Economic, Workplace and Environment Regulation

  • December 10, 2012
    Guest Post

    by Rena Steinzor, Professor of Law, University of Maryland, Francis King Carey School of Law; Steinzor is also president of the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR).

    After the last of the applause lines has been delivered, and while the crowd that gathered for his historic second inauguration is still filing out of town, President Obama will once again sit at his desk in the Oval Office and begin the tough policy work that will define his second term in office and shape the legacy he will leave behind.

    Among the many challenges he'll face over the next four years will be an urgent agenda of addressing critical threats to public health, safety, and the environment that the Administration let languish during the first term. But good luck to him if he decides to attack the problems with legislation. The election made the numbers in both chambers of Congress somewhat more favorable to the President's cause. But it'd take an earth-shattering event or at least another election to get protective legislation out of the House of Representatives, which vacillates between being sullen and defiant and will undoubtedly return to its anti-regulatory drum-beating as soon as the fiscal “crisis” is over.

    So what's a President to do? Use every bit of executive power he can marshal, in this case, by directing the regulatory agencies to move with dispatch to regulate and enforce in a number of vital areas. In Protecting People and the Environment by the Stroke of a Presidential Pen: Seven New Executive Orders for President Obama’s Second Term, released today, my colleagues and I at the Center for Progressive Reform explain how the President can take the first vital step by making full use of his authority to manage executive agencies -- including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- by issuing a series of Executive Orders.

  • November 19, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Sarah Crawford, Director of Workplace Fairness, National Partnership for Women & Families


    Later this term, the Supreme Court will decide the case of Vance v. Ball State, a case that will have critical implications for the ability of our nation’s civil rights laws to root out unlawful workplace harassment. At issue in the case is the meaning of “supervisor” and whether employers may be held vicariously liable for harassment committed by supervisors who have the authority to direct and oversee employees’ work, as compared to those who have the authority to hire or fire.  The Court’s decision will have important ramifications for the ability of victims of supervisor harassment to hold their employers accountable. 

    With so much at stake, the National Partnership for Women & Families led a group of ten top civil and workers’ rights organizations in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in Vance that calls on the Court to reject an overly restrictive definition of supervisor that is limited to those with the authority to make “tangible” employment decisions like hiring and firing. Quite simply, this definition does not reflect the realities of the workplace or the Court’s previously demonstrated understanding of what it means to be a supervisor. 

    Petitioner Maetta Vance worked at Ball State University as a catering assistant for the university’s dining services department when she was harassed by an employee that she considered to be a supervisor with the authority to direct and oversee her work. Vance alleges that, as a result of the harassment and physical intimidation she suffered, she lived and worked in a constant state of fear. Despite her complaints to the university, the harassment persisted.

  • November 16, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Christine L. Owens, Executive Director, National Employment Law Project


    With the election behind us, the looming fiscal cliff has now moved front and center in our national debate. The stakes are enormous, though as many note, the “cliff” is really a “slope,” with the effects of going over it more gradual than immediate and remediable by future action.  But for one group of Americans -- the long-term unemployed -- Congress’s failure to meet an end-of-year deadline means a catastrophic plunge. Here’s why.

    The Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program enacted in mid-2008 and since renewed ten times, provides between 14 and 47 weeks of federal unemployment benefits, depending on states’ unemployment rates, for jobless workers who reach the end of their state benefits (typically, 26 weeks) without finding work. Since Congress last reauthorized and shrank the EUC program in February 2012, the total number of weeks of federally-funded benefits for long-term unemployed workers has declined significantly, by an average of 31 percent across the states.  

    The EUC program is now set to expire at the end of the year -- a demise that is premature. Though the unemployment rate is falling, at 7.9 percent it is still 40 percent higher than when EUC was first implemented. More significant, long-term unemployment -- joblessness longer than six months -- has grown substantially in recent years: At five million individuals, long-term unemployment accounts for 40.6 of overall unemployment, a share more than double that in mid-2008 (18 percent) and one that has declined only marginally from the 42.6 percent rate last February, when the program was renewed. With more than three unemployed workers for every job opening, the average duration of unemployment is 40 weeks. These jarringly long spells and sustained high rates of long-term unemployment are record-setting, underscoring the continued need for the EUC program.

  • November 15, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Following on the victories for limited legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington, advocates for legalization are gearing up for more state action. Andrew Sullivan in a post, “The Legalization Tipping Point,” notes that lawmakers in Rhode Island, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont are contemplating legalization legislation.

    Legislators from Rhode Island and Maine during a teleconference today conducted by the Marijuana Policy Project discussed their plans to introduce measures that would decriminalize marijuana and allow the states to tax and regulate it “in a manner similar to alcohol.” The MPP statement about the call said lawmakers in Massachusetts and Vermont were planning on introducing similar legislation.

    In the MPP press announcement, Robert Capecchi, the group’s legislative analyst lauded last week’s victories, noting both ballot initiatives passed with about 55 percent in favor. He also declared, “We are passing the tipping point when it comes to this issue. Unfortunately, lawmakers have traditionally been behind public opinion when it comes to marijuana policy reform. With these thoughtful legislators in at least four states planning on introducing sensible proposals to remove criminal penalties and regulate marijuana in their states, it’s clear that ending marijuana prohibition is gaining momentum.”

    A string of states – 17 – and the District of Columbia already have laws permitting varying uses of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Denver’s medical marijuana industry, even with the efforts by the federal government to impede it, has become robust. But we still do not know how the Department of Justice will respond to the measures approved in Colo. and Wash.

  • October 23, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Peter B. Edelman. Edelman is a law professor at Georgetown Law and Chair of the ACS Board. Edelman is also author of the recent book, So Rich, So Poor.


    George McGovern leaves legacies of principle and courage across the board. Robert Kennedy once said McGovern was the most decent man he had ever known. I admired McGovern for many reasons, but the one that counts most for me in particular is that he picked up the mantle on American hunger after RFK was murdered and led the way to the food stamp program we have today – eradicating the near-starvation of children that we discovered in our country in the 1960s and achieving an enormous success in our public policy. 

    McGovern is no doubt known more for his unsuccessful run for the presidency and his steadfast opposition to the war in Vietnam, but he had a lifelong concern for food and nutrition and especially about feeding the hungry across the world. After Robert Kennedy died, McGovern got the Senate to establish a special committee on hunger and nutrition and stayed with it through the better part of the 1970s until food stamps had become a fully mature and successful national program. 

    I will remember George McGovern on many counts, but personally more than anything else I will hold closest to my heart his enormous contribution to bringing an end to severe malnutrition for millions of children in our nation.