Freeing Employee Choice: The Case For Secrecy in Union Organizing and Voting


Cynthia Estlund

Responding to Benjamin I. Sachs, Enabling Employee Choice: A Structural Approach to the Rules of Union Organizing, 123 Harv. L. Rev. 655 (2010)

In his article Enabling Employee Choice, Professor Benjamin Sachs provided a nuanced analysis of what is wrong both with current law and with the leading reform proposal. In this response, Professor Cynthia Estlund argues that Professor Sachs’s reform proposal is likely to set the terms for future scholarly analysis and for serious public debate over the role of law in union organizing regardless of the fate of labor law reform in the current Congress. She discusses the history of the labor law reform debate, the importance of altering the sticky non-union default, and the secrecy debate, raising some questions about Professor Sachs’s defense of secrecy in voting. She concludes by noting that Professor Sachs has offered a way to defuse employer resistance’s threat to employee free choice while retaining the virtues of secret ballot voting.

123 Harv. L. Rev. F. 10 (2010) | DOWNLOAD PDF

Comments (0)


We encourage respectful, thoughtful commentary. All comments will be reviewed before posting.
Name
E-mail (Will not appear online)
Homepage
Subject
Comment
To prevent automated Bots form spamming, please enter the text you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
»
Online Forum


Responding to Orin S. Kerr, An Equilibrium-Adjustment Theory of the Fourth Amendment, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 476 (2011)

An Original Take on Originalism

Christopher Slobogin


Responding to Dan M. Kahan, Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (2011)

Democracy’s Distrust: Contested Values and the Decline of Expertise

Suzanna Sherry

“I Couldn’t See It Until I Believed It”: Some Notes on Motivated Reasoning in Constitutional Adjudication

Mark Tushnet


Responding to John F. Manning, Separation of Powers as Ordinary Interpretation, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 1939 (2011)

A Softer Formalism

Peter L. Strauss

Optimal Specificity in the Law of Separation of Powers: The Numerous Clauses Principle

Gary Lawson


Responding to Trevor W. Morrison, Constitutional Alarmism, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 1688 (2011)

Lost Inside the Beltway

Bruce Ackerman

Libya, “Hostilities,” the Office of Legal Counsel, and the Process of Executive Branch Legal Interpretation

Trevor W. Morrison


FORUM ARCHIVE


Harvard Law Review
Gannett House
1511 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138

Editorial Office:
617-495-7889
617-496-5053 (fax)

Business Office:
617-495-4650
617-495-2748 (fax)