Source: https://www.todaysworkplace.org/2005/07/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:22:24+00:00

Document:
You may be aware of what has happened over the last few days at the AFL-CIO Convention, where the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters) have announced their plans to leave the Federation, as the AFL-CIO is commonly known. SEIU and the Teamsters head a new coalition of dissident unions, known as the Change to Win Coalition, joined by the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), Laborers International Union of North America (Laborers), UNITE HERE (the textile, garment, and hotel employees), and the United Farm Workers (UFW). As the events unfold in Chicago, some very capable bloggers are on the story. Rather than take sides or attempt to analyze all that has happened in this complex situation as it unfolds, we’ll present some of the best commentary out there from the blogosphere, highlighting some blogs worth noting even when they’re not writing about this subject.
Jonathan Tasini’s Working Life: Jonathan is a long-time labor writer and former head of the National Writer’s Union. His commentary, written from the floor of the Convention, is among the most knowledgeable and insightful out there.
But, here’s the most immediate question that the delegates cannot ignore: How does the AFL-CIO replace the $20 million that it will lose with the disaffiliation of these two huge unions? Do the Federation officers have a plan for increasing the per capita taxes at this convention? Because if they don’t, then, severe cuts will need to be made–on top of the large staff cuts that just took place in the past couple of months.
I don’t see how President Sweeney, on the eve of his certain re-election, can avoid giving the convention delegates a straight answer about how the Federation will survive financially without major steps being made.
Yesterday, I suggested that the delegates need to be told specifics about the money issue….This is the big elephant in the room–and it has to be noticed before it leaves a huge dump for affiliates and central labor bodies to clean up.
Tim Nesbitt: Oregon AFL-CIO: Tim is also reporting from the Convention floor and has some thoughtful things to say.
Last November, as this debate was heating up, I compared our union movement to our country before we had a strong central government:“When it comes to organizing, our unions have to agree on where they want to concentrate their efforts. Workers will be better served if we coordinate more and compete less. But our Articles-of-Confederation structure, in which unions have the autonomy of separate states but only limited agreements on their territory, hasn’t been conducive to concentration, much less coordination. Planting a flag in an unorganized workplace shouldn’t be the way for a union to lay claim to new organizing opportunities. We need agreement on a new map for organizing in the global economy, new strategies for contesting corporate power and commitments to help each other win, industry by industry.” To continue the analogy to the AFL-CIO’s constitutional convention that began today, we just learned that four states decided not to send delegates, and two of those states decided to set up their own government. So it appears that our unions will soon have two models of governance to choose from.
The debate was a mixture of hope and hard feelings, alarm and reassurance, recrimination and rededication – laced with more energy than I’ve witnessed at any union gathering since I had to duck chairs at a New York City taxi drivers’ meeting in 1968. But it was less a debate about program and more about approach, not at all about where we need to go and all about how to get there. Most of all, it seemed to be a contest of wills: Who wants it more passionately? And passions ran high on both sides.
TPM Cafe’s House of Labor Blog: This is a group blog on labor topics, which features great postings from Nathan Newman and others.
In a contrarian mood, I think people are making too much of the “split” in the labor movement, as if labor hasn’t continually been in internal tussles between unions, whether they were in or out of the same labor federation. Yes, a few unions won’t be paying dues to the AFL-CIO. And as for fears this will disrupt unity in political operations among unions, there has never been coordination except when individual unions want there to be.
the great Un-debate showed an amazing capacity to ignore the rank & file, and particularly to ignore the issues and involvement of trade unionists of color. i find this especially damning for those labor leaders who have positioned themselves as visionaries. If the base is not in the vision, except as the object of the work of ‘great leaders,’ what sort of movement are we building?
Today, July 26, 2005, marks the 15th birthday of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Like many teenagers, the ADA can give people fits. It continues to go through some growing pains, and there’s frustration that it’s not all grown up. But it also has a distinct personality of its own. And it has unselfishly given back to others in its short life. Let’s hope the ADA survives to become a productive adult, given all the abuse that it’s taken along the way. Enough with the tortured teenager analogies…let’s see what’s going on!
The Kidspace Children’s Museum in Pasadena, that’s who. Well, actually, you missed it already — it was held on July 9. But the museum thought it was important to celebrate with events geared toward the “integration and education of all children,” in order to “bring able-bodied and disabled children together.” (See Whittier Daily News.) And we’re not talking whacking the piñata while blindfolded: instead, there was a soccer challenge, where players wore goggles that simulated different types of vision, a sign language workshop and a wheelchair basketball demonstration with the Fast Breakin’ Lakers, a wheelchair basketball team sponsored by the Los Angeles Lakers.
I never realized exactly how different it is for someone to be in a wheelchair and maneuver around the streets of reading. It’s not just the physical aspect- it’s the aspect of construction of the road and the bumps in the sidewalks and that sort of thing and that’s a challenge for me.
The 15th anniversary is a call to renew our efforts to realize the promise of the ADA and work to restore its full protections which have been stripped away by recent court decisions. We must implement policies intended by the ADA, so that individuals with disabilities can obtain jobs for which they qualify. Full and equal access for individuals with disabilities to education, governmental services, public accommodations, transportation, housing, and the right to vote must be secured. Our work is far from finished. Even as we maintain our hard-fought gains and prevent harmful proposals, we must continue to advance the rights of all. It is our journey and our obligation as Americans.
Now I looked for a statement by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, and I didn’t find one. Supporting the ADA isn’t a partisan activity: after all, who signed the ADA 15 years ago but George Herbert Walker Bush?
"Treating People Decently is Sometimes a Competitive Advantage"
We often quote Paul Krugman of the New York Times in this blog, and include his articles in the Workplace Fairness daily newsletter, In the News (free if you’re not already a subscriber), because his analysis is just so right. His latest, “Toyota, Moving Northward,” echoes a point made a week ago by another Times article about Costco: How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart, which is that “treating people decently is sometimes a competitive advantage.” At Workplace Fairness, we’re not such raging lefties that we think a company has to go bankrupt while bending over backwards to favor its employees, and we applaud the CEOs and politicians out there who feel the same way.
The announcement last month didn’t make too many people here in the United States very happy: a new Toyota plant, producing RAV4 mini-SUV’s, will open in Ontario, Canada, instead of the United States. It wasn’t for lack of trying: many U.S. states had courted the plant with large financial incentives, and made visits to Japan to try to land the deal. (See The Detroit News to read about Michigan’s efforts.) In the end, the decision was made on the basis of two major areas where the Canadians were deemed to have the edge on the US: education and health care.
[B]y compensating employees generously to motivate and retain good workers, one-fifth of whom are unionized, Costco gets lower turnover and higher productivity. Combined with a smart business strategy that sells a mix of higher-margin products to more affluent customers, Costco actually keeps its labor costs lower than Wal-Mart’s as a percentage of sales, and its 68,000 hourly workers in the U.S. sell more per square foot. Put another way, the 102,000 Sam’s employees in the U.S. generated some $35 billion in sales last year, while Costco did $34 billion with one-third fewer employees.
As long as America isn’t investing in its workforce, and our government isn’t working on health care solutions, here’s the outcome we can expect, according to Krugman.
[T]he result of international competition will be to give Canada more jobs in industries like autos, which pay health benefits to their U.S. workers, and fewer jobs in industries that don’t provide those benefits. In the U.S. the effect will be just the reverse: fewer jobs with benefits, more jobs without.
(See “Toyota, Moving Northward.”) We look forward to the day when more CEOs, like Costco’s Sinegal, recognize that the best way to compete in the global economy is to treat workers better instead of worse. But we have to ask, how many jobs must be lost in the meantime?
Everyone and their first cousin is now commenting on U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, and the ink being spilled (or should I say the pixels being generated) is likely to be plentiful for a while. Rather than generating even more commentary, I’m going to bring you what others are saying about John Roberts, especially as it relates to employment issues. There will be plenty of time for careful and thorough analysis, and most certainly the the employee rights advocates at the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) will be a part of that. But for now, there’s some reasonably insightful commentary out there already, and this will save you from getting out your hip-waders.
NELA is reviewing Judge Roberts’ record, and we expect the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty to conduct a thorough and independent review of his qualifications, background, and constitutional philosophy. There is no need to rush to a decision on a nominee. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has said her resignation will be effective upon the confirmation of her replacement. There is time for the confirmation process to take its course and to guarantee that the next Justice will protect the rights and freedoms of every American.
· An allegiance to the fundamental principle of an independent judiciary.
Desperate to divert media attention away from consiglieri Rove, President Bushed rushed out his Supreme Court nomination tonight: John Roberts. The general consensus seem to be that although Roberts is (very) conservative, he’s not a right-wing wack-job, so he’s probably a shoe-in. And although the right wing blogosphere is delighted, even some lefties think it could have been much worse. On the other hand, it’s still early. There could be an illegal alien in the closet. Maybe he drank a beer before the age of 21 or made an illegal right turn. But, of course, the question on all Confined Space readers’ minds today is: “How is John Roberts on workplace safety and labor issues?” The answer is probably not great.
As a Judge: So those are all the opinions (of which I am aware) that Judge Roberts has authored that touch on employment law. There’s nothing that jumps out as wrong or unfair. But while this is a very small sample size (eight opinions), it is somewhat disconcerting that Judge Roberts has never authored an opinion that rules in favor of a labor union or employee. Hopefully he’ll quickly learn how to do so as an associate justice.
As a Litigator: Overall, Judge Roberts’s record should be cause for concern for those who make their living representing employees. As a judge, he has consistently ruled against employees. As a litigator in private practice, he consistently represented employers. If Judge Roberts position were this one-sided on abortion, he would likely be filibustered. But since employment law doesn’t quite grab headlines in the same way, this particular part of his record will likely get little attention from the press.
[H]ere’s the best case scenario on Roberts. There is still a reasonable possibility that Roberts has just kept his mouth mostly shut for three decades and will emerge as a raving ideologue to the Right of Clarence Thomas. But then, there is some chance that he was mostly an ambitious guy who hitched himself opportunistically to the Right in the Reagan era and could surprise his supporters once he is on the bench.
But the most likely possibility is that he won’t be surprising and here’s my bet on how he will perform from the evidence. In general, he will be less of a judicial activist than O’Connor in both bad ways but also potentially good ways.
[Roberts] represented Toyota in Toyota Motor Manufacturing Inc. v. Williams, one of the major cases viewed as being a limiting decision interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act. And for those Senators (e.g. Senator Leahy D-Vt) who have been so liberal in their praise of retiring Justice O’Connor, it will be interesting to see how they can bash Judge Roberts for being an advocate in that case, decided unaminously by the Supreme Court and authored by none other than Justice O’Connor.
Anyone who knows anything about the enforcement of legal standards in the workplace knows that immigrant workers, especially those who are undocumented, are exploited by employers who do not comply with legal requirements governing wages, dangerous conditions and uncompensated workplace injuries, discrimination, and other labor laws. Workers who attempt to remedy such abuse routinely face physical and immigration-related threats and retaliation. So what should the government’s role be when it comes to addressing these problems? Can we agree on what it shouldn’t be: making that situation worse by exploiting the same fears and vulnerabilities as unscrupulous employers? Yet that’s exactly what the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency recently did in North Carolina.
In early July, 48 workers at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, North Carolina, saw a flyer for a workplace safety training. Not just any training, however, but one supposedly sponsored by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), at which attendance was mandatory. So they did what any good worker would do when asked to attend a required meeting (especially with free coffee and doughnuts offered): they showed up for it. However, instead of learning about how to reduce the number of workplace injuries, they learned all about hypocrisy and subterfuge.
For instead of a meeting led by OSHA bureaucrats, they encountered ICE officers who took them into custody for immigration violations (after finishing the coffee and doughnuts, of course). The 48 workers from Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador and Ukraine, who were employees of private contractors doing roofing, electrical, masonry and other construction work on the base, now face deportation. (See News-Observer article.) All because they attended a mandatory meeting to learn about health and safety issues. I guess having workers in this country who follow their employers’ commands and want to learn how to avoid getting hurt or hurting others is a real problem: sounds exactly like the kind of workers we would want to get rid of.
It gets even better: one worker who was there reported that an official stood up and said “I got good news and bad news. The good news is we are not from OSHA, and the bad news is we’re from the immigration office.” Not being able to give workers information that might keep them from getting killed or maimed, that’s good news? You’ve got to be kidding me.
ICE and OSHA will have to duke it out over future stings: perhaps Jonathan Snare and Michael Garcia can arm-wrestle, or better yet, subject them to a real workplace hazard (toxic chemicals or a trench, anyone?) and see who survives longest. ICE’s Boyd concedes, “We certainly understand OSHA’s concerns about the use of their name,” Mr. Boyd said. “We’re putting in place procedures to ensure appropriate coordination.” (See New York Times article.) Sounds to me like ICE can’t wait to do it again, since it worked so well, and isn’t terribly concerned about the ramifications.
In the meantime, workers either won’t get the health and safety information they need, or they get fired for missing mandatory meetings. And they certainly won’t trust any government organization to actually help them: why should they, when things like this happen? Sorry, but we agree with Confined Space: that all sounds like bad news to us, even when accompanied by coffee and doughnuts.
Confined Space: the excellent blog on workplace health and safety issues that broke this story.
What is OSHA doing About Immigrant Worker Safety?
With all of the evidence that wages have been more or less stagnant, especially for low-wage workers, over the last several years, the question then arises: how come our economy is as sound as it is? Who has the money to buy any of the consumer goods that are being produced for the masses? One explanation which is increasingly gaining credence is that workers who are just barely getting by are being forced to take second jobs. What happens when this development moves from being a growing trend to a societal expectation? Should the American value of “those who work hard get ahead” mean that only those who work 60 or 70 hours a week deserve to make it?
The wages of typical workers are treading water, growing roughly at the same rate that inflation eats into their buying power. Last week, the Labor Department reported that average wages for production and nonsupervisory workers in the private sector, about 75 percent of the labor force, reached $16.06 an hour in June, just 2.7 percent above the level a year ago.
Yet average incomes are growing at a significantly more rapid pace, and for low-income workers, that means an extra job. The Times tells about James Barnes, who makes only $350 a week as a security guard at an office building on Madison Avenue in Midtown Manhattan (while some of the people working in that building easily make that in an hour), and has not had a raise in years. Barnes’ income just jumped sharply, however, because he took on a newspaper delivery route from 3 a.m. to 7 a.m., for an extra $235 a week. That allowed him to buy an i-Pod, which some struggling to survive would definitely consider a luxury item, while others might think he more than earned it after several months of working so early in the morning.
It used to be that “working hard” was measured by productivity: “When workers produce more—either tangible products or services—in an hour of work than before, they are being more efficient and, usually, that means more profit for a corporation. Historically, increased efficiency flowed to workers in the form of higher wages.” (See TomPaine.com article.) However, economists are sounding the alarm that the link between productivity and wages is broken.
Productivity has grown almost three times faster than wages since 2001. (See EPI Economic Snapshot.) During that time, 70 percent of the nation’s income growth has gone straight into corporate coffers as profits—presumably to continue to finance staggering pay and benefits for executives—a complete reversal from the previous seven business cycles when 77 percent of the overall income growth went to wages.
To simplify things a bit: due to workers’ hard work, productivity has surged, but instead of passing along to workers the fruits of their labor, those at the top are just hanging onto it, don’t pay any taxes on it, and spend just enough to prop up the economy. The worker then takes on a second job to get ahead, making even more money for, you guessed it, the folks at the top. The average income, both for the worker working two jobs and those reaping the benefits of all that hard work, just keeps going up, but that’s all that stands between what we have now and a major recession.
So what happens when you just can’t keep that up any more? When you have to step off the treadmill because you can’t work any harder, and you can’t work any more hours? Or because little things like sleep and family time just keep getting in the way? What happens to those who simply can’t work any more hours, because of their age, their child or elder care obligations, their physical health, or even their transportation options? Will they just starve, become homeless, or die from denied access to health care?
And just why is it that so many politicians who care about family values are missing the impact that this economic development has on families? Let’s assume that in a 24-hour day, that working 8 hours a day is standard, and that there is only so much time that most humans can subtract from 8 hours of sleep and still function. That leaves 8 hours in the day for everything else, including time with one’s family. When a second job cuts into that time, that’s directly subtracted from family time.
It’s no longer “those who work hard can get ahead,” it’s “those who work long hours might get ahead slightly.” But at what cost?
You might expect a website like Salary.com to sponsor this kind of survey: the site bills itself as “one of the most widely recognized destinations for those seeking reliable information about employee pay levels and compensation-related best practices, trends, and policies.” (See Salary.com About Us.) However, there’s another firm with an interest in the results, and not because of worker productivity, but indeed quite the opposite: America Online I’m sure they’re not too disappointed to learn that so much of the slack time is spent on personal Internet usage, no sirree.
Of course, the survey results might also be skewed by the fact that the survey was posted on AOL’s Find a Job website and Salary.com’s Salary Wizard. Is it so surprising that when you have a disgruntled employee looking for a new job — who just happens to already be conducting personal business on the Internet — takes part in this kind of survey, that the results turned out the way they did?
Some of the other prime time-wasters: while more than 44 percent of the 10,000# workers said the primary way they waste time at work is personal Internet use, like reading e-mail, instant messages, playing interactive games (and responding to online polls.), the second most popular was socializing with co-workers (23%). Other excuses included conducting personal business, spacing out, running errands and making personal phone calls. What surprised me about the results (aside from the Missouri = slacker correlation) was that employers already expect employees to waste at least an hour a day already, according to Salary.com’s survey of HR managers. (See CNN/Money article.) However, workers nationally are taking twice as much time as their employers expect, 2.09 hours of wasted time on average, which costs companies an estimated $759 billion a year.
Before you go feeling too sorry for employers who aren’t getting their money’s worth, you should know that the same respondents who confessed to all that slacking, said the number one reason for doing so was “not enough work to do.” The second reason was justification for the self-help remedy employed for “I’m underpaid for the work I do. Yet another top reason is also something employers should take a look at: not enough evening and weekend time. Given how the American workweek, already longer than that of most industrialized nations, keeps expanding, this shows that all that extra time spent at the office isn’t necessarily benefiting the employer all that much.
If you’re not too busy to take the survey, it’s still available at Salary.com. Go ahead and take it, unless you’re from Missouri, in which case, it’s time to “show me” that Midwestern work ethic by getting off the computer.
A recent New York Times column reported what shouldn’t really be a surprise to those paying attention to workplace economics: “tax cuts for the wealthy made no sense as a policy for stimulating new jobs. ” The idea that tax cuts will cause money to flow downwards from the wealthy who will create jobs as a result, to those working in those jobs, is as bankrupt as the people still having to wait for that trickle. Yet the Administration still clings to the notion that recovery is around the bend.
The president portrayed his tax cuts as the linchpin of his economic stimulus package. He argued that because most new jobs are created by small businesses, tax cuts to the owners of those businesses would stimulate robust employment growth. His policy thus rests implicitly on the premise that if business owners could afford to hire additional workers, they would.
(See New York Times article.) So there’s the premise: basic trickle-down economics, or supply-side economics, as it has been known since the Reagan Administration. The first President Bush at one point called it “voodoo economics,” but his son is almost certainly under its spell.
The basic hiring criterion, found in every introductory textbook (including those written by the president’s own economic advisers), is straightforward: If the output of additional workers can be sold for at least enough to cover their salaries, they should be hired; otherwise not. If this criterion is met, hiring extra workers makes economic sense, no matter how poor a business owner might be. Conversely, if the criterion is not satisfied, hiring makes no economic sense, even for billionaire owners. The after-tax personal incomes of business owners are irrelevant for hiring decisions.
Aren’t you glad that Congress and the President are working so hard to facilitate an economic policy that would be the wrong answer to a multiple choice question in Econ 101?
Justice O'Connor To Retire: What Does it Mean for Workers?
Last Friday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor turned an otherwise ho-hum holiday news weekend into a firestorm of analysis and strategizing, when she announced her retirement from the Court. Until a new justice is seated on the Court, Americans can expect a barrage of information and speculation about a new candidate and his or her potential impact on the Court, as compared to Justice O’Connor. It is also likely that we will see a partisan battle waged that’s nearly equivalent to a presidential election in nature, with so much at stake for everyone involved in the debate. Why should workers care about all of this? An analysis of some of Justice O’Connor’s decisions holds the key.
This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor. It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms. I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure.
The rest of the summer is likely to be filled with news of the confirmation, and the battle that is likely to ensue no matter who is selected to fill O’Connor’s spot. But is this a battle mostly for inside-the-Beltway insiders? After all, the American people do not get to vote on who the next justice will be: that task is left to the U.S. Senate. Given the intense battles over judicial nominations that we’ve already seen in the Senate this past year alone, a cynic might question whether there are any Senators left with open minds, or whether the reaction to any nominee will be merely a partisan, knee-jerk response, designed to either support or embarrass the President, depending on which side you’re on.
Whatever happens, its clear that workers have something at stake. Some have characterized O’Connor’s decision-making philosophy as “pro-business,” and they’re not wrong: she voted to cut punitive damages, curb class-action lawsuits and enforce arbitration agreements against consumers. (See Bloomberg article.) She is considered so business-friendly, in fact, that so-called “business conservatives” (as opposed to “social conservatives” whose top priorities include abortion and gay marriage) fear that her replacement might not be as good for business interests.
A discriminatorily abusive work environment, even one that does not seriously affect employees’ psychological well being, can and often will detract from employees’ job performance, discourage employees from remaining on the job, or keep them from advancing in their careers. Moreover, even without regard to these tangible effects, the very fact that the discriminatory conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a work environment abusive to employees because of their race, gender, religion, or national origin offends Title VII’s broad rule of workplace equality.
Harris v. Forklift Sys. (92-1168), 510 U.S. 17 (1993).
Proof that the defendant’s explanation is unworthy of credence is simply one form of circumstantial evidence that is probative of intentional discrimination, and it may be quite persuasive. In appropriate circumstances, the trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose. Such an inference is consistent with the general principle of evidence law that the factfinder is entitled to consider a party’s dishonesty about a material fact as “affirmative evidence of guilt.” Moreover, once the employer’s justification has been eliminated, discrimination may well be the most likely alternative explanation, especially since the employer is in the best position to put forth the actual reason for its decision. Thus, a plaintiff’s prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer’s asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated.
If recipients were permitted to retaliate freely, individuals who witness discrimination would be loathe to report it, and all manner of Title IX violations might go unremedied as a result. Reporting incidents of discrimination is integral to Title IX enforcement and would be discouraged if retaliation against those who report went unpunished. Indeed, if retaliation were not prohibited, Title IX’s enforcement scheme would unravel.
For this reason, the diffusion of knowledge and opportunity through public institutions of higher education must be accessible to all individuals regardless of race or ethnicity….Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our Nation is essential if the dream of one Nation, indivisible, is to be realized.
Grutter v. Bollinger (02-241) 539 U.S. 309 (2003). , affirmed.
She has written several other decisions under Title IX that have addressed harassment in a school setting (See Davis v. Monroe County Board of Educ. (1999) and Gebser v. Lago Vista, 524 U.S. 274 (1998)), and has been part of other key 5-4 majorities protecting civil rights. (See, e.g., Tennessee v. Lane (2004) (disability access to courts).
Her jurisprudence is not completely exemplary on all forms of discrimination: when it comes to age, in particular, her opinions leave some to be desired.
Moreover, the Wirtz Report correctly concluded that–unlike the classifications protected by Title VII–there often is a correlation between an individual’s age and her ability to perform a job. That is to be expected, for “physical ability generally declines with age,” and in some cases, so does mental capacity. Perhaps more importantly, advances in technology and increasing access to formal education often leave older workers at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis younger workers.
Smith v. City of Jackson (03-1160) (2005) (concurring in the judgment, citations omitted). See also Hazen Paper v. Biggens, (91-1600), 507 U.S. 604 (1993).
However, as many are now arguing, we could do a lot worse than the judicial pragmatism Justice O’Connor exemplified. (See, for example, Alliance for Justice statement.) We can only hope that whoever is appointed will be in her mold, and not further roll back the rights of disadvantaged workers.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.