Landrum-Griffin Case Summary

The government implementing English as the official legal language of America is imperative because a conformity of communication within our borders is needed to unify the vast diversity. Our mighty country was founded on providing all citizens with equality including inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The United States is a progressive nation that welcomes people from far and wide to come and savor the God-given freedoms enjoyed by all. With all of the diversity from the countless immigrants coming in to our port cities, looking for a more prosperous future, a necessary tie is needed to bring the people of the nation together. Interaction with others

The company after realizing that there was union organization in progress increased employee workload while reducing the workweek (called a stretch out). This is an implied financial threat by management that they controlled the workers, their income and their ability to have a job and their time off from the job. As long as employees showed sympathy to the union that management would make it hard on them. This is another potential violation of the ULP

The army and federal court system already operate in English for practical reasons, and by having an official language, the workings of the government would be more streamlined. Such a bill would mostly apply to government policy and federal documentation, and would make it clear that unless the government decides to provide it, no one is entitled to government services or documents in any language other than English; if there is a communication issue with laws or regulations in more than one language, English would take precedence. In a recent national survey, nearly two-thirds of Americans assumed that English was already the official language set by the United States Constitution, according to the Associated Press, 1987. (James Crawford 1) The lobbyists ‘U.S. English’ believe "It is a shared language that has allowed us to rise above our differences and come together as citizens of one nation... there was no resistance to the notion that learning English was the price of immigration." (James Crawford 1) In November of 1986, California voted on Proposition 63, a referendum to make English the official language of the state: three-quarters of the electorate were needed to pass, and it is not surprising that it did pass. Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Virginia had already passed

Although the founding fathers decided to leave the idea of establishing a national language out of the Constitution, there have been several movements to establish English as the national language since then. Even though none of these movements could garnish enough support to make this into a reality, they have been influential in that English is the official language in 31 states. In recent years, five additional states have considered legislation that would mandate English as well (Schwarz 2014). Since many individual states have sided on the issue, it poses the question of if the national government should follow the trend as well. A strong argument can be made that the United States should make English as the official language because it would promote unity and patriotism among Americans, be economically beneficial for the nation while rightfully placing the responsibility to learn English on the non-English speaking immigrants.

“No Habla English”. “21 million people living in the United States cannot speak English. Citizens are not just speaking Spanish, but Chinese and Russian are rising fast.” (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2009) To force a citizen to speak a new language is discrimination. Non-English speaking citizens and immigrants that are without good English skills will fall academically, in the judicial system and when receiving proper medical care.

The people should have their rights and freedom regardless of the knowledge of the English language or American laws, like the petition that was sent to the House of Representatives by Freemen of Louisiana written that “…we learned from you to resist, by lawful means, every attempt to encroach on our rights and liberties...” which shows that they are learning about how the United States achieve their independence and gave their people the rights they deserve. They are doing what the people of the United States did, which was the demand to have the right to be represented and have basic human rights, the people of Louisiana does not want to start a Revolution to get their rights, but they will fight for them until they get them. The people of Louisiana want human rights that they deserve, no matter what kind of beliefs, language, or laws that they got used to when France was in control, they can learn the laws and language as time goes on to be admitted to the Union and get their full rights as citizens of the United States. The inhabitants of Louisiana are just there to enjoy their rights and freedom in their new owned country. They do not want anything else but equal rights and treatments like any other state in the Union because at the end they are all part of

All organizations are in business to make money, but there are rules that the employer and the employee must follow as well. Any influence that management and labor have over the organization should be equal. The “Landrum-Griffin Act also knows as the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.” Was passed in 1959 through U.S. Congress. This is the result of certain improper activities that was going on between labors, management, employers and certain union officials. Many of the officials in higher positions misused numerous labor funds as well as being involve in violent activities. This act regulated union affairs internally and also controlled the use of union funds.

Immigration, legal or not, has been a problem for the United States for a long time. In the U.S., promoters of bilingualism have supported the use of other languages for public services, including government documents, hospitals services, voting ballots, and bilingual education. In their essays “A Nation Divided by One Language” and “Viva Bilingualism”, James Crawford and James Fallows claim that it is not necessary to declare English the official language of the U.S. On the other hand, in their essays “English Should Be the Only Language” and “Why the U.S. Needs an Official Language”, S. I. Hayakawa and Mauro E. Mujica argue that English should be made the official language. They contend that

Facts: In Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board 2 F.3d 1162 (DC. Cir. 1993), the Court was asked to decide a dispute between an employer (Davis) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had found that Davis committed unfair labor practices, which Davis disputed. A union (Local 23) was attempting to organize a local at Davis. Several employees signed authorization cards for the union. Six of those employees were terminated in a mass layoff that impacted eight employees. Davis then fired or constructively fired three more employees who had filed authorization cards. Davis's chairman of the board then informed employees that he wanted them to sign authorizations with the Steelworkers, a competing union. However, Davis maintained that the employees were terminated for cause, not because they signed authorization cards for Local 23.

During our negotiation with D.G. Barnhouse (DGB), we intend to utilize an integrative bargaining strategy with management. Before coming to this conclusion, we weighed the advantages and disadvantages of a distributive approach, however, we eventually decided to take an integrative and predominantly interest based stance versus a position based stance in our negotiations after assessing internal and external environmental factors. In addition, we settled on this strategy because we ultimately believe that management and the union share at the very least, one fundamental common interest, which is the firm’s financial stability. That being said, even with our plans to use integrative bargaining, we still plan to negotiate assertively to achieve

As the ordeal of the Vilca family reveals, the lack of experienced interpreters is less of a problem in federal courts because interpreters must pass a competitive test. As shown in the graphic below, many states require that interpreters take a test to demonstrate their language skills, to be certified, yet many state certification tests are basic in comparison to those at the federal level. Also, several state and local courts allow uncertified interpreters to serve even if they haven’t passed the test because there are so many U.S. residents who have limited proficiency in English and pass through the judicial system. As per the U.S. Census Bureau, half of the 8.5 million people living in New York City speak a language other than English

So, Pat Mora can speak two languages (bi-lingual) is not require in Mexican

The Court held an employer could not be compelled by the Act to do so if other channels of communication are available that allows the union to reach the employees, provided that the employer does not discriminate against the union by allowing other distributions. The Supreme Court stated that so long as the circumstances of the employment do not "place the employees beyond the reach of reasonable union efforts to communicate with them," respect for the employer 's property rights allow it to prohibit nonemployee access to its property. In doing so, the Court specifically differentiated the access rights of employees from those of nonemployees. The distinction [between employees and nonemployees] is one of substance. No restriction may be placed on the employees ' right to discuss self-organization among themselves unless the employer can demonstrate that a restriction is necessary to maintain production or discipline. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Labor Board, 324 U.S. 793, 803. But no such obligation is owed nonemployee organizers.” Ted Scott and Sara B. Kalis, Littler Mendelson, P.C.1.

The unions duty of fair representation as stated in (FLRA, 2016)is the obligation set forth in the second sentence of section 7114(a)(1) of the Statute is commonly referred to as an exclusive representative 's duty of fair representation. The Authority has interpreted this section to require an exclusive representative to represent the interests of all bargaining unit employees: 1) without discrimination; and 2) without regard to whether the employee is a dues paying member of the exclusive representative. The duty of fair representation is grounded in the principle that when a union attains the status of exclusive representative, it must use that power to fairly and equally represent all members of the unit. The union has met its obligation of fair representation when it has represented the employee fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. In my opinion the union in the case cited did not meet its fair representation obligation due to not representing Green in good faith or without discrimination possibly on the grounds she is a non-dues paying employee. Therefore, her rights under the LMRA have been violated due to unfair labor practices. To reinforce my statement under the NLRB (NLRB, 2016) a union which represents you cannot refuse to process a grievance because you have criticized union officials or because you are not a member of the union. In the case cited Green was under the assumption when meeting with the Union Grievance committee she was participating

Who can argue against the fact that a successful government must be unified in, if nothing else, its communications? However, the debate over the official language spread deep. Remembering the previous paragraph, foreigners will be here no matter what. They are the majority in some communities. This means that there is a whole population of consumers speaking and understanding only a language other than English.