Jonathan R. Harkavy has taught labor and employment law at Wake Forest School of Law and corporate finance at Duke Law School and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law. During the summers of 2018 and 2019, he has been a visiting research fellow in the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School.
Charlotte Garden’s insightful essay at Take Care about how antitrust laws are being used as a bludgeon against union collective action immediately brings to my mind Andrew Strom’s OnLabor post about the so-called “Powell Memo.” My hope is that considering these two posts together will fortify what both OnLabor contributors have to say.
To refresh, when Lewis Powell was at the height of his influence as a private practitioner in 1971, he wrote a memorandum for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that is now widely regarded as the blueprint for building a collective voice for the American business community. Witness Powell’s words about collective or unified action:
“But independent and uncoordinated activity by individual corporations, as important as this is, will not be sufficient. Strength lies in organization. . . and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.”
Fast forward nearly fifty years from the Powell memorandum: We can now better appreciate (recalling Lewis Powell’s own words) what Charlotte Garden wrote about—the collective might of the business community wielding, of all things, the antitrust laws to sap the “strength [that] lies in organization” and hamstring the “united action” of working people.
And so, it is ironic in the extreme, if not downright hypocritical, for the premier exponent and beneficiary of collective action—the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—to attempt (whether by the antitrust laws or otherwise) to deny to individuals who work for its members the benefits of a collective voice and unified action.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
July 3
Unions seek a preliminary injunction to prevent USDA downsizing; the D.C. District Court issues a preliminary injunction against new student loan regulations; Matt Bruenig releases an analysis of Starbucks’ ongoing legal battle against Starbucks Workers United.
July 2
First Circuit denies federal worker unions’ mandamus petition; federal court denies preliminary injunction against new union reporting rule; House introduces the Securing Agriculture’s Workforce Act.
July 1
Trump nominates Keith Sonderling as Labor Secretary; DOL eliminates disparate-impact liability from Title VI regulations; OPM finalizes rule allowing suitability-based removal of federal employees for post-appointment conduct.
June 30
SCOTUS ends removal protections for agencies; staff at NYC cocktail bar vote to unionize.
June 29
In today’s News and Commentary, student-athletes file a class action suit challenging the NCAA’s new Age-Based Rule, a federal judge declines to issue a preliminary injunction against FEMA’s reduction in force but expedites proceedings, and Gavin Newsom opposes California’s proposed billionaire tax in favor of a federal approach. On Thursday, DeJuan Campbell, at basketball player […]
June 28
Philadelphia utility workers announce July 4 strike; national parks workers vote to unionize; Michigan considers “right to disconnect” bill.