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.

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

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

The Role of Labor Unions in Creating Working Conditions That Promote Public Health.

We sought to portray how collective bargaining contracts promote public health, beyond their known effect on individual, family, and community well-being. In November 2014, we created an abstraction tool to identify health-related elements in 16 union contracts from industries in the Pacific Northwest. After enumerating the contract-protected benefits and working conditions, we interviewed union organizers and members to learn how these promoted health. Labor union contracts create higher wage and benefit standards, working hours limits, workplace hazards protections, and other factors. Unions also promote well-being by encouraging democratic participation and a sense of community among workers. Labor union contracts are largely underutilized, but a potentially fertile ground for public health innovation. Public health practitioners and labor unions would benefit by partnering to create sophisticated contracts to address social determinants of health.

"Educate the Individual... to a Sane Appreciation of the Risk" A History of Industry's Responsibility to Warn of Job Dangers Before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the Workers Right to Know laws later in that decade were signature moments in the history of occupational safety and health. We have examined how and why industry leaders came to accept that it was the obligation of business to provide information about the dangers to health of the materials that workers encountered. Informing workers about the hazards of the job had plagued labor-management relations and fed labor disputes, strikes, and even pitched battles during the turn of the century decades. Industry's rhetorical embrace of the responsibility to inform was part of its argument that government regulation of the workplace was not necessary because private corporations were doing it.

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.

Informal Workers in Thailand: Occupational Health and Social Security Disparities.

Informal workers in Thailand lack employee status as defined under the Labor Protection Act (LPA). Typically, they do not work at an employer's premise; they work at home and may be self-employed or temporary workers. They account for 62.6 percent of the Thai workforce and have a workplace accident rate ten times higher than formal workers. Most Thai Labor laws apply only to formal workers, but some protect informal workers in the domestic, home work, and agricultural sectors. Laws that protect informal workers lack practical enforcement mechanisms and are generally ineffective because informal workers lack employment contracts and awareness of their legal rights. Thai social security laws fail to provide informal workers with treatment of work-related accidents, diseases, and injuries; unemployment and retirement insurance; and workers' compensation. The article summarizes the differences in protections available for formal and informal sector workers and measures needed to decrease these disparities in coverage.

Human research subjects as human research workers.

Biomedical research involving human subjects has traditionally been treated as a unique endeavor, presenting special risks and demanding special protections. But in several ways, the regulatory scheme governing human subjects research is counter-intuitively less protective than the labor and employment laws applicable to many workers. This Article relies on analogical and legal reasoning to demonstrate that this should not be the case; in a number of ways, human research subjects ought to be fundamentally recast as human research workers. Like other workers protected under worklaw, biomedical research subjects often have interests that diverge from those in positions of control but little bargaining power for change. Bearing these important similarities in mind, the question becomes whether there is any good reason to treat subjects and protected workers differently as a matter of law. With regard to unrestricted payment, eligibility for a minimum wage, compensation for injury, and rights to engage in concerted activity, the answer is no and human subjects regulations ought to be revised accordingly.