anthony Kronman’s Lost Lawyer and Ronald Dworkin’s Law’s Empire).

All of these classes were part of the Section 3 experimental curriculum at Georgetown Law, which was created by a forward-looking group of professors who challenged the normal way of teaching law to students. The group who taught me in this experimental curriculum included many luminaries: Mark Tushnet (Government Processes), Wendy Perdue (Process), Mike Seidman (Democracy & Coercion and 1L Seminar), Dennis Patterson (visiting that year) (Legal Theory), Mike Gottesman (Bargain, Exchange & Liability), and Dan Ernst (Property in Time).

The combined Section 3 experience had a peculiar way of binding together not only the students who took this curriculum, but also the professors and students.

Continue ReadingAppreciating Our Professors: The Georgetown Experimental Curriculum

Blevins on the EFCA

Johnblevins John Blevins (South Texas) had an opinion piece supporting the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) in the Houston Chronicle this past Saturday.

Here’s a taste:

The EFCA . . . would provide employees with an alternate method of creating a recognized union — the “card check.” When a majority of employees signs a card supporting self-organization, a union is formed that the employer is required to recognize. (Card check is allowed under current law, but employers are free to ignore it).

[Joseph] Gagnon’s[, who previously against the EFCA in the same paper] critique of the EFCA is a familiar one, and it goes something like this: By permitting card check, the EFCA would undermine the “truly free” choice that secret-ballot elections provide.

Without the secret ballot, union organizers would allegedly be free to coerce their fellow employees.

In fact, this critique featured prominently in a recent (and absurd) employer-sponsored ad campaign featuring a Sopranos actor posing as a mob boss pressuring employees. Fortunately for us all, the New Jersey crime families have yet to make significant inroads into our nation’s service industries. Sleep tight America.

Continue ReadingBlevins on the EFCA