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
August 16
New documents show that federal surveillance operations targeted Minnesota labor unions during the ICE surge, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission denies halting federal class discrimination complaints.
August 14
Hollywood unions diverge in response to the Paramount-Warner merger saga; Tesla defeats a years-long strike in Sweden, and labor scholars advocate for state sectoral bargaining policy innovation.
August 13
EEOC complaint process expected to harm federal workers; former UAW leaders endorse Fain challenger; Xbox employees protest layoffs.
August 12
Third Circuit affirms dismissal of driver’s bias and retaliation claims against CBS and Teamsters; employment litigation surges in Washington state; MIT Sloan professor argues the rise of “disposable workers” is transforming American employment.
August 11
Rideshare drivers nearing union certification in California; UFCW campaigns against electronic shelf labels; Teamsters support NYC delivery driver bill.
August 10
Employee sues for a fossil-fuel-free 401(k) plan as a religious accommodation; DHS submits a proposed rule eliminating 60-day grace period for H-1B workers; Eighth Circuit dismisses constitutional challenge to the FMSHRC.