ACSBlog

  • June 19, 2017
    Guest Post

    *This piece originally appeared on the EPI blog.

    by Celine McNicholas, Labor Counsel, Economic Policy Institute


    Today, the Acting Solicitor General switched the government’s position in National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc, from arguing in favor of working people to arguing in favor of big business. The move is deeply disappointing, and represents a stark departure from standard practice. It is the clearest indication yet of where the Trump administration stands: with corporate interests and against working people.

    The Murphy Oil case is significant for workers. It will determine whether mandatory arbitration agreements with individual workers that prevent them from pursuing work-related claims collectively are prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). These agreements have become increasingly common.

    The NLRA guarantees workers the right to join together to improve their terms and conditions of employment and prohibits employers from interfering with or restraining the exercise of these rights. In Murphy Oil, the National Labor Relations Board is arguing that agreements that force workers to waive their right to pursue work-related claims on a class or collective basis interfere with workers’ rights under the NLRA and are prohibited. The Solicitor General argued this position just last October, and there has been no change in the law since then. As a matter of fact, just last month the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that these mandatory arbitration agreements and class action waivers are prohibited by the NLRA. The only thing that has changed is the administration.

  • June 14, 2017
    Guest Post

    *This piece originally appeared on Take Care

    by Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center

    When President Trump took the oath of office, he swore to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States. Yet since he took that oath, he has been flagrantly violating a critical provision of the Constitution that was designed to ensure that the nation’s leaders would always put the national interest above their personal self-interest.      

    Today, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Rep. John Conyers, and 194 other members of Congress have gone to federal court seeking to put an end to the president’s willful violations of the Constitution. We, at the Constitutional Accountability Center, are proud to represent them in this effort. 

    When the nation’s Founders came together to draft a new national charter, they were profoundly concerned about both corruption of federal officeholders and foreign influence over the nation. They understood what a threat corruption posed and they worried that foreign nations might attempt to meddle in America’s affairs, including by giving benefits to the nation’s chief executive to subvert his loyalties. 

    In response to those concerns, the Founders included in the Constitution the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which prohibits any person “holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]” from “accept[ing] . . . any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” without “the consent of the Congress.”  Although there has been a great deal of talk about this Clause since Donald Trump’s election, there has been much less talk about five of its most important words: “the consent of the Congress.” 

  • June 14, 2017
    Guest Post

    *This piece originally appeared on the Economic Policy Institute’s Working Economics Blog.

    by Marni von Wilpert, Associate Labor Counsel, Economic Policy Institute

    Yesterday, the Trump administration took yet another step against working people by announcing that the Department of Labor (DOL) will rescind its “persuader rule,” which would have helped level the playing field for workers by letting them know the source of the anti-union messages they receive during union drives.

    Unions help union and nonunion workers in countless ways. They raise wagesmake workplaces safer and close the gender pay gap. Most importantly, unions let workers have their voices heard on the job. The ability of people to join together to negotiate for better working conditions and pay is even more important in an era of forced arbitration, where women who are sexually harassed often cannot get justice in a courtroom and workers who are being cheated out of minimum wage often cannot file class action lawsuits. All workers deserve a voice in their workplaces and a union is one of the best ways for working people to make sure they are getting treated fairly on the job.

    But many employers fight unionization efforts at every turn, by hiring professional anti-union consultants—“persuaders”—to bust their employees’ organizing drives with sophisticated anti-union campaigns. Union-busting firms promise to equip employers with “campaign strategies” and “opposition research” and produce anti-union videos, websites, posters, buttons, T-shirts and PowerPoint presentations for employers to deploy against their workers’ unionizing efforts. Employers spend large amounts of money to hire anti-union consultants—sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars.

  • June 14, 2017
    Guest Post

    *This piece originally appeared in The Huffington Post.

    by Christopher Kang, ACS Board Member and National Director, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans

    Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on two circuit court nominees: John Bush for the Sixth Circuit and Kevin Newsom for the Eleventh Circuit. Many concerns have been raised about these nominees (as well as the third nominee on the hearing, Damien Schiff for the Court of Federal Claims), but setting aside the mertis for just a moment, we cannot lose sight of the process as Chairman Grassley casusally rejects another Senate norm in the interest of rubberstamping President Trump's judicial nominees.

    It has long been the practice of the Senate Judiciary Committee to consider only one circuit court nominee per nomination hearing. Exceptions are rare and usually have extenuating circumstances: the Judiciary Committee held hearings for more than 60 of President Obama’s circuit court nominees, and held a hearing with two circuit court nominees only three times—each time with the support of the minority party.

    As then-Ranking Member Sessions explained—in agreeing to move forward—at a joint hearing for Fourth Circuit Judges James Wynn and Albert Diaz, both of North Carolina:

  • June 14, 2017
    Guest Post

    *This piece originally appeared on Zuckerman Law’s Whistleblower Protection Law Blog.

    by Jason Zuckerman, Whistleblower Advocate, Zuckerman Law

    For me, the most telling moment of former FBI Director Jim Comey’s June 8 testimony occurred early in the hearing, when Mr. Comey choked up as he recalled the White House’s publicly stating that the president had fired him because the “FBI was in disarray.”

    This emotional display seemed out of character for Mr. Comey. While U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, he successfully prosecuted organized crime. As Deputy Attorney General during the George W. Bush Administration, Mr. Comey refused to sign an extension of the warrantless domestic spying program and defied the White House Counsel and Chief of Staff. Mr. Comey can fairly be described as a “tough guy.” So how did he go from leading the most powerful law-enforcement agency worldwide to being labeled a “leaking liar”?

    To an experienced whistleblower advocate, Mr. Comey’s predicament is not surprising. Mr. Comey’s experience, unfortunately, is like those of many whistleblowers I have represented over more than a decade. President Trump promised to bring a business approach to government—and his retaliation against Mr. Comey is straight out of the corporate defense playbook. Corporations typically take the following steps of escalating retaliation to silence whistleblowers: