Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Employee Freedom of Choice Act
The Employee Freedom of Choice Act would drastically change the private sector labor relations system that has been in effect since Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. Currently, the preferred method that requires an employer to recognize a labor organization as its employees' representative is through a secret ballot election supervised by the National Labor Relations
Board ('NLRB'). Further, prior to any election, an employer generally has a four- to six-week pre-election period to communicate to employees its position as to unionization. Additionally, even if a union prevails in an election, both sides are required to bargain in good faith without necessity of agreement to a proposal or the making of a concession.
For years, unions have complained that the election process is flawed and deprives employees of free choice in the selection of their bargaining representatives. Unions claim that employers unduly delay the scheduling of an election and use the pre-election period to threaten and intimidate employees, causing them to vote against unionization. Unions also argue that permitting an employer to engage in bargaining without direct government oversight frustrates their ability to achieve gains for their members.
Conversely, employers argue that union assertions of systemic employer abuse of the current system are hyperbole. They assert that the best method of protecting employees from intimidation and ensure that they have true freedom of choice is through NLRB-supervised secret ballot elections conducted after employees are provided with all information necessary to make a reasoned decision. Similarly, employers argue that even if there is a bargaining representative, they should not be subject to direct government oversight of negotiations, which is contrary to the free-market system.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.