Following up on the sensational Blue Line crash at the Chicago Transit Authority’s O’Hare Airport terminus: “The CTA’s contract with the Amalgamated Transit Union authorizes the agency to fire rail operators who have had two serious safety violations in a short period of time [emphasis added], and officials said the two incidents when [Brittney] Haywood dozed off qualify her for termination.” Falling asleep just once at the controls of a train wasn’t enough! [CBS Chicago] More: Bill Zeiser, American Spectator.
Northwestern athletes’ “college football participation = paid work to be governed by labor laws” argument may boomerang with a whopping tax bill [TaxProf, Bleacher Report on NLRB giving nod to idea]
Under an environmentalist banner, the city of Los Angeles plans a scheme to wipe family-owned trash haulers and replace them with unionized monopoly providers [L.A. Times, Scott Shackford/Reason]
“Union representatives join federal government safety inspectors on site visits to non-union businesses” [Patrick Howley, Daily Caller; SHRM, Better Roads, Associated Builders and Contractors on OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) letter of interpretation]
Hilarious: Steven Pearlstein column gloats re: unstoppable UAW-at-Volkswagen tide of history, reaches print after vote [WaPo; "claque," "rabid," "Babbitts," etc.] “We also looked at the track record of the UAW. Why buy a ticket on the Titanic?” [Reuters] “No wonder they wanted card check.” [Mickey Kaus; more, Kevin Williamson]
Only 1,999 unclarities left to go. I explain yesterday’s decision in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., the “don/doff” case, at Cato at Liberty (& welcome SCOTUSBlog readers).
Columnist George Will cites the Cato Institute amicus brief in Harris v. Quinn, the Supreme Court case over whether states may properly herd home caregivers reimbursed by government checks into collective representation [syndicated]. Earlier here. More: Ilya Shapiro, Michael Greve.
More: Reports on the oral argument from Ilya Shapiro, Cato, and from Reuters.
The phrase “evoked the ‘military-industrial complex’ about which President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned the nation in a speech days before he left office in 1961.” [Times-Union]
Sean Lengell of the Washington Examiner quotes me in a preview of the upcoming Supreme Court case about whether the provision of federal labor law barring employers from giving a labor union a “thing of value” prohibits “neutrality agreements” in which an employer provides its employee lists or free office space to union organizers. A broad ruling to that effect would wrest a major weapon away from unions, which is one reason I’m doubtful it will happen:
“Those that would like to rein in this type of union agreement, whether it be business or conservatives, shouldn’t get too overconfident,” said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute. “Getting the justices to see the logic of Mulhall’s argument is one thing; getting them to act and sign a decision [in his favor] is something else.”
Olson added the justices may be looking for a way out of having to make a definitive ruling.
“I think the court’s instincts are not to pull too hard at the columns of the temple on labor law, because they’re not sure where it’s going to fall,” he said.
Update: reactions to Mulhall oral argument from Jack Goldsmith (and more), Ben Sachs, Cato’s Trevor Burrus, and William Gould/SCOTUSBlog.