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].
Rich Yeselson’s recent article on “Fortress Unionism” prompted a reply from Bruce Raynor (former president of UNITE HERE) and Andy Stern (former president of SEIU). The debate is over the future of the labor movement. The disagreement could not be more stark.
Here’s what Raynor and Stern wrote to us yesterday:
As long term International Presidents of national unions, we were provoked to respond to Rich Yeselson’s recent article on “Fortress Unionism.” Although Yeselson’s article raises important questions, we think it suggests the wrong answers about the best course forward for the American labor movement. As we explain in our response, we have some very different ideas about the future. The ongoing campaigns among Wal-Mart and fast food workers, along with the recent efforts of the AFL-CIO, reveal just how important these issues are. We invite ongoing debate – on this blog and elsewhere – about these questions. Let the discussion continue, it matters.
Anyone interested in workers and unions and the future of the labor movement should read these two articles, both in Democracy. Those interested in replying to Raynor and Stern should submit proposed posts to me.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
June 1
In today’s news and commentary, the Ninth Circuit upholds a preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration, a federal judge vacates parts of the EEOC’s pregnancy accommodation rules, and video game workers reach a tentative agreement with Microsoft. In a 2-1 decision issued on Friday, the Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration […]
May 30
Trump's tariffs temporarily reinstated after brief nationwide injunction; Louisiana Bill targets payroll deduction of union dues; Colorado Supreme Court to consider a self-defense exception to at-will employment
May 29
AFGE argues termination of collective bargaining agreement violates the union’s First Amendment rights; agricultural workers challenge card check laws; and the California Court of Appeal reaffirms San Francisco city workers’ right to strike.
May 28
A proposal to make the NLRB purely adjudicatory; a work stoppage among court-appointed lawyers in Massachusetts; portable benefits laws gain ground
May 27
a judge extends a pause on the Trump Administration’s mass-layoffs, the Fifth Circuit refuses to enforce an NLRB order, and the Texas Supreme court extends workplace discrimination suits to co-workers.
May 26
Federal court blocks mass firings at Department of Education; EPA deploys new AI tool; Chiquita fires thousands of workers.