首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Supreme Court justices seemed reluctant on Wednesday to disallow a type of agreement between employers and unions that has becom
Supreme Court justices seemed reluctant on Wednesday to disallow a type of agreement between employers and unions that has becom
admin
2015-10-21
53
问题
Supreme Court justices seemed reluctant on Wednesday to disallow a type of agreement between employers and unions that has become increasingly important to the labor movement as it tries to grow its ranks. The case involves neutrality agreements, which a union lawyer told the court are commonly used in organizing hotel and casino workers. Under such an agreement, an employer might remain neutral during the organizing campaign and even grant the union access to company grounds or lists of employees. In return, the union might agree to give up the right to strike or throw its support to a matter important to the company.
"Many employers and unions find agreements such as this useful to avoid conflict during organizing campaigns," lawyer Richard G. McCracken told the court at Wednesday’s arguments. He represents Unite Here, a union seeking to represent employees of a Hollywood, Fla. , greyhound track and casino. "They are efficient. They avoid the hard feelings that come in many contested organizing campaigns and thereby create a good environment for collective bargaining," McCracken said.
But some business organizations and right-to-work groups say businesses often are bullied into entering into such agreements. The case before the court resulted from a lawsuit brought by Martin Mulhall, who worked for the Florida Company Mardi Gras Gaming. While other federal appeals courts have upheld such agreements, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit said the neutrality agreement at issue violated a section of the Labor Management Relations Act. It forbids an employer to "pay, lend, or deliver any money or other thing of value" to a labor union seeking to organize the company’s workers. In this case, the casino allowed the union access to its employees and agreed to election rules allowing employees to vote by checking a card in front of others rather than by secret ballot. The union made concessions as well and also agreed to spend $100,000 to support a 2006 referendum to allow slot machines at the casino.
The labor act bans employer payments to unions to discourage bribes and corruption. McCracken argued that the "thing of value" language wasn’t meant to cover what are routine matters of collective bargaining. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said access to company grounds would seem like a thing of value. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he did not see how the employer’s agreement to a "card-check" election rather than secret ballot could not be seen as a benefit. "The union organizer comes up to you and says, ’Well, here’s a card. You can check I want to join the union, or two, I don’t want a union. Which will it be?’ And there’s a bunch of your fellow workers gathered around as you fill out the card. " Roberts said. Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben, arguing for the government on behalf of Unite Here, said the court had decided in previous cases that card-check elections are legitimate.
William L. Messenger, a lawyer for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation representing Mulhall, received tougher questioning. Messenger said it should be clear that the casino had given the union a thing of value. " If the employer gives this assistance and the union gives something in return—for example, here the $100,000 political campaign and agreement not to strike—then it becomes a payment, because the consideration shows payment," he said.
But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the 11th Circuit’s decision was not that neutrality agreements necessarily violated the law. It wanted a lower court to discern whether the specific agreement was corrupt. Justice Elena Kagan led Messenger through a series of accommodations she said were accepted practice in labor negotiations that he would find objectionable in a neutrality agreement. Kagan asked, did he think "the National Labor Relations Act prohibits employers from providing access to their premises, from granting a union a list of employees, or from declaring itself neutral as to a union election"? When he answered, "Yes, with caveats," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked Messenger if he acknowledged that his answer "is contrary to years of settled practices and understandings. "
Still, both liberal and conservative justices questioned the union’s pledge to spend $100,000 on the slot machine referendum. "That $100,000 is troubling to me because I think what the circuit was saying is if the $100,000 bought the peaceful recognition provisions, then that’s corrupt, and that is outside the exemptions that the law provides," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. McCracken said the money was not given to Mardi Gras, but spent in an effort to make sure the company was successful and there would be more jobs. " It was actually the union’s own exercise of its speech and petition rights as it campaigned for the passage of the initiative that would allow the company to get into business in the first place as a casino," he said.
Which of the following best describes the author’s development of argument?
选项
A、Introducing the issue→providing background information→citing different opinions on the issue.
B、Raising a topic for discussion→analysing the problem→giving the solution.
C、Offering the final solution→explaining how the solution was reached→describing the effect of the solution.
D、Bringing about the topic→comparing supportive and protesting opinions→showing the author’s opinion.
答案
A
解析
篇章题。文章第一段引出了中立协议,第二段给出被告方律师对于中立协议的态度,第三段介绍了案件的背景信息,第五段为控方律师的态度,第四、六、七段则是法官们的意见,由此可知,第一段引出议题后,作者简单介绍了案件的背景,大多数内容都集中在介绍各方对于这一问题的观点态度上,因此[A]为正确答案。文章第一段的确是给出了讨论的题目,但直到文章的结尾部分,作者也没有给出明确的观点,点明中立协议是否应该继续,而文章也提到,中立协议在此前的一些案件中被判定为合法的,所以,文章没有给出解决方案,故排除[B];第一段虽然介绍了案件的判决结果,但从文章后面的内容来看,对此协议是否合法的争议很大,因此,第一段所给出的并不是解决方案,故排除[C];文章自始至终都没有给出作者本人的观点,因此排除[D]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/kFKO777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
Somepeoplethinkchildrenofdifferentabilitiesshouldbeeducatedtogetherbecauseitbenefitseveryone.Othersholdthatint
AplainclothesNewYorkCitypoliceofficerwasshotinthefaceatTuesday1.______nightwhilepursuingamanataBrooklyn
AplainclothesNewYorkCitypoliceofficerwasshotinthefaceatTuesday1.______nightwhilepursuingamanataBrooklyn
GovernmentsAreTryingA1990UnitedNationssurveyrevealedthatthemorehighlydevelopedcountriesspendanaverageof2t
Australiaiscomposedof______statesand______territories.
WhichofthefollowingstatementsisTRUEaboutMissGreen’suniversitydays?
CulturalDifferencesbetweenEastandWestI.FactorsleadingtotheculturaldifferencesA.Differentculture【B1】______【B1】___
AnavidBushsupporterwhoalreadyhas25shoppingmallstohisname,Congelhimselfisnotamanyouwouldexpecttoentertain
Speechacttheorywasoriginatedby
Sixty-threeyearsoldandretiredfromacareerasawelder,JimCrawforddoesn’thavemuchusefortheInternet.Theonlytime
随机试题
减压阀在系统工作时,它的开口缝隙是()的。
用人单位实施就业歧视的,劳动者可以()
房间隔缺损患儿如需外科手术,手术时机一般选择在
甲为某国有银行财务主管,为竞争公司副行长职位欲向银行副行长乙行贿。甲通过涂改账目等手段从银行提走20万元,委托副行长办公室秘书丙将15万元交给乙,并要丙在转交该款时一定向副行长提及自己提升一事。乙收下该款。八天后,乙将收受钱款一事报告了行长,并将15万元交
在纳税检查中,某上市公司会计科长孙某如实向税务稽查人员反映了本公司漏税情况,事后,孙某被总经理调任公司保卫科长。在公司召开的有关会议上,张某说:“这是打击报复。”王某说:“这是正常工作调动,到保卫科更能够发挥特长。”钱某说:“革命同志是块砖,哪里需要哪里搬
唐代绘画在哪些方面有新的发展?
加德纳提出的八种智力之间的关系是
2013年,中国“雾霾”天气频发,社会广泛关注,党和政府高度重视。2013年9月12日,国务院发布《大气污染防治行动计划》,下列内容中有关计划的描述不正确的是:
甲公司为豪华客车制造商,乙公司为发动机制造商,长期与甲公司合作。为扩大销路,甲公司请乙公司留意商机,并承诺事成后给予一定报酬。2006年1月,乙公司得知运输公司丙公司欲购买4台豪华客车,遂积极向丙公司推荐甲公司生产的豪华客车,并同时将这一消息告知甲公司。最
不是以事务处理系统为基础的信息系统是
最新回复
(
0
)