Journal of Individual Employment Rights最新文献_第3页

PERSONNEL SELECTION: SITUATIONAL TEST OR EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW? THE VALIDITY VERSUS JUSTICE DILEMMA 人员选择:情景测试还是面试?有效性与正义的困境

Journal of Individual Employment Rights Pub Date : 2001-07-01 DOI: 10.2190/9YW7-F1J8-FE4L-AHKR

H. Steensma, Coby Doreleijers

引用次数: 3

DISORDER IN THE COURTS: THE APPLICATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT TO HEALTH INSURANCE 法庭上的混乱:《美国残疾人法》对健康保险的适用

Journal of Individual Employment Rights Pub Date : 2001-07-01 DOI: 10.2190/U48R-Q4CV-FXHG-DX50

J. A. Mello

{"title":"DISORDER IN THE COURTS: THE APPLICATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT TO HEALTH INSURANCE","authors":"J. A. Mello","doi":"10.2190/U48R-Q4CV-FXHG-DX50","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/U48R-Q4CV-FXHG-DX50","url":null,"abstract":"In the past several years the United States Supreme Court has issued a number of rulings that clarify ambiguous sections of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). These rulings have addressed the division among the lower federal courts concerning interpretations of various ADA provisions. However, there is one nagging question under the ADA on which the lower courts have ruled inconsistently and the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to review. This troubling issue concerns the application of the ADA to health insurance and its implications for how the rights of those with disabilities to health insurance can be fully upheld under the ADA. The courts have ruled and regulatory agencies have argued inconsistently as to whether insurance practices that “cap” or otherwise limit the benefits offered to employees who suffer from disabilities fall under the coverage of the ADA. This article explores the rulings and interpretations of the lower courts and calls for legislative action and/or Supreme Court review of the issue. While the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) provides broad legal protection from discrimination for those with disabilities, it also contains a number of ambiguous areas which the courts have been forced to interpret [1]. One major unresolved controversy involves actions by which insurance companies place caps on benefits for medical care for individuals with select disabilities. Despite the fact that the federal circuits have been split in their rulings in this area, the Supreme Court has refused to hear cases related to this issue on three separate occasions. This article explores the controversy surrounding the issue and presents recommendations for how the rights of those with disabilities can be fully upheld under the ADA.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"17 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133797561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

THE LABYRINTH OF SOLIDARITY: A DIARY OF A UNION ORGANIZING DRIVE AND A FIRST CONTRACT NEGOTIATION 团结的迷宫:工会组织运动和第一次合同谈判的日记

Journal of Individual Employment Rights Pub Date : 2001-07-01 DOI: 10.2190/VJ1E-YUDJ-XV2G-KHC6

J. Amighi, J. Lavin

{"title":"THE LABYRINTH OF SOLIDARITY: A DIARY OF A UNION ORGANIZING DRIVE AND A FIRST CONTRACT NEGOTIATION","authors":"J. Amighi, J. Lavin","doi":"10.2190/VJ1E-YUDJ-XV2G-KHC6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/VJ1E-YUDJ-XV2G-KHC6","url":null,"abstract":"This is a study of an ultimately successful attempt to form a union among mushroom workers at a large Pennsylvania mushroom processing operation. After laying out background material on the work, the industry, and the workforce, the article traces the history of the organizing attempt from a strike that occurred in 1993 through the execution of a collective bargaining agreement in 2002. In the course of describing the organizing drive, we offer our insights into issues that affect union organizing, contract negotiation, and legal factors that have implications far beyond what happened on this specific mushroom farm in southeastern Pennsylvania. We include aspects of management-labor relations that are, at least in part, shaped by the migrant and immigrant status of the workers and their cultural background. The article is based largely upon the authors’ observations of the events and their interviews with the workers and their supporters. The perspectives of the other players emerge primarily from the materials produced during the organizing drive and from legal documents and newspaper articles. The authors call the readers’ attention to the fact that we have spent much more time with the workers and their leaders than we have with management and its agents. Both of us have served as members of the union’s Advisory Board, participated in the organizing drive, conducted workshops for the workers and their leaders, and sat on the union side of the table during contract negotiations. While we have tried to be fair to both sides, we are much closer to the workers than we are to management, and we must admit to the possibility of an unconscious bias.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116996849","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE IN THE CONTEXT OF EMPLOYER ASCENDANCY: NEW-OLD ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 雇主优势背景下的个体雇员:新旧经济学分析

Journal of Individual Employment Rights Pub Date : 2001-07-01 DOI: 10.2190/QUEL-QFY0-DT3Y-90DL

D. Mitchell, Christopher L. Erickson

{"title":"THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE IN THE CONTEXT OF EMPLOYER ASCENDANCY: NEW-OLD ECONOMIC ANALYSIS","authors":"D. Mitchell, Christopher L. Erickson","doi":"10.2190/QUEL-QFY0-DT3Y-90DL","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/QUEL-QFY0-DT3Y-90DL","url":null,"abstract":"Through the 1930s, the notion of an inequality of bargaining power between employer and employee provided a rationale for collective bargaining, partly on macroeconomic grounds. More recent economic thinking suggests that in nonunion employment situations, employers will have monopsonistic power, and various aspects of labor-market performance since the 1980s suggest monopsony is present in the workplace. With unions in decline, employer ascendancy in determining wages and conditions of work increasingly provides a rationale for regulating the employment relationship. In the context of employer ascendancy, employee preferences will be underweighted in the employment relationship. Legislative proposals, enactments, and litigation are being considered to re-balance the relationship. The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries (Preamble to the Wagner Act [1]).","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134366872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

DISCUSSION OF A CONTEMPORARY ISSUE: FULL-TIME RIGHTS FOR PART-TIME WORKERS: PARITY IN WAGES, BENEFITS, AND ADVANCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES 讨论当代问题:兼职工人的全职权利:工资、福利和晋升机会均等

Journal of Individual Employment Rights Pub Date : 2001-07-01 DOI: 10.2190/XDXJ-T7N3-R3PC-8DEU

N. Segal

引用次数: 2

RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION AND THE COURTS: A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS 宗教和解与法院:回顾与分析

Journal of Individual Employment Rights Pub Date : 2001-04-01 DOI: 10.2190/ALF3-7DY5-ML83-Y2TK

L. S. Kleiman, Joan Benek-Rivera

{"title":"RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION AND THE COURTS: A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS","authors":"L. S. Kleiman, Joan Benek-Rivera","doi":"10.2190/ALF3-7DY5-ML83-Y2TK","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/ALF3-7DY5-ML83-Y2TK","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews case law dealing with claims of religious accommodation discrimination filed under the Civil Rights Act. This article is intended to provide employers with a better understanding of how the courts adjudicate these types of cases. The article is divided into three sections. The first two sections examine the type of evidence needed by a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination and the requirements for an effective defense. The third section addresses areas of potential concerns for organizations in light of the judicial decisions reviewed and offers recommendations for avoiding/defending claims of religious accommodation discrimination. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (CRA) prohibits religious discrimination at the workplace. One of the most challenging aspects of the law for employers is dealing with employees’ requests for religious accommodation. As interpreted by the Supreme Court in its 1978 decision in TWA vs. Hardison [1], the CRA requires employers to provide religious accommodations, as long as the accommodation does not place an undue hardship on their business operations. The Court defined an undue hardship as one in which the cost of accommodation is more than minimal [1]. The determination of more than minimal depends on such factors as the size and nature of the business and the amount of expense involved. As the result of such factors as immigration, globalization, and a changing political and religious climate, today’s employers face a wide variety of","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121201909","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

CAMPAIGN AACSB: ARE BUSINESS SCHOOLS COMPLICIT IN CORPORATE CORRUPTION? aacsb运动:商学院是企业腐败的同谋吗?

Journal of Individual Employment Rights Pub Date : 2001-04-01 DOI: 10.2190/0VJH-E5PG-V9R5-1HVE

D. Swanson, W. Frederick

引用次数: 23

MODELING U.S. AND CANADIAN EQUALITY PROGRAMS 模拟美国和加拿大的平等项目

Journal of Individual Employment Rights Pub Date : 2001-04-01 DOI: 10.2190/9UFL-K77R-2N8N-0LWP

Richard D. Sparkman, Alex Z. Kondra

{"title":"MODELING U.S. AND CANADIAN EQUALITY PROGRAMS","authors":"Richard D. Sparkman, Alex Z. Kondra","doi":"10.2190/9UFL-K77R-2N8N-0LWP","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/9UFL-K77R-2N8N-0LWP","url":null,"abstract":"Equality legislation and voluntary equality programs have been major issues for U.S. and Canadian employers, governments at all levels, and for human resource researchers since the 1960s. Many scholars have noted that work in this area has been complicated by confusion over the nature of the programs themselves. The extensive literature includes little discussion of a comprehensive framework for comparing and contrasting the myriad of definitions, programs, and policy choices. This article lays out a framework to assist those developing or revising legislation, organizations undertaking voluntary equality programs, and human resource researchers. Equality legislation and voluntary equality programs have been major issues for employers, governments at all levels, and for human resource researchers in the United States and Canada since the 1960s. These programs have run the gamut from voluntary corporate programs to legislated compulsory programs. Although many pieces of legislation, judgments, articles in the business and popular presses, and scholarly articles have been devoted to the topic, significant confusion still exists over the nature of these programs, making the discussion difficult [1-5]. The discussion is further complicated by the intense passions inflamed by equality issues [3, 5-7]. A framework for analysis should be a step toward making the debate more productive and should provide a useful structure for legislative and corporate","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"65 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131922904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

At-Will Employment: Just Let It Go 随意雇佣:随它去吧

Journal of Individual Employment Rights Pub Date : 2001-04-01 DOI: 10.2190/FCTV-NTPC-NYK9-Q6PW

Debra D. Burke, B. Little

{"title":"At-Will Employment: Just Let It Go","authors":"Debra D. Burke, B. Little","doi":"10.2190/FCTV-NTPC-NYK9-Q6PW","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/FCTV-NTPC-NYK9-Q6PW","url":null,"abstract":"In the United States, at-will employment is the bulwark of employment relationship. One estimate is that 60 percent of American workers are employed on an at-will basis [1], which according to common law, means that either the employer or the employee may terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause. While this employment relationship has been recognized for over a century, it has deteriorated markedly in the past decades. The argument of this article is that, in actuality, employers have far less leeway in at-will situations than they believe. In addition, explicit at-will statements, which are meant to strengthen the employers’ situation, actually increase the likelihood that employees will feel unfairly treated. Based on these two arguments, this article suggests that employers should abandon the at-will doctrine and substitute a good faith dealing with employees. At-will employment has been the default employment relationship within the United States since the late 1800s. Under this doctrine, without a written employment contract or with an indefinite term of employment, either the employer or the employee may terminate the relationship for “good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all” [2]. While at first glance this appears to be an equal relationship, in actuality many people recognize that it is not a level playing field [3]. Being dismissed from employment has a far greater impact on an individual than a single individual’s resignation has on a company. Hence, several exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine have become widely recognized. These exceptions can be classified","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133485915","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES: CONSTITUTIONALITY AND EMPLOYMENT IMPLICATIONS 基于信仰的倡议:合宪性和就业影响

Journal of Individual Employment Rights Pub Date : 2001-04-01 DOI: 10.2190/KWLF-LF8A-1D4P-C9JE

H. Findley, Earl E. Ingram, Sabrena Moten

{"title":"FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES: CONSTITUTIONALITY AND EMPLOYMENT IMPLICATIONS","authors":"H. Findley, Earl E. Ingram, Sabrena Moten","doi":"10.2190/KWLF-LF8A-1D4P-C9JE","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/KWLF-LF8A-1D4P-C9JE","url":null,"abstract":"Passage of faith-based aid to religious charities appears imminent and government barriers to faith-based organizations competing for government funding have been removed by executive order. The impact of these changes should be significant because today many thousands of religious organizations exist, employing several million workers. This article reviews the constitutional and employment implications of actual and contemplated initiatives that would provide such organizations with federal aid for nonreligious activities. In general, aid to religious organizations has been deemed constitutional as long as it is appropriately tailored and the religious organization meets certain guidelines. Faith-based organizations may discriminate based on religion when selecting those involved in ministerial positions. However, with respect to other positions, they cannot discriminate based on sex, race, age, etc. unless it is consistent with their religious beliefs. Thus their “right to discriminate” may not be much greater than that allowed to nonfaith-based organizations. Soon after his inauguration, President George W. Bush proposed that federal funds be provided to religious entities, because so many services they provide afford vital assistance to the needy and disadvantaged. These initiatives have long been suggested for a variety of other reasons as well: to utilize an existing social support pipeline and forgo additional government bureaucracy, to redress a perceived government bias against religious programs [1], to tap religious organizations’","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123768014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1