US Department of lebor - Research Paper Example

?Select your agency and write a paper that discusses the agency’s formation page) Section 2 Article II of the United s Constitution provides that the President “may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective Offices.” This provision provides for the basis in the creation of the Department of Labor (DOL) along with other departments under the executive branch of the government. The act created by Congress for the creation of the Department of Labor came into being on March 4, 1913 as signed by then President William Howard Taft. This is a direct by-product of the need of the labor sector to be represented and for their grievances to be heard. “Public Law 426-62: An Act to create a Department of Labor” was the organic act which created a sole DOL with a Secretary of Labor removed from the Department of Commerce. The law was signed reluctantly by President Taft within hours from the time Woodrow Wilson took over as president. The Progressive Movement has been credited for the call for its enforcement. Earlier, the DOL consisted mainly of the United States Conciliation Service (USCS), which was responsible for overseeing and mediating labor disputes in the country. Together with this branch are four other which already existed prior to the DOL. The first Labor Secretary was Congressman William Wilson appointed by President Wilson. The appointee had been a known labor campaigner as founder of United Mine Workers of America where he also once served as its Secretary-Treasurer (MacLaury, 1998). The reasons for its formation (1 page) In the words of the organic act under Section 1 thereof, “The purpose of the Department of Labor shall be to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment” (Public Law 426-62, 1913). The history of the Department of Labor can be associated in its pivotal points in the pre-war days, then became more resonant during World War I and its effects post-war. The prevalence of the problems in employment and of unemployment at that time had become a lingering social problem. Prior to its creation, there had been clamor for a more organized approach to labor since the employer has all the controls. Most of the workforce extends between the skilled to unskilled and the prevalence of immigration posts a problem in the regularization and supervision of the working conditions of the people under employ in different circumstances. The government had little to no supervision over mostly private hiring offices and agencies other than public employment services. This necessitated the need to create a government department that will oversee the policy creation and regulation of labor. The department is a cabinet trusted with providing the president of proper and adequate advice regarding labor that will shape the administration’s goals in relation thereto. The working class which makes up most of the population of the United States serves as the main focus of the department and the need to uplift his quality of life on matters based on factors such as working conditions, salaries and work opportunities is the main purpose of this federal agency. And its current and future goals (1 page) The mission statement of the Department of Labor is “To foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights.” This is not much of a stretch from the purpose contained in its organic act as it has remained forcefully relevant. Currently, the department is tasked with the difficult task on the matter which has become the main topic in the presidential debate: unemployment. The current and future goals can be found in the Secretary’s “U.S. Department of Labor Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2011-2016” which provides for a comprehensive 6-year laid out plan divided in five core strategic goals. These goals are first, “Prepare workers for good jobs and ensure fair compensation,” second, “Ensure workplaces are safe and healthy,” third, “Assure fair and high quality work-life environments,” fourth, “Secure health benefits and, for those not working, provide income security” and finally, “Produce timely and accurate data on the economic conditions of workers and their families” (Solis, 2010). These five strategic goals are not only focused on these ideal aspects but also on its framework the interconnected outcome goals of each which aims to raise the standard of employment from the quandary it had suffered since the recession. The agency has given light not only to the conditions of work during employment but has also adopted various policies from pre-employment to post-employment, taking into consideration all that transpires within these periods. You should also discuss the relationship between the agency and the Executive Branch and provide a brief biography on the head of the agency (2 pages) The Department of Labor is among the members of the President’s cabinet. The relationship within the executive department can be described in the direct relationship of the department as a vital member of the executive branch. The organizational chart clearly describes the relationship of the Secretary of Labor as paralleled to other departments such as the Secretary of Interior, Attorney General as Head of the Department of Justice, Secretary of State, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Treasury and Secretary of Veterans Affairs, all of whom are under the Vice President’s supervision and control who is evidently under the President’s in direct vertical hierarchy. The Secretary of Labor has under his wings a Deputy Secretary of Labor and under them are the different branches of the department each focused on the main aspects of labor. These are Employment and Training Administration, Women’s Bureau, Veteran’s Employment and Training Service, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Employment Standards Administration (Casil, 2006). Categoricall,y the main point of the existence of the agency is the expertise that it has in the subject of labor. Prior to its creation, there was the Department of Labor and Commerce but the different interests of the agencies and the employees co-existed within the same department. The eight-hour workday and forty-hour workweek came into being as a consequence of the studies and recommendations of the agency (Casil, 2006). Recommendations such as this are approved by the president and enforced to be observed by the concerned groups as a matter of public policy. Some of the other important tasks of the department include labor dispute resolutions and arbitration. They serve as the peremptory branch of the government where grievances and disagreements in relation to labor are heard within their jurisdiction. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) under the Department of Labor provides for the statistical data relied upon by the executive for policy evaluation and implementation. They serve as determinant factors that affect the decision-making process of the President. In simplified example, the programs and strategies of the President in alleviating unemployment can be measured by looking at the statistics provided by the BLS to know whether or not there was a significant effect which lowered the rate of unemployment. The current Secretary of Labor is Hilda Solis whose appointment was confirmed on February, 2009. She is a graduate of the California State Polytechnic University and holds a Master in Public Administration degree from the University of Southern California. Solis previously served as congresswoman for the 32nd district of California from 2001-2009. She has been more known in her advocacies for environmental justice where she received the 2009 John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, the first woman to do so. She pioneered back in 1999 the “California environmental justice legislation.” She was chair of the California Senate Industrial Relations Committee where her biggest triumph may as well be the increase of the minimum wage to $5.75/hr. from $4.25/hr. in 1996. President Barack Obama moved for her nomination as Secretary in January of 2009 (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). In addition, you will select one Supreme Court case involving your agency and analyze the facts of the case (1 page) The case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, et al. is a massive class action suit involving former and current female employees of Wal-Mart as petitioners alleging discrimination against them in violation of Title VII. The plaintiffs in the original action consists of about one and a half million in total certified as a class by the District Court and thereafter affirmed by the Court of Appeals. They maintain that the company unduly grants advantages to male employees in terms of pay and promotion as decided by the broad discretion of their branch managers. The plaintiffs named in the instant case represent the certified class against the biggest private employer of the country. From the favourable decisions of the lower and appellate court, the corporation filed with the Supreme Court assailing their standing. The three plaintiffs primarily named are Betty Dukes, Christine Kwapnoski and Edith Arana. All of them narrate very similar experiences with the company. They all sought for promotion but denied the same after years of employment with Wal-Mart. They also allege experiencing certain events that categorically reveal discrimination on the basis of sex. Male employees on the other hand are given much more leeway by their store supervisors and the same infractions which result to their demotion and termination are not dealt with equally by management. They offer these anecdotal evidences as basis of their action from around 120 members of the suit in proportional representation of the class. Along with this evidence are statistical data manifesting the discrepancy in pay and promotion between male and female employees. Finally, they offered the expert testimony of Dr. William Bielby based on a social framework analysis of the company’s practice which renders it ‘vulnerable’ to commit discrimination (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 2011). The procedural history Dukes et al. rely on the commonality of the questions of law or fact to the class encompassing all female employees of Wal-Mart from December 26, 1998 who may or has suffered from the alleged discriminatory acts. The decisions in the District Court granted compensatory damages to 9,541 calculated in random from 137 claims. The petition by Wal-Mart seeks the review of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the certification of class action by the District Court under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 (a) and (b) (2). Under Rule 23 (a), four requisites must concur for the certification of a party. First, “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,” second, “there are questions of law of fact common to the class,” third, “the claims of defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class,” and fourth, the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” However, they must also be in at least one of those contained in Rule 23 (b) (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et al., 2011). The Supreme Court ruled that there must be full compliance with the Rule to obtain class certification. This, the decision exemplifies was not met by Dukes et al. There is no concrete proof to show that the company had an established practice of discriminating against women other than the rebuttable testimony of Dr. Bielby which the Court also cited as reasonably non-compliant of the admission requirement of expert testimony under the Rules. The fact that Wal-Mart allowed ample discretion to local supervisors does not in itself show a violation of the employees’ rights nor does it manifest a company-wide system of discrimination. The immensity of the class action will make it unreliable to determine the claims of each of the parties. Provide an analysis of the court’s decision Grace Speights and Paul Evans in their article, ‘Wal-Mart v. Dukes: Supreme Court Announces Stricter Class-Certification Standards’ illuminates on the effects of this decision to the institution of labor actions in relation to class actions. The decision rendered by the Supreme Court meant that the plaintiffs and the others included in the class action did not undergo the same injury and that the money claims including back pay may not be certified under the same Rule. Among the major implications of this case is the mandate to a judge in enforcing a meticulous finding prior to providing a certification and analyse the claims when it overlaps to other issues of certification. “The court noted that Rule 23(b)(3), unlike Rule 23(b)(2), mandates notice to the class and an opportunity for class members to opt out of the lawsuit, necessary safeguards to preserve the constitutional due process rights of class members whose individual claims for monetary damages would be adjudicated if a class were certified” (2011). This jurisprudence now requires that commonality must be proved decisively by the plaintiffs in countenance to individual question toward the adjudication of the issue and the judge will have a stricter yardstick in determining and certifying a class action. Cases involving discrimination, other than those seeking injuctive relief, must now comply with the stringent Rule 23(b)(3) standards which makes claims for damages more difficult (ibid). The direct result can be perceptively seen as favouring company policies that afford local managers the discretion in promotion and pay increases without much interference on basis of company policy and directives. Lawyers will now have to think twice on whether they should institute a class action or not. The more sensible answer will be to bring separate individual actions against the employer since proving commonality has become more difficult. Furthermore, the setting aside of the court of the expert testimony and the representative anecdotes demonstrating the existence of a company-wide sexual bias in the workplace almost makes it impossible and impractical to seek certification as a class action. Analysis of the evidences provided by the plaintiffs can be regarded as the best they could offer given the circumstances. The fact that the court did not take cognizance of any of them and in fact carefully controverted each points to the glaring example that class action in a labor case of this magnitude is now highly improbable. The ruling affords employers the breathing ground in knowing that they have moved further from the reach of a class action. This proliferate the common practice of the employer that, as the testimony provides, breeds discrimination. Perhaps, a persisting question in relation to this case is whether the ruling would have been the same if the plaintiffs opted to include not as many parties to the class action. The expansive inclusion of about 1.5 million certainly made an impact on the decision of the Supreme Court. Had the decision been the other way around, Wal-Mart would have tremendously been affected and the prospective award for compensatory damages would have had catastrophic effects to the company. Regardless of the favourable decision to Wal-Mart, companies should enforce a stricter and more comprehensive policy that aims at eliminating the discriminatory practices of their managerial employees. The standards and criterion for the advancement of any employee in the establishment should be clearly set forth in the most objective way possible given their individual conditions. The paper should conclude with your opinion about the merits of the agency and the holding of the Supreme Court in the case you selected The Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes case brings back to memory the previous decisions of the Supreme Court which favors corporations over the welfare of the working class Americans. This reminds of the old and equally controversial case of Lochner v. New York decided way back April 17, 1906 where the Court held that the right to contract enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment prevails over the State regulation of enforcing a workweek limitation to employees. The controversy stems out of the State of New York’s labor law where Section 110 sets that the working hours of employees in bakeries should not exceed 60 hours a week equivalent to 10 hours a day. The Supreme Court, in rendering its decision, reiterated that the police power of the State is not absolute. The state may in certain cases regulate people’s rights to contract but the case at bar is not one of them. The employer and employee’s right to contract was given focus and asserts that the employee has the liberty to contract for his labor (198 U.S. 45). This misleads toward a message that the ruling is in fact for the benefit of the employee. The time when the courts cannot be relied upon as a refuge for the protection of labor has been characterized in history. However, the early days of discord between state regulations and court decisions have been shunned. Unfortunately, the promulgation of Wal-Mart reverts to that part of history where liberality is not given its due in favor of employees. Given the nature of the class action instituted by Dukes and the other plaintiffs, the evidences they have provided are the most logical consequences of their cause. That they were not given due course by the Court now renders it unfeasible to institute the same type of suit involving a substantive number of injured parties. This is relevant not only to discrimination cases but also to all types of class actions. However, the decision is not entirely without merit. There are considerations cited by the Supreme Court which must be perceived to be rational and just. The award for damages and back pay would certainly be difficult to determine and the standing of each plaintiff are not clearly set forth therein. The presence of the Department of Labor is a safeguard to the rights of the labor force which is an indispensable area of the economy and the United States as a nation. The subsistence of industries greatly depends upon the quality of working conditions of the employees and their satisfaction in order to provide quality work. The DOL exists to protect and promote labor. The agency is dedicated as a specialized branch of the executive department that serves as the primary adviser of the President in decisions that involve this important sector of society. Labor is a dynamic field which necessitates equally motivated leaders. The DOL may be just one among many other cabinets but it remains as one of the most significant because it affects everyone, whether directly or indirectly. Bibliography An Act to create a Department of Labor, Public Law 426-62 (1913). Breen, W. J. (1997). Labor market politics and the great war. Ohio: The Kent State University Press. Retrieved October 12, 2012, from Google Books: http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=EP7bDoZcGTIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=DEPARTMENT+OF+LABOR+history&source=bl&ots=IWoBQBhRBn&sig=UwI01kbBShh3qSBUgNkw5Wd_0tM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5Np6UPqWJYGJrAf6vYHoAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=DEPARTMENT%20OF%20LABOR%20history&f=false Casil, A. S. (2006). This is your government: The department of labor. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc. Retrieved October 12, 2012, from Google Books: http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=ZeDhc31zafAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=DEPARTMENT+OF+LABOR&source=bl&ots=Wgf8Qc_tYF&sig=mKCLovvw1N-jWKBhdUxlCNTshrY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LtV6UILvKsfhrAeymoGYBA&redir_esc=y Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) MacLaury, J. A brief history: The U.S. Department of Labor. A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Labor website: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/dolhistoxford.htm#.UHryPC7R7D8 Solis, H. L. (2010, September). U.S. Department of Labor strategic plan fiscal years 2011-2016 . U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/_sec/stratplan/StrategicPlan.pdf. Speights, G.E. and Evans, P. C. (2011). Wal-Mart v. Dukes: Supreme Court announces stricter class-certification standards. Westlaw Journal Expert Commentary Series. 1-8. U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 2. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et al., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) Read More