Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: November 6, 2004
Latest Update: November 6, 2004
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

Workers in the Two-Party System

Worker isolation from democratic party: Message #745. "We also have to remember that democrats pretty much had a block vote with the working class but they seem to have lost it. I really think the party is having some identity issue that the administration took advantage of. The democrats left workers out there alone... and the moral right was there for them." Proposed by Armando Garcia.

Cognitive Connection Links:

Agencies: Are the state-run mechanisms for worker support adequate? Unemployment services, health benefits, adequate minimal and/or living wage, etc? Did the democrats lose workers to the Republicans? They certainly did in the Southern strategy. What alternatives for transforming discourse might we practice, if we assume that the Republican party does not serve the needs of the worker - that needs to be demonstrated with at least a brief review of the literature.
• Women and Poverty: Look at the present hotel strike. Poor women those most affected. At the Immanuel Presbyterian Church meeting of the Left on Friday night there was a call for support of the hotel workers at 3 p.m. at Pershing Square on November 15. Maybe someone could interview women involved in that gathering to supplement Shon's project on the homeless woman.

• Sociology of Law:

  What are some of the major issues in employment law now?

  That information is available through the Unemployment department. Labor and Employment Law/a> on Findlaw.

  California Employment Agreements in Jeopardy: Mandatory Arbitration Agreement Presumed Unconscionable

  "The Court targeted several commonly used terms in arbitration agreements and found that they either unfairly limited an employee's statutory rights and remedies or unilaterally granted the employer benefits not afforded to the employee:

  • The "one-sided coverage term," which limits the applicability of the agreement to claims brought by the employee, while imposing no similar restriction on the employer;
  • The strict one-year statute of limitations term, which deprives employees of the benefits of the continuing violation theory;
  • The bar on class-wide arbitration, contrary to "firmly rooted principles" of both the federal and California legal systems;
  • The fee provision requiring that an employee pay the employer a $75 filing fee in order to initiate a complaint against employer and the failure to provide for an indigence-based fee waiver;
  • The allocation-of-costs provision, requiring that a nonprevailing employee be held liable for the employer's arbitration costs and requiring the prevailing employees to cover their own costs, unless the arbitrator decides otherwise;
  • The proscription of otherwise available statutory remedies and the limits on an employee's damages otherwise provided by federal law; and
  • The employer's unilateral right to terminate or modify the agreement.

  Part of the strategy involved here is shifting the burden of proof. In the introduction to the article: "This decision is troublesome because it renders many arbitration provisions unenforceable under California law and shifts the burden of proof of unconscionability Let's be sure we all understand what that means. Could we think of a shift of burden of proof in demonstrating the harm caused by a raise in tuition fees. Now the student must protest and has the burden of proof. What if we required the Board of Trustees to assume the burden of proof that such tuition fees will not prove an unbalanced and unwarranted burden on the poor. Might we be able to assume that there is such a burden when both presidential candidates talk about making it easier for middle class families to "afford college" for their children?

---

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Individual copyrights by other authors may apply.