﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/">
  <channel>
    <title>Labor &amp; Industrial Relations</title>
    <description> </description>
    <link>http://www.aseonline.org/Default.aspx?TabId=7440&amp;rssid8770=22</link>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <managingEditor>kmarrs@aseonline.org</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>kmarrs@aseonline.org</webMaster>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 05:37:22 GMT</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 05:37:22 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
    <generator>PackFlash Publishing RSS Generator Version 2.4.1.0</generator>
    <item>
      <title>“Persuader” Rule, Expected to Go Final in April, Still in Limbo</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;span style="font-family: tahoma, geneva, sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 12px"&gt;Employers&amp;mdash;especially non-union employers&amp;mdash;may be dodging a bullet at this very moment without knowing it.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;span style="font-family: tahoma, geneva, sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 12px"&gt;Nearly two years ago (in June 2011) the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) proposed a new regulation that would expand the definition of &amp;ldquo;persuader&amp;rdquo; in the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. The effect would be to force employers to disclose to the government the identities of all consulting firms or individuals who advise the employer on how to persuade its employees to oppose unionization. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href='http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/570/“Persuader”-Rule-Expected-to-Go-Final-in-April-Still-in-Limbo.aspx'&gt;More...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/570/“Persuader”-Rule-Expected-to-Go-Final-in-April-Still-in-Limbo.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/570/“Persuader”-Rule-Expected-to-Go-Final-in-April-Still-in-Limbo.aspx</comments>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Quirky Freelancers’ “Union” is on the Grow</title>
      <description>&lt;p align="left"&gt;
	&lt;span style="font-family: tahoma, geneva, sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 12px"&gt;In 2012 union membership in the private sector fell to 7% of the total workforce. In the public sector, it fell to less than 13%. With union membership dwindling, the ranks of independent contractors (ICs) has grown proportionately. One quirky &amp;ldquo;union&amp;rdquo; has found a niche for itself in that growing pool of ICs.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href='http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/546/Quirky-Freelancers’-“Union”-is-on-the-Grow.aspx'&gt;More...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/546/Quirky-Freelancers’-“Union”-is-on-the-Grow.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/546/Quirky-Freelancers’-“Union”-is-on-the-Grow.aspx</comments>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Employers, Beware of Labor Secretary Nominee Thomas Perez</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;span style="font-family: tahoma, geneva, sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 12px"&gt;Thomas Perez was nominated Monday to be part of President Obama&amp;rsquo;s second term team, as Secretary of the Department of Labor. He would replace Hilda Solis, who resigned from the post in January.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href='http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/532/Employers-Beware-of-Labor-Secretary-Nominee-Thomas-Perez.aspx'&gt;More...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/532/Employers-Beware-of-Labor-Secretary-Nominee-Thomas-Perez.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/532/Employers-Beware-of-Labor-Secretary-Nominee-Thomas-Perez.aspx</comments>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>As Expected, Labor Groups File Suits Against Right to Work</title>
      <description>&lt;p align="left"&gt;
	&lt;span style="font-family: tahoma, geneva, sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 12px"&gt;As happened in Indiana when a Right-to-Work law was passed there, labor organizations and pro-labor advocates have filed suits in Michigan courts to try to bring down the Michigan&amp;rsquo;s Right-to-Work laws, set to go into effect March 27.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href='http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/508/As-Expected-Labor-Groups-File-Suits-Against-Right-to-Work.aspx'&gt;More...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/508/As-Expected-Labor-Groups-File-Suits-Against-Right-to-Work.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/508/As-Expected-Labor-Groups-File-Suits-Against-Right-to-Work.aspx</comments>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Unions Having Second Thoughts About  Obamacare</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;span style="font-family: tahoma, geneva, sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 12px"&gt;Some of the strongest supporters of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) when it was being debated were the unions.&amp;nbsp; Now they are rethinking their stance.&amp;nbsp; Finally reading the law more carefully, they are recognizing that many of the provisions that made it popular will make the cost of the health plans that they offer their members increase greatly.&amp;nbsp; Moreover, with higher costs, unions will have to somehow recoup that money.&amp;nbsp; Free or low-cost healthcare will unlikely be the norm for union employees, a major selling point for unions.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href='http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/498/Unions-Having-Second-Thoughts-About-Obamacare.aspx'&gt;More...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/498/Unions-Having-Second-Thoughts-About-Obamacare.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/498/Unions-Having-Second-Thoughts-About-Obamacare.aspx</comments>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Appeals Court Decision Puts 200+ NLRB Rulings in Limbo</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;span style="font-family: tahoma, geneva, sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 12px"&gt;Last Friday, the federal Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. dealt the Obama administration a major political blow in a decision that invalidates, at least for the time being, more than 200 rulings by the National Labor Relations Board, most of which went against employer interests.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href='http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/488/Appeals-Court-Decision-Puts-200-NLRB-Rulings-in-Limbo.aspx'&gt;More...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/488/Appeals-Court-Decision-Puts-200-NLRB-Rulings-in-Limbo.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/488/Appeals-Court-Decision-Puts-200-NLRB-Rulings-in-Limbo.aspx</comments>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Right to Work and the Dues Check-off Clause</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;span style="font-family: tahoma, geneva, sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 12px"&gt;Most collective bargaining agreements in Michigan not only contain &amp;ldquo;union security&amp;rdquo; clauses (requiring the payment of member dues, initiation fees or agency fees for continued employment), but also &amp;ldquo;dues check-off&amp;rdquo; clauses (requiring the employer to deduct sums from employee paychecks for transmittal to the union, where the employee has signed a voluntary check-off authorization).&amp;nbsp; It is critical for Michigan employers to understand that check-off clauses are subject to separate statutory provisions under federal law, and may be unaffected by Michigan&amp;rsquo;s Right to Work law. Depending on the wording of the check-off authorization form signed by the employee, both the employee and the employer may have an obligation to continue check-off notwithstanding the passage of RTW.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href='http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/485/Right-to-Work-and-the-Dues-Check-off-Clause.aspx'&gt;More...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/485/Right-to-Work-and-the-Dues-Check-off-Clause.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/485/Right-to-Work-and-the-Dues-Check-off-Clause.aspx</comments>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Right-to-Work: Beware of “Piecemeal” Organizing</title>
      <description>&lt;p align="left"&gt;
	&lt;span style="font-family: tahoma, geneva, sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 12px"&gt;Most non-unionized employers believe two things about Michigan&amp;rsquo;s new &amp;ldquo;right-to-work&amp;rdquo; (RTW) law: it will either be irrelevant because they have no unionized employees or helpful to them because, by weakening unions, it will further reduce the risk of union organizing.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href='http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/476/Right-to-Work-Beware-of-“Piecemeal”-Organizing.aspx'&gt;More...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/476/Right-to-Work-Beware-of-“Piecemeal”-Organizing.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/476/Right-to-Work-Beware-of-“Piecemeal”-Organizing.aspx</comments>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Non-Unionized Employers and Right To Work, Part 1: An Unintended Consequence?</title>
      <description>&lt;p align="left"&gt;
	&lt;span style="font-family: tahoma, geneva, sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 12px"&gt;As everyone knows, Michigan&amp;rsquo;s Right-to-Work (RTW) law will directly affect unionized employers. But only about 17.5% of Michigan workers are unionized. What about the 82.5% of Michigan workers who are not unionized? What effect, if any, will RTW have on them, and on their employers&amp;rsquo; ability to remain union-free in the future?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href='http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/470/Non-Unionized-Employers-and-Right-To-Work-Part-1-An-Unintended-Consequence.aspx'&gt;More...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/470/Non-Unionized-Employers-and-Right-To-Work-Part-1-An-Unintended-Consequence.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.aseonline.org/ArticleDetailsPage/tabid/7442/ArticleID/470/Non-Unionized-Employers-and-Right-To-Work-Part-1-An-Unintended-Consequence.aspx</comments>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>