Skip to main content

On the surface it seems to be a reason to celebrate.  But the bill passed by the New York State Senate on the subjuct of workplace bullying is a hoax engineered by a well organized lobby.  What appears to be an advance in labor law could have the effect of gutting labor law.  The groups lobbying for this bill, which have "activists" meeting regularly and generating support campaigns, are trying to get this bill passed in Illinois next, and they are active in several states.

While a workplace anti-bullying law is welcome, the damage limits must be changed and rendered meaningful if the bill is to act as a deterrent.

I hope some labor law and union stewardship mavens out there will post their opinions, as I am not a labor lawyer.  

Here is the link to the full text of the bill.
http://open.nysenate.gov/...

It establishes grounds for lawsuits over workplace bullying.  The goals of the legislation are admirable, but the problem is in the limit of damages.  If the person making the complaint has not been fired, the damages are limited to $25,000.  This is a dream come true for corporations, who only need to turn hate crime, harassment, or wage and hour cases into a bullying case and walk away paying insignificant damages.  Cases in which people collected $1 million under existing laws could result in an award of only $25,000. Given the puny damages, as compared to attorney's fees, the willingness of an attorney to pursue a case would be about zero.  Any deterrent effect of possible damages is gutted.  Here is the clause (The all caps style is present in the original text posted online on the State Senate website):

WHERE AN EMPLOYER HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE CAUSED OR MAINTAINED AN ABUSIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT THAT DID NOT RESULT IN A NEGATIVE EMPLOYMENT DECISION, SUCH EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS SHALL NOT EXCEED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

And here is more.  All a company can do is construct "preventive and corrective opportunities" for the plaintiff and it is blame free.  We all know that meaningless "corrective" opportunities can be constructed for employees and the employee would have to follow them even if the employee thinks the actions will have no benefit of even make the situation worse.  

IT SHALL BE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ABUSIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT, THAT THE EMPLOYER EXERCISED REASONABLE CARE TO PREVENT AND PROMPTLY CORRECT THE ABUSIVE CONDUCT WHICH IS THE BASIS OF SUCH CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE PLAINTIFF UNREASONABLY FAILED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE APPROPRIATE PREVENTIVE OR CORRECTIVE OPPORTU NITIES PROVIDED BY SUCH EMPLOYER. SUCH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHALL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO AN EMPLOYER WHEN THE ABUSIVE CONDUCT CULMINATES IN A NEGATIVE EMPLOYMENT DECISION WITH REGARD TO THE PLAINTIFF.

Originally posted to proud2Bliberal on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:09 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This is another action against the Constitution. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grrr, proud2Bliberal

    Federal and state constitutions provide for courts to settle grievances and rely on judges and juries to make reasonable decisions.

    The various movements to limit liability are movements of monied interests against the Constitution of the U.S.  In essence the claim is that the courts and juries can be trusted to rule on felonies, including the possibility of putting people to death, but they can't be trusted to rule on reasonable damages when an individual has been harmed.

    Given that there is a system of appeal, any one bad judgment can be overturned.

    The reform that I think is needed is that if a judgment is made against a corporation, some significant fraction of the award should be given to the claimant while the appeal process drags on.  Right now the advantage is overwhelmingly on the side that has the most money.  This is where justice if more often denied.

    Basically we should end the trend of laws being made by the wealthy for the wealthy.

    "Trust only those who doubt" Lu Xun

    by LookingUp on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:34:24 AM PDT

  •  Why Aren't Our Union Leaders Working With (0+ / 0-)
    employers to stop workplace bullying?

    When a union member bullies another union member, the union should work with the company to have the bullying member fired and dropped from the union.  And make it public that they will not put up with workplace bullying.

  •  Why Aren't Our Union Leaders Working With (0+ / 0-)
    employers to stop workplace bullying?

    When a union member bullies another union member, the union should work with the company to have the bullying member fired and dropped from the union.  And make it public that they will not put up with workplace bullying.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site