Supreme Court case highlights U.S. labor agency political divide

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - When the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on Monday in a case involving soda bottler Noel Canning Corp., presidential appointment power will be the main dispute, but the case will also put on display one of Washington's most politically polarizing agencies - the National Labor Relations Board.

Created nearly 80 years ago to supervise union elections and protect workers' rights to organize, the NLRB is a battleground for pro-labor Democrats and pro-management Republicans.

Deep disagreement between the two sides over the NLRB's role - and over organized labor itself - makes disputes involving the board uncommonly bitter and subjects its agenda to constant reshaping, depending on which party controls the White House.

"It's no accident ... that this major constitutional showdown is occurring over appointments to the board," said AFL-CIO General Counsel Craig Becker, a former board member.

Monday's case began as a labor dispute. The NLRB found in February 2012 that Noel Canning, a Pepsi bottler in Yakima, Washington, had reneged on a verbal contract during union negotiations. The company appealed to the courts, attracting the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, conservative interest groups and Republican leaders in Congress. The case evolved into a constitutional challenge to the president's power to make appointments to key posts without Senate confirmation.

At issue are "recess appointments" made in January 2012 by...


[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Related articles

• Amazon May Get Its First Labor Union in the U.S.
• NLRB Office of the General Counsel Authorizes Complaints against Walmart, Also Finds No Merit to Other Charges
• Chamber takes aim at worker centers
• Oklahoma Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Worker's Comp Law - Opt-Out is The Law
• Why The Roberts Court's Anti-Consumer Decisions Are Even Worse Than They Seemed

EPA plans to sharply reduce inspections

Reallocating resources for enforcement, the US EPA will be targeting large industry for polluters. On the other side of the coin, the employees and potentially exposed bystanders, in smaller industries will  potentially suffer occupational exposures. The balancing act could be eliminated by merely increasing funding to the EPA for its enforcement effort. Today's post is shared from the LATimes.org  . WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency plans to substantially reduce inspections and civil enforcement cases against industry over the next five years, arguing that focusing on the biggest polluters would be the most effective way to clean up air and water. refinery In a draft strategic plan, the EPA proposes to cut federal inspections by one-third from the 20,000 inspections it conducted in the last fiscal year, ended Sept. 30. Moreover, it plans to initiate about 2,320 civil enforcement cases a year, compared with the 3,000 cases initiated last fiscal year, a 23% reduction. The EPA said the shift for fiscal years 2014 to 2018 is not a retreat from enforcement but a more effective allocation of resources.

Blowing the Whistle on the Chamber of Commerce

Today's post was shared by Linda Reinstein and comes from www.forbes.com

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform recently released a report on the False Claims Act (FCA)—the primary whistleblower legislation utilized by the federal government.  Unfortunately, its analysis presents a fundamentally defective approach to addressing fraud in business. In short, the Chamber’s report concludes the following: there is a lot of fraud in American commerce, particularly the kind of fraud (much of it in healthcare) that costs American taxpayers billions and billions of dollars annually (in excess of $70 billion according to the Government Accountability Office).  In fact, fraud is such a big problem that Congress needs to amend the FCA and reduce protections and rewards available for those who risk their careers to report that fraud. The reality is that the FCA is an example of how the government works at its best and most efficient.  In fact, another recent study by the Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund concludes that the government actually recovers $20 for every $1 it invests in fraud investigations pursuant to the FCA. And there is a reason for it.  It is because it may be the one area where government appropriately harnesses the private sector profit motive.  It is the one area where government outsources ordinary people, driven by their own morality, conscience, and, yes, desire for money, to help do government’s work and provide a public good in the process.  In fact, some...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Related articles

• White House rejects asbestos bill (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Johnson & Johnson to Pay More Than $2.2 Billion to Resolve Criminal and Civil Investigatio (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Stand Up For Safer Chemicals (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• ADAO Testified at House Subcommittee Hearing - "TSCA has Failed" (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• The Chemical Safety Improvement Act Falls Short: Open Letter to Congress (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Attorneys argue over Okla. workers' comp lawsuit (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)