Business and Contracts Talk: January 2012

Friday, January 27, 2012

Europe's Proposed New Data Laws Called a Burden on Business

Europe's proposed new laws on data protection are burdensome and expensive, but may give companies incentive to put more measures in place to secure data, according to representatives of business interests.

The mandatory notification of data breaches "as soon as possible" normally within 24 hours has caused the most concern. But other elements of the European Commission's proposed reform of the Data Protection Directive has alarmed many in industry.

Under the proposed law companies would be obliged to inform both the relevant Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) and all affected individuals of any data security breach, including unauthorized destruction or loss.

Organizations that fail to issue notifications about a personal data breach in a timely or complete fashion to the supervisory authority will face fines of up to 2 percent of their current revenues. Mark Fullbrook, director of IT security company Cyber-Ark, questioned the reason for a time limit: "If the goal of this law is to provide consumers with upfront information about the security of their information, then a 24-hour notification period is hardly going to enable that. If you look at any of the serious breaches that have occurred over the last year, not one of the affected organizations was able to articulate the true extent of the breach within a day."

"I remain unconvinced that legislating around the disclosure of breaches actually provides any real incentive for organizations to employ best practices when it comes to data security. Let's face it, imposing a fine or a time limit is just like putting a plaster over a gaping wound -- it only goes so far," he added.

Many security firms however were quick to see the business advantage in helping companies meet these new requirements. "The most effective way to identify exactly what data has been compromised, and thus generate accurate breach notifications within 24 hours, is by deploying centralized protective monitoring systems that automatically collect and analyze all log data generated by the IT infrastructure," said LogRythh vice president Ross Brewer.

However Brewer also warned about the danger of "over-disclosure", which, he said, is a risk as many companies don't know what information has been compromised and may be forced to issues a blanket breach notification.

But the "cost of implementing security measures to proactively protect corporate information from potential data breaches and attacks, is far less than the ultimate cost of a data breach," pointed out Aziz Maakaroun, managing partner of Outpost24 UK. "Rather than suffering from the financial and reputational damage that comes as a result of a data breach, surely it would be more beneficial for businesses to take steps to prevent data breaches from ever occurring in the first place."

Consumers' right to be forgotten also came under fire from industry. "Introduction of the so-called "right to be forgotten" goes beyond a justifiable desire to enhance individuals' ability to erase their personal data on the Internet and creates a right that will be difficult to implement and that may have a chilling effect on the use of the Internet in the E.U. The new rules for allocating responsibility between data controllers and data processors will place a heavy burden on many E.U. companies to revise their contracts with non-EU service providers, a process over which they may have little control," said Wim Nauwelaerts, partner in the privacy and data security practice at Brussels law firm Hunton & Williams.

"In a further difficulty, the new regulations also require 'data portability' which means businesses risk having to transfer valuable data to their competitors if requested to do so by the individuals themselves," added Mark Owen, partner at London media law firm Harbottle & Lewis. "All this may well make it much more difficult for companies to use behavioral advertising techniques and will also place an administrative burden on insurance companies and suppliers of credit who routinely rely on statistical profiling. "

The Commission claims that the new measures will save European businesses money by unifying the bloc's 27 different national data privacy laws. "Instead of the current obligation of all companies to notify all data protection activities to data protection supervisors -- a requirement that has led to unnecessary paperwork and costs businesses €130 million per year -- the Regulation provides for increased responsibility and accountability for those processing personal data," said the Commission.

However many companies will have to perform privacy impact assessments at a cost of around €14,000 (US$18,163). Companies with more than 250 people will also have to appoint a data protection officer.

"A big question is whether the business community will be willing or able to police itself. If it can't, businesses could find themselves exposed to regular reviews by official regulatory bodies. The definition of a 'breach' will also have to be made clear. Will it depend on the number of records or documents exposed, for example, or on the type of information leaked? Organizations should prepare for both of these options," said Christian Toon, head of information security for Iron Mountain Europe.

The incentive for companies to prepare for the new laws are increased fines based on global revenues -- up to 2 percent of worldwide revenues for the most serious infractions. Commission experts said however that the fines would be proportional to the seriousness of the offense and that smaller businesses would not be fined for a first infraction.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Microsoft's GC Makes a Business Case for Gay Marriage

By Brian Glaser

Earlier this month, Microsoft general counsel and executive vice president of legal and corporate affairs Brad Smith took to the company's official blog with a post titled "Marriage Equality in Washington State Would Be Good for Business,"in which he outlined the business case for the company's support of same-sex marriage legislation in Washington, where Microsoft is based.

His core argument centers on the idea that in order "to be successful, it's critical that we have a workforce that is as diverse as our customers. . . There simply is no substitute for their diverse backgrounds, perspectives, skills, and experiences. Inclusiveness is therefore a fundamental part of our values, and is integral to the company's business success."

Smith says that the Redmond-based tech giant—along with Concur, Group Health, Nike, RealNetworks, and Vulcan Inc.—are throwing support behind billSV 6239 in the Washington State Senate and HB 2516 in the House because:

As other states recognize marriage equality, Washington's employers are at a disadvantage if we cannot offer a similar, inclusive environment to our talented employees, our top recruits, and their families. Employers in the technology sector face an unprecedented national and global competition for top talent. . . Marriage equality in Washington would put employers here on an equal footing with employers in the six other states that already recognize the committed relationships of same-sex couples—Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. This in turn will help us continue to compete for talent.

Writing for The Seattle Times, Janet I. Tiu points out that this is not a new position for the company:

Microsoft made a similar argument when it joined some 70 corporations in supporting a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Microsoft has been involved in other gay rights issues before, as in 2005, when a bill banning discrimination against gays and lesbians failed by a single vote in the state Senate and Microsoft's lack of support for the bill was criticized, and last year when it and other tech companies were put in the middle of an e-commerce culture war.

But while Microsoft may be reiterating a long-held position, the timing of this most recent announcement in a business-focused election year, along with the presence of a larger corporate coalition joining in the call for marriage equality, may have a bigger impact. As Carly Rothman writes in New Jersey's The Star-Ledger:

New Jersey businesses, take heed. The six states that allow gay marriage are New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Iowa—all of which are a heck of a lot closer to New Jersey than to Washington State. If a top company like Microsoft is worried about losing talent to any of those states, then New Jersey business have even more reason to be afraid.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Amendment to labour law can create more jobs

Businesses have long been calling for amendments to the labour legislation to assist in the recruitment and dismissal of workers. According to Johan Botes, director in employment at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr business law firm, a critical re-think of South African employment law might assist in motivating businesses to reconsider their reluctance in employing inexperienced job applicants.

"Presently, employees who are incapable of performing can only be dismissed from employment after the employer had determined that the employee failed to meet the required work standard, that the employee was aware of the standard, that the employee was afforded sufficient opportunity to meet the standard and that dismissal is the appropriate sanction. This process is not always clearly understood by employers frustrated by an employee that is clearly not able to do the work," Botes explains.

Relaxation of strict rules can be the answer

The legislature brought some relief to employers in 2002 when introducing a lower threshold against which employers are tested should they dismiss a probationary employee for poor performance (Schedule 8, Item 8 to the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995).

Botes notes that if the intention is truly to get businesses to act as institutions of learning, where on-the-job training is provided to workers fresh from school, university or colleges, a relaxation of the strict rules against dismissal for poor performance for first-time job seekers may be the way to go.

Employers are often reluctant to grow their business where such growth requires the hiring of new staff. One of the reasons for this is that it is difficult for the average employer to dismiss staff who is thought to be capable of doing the work required, but could then not come to grips with the work once employed. If employers are able to readily terminate the service of new recruits who lack the necessary experience, they may be more inclined to give such youngsters a chance in the first place.

Workers can gain invaluable experience

Botes thinks that employers and needy job seekers may both be pleasantly surprised by the results. "If an employer knows that it can terminate the services of a new job-seeker at will or whilst being tested against for reasons that are automatically unfair only, the employer may decide to provide employment to a larger group of staff than those actually required, knowing that it can retain the best of them after a short trial period.

"While the rest of the workers who were not the best at the tasks may then fail to remain employed with the same employer, they would have gained invaluable experience which may assist them greatly in obtaining further employment. The difficulty in getting that into the employment market presents a huge obstacle to our goals of meaningfully reducing unemployment," says Botes.

The current high hurdles laying in the path of employers before being able to dismiss employees for incapacity due to poor performance has not incentivised employers to become institutions of on-the-job training. A different approach is needed if business is expected to actively assist in addressing our skills shortage.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Craft distillers fret over new liquor laws

By Melissa Allison

Stacked high in a warehouse southeast of Ellensburg sit more than 1,400 cases of botanical liqueurs that Mhairi Voelsgen, co-founder of broVo Spirits, thought she had sold.

The Washington State Liquor Control Board decided in October to carry the new distiller's Douglas fir, rose geranium, ginger and lemon balm liqueurs. That decision typically precedes an order of up to 200 cases of each product, so broVo went ahead with the run, adding a fifth flavor — lavender — and making several hundred extra cases that it thought would sell fast.

As the last batch was completed on Nov. 10, the liquor-control board canceled broVo's "listings," which is liquor-board parlance for products it carries regularly in many liquor stores.

"Our timing was impeccable," Voelsgen says wryly.

Voters had just passed Initiative 1183 by a wide margin, and the state needed to start winding down its liquor business in anticipation of large grocery stores taking over liquor sales.

The transition puts Washington's fledgling distillery industry in a tough spot. Many are new businesses in their critical launch phases and need regular orders to gain recognition and keep cash flowing.

Even distilleries that can make it to June worry they will not find distributors or large grocery stores to stock their products. They also worry that new fees will raise craft liquor prices beyond consumers' reach.

Only big stores — those measuring at least 10,000 square feet — will be allowed to sell spirits in Washington beginning June 1. That aspect of I-1183 was meant to keep convenience stores out of the business, something that bothered voters about a previous initiative.

For young distilleries, though, it means few small liquor shops featuring local products, the way boutique wine shops do now. Washington's existing 300-some liquor stores can continue selling liquor regardless of their size.

"The craft distilleries are the most ill-affected by 1183," said David Lusby, sales manager of Vinum Wine Importing and Distributing in Seattle. "Under the previous system, they were guaranteed distribution through the state, and under 1183 they're not."

Craft-distillery boom

For decades, distilling was almost a dead art in Washington.

While Oregon's cocktails swelled with locally made whiskey and absinthe, Washington had little liquor to call its own.

That changed dramatically beginning in 2008, when Washington's Legislature passed a craft-distillery law allowing small distilleries to open tasting rooms and sell limited amounts of liquor from them.

In less than four years, the number of craft distilleries has zoomed from zero to 40, with more than a dozen applications pending.

Washington has its own gin, vodka and whiskey as well as more exotic spirits such as absinthe from Woodinville, berry liqueurs from Kent and a limoncello expected to arrive soon from Sodo.

As the state's only liquor-store overseer, the liquor-control board has served as a sort of incubator for distilleries.

Once a distillery got a listing with the state, its liquor became available all over Washington, and details like price, shelf space and how many stores carried their products were negotiated with one customer: the state.

Even distilleries without listings were special-ordered by individual liquor stores.

"The board has a soft spot for Washington's craft distillers," said board spokesman Brian Smith.

Chris Marr, one of three people on the state's liquor-control board, was the main sponsor for the craft-distillery legislation when he was a state senator from Spokane.

Under I-1183, distilleries can sell liquor directly to stores and restaurants, but most do not have the necessary sales force or delivery capability. Instead, they are wooing distributors in hopes of being marketed alongside bigger brands.

"It's sad to say this, but not every distillery is going to find a distributor partner that meets the same level of service they had with the state system," said Lusby at Vinum, which has applied for a license to distribute liquor in Washington.

I-1183 imposes fees on distributors that are so high, particularly during the first couple years, that many smaller distributors will probably wait to enter the market, he said. And Vinum expects to represent only three or four Washington distilleries.

Boutique sales

Grocery chains are not talking yet about how much liquor they plan to carry, Lusby said.

"They're focused on whether they have 10,000 square feet, but apart from that it's pretty quiet," he said.

The minimum-size limitation is unique to Washington.

In other states, artisan distillers count on small wine and liquor shops to sell their products, said Susan Karakasevic, whose family owns the seven-employee Charbay Winery and Distillery in St. Helena, Calif.

"We fit best with small restaurants or wine shops, where there's personal contact with the customer," she said.

Charbay began making brandy and grappa in 1983 and vodka in 1998, and has since added rum, whiskey and tequila. They have been sold in 43 states, including Washington, but rarely in major grocery chains.

John McKay, executive vice president for Costco Wholesale's northern region, said it carries selected craft spirits in some markets. In Alaska, it regularly stocks an Alaskan vodka called Permafrost, he said, and in California it recently stocked a product from Woodinville Whiskey.

Steven Stone, founder and head distiller of Sound Spirits in Seattle and president of the Washington Distillers Guild, said he doesn't know if big players like Safeway will carry local products in Washington.

But smaller chains including Seattle-based Metropolitan Markets and Bellingham-based Haggen have already called asking what's available, Stone said.

Rethinking plans

Meanwhile, distilleries are scrambling to stay in the game.

They fought an early liquor-control board decision to stop taking special orders after Jan. 1, saying it could hurt new distilleries that do not have listings — including broVo, whose listings were canceled because it would have taken too long to put the products on shelves in a system that's being phased out.

As a result, the liquor board is requiring distilleries that want special-order eligibility to sign an agreement promising to buy back any stock left on May 31.

"That's fantastic," said Orlin Sorensen, co-owner of Woodville Whiskey. "That means we can sell full throttle through May 31."

Still, many Washington distilleries are looking for other ways to make money during the transition.

"It's caused me to rethink my business plan," said Ryan Hembree, founder and head distiller at Skip Rock Distillers in Snohomish, which started bottling potato vodka last spring.

Skip Rock had not yet landed a regular listing with Washington's liquor stores when I-1183 passed.

Hembree is not even sure he will receive more special orders; the liquor-control board bought so much of his vodka initially that bottles have been discounted to move them off shelves before June.

Hembree is looking to other areas.

"I was planning on building Washington first, as my home territory," he said. "Over the next six months, I'll do a lot more business in other states."

He's already selling vodka in British Columbia and hopes to get listings in Oregon and Idaho.

Priced out of market?

Distilleries are worried that even if their products land on grocery shelves, the prices might rise beyond what consumers will pay.

Unlike mass producers selling liquor at Costco and Safeway, craft distilleries cannot sell in huge volumes.

If retailers and distributors insist on the same margins they get nationally, the prices on many craft spirits are bound to climb, said Stone, the Washington Distillers Guild president.

Those margins would be compounded by Washington's high liquor taxes and new fees imposed by I-1183 on liquor retailers and distributors.

Stone estimates his Ebb & Flow gin and vodka could climb as much as $10 a bottle to about $42.

"We're all trying to figure out what's going to happen," he said. "It could be we have to concentrate on going out of state more, where taxes are lower. Then we'd have to absorb shipping costs, but it could be that's less."

Stone also plans to push for changes in the law. For example, he thinks it was an oversight that I-1183 kept a limit that allows craft distilleries to sell just two bottles per person a day from their tasting rooms.

Privatization elsewhere

Selling in other states might help Washington distilleries in the short run, but changes could be coming there as well.

Joe Gilliam, president of the Northwest Grocery Association, which represents Costco and others, met recently with Idaho's governor and other officials to discuss privatizing its liquor system.

Despite the challenges, broVo's Voelsgen has hope.

"The public has been demanding a private system for a while, and I'm hopeful we'll get more specialty stores and people committed to local products," she said.

For more information on these matters, call our office at 305 548 5020.

Monday, January 16, 2012

CII for more clarity in nuclear damage law

The Confederation of Indian Industry wants clarity in some clauses of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2011.

Welcoming the notification of implementation rules, the CII said a framework is in place for the first time, instituting strict liability for the operator who has to pay damages of up to Rs 1,500 crore. A balanced legislation would send the right signals to investors and suppliers and expedite the country's nuclear power programme, it said.

"Section 46 states nothing in the civil liability law will prevent the operation of other laws in force in the country and makes clear that criminal liability in case of an accident remains, as indeed do tort claims. However, clarification is required to ensure that this provision does not alter the exclusive channeling of any claims for nuclear damage on a strict liability basis only to the operator who owns the plant," it said.

In Section 17, there are issues related to the application of "operator's right of recourse". Currently, the limit to liability is applicable only to 17(a), which states that operators have a right to recourse if the right is mentioned in the contract. There is no clarity on whether the limits could also be extended to claims by an operator under clause 17 (b), according to which an operator will have a right to recourse if the nuclear incident has resulted due to an act of supplier or his employee — which includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services — or 17 (c), which applies in case a nuclear incident has resulted from an act of commission or omission of an individual done with the intent to cause nuclear damage.

As a result, according to CII, there could still be an overlap on claims arising out of supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or substandard services. Especially, as it is open to interpretation that the causes of action under all the three clauses of section 17 are mutually exclusive. Therefore, it is critical that the rules or an amendment to the Act expressly set out the legislative intent that the limit of a supplier's liability will be as defined under clause 17(a).

Specific customised insurance solutions for suppliers need to be developed. In India, insurance providers do not offer any policy under which suppliers to a nuclear power plant can cover their risk.

The operator, who is the owner of the plant, plays a crucial role in selection of the right set of suppliers. The law should also be consistent with the convention on supplementary compensation to do business with global players, CII said.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Watch Out for New Small Business Laws in 2012

New small business laws and regulations take effect in 2012, and they will almost certainly affect your bottom line.

by Reuters

One of the most significant changes will affect how your small business calculates its federal taxes, the Los Angeles Times reports.

New Internal Revenue Service rules will cut by 75% the amount a small business can deduct upfront for the cost of purchasing new equipment, according to the Times. The new IRS limit for new-equipment deductions is $125,000 -- down from $500,000.

If you don't like the sound of that, brace yourself for 2013. That's when the new-equipment deduction limit will be cut even further, to $25,000.

Why is this happening? Because the $500,000 deduction cap was part of the original stimulus package that's set to expire, the website Business Insider reports.

Another tax-related new small business law for 2012 aims to deter businesses from under-reporting their sales income.

If your business processes more than $200,000 in credit-card payments and conducts more than 200 transactions each year, the IRS will now compare your accounting records with those kept by credit-card processing companies.

Third-party payment services like PayPal are also included in this IRS cross-check, which means online businesses may feel this law's impact the most, according to Business Insider.

Aside from these IRS changes for 2012, new small business laws will also take effect in various states. For example:

Employers in California will be prohibited from conducting credit checks on most job applicants, according to the Times.
California is also among several states imposing heavier penalties on misclassifying employees as independent contractors.
And four southern states -- Louisiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Georgia -- will now require businesses to use the federal "E-Verify" system to check an employee's eligibility to work in the United States, CNN reports.
For more information on these matters please, call our office at 305-548-5020.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

California Businesses Embrace New Benefit Corporation Law

California Businesses Embrace New Benefit Corporation Law

by ApparelNews

Ventura, Calif.–based Patagonia was the first of 12 companies to register for the state's new "benefit corporation" status on Jan. 3. Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard led a group of businesses to apply the first day the legislation came into effect.

California has become the seventh state to adopt a form of the new law, which was designed to protect companies that practice social responsibility. The other states are Hawaii, Virginia, Maryland, Vermont, New Jersey and New York.

Currently, the law requires corporations to favor the financial interests of shareholders over the interests of communities, the environment or other social causes. Before the introduction of the benefit corporation law, companies had to choose between becoming a nonprofit or leaving themselves vulnerable to lawsuits for not obtaining maximum profits.

AB361, which was authored by Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D–San Rafael), creates a new kind of corporation that has legal protection to serve the public, not just the shareholders, so long as the company "shall have the purpose of creating general public benefit" and is bound to prioritize the interests of the community, the environment and workers.

The company must also publicly report annually on its overall social and environmental performance using a credible and independent third-party standard.

"Patagonia—a company with a mission statement that includes building the best product, causing the least amount of harm, and using business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis—views the benefit corporation as a way for its founders to ensure the established values of Patagonia continue in perpetuity," said Jen Rapp, director of communications at Patagonia. "The legal status affords a company's directors legal cover to consider environmental and social benefits over financial returns."

Berwyn, Penn.–based nonprofit B Lab had been pushing for adoption of the bill in partnership with many businesses and business associations, touting the message "A new economy requires a new kind of corporation."

"We need a better way to do business," Jay Coen Gilbert, co-founder of B Lab, said. "Benefit corporation legislation gives businesses the freedom and the legal protection to make decisions that create value for society, not just shareholders. That's important for workers, for communities and for the environment. Success in the future will be defined by those companies that create high-quality jobs and improve the quality of life in communities and for future generations. Benefit corporation legislation makes this possible."

Some of the other California companies that have applied for benefit corporation status include online streetwear storeDopeHut, Dharma Merchant Services and ThinkShift Communications, all based in San Francisco.

For more information on these matters please, call our office at 305-548-5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Pawnbroker business law passed

By Yasmin Popescu

Much to the delight of a local businessman, the Pawnbrokers and Secondhand Bill, 2011 has been passed.

Tony Johns, of GB Trading Post, in an interview recently said he is was looking forward to the legislation that was passed on December 5, 2011 in Parliament.

The Bill was for the Act to provide for the activities of Pawnbrokers and Secondhand Dealers.

The Act is to monitor and regulate the activities of pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers; to deter unlawful property transactions through pawn brokers and secondhand dealers; and to facilitate the efforts of law enforcement in recovering stolen articles and solving property crimes.

It also noted that the Commissioner of Police shall designate such number of officers, as he considers necessary, from within the Royal Bahamas Police Force to perform the functions under this Part and shall appoint from among such officers an administrator.

Johns said the regulations are to be in place to ensure that the stigma attached to pawn shops could be lessened. He noted that the law now requires a "cooling off period" of 14 days after items are brought so it can be deemed ok to be resold. Therefore persons who are engaged in illegal activities bringing ill gotten gains to be sold will find that they have to wait for those items to be cleared by the police before they sold.

Further the legislation requires dealers/pawnbrokers to keep records of all items brought in.

According to the Act Article14 (1) In relations to every transaction that is conducted by a dealer, that dealer shall keep and maintain electronic records detailing the prescribed particulars in relation to such transactions for a period of not less thatn five years after the completion of that transaction.

(2) A dealer shall clearly label every article acquired during the course of his dealings and every article shall bear such particulars as may be prescribed.

In Article 17 there is further security in reporting stolen articles.

(1) Where a dealer has possession of, or is offered for sale or pawn, any article that he knows or suspects to be stolen, he shall report the article to the police as soon as practicable and hold it for 21 days from the date of the report to the police.

(2) Where a dealer has been notified by the police that a specified article is, or is alleged to be a stolen article, that dealer shall –

(a) verify whether the specified article is in his possession and, if so, report the article to the police;

(b) notify the police immediately if the specified article is subsequently offered to him for sale or pawn.

(3) A dealer may dispose of a specified article that he has reported to the police under this section after holding it for the minimum period of 21 days unless before the expiry of the 21 days, the police issue a hold notice under section nine with respect to the article.

While the Government has enforced this Act, it does not affect the Freeport area of Grand Bahama, which is ran by the Grand Bahama Port Authority, where officials say they do not offer licenses for Pawnbrokers, however they issue licenses for secondhand/ consignment stores.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Fight Over Union Law Has Indiana’s Legislature Mired in Quorumless Limbo

Fight Over Union Law Has Indiana's Legislature Mired in Quorumless Limbo

By Tim Jones

A clash over labor rights in Indiana (STOIN1) is taking shape in the state Capitol as House Democrats try to stop a measure that would prohibit union contracts from requiring that workers pay dues, a top priority for Governor Mitch Daniels and fellow Republicans.

When the legislative session opened yesterday in Indianapolis, Democrats remained in caucus, preventing the House from conducting business. The opening-day maneuver recalled last year's session, when the Republican-dominated House shut down for five weeks after Democrats fled the state in opposition to bills restricting union rights. It extends battles over unionism throughout the Midwest to a new arena: private businesses.

While the House is scheduled to convene today, Democratic leader Patrick Bauer said yesterday his members would return if public hearings on the bill are held throughout the state, not just in the Capitol in Indianapolis.

"We refuse to let the most controversial public policy bill of the decade be railroaded through and the public denied fair and adequate input," Bauer said in a statement.

"There is no urgency to schedule this bill for passage so quickly," he said.

The measure, which prohibits contracts at private work sites from requiring workers to contribute to a union, is scheduled for a committee hearing tomorrow.

For more information on these matters please, call our office at 305-548-5020.