Benjamin Sachs is the Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry at Harvard Law School and a leading expert in the field of labor law and labor relations. He is also faculty director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy. Professor Sachs teaches courses in labor law, employment law, and law and social change, and his writing focuses on union organizing and unions in American politics. Prior to joining the Harvard faculty in 2008, Professor Sachs was the Joseph Goldstein Fellow at Yale Law School. From 2002-2006, he served as Assistant General Counsel of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in Washington, D.C. Professor Sachs graduated from Yale Law School in 1998, and served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His writing has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, the Columbia Law Review, the New York Times and elsewhere. Professor Sachs received the Yale Law School teaching award in 2007 and in 2013 received the Sacks-Freund Award for Teaching Excellence at Harvard Law School. He can be reached at [email protected].
As we have already discussed, UNITE HERE Local 355 v. Mulhall is a case with potentially enormous implications and, yet, a case that the Court probably should not have taken. Jack has written about three problems with the Mulhall grant. But the employer’s brief, just filed, brings home yet another oddity of this case. The employer’s argument is that the organizing agreement at issue in the litigation “conveys a thing of value to Local 355.” In no uncertain terms, then, the employer is arguing to the Supreme Court of the United States that it – the employer – has violated a federal criminal statute and has committed a felony.
There is no subtlety here, or even room for interpretation. The employer’s position is that the organizing agreement that it signed conveyed a thing of value to the union. According to the employer’s brief, the value of this “thing of value” is approximately $100,000 – the amount that the union allegedly spent “in exchange” for the organizing agreement. If the Court accepts the employer’s argument, then the union violated §302. But so too did the employer. Why? Because §302 makes it illegal for an employer to deliver a thing of value to a union. §302(d) states that if the value of the “thing of value” involved in the transaction is greater than $1,000 – which, if we accept the employer’s argument, is easily true here – then the violator “shall, upon conviction . . ., be guilty of a felony.”
There is a long list of strange things about Mulhall. Near the top of that list is a party arguing that its own conduct was felonious.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
July 4
The DOL scraps a Biden-era proposed rule to end subminimum wages for disabled workers; millions will lose access to Medicaid and SNAP due to new proof of work requirements; and states step up in the noncompete policy space.
July 3
California compromises with unions on housing; 11th Circuit rules against transgender teacher; Harvard removes hundreds from grad student union.
July 2
Block, Nanda, and Nayak argue that the NLRA is under attack, harming democracy; the EEOC files a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by former EEOC Commissioner Jocelyn Samuels; and SEIU Local 1000 strikes an agreement with the State of California to delay the state's return-to-office executive order for state workers.
July 1
In today’s news and commentary, the Department of Labor proposes to roll back minimum wage and overtime protections for home care workers, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by public defenders over a union’s Gaza statements, and Philadelphia’s largest municipal union is on strike for first time in nearly 40 years. On Monday, the U.S. […]
June 30
Antidiscrimination scholars question McDonnell Douglas, George Washington University Hospital bargained in bad faith, and NY regulators defend LPA dispensary law.
June 29
In today’s news and commentary, Trump v. CASA restricts nationwide injunctions, a preliminary injunction continues to stop DOL from shutting down Job Corps, and the minimum wage is set to rise in multiple cities and states. On Friday, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. CASA that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that […]