Search results

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) creates rights for covered employees, defines conduct that violates those rights, and deems that conduct an unfair labor practice. But while given broad remedial powers under the Act, the Board's options were curtailed by the Supreme Court's limit on the use of deterrence as an express remedial justification. The Board was left with a strongly make-whole, i.e., ex-post, focus to undo the consequences of a violation.

Put differently, the current NLRA remedies reflect a pay-or-play philosophy. The goal is restoration after the fact, using ex-post remedies to give parties the benefit or status quo that they expected. An actor willing to pay may use a cost–benefit analysis and strategically choose to violate the Act, accepting the make-whole remedies later. But the Act created ex-ante statutory rights, not agreed-upon contractual terms. By statutory enactment, employees are given something of value deemed worthy of protection. Assigning value to compliance with the law in the first instance not only prevents sometimes irreparable harm but also reaffirms the inherent value of the right itself.

The impact of the Board's limited remedies is therefore a broad value-driven one. Without ex-ante deterrence, the available ex-post make-whole remedial options make a normative statement about individuals' rights under the Act: those rights may not be inherently worth enough to incentivize legal compliance. The make-whole focus can imply that financial compensation for the portion of harm that can be calculated and “undoing” some nonfinancial effects is sufficient. There is little drive to deter infringement before the fact. By examining the remedial philosophy behind contrasting approaches in the common law of torts and contract, this Article asserts that the current remedial strictures and framework undermine both the Act and the worth of its rights in the eyes of the public and the employees who hold them.

The Fair Labour Standards Act is a law that determines whether an employee is considered exempt or non‐exempt. Non‐exempt employees are eligible for overtime pay (time and a half) versus exempt employees, which are not eligible for overtime pay. The Fair Labour Standards Act status is based upon job duties rather than job title. An employee is considered exempt if he/she falls into either the professional, administrative, or executive exempt categories meeting all criteria. Many positions in the fast food industry are paid the minimum wage, or close to it, due to the intense competition and low profit margins in the industry (Reynolds, 2002). In addition, many of the employees are nonexempt employees and must punch in and out on a time clock. The positions available in the fast food restaurants themselves do not meet the criteria to be exempt due to the highly routine work they perform, with the exception of some management positions.

The criterion differentiating “protective labor legislation” and “industrial relations legislation” is not whether they are for or against the interest of labor. The interest is that of the general public, as is the case with all legislation. The basic difference concerns the parties to two types of labor contracts. Protective labor legislation concerns the individual contract and labor relations legislation concerns the contract between the specific groups in the field.

Recognizing the difference of labor laws between the U.S. and China, the U.S. parties need to recognize the differences when negotiating and investing in China, because some of the clauses can be settled when signing contracts or agreements. For China’s part, minimum wages are crucial for them to remember when they do business in the U.S.; the good thing is that they do not have to pay holidays that are different from China. Overall, the benefits are tremendous when the differences are recognized in advance of investments, contracts or agreement negotiations. Recognizing the differences between the two labor acts will avoid unnecessary cost and conflicts.

This chapter explores how hybrid organizations navigate the challenges (and opportunities) associated with advancing unconventional logic combinations. It draws from a study of the 180-year history of sheltered workshops in the United States. Sheltered workshops are hybrids that combine social and commercial logics to provide gainful employment to individuals with disabilities. This chapter theorizes a connection between the governance system – that is, country-based social norms and regulatory settlements – framing hybrids and the agency that allows them the discretion required to advance unconventional combinations. It introduces the term hybrid agency to describe this connection and identifies four types: upstream, midstream, downstream, and crosscurrent. Upstream agency draws from the entrepreneurial vision of charismatic founders. It allows hybrids the discretion to advance unconventional logic combinations in unsupportive times, but it also requires them to observe certain dominant cultural norms. Midstream agency draws from hybrids’ adaptation and advocacy skills and resources in periods of historical change. It allows access to resources and legitimacy for unconventional combinations. Downstream agency draws from organizational slack possible in supportive times. Slack eases tensions and tradeoffs between conflicting logics but may also fuel mission drift. Finally, crosscurrent agency also draws from hybrids’ adaptation and advocacy skills and resources. It provides hybrids with the opportunity to grapple with challenges in periods of contestation.

Employment classification is once again becoming a hot issue. Despite the fact that the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938, in the year 2003 we continue to see exploitation of employees currently classified under the exempt classification. However, employees are increasingly challenging the status of their employment to ensure fair wage treatment; many resulting in costly resolution to the employer. Thus, there is an increasing interest by employers to ensure their employees are properly classified appropriately (exempt or non‐exempt). As position classifications are put to the test, we can see that there are clear implications to various levels of the organisational structure, but the challenge lies in successful implementation of such reclassifications.

With the rise of employer-promulgated mandatory employment arbitration, scholars have become concerned that these policies may reduce the economic viability of lower value employment claims. Of particular worry are claims made under the Fair Labor Standards Act since the FLSA does not include punitive damages. This study empirically tests the relationship between 368 Fortune 1000 companies’ employment arbitration policies and their wage and hour violations discovered during the Department of Labor inspections. Surprisingly, firms that used arbitration were found to have fewer violations and lower back wages for those violation compared to firms that did not use arbitration. This suggests that viewing arbitration merely as a cost-reduction tool may cast the practice too narrowly and instead it may be part of a larger conflict management system that seeks to address conflict at the earliest possible stage.