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

Professor Esenberg on Crawford and the Scope of Employee Protections From Retaliation

Rick Esenberg has a new podcast on the Federalist Society website, in which he comments on Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.  Crawford, currently pending before the United States Supreme Court, deals with the scope of the antiretaliation provisions of Title VII.  Rick’s podcast provides a succinct and helpful summary and assessment of the facts and arguments in the case.

Continue ReadingProfessor Esenberg on Crawford and the Scope of Employee Protections From Retaliation

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