The Bakeshop Case

The justices, however, would begin to practice a new constitutional concept, referred to as the substantive due process of law, to examine business regulations implemented by a state’s police powers (Hall and Patrick 2006, 68). The new concept allowed the Court to determine whether or not the procedures imposed by legislative actions of the state, such as the Bakeshop Act of 1895, negatively impacted economic liberty. Aside from the sanitary conditions imposed, the Bakeshop Act of 1895 set boundaries on the total amount of work hours per week, limiting the hours bakery employees could work “to ten per day and sixty per week” (68). Hall and Patrick (2006) note that most bakery employees worked more than 100 hours in a week. While the motives behind the legislative action varied, the law brought forth sincere concern for maintaining a healthy workforce as well as quality control for baked goods. Not all bake shop owners, however, followed the new

He argued the right to purchase or sell labor was a protected right under the liberty included under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, he admitted states had police powers, which could limit the property and liberty of individuals. There was a limit on the exercise of police power though, or the Fourteenth Amendment would be useless. The police powers could be used for the safety, morals, general welfare, and health of the public. The New York law did not involve the safety, morals, or general welfare of the public. Justice Peckham argued the law did not affect the health of the public either because clean bread did not depend on the number of hours an individual worked. Working as a baker was not considered healthy but was also not regarded as unhealthy. Therefore, if the Court allowed the legislature to make laws on occupations not absolutely healthy, it would have the power to regulate almost every occupation. Justice Peckham argued the New York law was invalid because it interfered with the liberty of individuals to make contracts protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Harlan dissented, arguing the New York law was enacted to protect the physical health of employees in bakeries. Justice Holmes also dissented, arguing the Constitution should not be interpreted in favor of an economic theory,

The United States Department of Labor (DOL) has a mission to protect the welfare of wage earners, job seekers, and retirees. They also improve working conditions and ensure work-related benefits and rights. The DOL has many laws and reregulation’s protecting workers that range from the Fair Labor Standards Act, which sets standards for wages and overtime pay, to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which focuses on workplace safety and health. With the wide range that the DOL has employees can feel that they have standards in place to ensure fair pay, fair treatment, and a safe environment to work in. Without the enforcement of the DOL corporations are left to establish pay and safety standards internally. In a business atmosphere where the importance of profit is often placed before the employees, an environment without laws and regulations can be dangerous. An example can be seen in other countries where labor laws are not in place compassion and common sense also seem to be absent. In these areas workers, many times children often works long hours for little pay. Sadly it has been shown that when corporations are unregulated the importance for the fair treatment of employees takes a less important role.

The court case of New York Times vs Sullivan was a case that involved public officials and how they were libeled in the press in the year of nineteen sixty four. L.B. Sullivan was one of three elected commissioners of Alabama. The respondent was L. B. Sullivan was a public official from Alabama and brought a lawsuit against an clergymen, a negro and against a petitioner of the New York Times Company. L.B. Sullivan sued all of these people because he felt that he was libeled in a advertisement of the New York Times. The case had to deal with if the constitutional protections of speech and press limit the states power to award damages for the libel action brought by a public official against the critics of his official conduct.

This was a landmark case as it set a precedent for the rights of public health officials. As stated in an article in the American Journal of Public Health, although this ruling was an important victory for officials, it was not enforced very often in the mid 1900s (Colgrove & Bayer, 2005,

As the economic changes swept through America with the Industrial Revolution, so did society and the traditional roles of men and women. These changes hit the lower class women particularly hard because not only did they have to work long hours at a factory; they also had to maintain the household as traditions required of women. With all of these responsibilities that women now had, perhaps the strain hit women because rarely had they been required to do so much. Oregon saw this and created a law in 1903 that stated that women were only allowed to work a maximum of ten hours a day. Similar laws had been passed in other states so it made some people wonder, did the Oregon law violate the women's freedom of

Petitions were filed and New York State upheld the case and then sent it to the Supreme Court(Britannica School High paragraph 2).

Kelley focusing on efforts to improve working conditions for women. Of coarse she met numerous obstacles that would make her influence and job very difficult. A large obstacle for Kelley was the repeated statements by the U.S. Supreme Court that legislative reforms, on a state or federal level, were unconstitutional. Kelley never gave up and each time an important case was in front of the Supreme Court, she prepared herself the best she possibly could have in order to defend it. When she finally was able to use field studies, scientific date and statistical evidence to support her arguments, her and Josephine Clara Goldmark made legal history with the Muller v. Oregon case. Kelley proved through an extensive range of evidence that long working days (12 to 14 hours) had a negative effect on women’s health. The Supreme Court declared the legality of a ten-hour work day for women which came as a huge win for Kelley. This victory was not only important in regulating women’s work, but also for the improvement of general working conditions in America. Her long fight to ban child labor finally resulted in Congress passing the Fair Labor Standards Act in

Specific health problems associated with the workplace have contributed to the development of Particular health issues connected with the work environment have added to the advancement of the cutting edge safety and health development. These issues incorporate lung infections in diggers, mercury harming, and lung tumor attached to asbestos. Occupational and Environmental Health Professionals have an above normal extent of all day employments. For Occupational and Environmental Health Professionals working all day, normal week by week hours are 42.3 and profit are high - in the ninth decile. Unemployment for Health Professionals is underneath normal. H&S Professionals have an expansive extent of specialists amongst individuals in the 25-34 age section, making it an energetic and dynamic workplace. The unavoidable consequence of the expanded consideration given to safety and health is that bigger organizations are utilizing safety and health professionals and all organizations big or small are relegating these obligations to existing representatives.

In 1892, the Plessy vs. Ferguson case tested these precepts. The majority of the justices agreed with the Assembly’s legislation, however, Justice Harlan questioned the legitimacy of these edicts steadfastly pointing out what he felt was non-compliance with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments

The famous Supreme Court case, Tinker vs. Des Moines, was one the swept the nation. It was a highly debatable, controversial, substantial, and captivating case, resulting in it discussion across America. The case pinned two teens from the Tinker family, alongside one of their friends, against the school board of Des Moines, Iowa. The teenagers were suspended from their school for wearing armbands to protest the government’s policy in Vietnam. The case, which started in lower court systems, was ruled in favor in the teenagers in the Supreme Court, however the case was ruled in the opposite direction in the courts that the case passed through before. The stronger argument, the majority opinion, stated the constitutional facts, it stated that the student’s actions were passive and protected under the First Amendment; however the dissent argued that the behavior of the students was disruptive by distracting the other pupils of the classroom.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), often referred to as the "OSH Act," was enacted in 1970 by President Richard M. Nixon. Its purpose is to assure safe and healthful working conditions for men and women (EPA, 2006). The Act is administered and enforced at the national level by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a division of the US Department of Labor. The application of the OSH Act in the current employment climate will be discussed as it applies to a variety of industries; considerations that are most applicable to the specific type of industry will be discussed initially, and those that are equally important regardless of the type of business will complete the section. Finally, this paper will discuss how the

Marbury vs Madison was a pretty interesting and complicated court case. This case established Judicial review. Judicial review is the power of federal courts to ignore acts of congress in because it's not with the constitution. The decision helped make the supreme court a separate branch of government on the same level with congress and the executive.

Have you ever think about people for unsafe work? Each in everyday, hours and minutes, as we step forward into a factory, mills or machineries, significant people are put into danger. Although health and safety in a workplace is necessary for the employers and employees, there are still a lot of injuries and deaths in a workplace. Most people we’re being forced to work even if the job is not safe for them to do so. There are people getting injured and killed every day that’s why we need to put a stop to it now and make the job in a workplace comfortable to everybody.

This responsibility motivates the HR department and managers to implement stringent policies to prevent work-related injuries to avoid paying for higher workers’ compensation insurance. Moreover, it inspires the company to promote safety by organizing a safety committee to address hazards in the workplace to prevent injuries or deaths. The committee solicits employee suggestions and participation to increase compliance to company policies. It also develops various safety programs to promote employee wellness to improve their quality of life (Gomez-Mejia, et al, 2010).