Right-to-Work-for-Less: How Janus v. AFSCME Threatens Public Health.

In February 2018, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, a case poised to make right-to-work (or, as some call it, right-to-work-for-less) the law in the public sector. At issue is the constitutionality of requiring non-union members, who benefit from collective bargaining, to pay fees that support contract negotiations on the terms and conditions of their employment. We argue that a win for Janus would threaten public health by eroding organized labor's power to improve working conditions. Furthermore, we critique the dubious legal theory underpinning Janus's case and describe the moneyed political interests backing his legal representation. Finally, we chart a path forward for labor organizing in a post- Janus world, drawing inspiration from the winter 2018 educators' strike in West Virginia. Regardless of how Janus itself is decided, the issues raised in this article remain crucial because the ongoing weakening of unions by legislative and judicial means undermines workers' health and exacerbates inequities.

One step forward, two steps back: worker representation and health and safety in the United Kingdom.

There is now quite strong evidence for a set of preconditions that help determine the effectiveness of worker representation and consultation in improving health and safety outcomes. One of these preconditions is a regulatory framework that defines workers' rights to representation and employers' obligations to respond. Using the United Kingdom as its focus, this article explores developments at the national policy level. It shows how long-awaited legislative reforms to improve provisions for worker representation in health and safety have so far failed to materialize and, instead, government strategy has concentrated on promoting voluntary approaches. The author reviews the evidence of what makes worker representation in health and safety effective and suggests that, far from abandoning approaches to legislative reform, the U.K. agencies should be seeking to make improvements to the British provisions if they are to provide the necessary stimulus and support for worker representation in health and safety at work. Such improvements need to address long-standing weaknesses in existing provisions and their relevance to the changing world of work. The arguments presented here apply to the essential role of regulatory support for worker participation in all advanced market economies if it is to improve health and safety outcomes.

MEMBER ONLY COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS: WHY NOT?

For those active in industrial relations there is quite a well-known book titled From the Folks Who Brought You the Weekend: A Short, Illustrated History of Labor in the United States. The books' thesis or focus was firstly to remind readers of the many struggles in the USA by trade unions to obtain and protect basic working conditions American workers, now take for granted, and secondly to reinforce the important and enduring relationship between unions and their members.

For Now, Public Unions Can Continue to Collect Fees from Nonmembers.

A four-four Supreme Court decision may lead to a rehearing.

And it all came tumbling down...new industrial relations legislation to hurt nurses.

When the Howard Government gains total control of Parliament in July this year, it has announced it will introduce legislation which will dismantle Australia's industrial relations system. The Australian Nursing Federation (ANF) and the Queensland Nurses' Union (QNU) expect the new legislation will reduce the role of unions, put downward pressure on wages and conditions and dilute the power of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) to hear and resolve disputes. The changes will not only affect nurses' wages and conditions, but threaten to undermine the profession itself.

Collective bargaining and strikes among physicians.

UNLIKE EMPLOYEES IN OTHER SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY, HEALTH CARE WORKERS ARE DIRECTED TOWARD ONE ULTIMATE GOAL: making people well and keeping them healthy. The development of collective bargaining and union activities during this century has had a great impact on all industries in the United States and the western world. However, only in recent years have workers in the health care sector been affected by the organized labor movement. The history of collective bargaining and strikes among physicians, the key decision-makers in the health care sector, is even more recent. Because of their central position, physicians' collective activity has had and will continue to have tremendous implications for the viability of the present health care system and the quality of patient care. Even though most physicians continue to function as individual, entrepreneurial service providers and "professionals," physicians as a group are more frequently being seen as members of a utility like industry. Their importance to individuals and society as a whole, it can be argued, is second to none; if physicians refuse to work there can be no worse set of outcomes. To estimate the potential future impact of growing collective action on the part of physicians, this article explores the general historical developments.

Labor law and physicians' privileged position: an example of structural interest influence.

Health care delivery in the United States may be characterized as a dynamic system of conflicting interest groups. Since the reorganization of the medical profession in 1910, however, physicians have been able to maintain their position as a dominant structural interest group. A dominant structural interest in one which is served by the structure of social, economic, and political institutions. It does not have to reorganize continuously to protect its privileged position. Although several medical sociologists have noted the privileged position of physicians, few have attempted to explicate the process of status maintenance. This paper examines the development of labor law in health care as one example of structural interest influence. Labor law provides an excellent illustration of this influence in that its development and application are far removed from the physicians' sphere of direct influence. It is demonstrated that the ideology that physicians should hold a privileged position is so ingrained that their interests are protected even in their absence.