York State Labor Research Articles

From the courts to the state legislatures: social justice feminism, labor legislation, and the 1920s

The Progressive Era, a period of important social and political activism which stretched from 1890 through the end of World War I, now offers a rich, diverse historiography.1 In contrast, the 1920s...

Bridging the Gap: New York State Labor History Conference on Women, Work, and Community

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Bridging the Gap: New York State Labor History Conference on Women, Work, and Community

Bridging the Gap: New York State Labor History Conference on Women, Work, and Community

New York State Labor History Association Annual Conference

New York State Labor History Association is one of the few organiza tions in the Northeast which regularly brings together academics and practitioners to discuss problems facing workers and their organizations. Historians, economists, and sociologists are called upon to put these issues in an understandable context while trade unionists discuss their current impact on the workplace. This year's annual conference, held at the headquarters of Local 802 Ameri can Federation of Musicians on April 13-14, addressed the topic Labor's Response to Technology. program included a labor history and technology walking tour of lower Manhattan led by Debra Bernhardt and Jon Bloom, a screening and discussion of the films Farewell Etaoin Shrdlu and The Business of America conducted by Miriam Frank, and a full day of conference and discussion. Historian Robert Asher of the University of Connecticut began the confer ence with an historical overview of the relationship of labor to technological change in a paper entitled The Humane View: American Unions and a Century of Techno logical Change. Asher argued that American workers have a long history of trying to manage technological changes by developing values in the workplace with recog nize the right to job security, income stability, and a safe and humane work routine. In countering managements' attempts to control the workplace through Taylor's personnel functions, labor has responded over the past century with its own strate gies: calls for government ownership, reduction in hours, strong work rules and work guarantees, unemployment insurance, comanagement, and of course the use of economic action. Asher concluded that the federal government's inverventionist role from the compromises of the War Labor Board through the present has weakened the workers' role in controlling the introduction of new technology. remainder of the morning was reserved for case studies of how specific unions have dealt with technology issues. John Glasel, President of Local 802 American Federation of Musicians, reported on his union's efforts to counter the use of recorded music for dance performances and synthesizers in the production of film scores, television commercials, and jingles. His union has struck over the technology issue and has also lobbied heavily for legislative assistance in changing the copyright codes. Jack Boris, negotiator for the International Typographical Union, outlined

Law and Policy in State Labor Relations Acts: The New York Board as Innovator

The Landrum-Griffin Act permits the states to exercise jurisdiction over cases which involve interstate com merce where the National Labor Relations Board declines to proceed on the grounds that the case involved does not meet the applicable jurisdictional dollar-volume standard of the federal agency. Legislative experimentation on a state level is traditional and historic in this nation. In addition to legis lative enactments, the states can lead in developing the evolv ing law by quasi-judicial holdings of the affected administra tive tribunals. The New York State Labor Relations Board is a leader of quasi-judicial progress in labor relations and has furthered the course of collective bargaining in its state in at least three areas discussed herein: the evolution of doctrines relating to appropriate units, determinations pertaining to the proper duration of collective agreements, and, most recently, by intensifying and implementing a quasi-judicial and adminis trative program to terminate the existence of collusive organi zations posing as genuine labor organizations and to preclude their use of board processes. Meetings with employer, labor, and governmental groups, as well as publications issued by the board, have served to inform and educate on available pro cedures at the board, new policies, and the issuance of land mark decisions judicially implementing the policies involved. This socially valuable task has been accomplished, despite a 30 per cent increase in caseload in 1960, by utilizing techniques of efficient management and good supervision, with a saving of 8 per cent in budget, fewer lawyers, and, nonetheless, proc essing cases more expeditiously than ever before.

Conflict of Jurisdiction between National and New York State Labor Relations Boards

The question of jurisdiction as between a state labor relations board and the NLRB has been the subject of debate for more than a decade. In this article the question is discussed from the standpoint of one who has an official stake in the rights and powers of a state board. Certainly there are other points of view from which this question of jurisdiction can be considered, and it is anticipated that the discussion will be continued in our publication. (Author's abstract courtesy EBSCO.)

Conflict of Jurisdiction between National and New York State Labor Relations Boards

Conflict of Jurisdiction between National and New York State Labor Relations Boards

Recent Trends of the New York State Labor Relations Board in Determining the Appropriate Bargaining Unit

Recent Trends of the New York State Labor Relations Board in Determining the Appropriate Bargaining Unit

Fifth Annual Report of the New York State Labor Relations Board. For the Year Ended December 31, 1941

Fifth Annual Report of the New York State Labor Relations Board. For the Year Ended December 31, 1941

Report of the New York State Labor Relations Board from July 1, 1937 to December 31, 1939

Report of the New York State Labor Relations Board from July 1, 1937 to December 31, 1939

Representation Problems under the New York State Labor Relations Act

HE development and administration of a comprehensive system of labor legislation in the state of New York since I937 is a valuable model which deserves more attention than it has yet received. The most important statute in this system is the New York State Labor Relations Act,' enacted in 1937 in order to guarantee to workers employed in industries engaged in commerce within the state of New York the same rights that the National Labor Relations Act guarantees to employees in industries engaged in interstate commerce.2 The general objectives of the New York act are: (I) to enable workers to form, join, or assist labor organizations; (2) to provide government machinery for the investigation of questions or controversies concerning representation and for the certification of representatives; and (3) to bind the employer to bargain collectively in good faith with the duly designated representatives of his employees. The terms of the New York act are not identical with those of the Wagner Act, because in enacting the state statute the legislature was able to profit to some extent by the experiences of the National Labor Relations Board. The New York act is administered by the New York State Labor Relations Board, composed of three members appointed by the Governor for terms of six years. At

Report of the New York State Labor Relations Board, July 1, 1937 to December 31, 1939

Report of the New York State Labor Relations Board, July 1, 1937 to December 31, 1939