Suchergebnisse

"Solidarity," a term not overly familiar to Americans, sometimes seems to have as many meanings as it has users. The concept became incorporated into American thought during the 19th and 20th century waves of Catholic and Jewish immigration. It provides a European vision of communitarian social order that competes with the "unencumbered self"—America's unique brand of individualism. Among philosophers, politicians, religious thinkers, and social activists, solidarity theory sought to redefine the then-prevailing views of social bonds. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the American labor movement, which espouses as its core values the principles of unity and the collective good. Yet there is something undeniably strange about the National Labor Relations Act—the apogee of the movement's efforts—which forces workers to subordinate their individual voices in order to gain a collective voice in managerial decision making. The NLRA is unique not only among the labor relation schemes of other nations, but its terms do not fit well within American legal patterns either. It is the only place in our famously individual-oriented legal system where the law seeks to protect the status of the person through the regulation of freely-formed associations. Perhaps this anomaly is rooted in the predominant role the Catholic Church has exercised in shaping America's labor movement. The author suggests that two factors might explain the Catholic character of American labor law. Perhaps the manner in which Catholics understand community and the Church's traditional teachings on social justice account for the consistent support the Church has given to organized labor and collective bargaining. By providing a short history of solidarity, and using the Corpus Christi celebration as an example of Catholic community values, the author assesses a uniquely Catholic contribution to American labor law.

The enormous success of the United States economy in producing new jobs has focused world-wide attention on the flexibility of the American labor market, and on the malleability of the legal order that regulates it. Despite our reputation for sparse public regulation of the employment relationship, however; the past decade has been a period of unprecedented judicial and legislative activity. The United States now has more formal employment regulation than ever before. The following piece places these developments in the context of a decline in the practice of private law-making, and identifies four movements that have emerged and which characterize the developments of this period.

In this Article, the author argues that significant elements concerning the discussion of labor law reform have been overlooked and that the steady decline of unions is not in fact an isolated occurrence. It is instead part of a much broader and deeply troubling trend, which has affected every mediating group in our society. However, our blinkered insistence on treating the deterioration of autonomous employee associations as a solitary phenomenon has precluded us from comprehending either the complexity of its causes or the full extent of its implications. The author posits, therefore, that there is a pronounced tendency to overlook the importance of the "middle," which is comprised of institutions such as families and religious congregations that mediate the relation between individual and public life. It is through these mediating bodies that we learn the habits necessary to sustain democratic political life. Thus, their well-being is deeply interdependent. The author suggests then that there is more at stake in labor law reform than we may think, and presents a brief outline of considerations for the shape labor law reform may take.

In 1938, in NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., the Supreme Court offered one of its earliest interpretations of the National Labor Relations Act. Although the Court's holding provided that employers may not discriminate against employees for their union activity when the strike is over and workers are reinstated, dicta in the opinion also provided that under the NLRA employers enjoy an unrestricted right to replace strikers. In the 70 years since the Court's announcement, scholars remain baffled by the contradictions presented by the "Mackay doctrine"—a rule that forbids employers from discharging legally protected strikers while, at the same time, allows those employers to hire other workers to replace strikers. Such a rule seemingly upsets the neutrality toward the parties the NLRA was intended to embody. But as irreconcilable as these principles seem, the Mackay doctrine failed to attract sustained criticism until the 1960s. To account for this latter day criticism, the authors examine the history of the case, but more significantly, the developments in labor law and industrial relations in the years since Mackay was decided. Their analysis reveals some of the basic problems, tensions, and social understandings that underlie the NLRA. Ultimately, they conclude, Mackay reiterates the abiding need for worker solidarity in collective bargaining. The willingness of individuals to make cause with others, and make personal sacrifices for the common good, not only inform labor relations, but are central to the survival of any democracy.

In A Common Law for Labor Relations: A Critique of the New Deal Labor Litigation, Professor Epstein claimed to have undertaken serious criticism and review of the American system of labor relations as it has been structured by two pieces of New Deal era legislation. Although such a work could have been of great value to diverse disciplines, Epstein's lacks empirical scope and raises methodological questions. Instead of grappling with the subject matter seriously, Epstein merely uses the late nineteenth century form of the common law as a benchmark against which to compare the modern statutory schemes set forth in the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the National Labor Relations Act. As a result, he never answers the questions a genuine critical evaluation would have to address. In this response, the authors argue that Professor Epstein's work does not contribute in any way to our existing knowledge about labor law, it sheds no light on the reality of labor relations, and it adds nothing to our understanding of the impact labor law has had on society.

Die Festschrift für Michael Kittner enthält folgende Beiträge: -I. Europarecht; Colneric: Grundrechtsschutz durch den Gerichtshof der Europäischen Gemeinschaften; Wißmann: Zum Umgang des Bundesarbeitgerichts mit europäischem Recht; Weiss: Grundrechte-Charta der EU auch für Arbeitnehmer? Europäische Grundrechte-Charta (Auszug); Däubler: EU-Grundrechte-Charta und kollektives Arbeitsrecht; Zwanziger: Der Einfluß des Europäischen Rechts auf das Kündigungsschutzrecht; -II. Tarifautonomie; Dietrich: Tarifautonomie und Bundesverfassungsgericht; Berg: Rechtliche Auswirkungen einer OT-Mitgliedschaft in der Praxis; Kohler: Major-League-Baseball-Streik 1994-1995; Zachert: "Wilder Streik" - noch zeitgemäß?; -III. Mitbestimmung; Nagel: Verschlechternde Regelungen und Vereinbarungen zur Mitbestimmung in der Europäischen Aktiengesellschaft; Gamillscheg: Nachruf auf den Gruppengrundsatz, Überlegungen zum Betriebsbegriff; Wolmerath: Die Mitbestimmung des Betriebs- und Personalrats bei psychosozialen Belastungen am Arbeitsplatz; -IV. Arbeits- und Sozialrecht; Schmidt: Zum Harmonisierungsbedarf arbeits- und sozialrechtlicher Konfliktlösungen; Krasney: Die gesetzliche Unfallversicherung und ihr Einfluss auf den Betriebsfrieden; -V. Dateschutz und Gleichstellung; Simitis: Arbeitnehmerdatenschutzgesetz - Realistische Erwartung oder Lippenbekenntnis? Pfarr: Voraussetzungen für ein effektives Gleichstellungsgesetz für die Privatwirtschaft; Buschmann: Neue Konturen im Teilzeit-Arbeitsrecht. (IAB)