This past weekend, when hundreds of thousands rallied in the People’s Climate March, a significant number of the marchers were union members. In fact, the labor movement has long been involved in the fight for environmental justice. For unions like SEIU, the strength of commitment to this fight has only increased in recent years as union members witness firsthand the immediacy of the climate crisis. The struggle over the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the effects of more frequent superstorms like Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Katrina, evidence an unavoidable conclusion: environmental crises hit hardest and first poor communities and people of color. Union members understand that environmental injustice is one of the most significant threats to the achievement of economic and racial justice for working families. Climate change is creating increased pollution, which is already affecting public health. We know that one in six black children has asthma, as compared to one in nine children overall. Black children are three times more likely to suffer asthma attacks that require hospitalization and twice as likely to die of asthma. This is no accident. Coal-fired power plants are the single biggest source of carbon pollution in the U.S. and are disproportionately located near (i.e. within three miles of) communities of color and low-income communities. This proximity exposes these communities — who too often lack the economic resources to prevent adverse health outcomes — to dangerous particulate matter and ozone precursors that cause and contribute to respiratory illnesses like pulmonary disease and lung cancer.
Ben Levin is Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School.
What role do private employers have to play in the criminal justice system? And, what does employment law doctrine have to do with mass incarceration?
In Criminal Employment Law (forthcoming in the Cardozo Law Review), I answer these questions. I argue that existing employment law doctrines and institutions extend the effects of criminal punishment and make private employers complicit in the continued marginalization of people with criminal records.
In the post that follows, I offer a brief overview of the article’s central claims and the ways that they should frame debates about ban the box and reentry reforms.
Criminal Employment Law focuses on the continuing problem of employment for people with criminal records and asks how the law on the books (coupled with cultural attitudes) encourages employers to steer clear of workers and job applicants with any criminal history.
Sharon Block is the Executive Director of Harvard University’s Labor and Worklife Program. She formerly served in the Obama Administration as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Labor and Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Labor.
Two months ago, I walked out of the Frances Perkins Building in Washington and helped turn off the lights on the Obama Administration’s Department of Labor. As the head of the Department’s policy office and Senior Counselor to Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, I left proud of what we had accomplished to expand opportunity for American workers. I was also acutely aware that much remained to be done.
My life and the condition of our country has changed a great deal during these past two months. I am thrilled to be embarking on a new professional journey here at the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School and honored to have the opportunity to work with Professors Richard Freeman and Ben Sachs, the program’s faculty directors. I am humbled by the responsibility of taking over the program that my remarkable predecessor, Elaine Bernard, so successfully built over the past 30 years and by the magnitude of the challenges facing American workers today.
I come to the Labor and Worklife Program committed to continuing its core mission: to take advantage of the unique Harvard University community to bring rigorous, creative and serious problem-solving efforts to meet today’s challenges and prepare for the opportunities of tomorrow. A key component of my commitment is to continue the proud tradition of the Harvard Trade Union Program. I believe that it is more important than ever, as the labor movement faces unprecedented challenges, that a new generation of leaders benefit from the unparalleled training that the HTUP has provided for 75 years.
Sharon Block served in the Obama Administration as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Labor and Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Labor. In February, she will become the Executive Director of Harvard University’s Labor and Worklife Program. Chris Lu served in the Obama administration as the Deputy Secretary of Labor, and is now a Senior Fellow at the University of Virginia Miller Center. This post originally appeared in The Huffington Post.
As former political appointees in the Obama administration’s Labor Department, we can think of few areas where we are in agreement with Donald Trump. In fact, we have fundamental differences with him about how to build an economy that works for everyone.
Yet, we share his belief that government needs to do more to lift up American workers. If the new president is interested in delivering on his promise of creating jobs and growing wages for workers, there’s an executive order already in place that he should support.
Every year, the federal government spends hundreds of billions of dollars on procurement contracts. By some estimates, one quarter of all American workers are employed by a federal contractor — that’s millions of families whose livelihoods are connected to the federal procurement system.
In 2014, Barack Obama signed an executive order called “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” that was premised on two fundamental principles: doing business with the federal government is a privilege, not a right; and taxpayer money should only go to companies that are abiding by the laws that protect American workers. Under the Obama executive order, the federal government would give contracts only to companies that pay their workers the wages they’ve earned, protect the health and safety of employees, and prohibit discriminatory practices.
Kate Andrias is Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School.
This post is part of a series on Labor in the Trump Years.
As others have written, including on this blog, the Trump presidency could be devastating for unions—and for workers generally. The administration is likely to oppose any increase to the minimum wage; facilitate roll backs of overtime protections; support the expansion of right-to-work, including as a matter of constitutional doctrine; and appoint leaders to the various labor agencies who lack a commitment to enforcing civil rights, worker safety, and wage and hour laws. Also expected are appointees who seek to eviscerate collective bargaining and organizing rights under the NLRA.
Notwithstanding these and other serious threats, despair is the wrong reaction for several reasons.
First, the election underscored the importance of unions. To the extent commentators, including some Democrats, had depicted unions as unnecessary relics, the error of that position should now be clear. Worker organizations are key institutions for equalizing power in the economy and in the democracy. Their decline helps explain the current state of the American economy and politics. As Jake Rosenfeld wrote here, “[u]nions remain the only set of mass-based organizations that connect working-class Americans to politics.” Unions are also some of the few institutions in America through which working people can come together across boundaries of gender, race, and ethnicity, to advance their shared interests. Finally, unions are self-funded membership organizations. Historically, such civil society organizations have served as critical bulwarks against authoritarianism.
Moshe Z. Marvit is an attorney and fellow with The Century Foundation, focusing on labor and employment law and policy. He is the co-author (with Rick Kahlenberg) of the book, “Why Labor Organizing Should be a Civil Right.”
This post is part of a series on Labor in the Trump Years.
With the election of President-elect Donald Trump, labor faces a unique opportunity. Yes, it will face hostility in all branches of the federal government, and will have to maintain a multi-pronged fight. Yes, union density numbers are at historically low levels, and the bulwark of public-sector unionism may suffer a major blow at the Supreme Court through a case challenging the constitutionality of fair-share fees in the public sector. Yes, it will face unprecedented challenges to expand, let alone stay afloat. But in the midst of all this, labor has the opportunity to reform itself so that it can not only survive a Trump administration, but grow as well. Perhaps “opportunity” is the wrong word to describe the moment; labor has the existential imperative to reform itself, harness the existing energy, and lead a movement.
There is no doubt that Donald Trump—through the use of Executive Orders, executive and judicial appointments, and legislative priorities—will likely usher in an environment that is hostile to labor. However, unlike Ronald Reagan, Trump ran a campaign that provided the ground for labor to reform itself. First, he will be the first president in modern history that ran a campaign that was centered around worker issues. All presidential candidates talk about middle and working class issues, but successful campaigns are rarely centered on improving the lot of workers. Second, Trump’s calls for mass deportations, exclusion of Muslims, dismantling of the regulatory state, limits to access for abortion, and a litany of xenophobic actions and policies, have united large swaths of Americans in opposition. Under these conditions, labor can transform itself from what has increasingly become a membership-based services organization into a movement.
David Rolf has led some of the largest union organizing campaigns since the 1940s. He is President of SEIU 775, The Workers Lab, Working Washington, and the Fair Work Center; International Vice President of SEIU; and the author of “The Fight for Fifteen” (New Press, 2016). Views expressed here are his own.
This post is part of a series on Labor in the Trump Years.
If one were able to magically scrub the embedded racism, misogyny and xenophobia from Donald Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again,” one might conjure up an image of unionized America circa 1946-1976: high wages, high employment, stable jobs, good benefits; expanding investments in infrastructure, education, and home ownership; a growing economy that lifted all boats and created more middle class wealth than in any era before or since. “Solidarity Forever,” we would sing, to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, “for the Union makes us strong.”
But although Donald Trump spent precious few words on labor law and labor policy during his campaign, it’s fair to expect that single-party Republican control of all three branches of the federal government will bring only bad news for America’s already-fading unions.
Between now and at least 2021, the best scenario that union leaders can reasonably hope for from the Federal government includes hostile appointments to the NLRB, the DOL, and the judiciary; a rolling-back of progressive Obama-era efforts to modernize both NLRB election procedure and DOL overtime rules; the use of regulation, budget-writing, procurement, and other government powers to chip away around the edges of prevailing wages, wage and hour protections, workplace safety, and nondiscrimination; total or partial repeal of Obamacare; and some short-term job creation if the President-elect is successful in passing an infrastructure package and renegotiating trade agreements on more favorable terms (and assuming he is simultaneously unsuccessful in deporting 11 million wage-earners and triggering a depression by doing so).
A worse but equally likely scenario is a continued and concerted national campaign to weaken and shrink unions themselves. More right to work laws. The return of Friedrichs and its ilk. Continued assaults on public employee unions in the two-thirds of state houses controlled by conservatives. And legal challenges to the notion of exclusive representation itself, brought by adherents of previously obscure and cultish legal theories.