Labor and Employment Law Books

Lochner v. New York was a 1905 Supreme Court case where an anodyne state law regulating working hours in bakeries was ruled uncontitutional because it breached the "freedom" of workers and employers to form employment contracts on any terms the market allowed. The notion of liberty of contract had no constitutional basis -- it was invented by conservative social theorists after the Civil War -- but it had been smuggled into American jurisprudence by activist judges in the guise of enforcing the 14th amendment. It was a godsend to business groups that wanted to beat back state efforts to regulate working hours and minimum wages.

The libertarian ideas animating Lochner were already losing popularity by 1905, but the court continued to police state regulation of business for more than thirty years, hampering social reform and causing huge damage to the credibility of the judiciary. As an example of sheer judicial assertion, Lochner was the Roe v. Wade of its day.

This book is short, clearly written, and alive to the ironies (and hypocrisies) of judicial activism, where one's view tends to depend on whether the activism in question is conservative or progressive. My only complaint is that parts of the book meander off the main subject and seem to have been stitched together from research the author did for other projects. For example, there's way too much material on New York state politics, and the long discussion of the libertarianism of Justice Stephen Field, although fascinating, is a bit misplaced, since Field was long dead by the time Lochner was decided! That said, history buffs and law students will get a lot out of this book.

"Lochner v. New York" is one of the best known and most despised US Supreme Court rulings. In Lochner, the Court voted 5 to 4 to invalidate a New York law that limited bakers' working hours to 10 a day or sixty a week. The Court found that it was a "labor legislation", and therefore unconstitutional. To this day, Lochner v. New York is remembered as one of the most extremist judicial activist opinions, and gave the name to an era of conservative judicial activism, which lasted well into the New Deal.

Professor Paul Kens' "Lochner v. New York" (I shall henceforth refer to the decision as "Lochner" and to the book as "Lochner v. New York") is not the type of book I was looking for. I wanted a legal analysis of the infamous decision. Kens' book is less a legal analysis as a social, political and intellectual history, explaining the various trends that shaped the law, the case, and the decision.

Too often, Social History can be merely a list of practices, or a description of conditions that are entirely predictable to anyone with even a slight familiarity with economic and social concepts (see respectively Eric Poner's Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 and John Dower's Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II). "Lochner v. New York" on the other hand is revealing of the working conditions and social and economic situation of the baking industry, and Kens judicially uses statistics to chronicle its evolution from the mid 19th century to the early 20th.

As Intellectual history, Kens offers an in depth look at the thought of various Lessez-faire and Social Darwinist ideologists, as well as their progressive opponents. Although Kens clearly has little sympathy for Social Darwinists, they come out quite well - Social Darwinist thought, while extremist, is not all that different from modern Libertarianism.

Kos does a good job of describing the politics surrounding the Baking hour law's passing, and the ironies with which it abounded - including the fact that one of the Law's chief backers were later to argue its unconstitutionality before the Supreme Court.

After contextualizing Lochner, Kens gets down to legal analysis. Essentially, the court applied the doctrine of "substantial due process" to declare the 10 hour law unconstitutional. The court used the 14th amendment requirement against deprivation of liberty to protect the "Sanctity of contract". The state must not deprive a person of the right to work at whatever terms he sees fit, unless it is for reasons of public health or safety, or unless the person is in need of paternalistic protection, if he is a minor or (in Victorian America) a she.

The vast majority of the Court, including Dissenter John Marshall Harlan, subscribed to this interpretation. Harlan only claimed that the Court should give the state the benefit of the doubt - if it claimed that the Law meant to protect bakers' health, then that is what it did. Only Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated a completely different vision: "The 14th Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics" he famously wrote in his classic dissent. The sanctity of Contract was not in the constitution, and states should have no problem overruling it.

Kos agrees with the dissenters. He convincingly (in my view), demonstrates that the framers of 14th amendment did not intend to protect the liberty of contract, and that laissez faire Capitalism was not an antebellum ideology (although he may underestimate the extent to which laissez faire was latent in pre Civil War America - most ideologies only take shape when challenged, as laissez faire was by the increasingly powerful state of the late 19th century). Ken clearly thinks that the Court should not enforce values that are not clearly articulated in the Constitution text or its history.

Kens realizes that his position requires opposition not only to Lochner, but also to Liberal rulings such as Griswold v. Connecticut, which ensured the right of married individuals to use contraception. Kens argues that this also requires expansive, ideological reading of the Constitution and thus should be avoided.

But the very purpose of a constitution is to check the majority's power against minorities. Because times change, the means of oppression can change also. The specific clauses of the US constitution - the ones that protect against abuses that were known at the time of framing - are mostly outdated. Think of the 3rd amendment's prohibition against the stationing of soldiers at private houses. It is the more general, opaque clauses of the constitution (like the prohibition against abridging the Freedom of Speech or inflicting "Cruel and unusual punishments") that can deter present day majorities from manhandling minorities and protect the little citizen from Big Brother.

But can Lochner v. New York be distinguished from expansive Liberal rulings? Does adherence to Griswold force on us to accept Lochner?

I think there are good pragmatic reasons to say no. First, we should acknowledge that the Court's decision is right in treating suspiciously governmental intervention in the freedom of contracts. But the Court erred, in my view, in seeing Lochner as essentially a question of Liberty. I think Lochner is actually a question of wealth redistribution.

By regulating the terms in which bakeries and baker workers contract, New York improved the relative position of the workers vis a vis the owners. But government policy can most assuredly do that. The government is entitled to levy taxes in any form it wishes, whether progressively (taxing the rich more then the poor) or regressively (the other way around). It may levy tariffs on incoming goods, improving the lots of US manufacturers and worsening those of exporters. It can supply welfare benefits for the poor. The competition between the various interests is the very essence of the democratic process and should be left (within reason), to the democratic process. The time for the Court to intervene is to prevent Government from abusing citizens, not to keep the spoils out of the hands of the winners in marketplace of ideas.

As a junior political science major at UNC, I have had to read a lot of books similar to Kens's. These books focus on a particular case, be it the Skokie trial, the Tinker armband case, the Chadha legislative veto case or the Bakke affirmative action case. Anthony Lewis's Gideon's Trumpet book seems to be the first of this kind.

Kens' book is by far the best of its type that I have read. The other books of this genre I've read in this genre deal too much with the proceedings of a case. For instance, Mr. Chadha had this legal problem, he got this lawyer, they went through this legal proceeding, they had to refine their arguments, they went to the next appellate court, blah blah blah. Frankly these kinds of details are boring, and give little if any insight into the importance of a given case.

Kens's has a different approach. Instead of going into great detail about why Mr. Lochner picked a given lawyer, Kens goes into great detail of the impetuses for the passage of the law that Mr. Lochner was challenging. He talks about the social and political climate of the times, tying in influential theories of the day like Social Darwinism and laissez-faire economics. Kens clearly places the case of Lochner v. New York in its historical framework. This, it seems, is a superior method for studying an important case like this one.

I would strongly urge this book to any professor teaching a constitional law/history class. I would also strongly recommend it to a student looking for a good introduction to the study of substantive due process.

This is a great book. I like long books, but this one is short and sweet. Moves the story along, and explores the fascinating background to Lochner (including the history of the baking industry and the conflicts of interest -- to give but one example, the attorney for anti-union Lochner was in fact not an attorney and in fact was a union organizer in the past.

Also discusses the Negative Rights (Substantive Due Process in law) doctrine and has a great bibliography.

The author is clearly a world expert in this field and I wish the book could have been longer. The author does not appear to be heavily biased either for or against Positive Rights (read Big) government.

Bibliography and timeline at the end of the book is great too.

Outstanding.

The authors' explanation of the workings of the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc systems is adequate but is not particularly well written and often lacks clarity. This is certainly not one of NOLO's best offerings.

Especially annoying was the authors' frequent and tedious editorializing. I suspect most readers of this book want the facts, not the authors' socialistic, simplistic opinions.

page 10/7: "E. Medical Treatment....And dependents and survisors of a veteran who has a service connected disabilities, or who receives a veterans pension, are entitled to care in VA facilities if they are unable to afford private care."

I have been a VA employee for 16 years. The above is WRONG. There IS a pilot program in a handful of VA hospitals allowing dependents to use the VA hospital. Otherwise, this is NOT the case.

..."The VA can also pay for long-term care of an elderly or disabled veteran in a private nursing facility if there is no space in a VA facility."

This is also not entirely correct. The operative would is CAN. However, the VA is only obligated to pay for the care of veterans who have a certain percentage of Service-Connected Disability. If they pay at all for any others, most VA's only pay for care for a VERY limited period of time.

The authors of this comprehensive guidebook come close to achieving this feat. As they point out, many Americans are not receiving all the benefits they deserve under our current system. By explaining the various benefit programs and laws in conversational English, they hope to help readers ensure they are getting everything to which they are entitled. It's also helpful that the text is presented in a visually interesting two-column format with plenty of headings, boxes, and even the occasional illustration.

Each chapter explains a different benefit program or set of laws designed to protect the rights of older Americans. Security and Medicare take up more than half the book. The discussions of Medicare claims and appeal procedures are particularly thorough, complete with samples of Medicare summary notices explaining what the sometimes confusing columns of numbers mean. There also are chapters on Medigap policies, Veterans benefits, private pensions and 401(k) plans, and federal civil service retirement benefits. However, if you're looking for in-depth information on Medicaid coverage of nursing home costs, this is not your best resource. While Medicaid's basic eligibility rules are briefly discussed, the complexities of transferring assets to qualify for Medicaid benefits are not.

The authors mainly stick to the facts, but every once in a while they reveal their view of our society's tattered safety net. For example, they call our failure to enact a comprehensive, universal health care plan a "national disgrace."

This happens to be the best all-around book concerning the difficult subject of Social Security that I have read. Understandable and very well written. The sections regarding disability are filled with just the info I needed to know.

Teachers and the Law (7th ed) is divided into chapters and sections, and is written in a question/answer format. Different cases are also introduced, discussed and their significance in education is explored. All kinds of issues are discussed, from what constitutes libel to marriage between administrators and teachers within the same school. The vocabulary/terminalogy is not difficult....you do not need a legal dictionary, nor any dictionary for that matter. It is very interesting, not mundane, and easy to read. One of the few books that I didn't dread having to read for my courses. This is an excellent book to have in your educator's library.

I received the book in good shape. The cover looked next to new and there were very little marks or highlights in the text.

Teachers and the Law (6th Edition) was the primary text used for my National-Louis University (Wheeling, IL) School Law course. Although the text implies that only information regarding teachers will be discussed, Fischer actually covers legal issues that deal with many levels of educational law including student cases, administrator cases, and even cases that don't involve teachers at all, but loosely relate to educational law in general.

This was my first exposure to any formally-presented school law information and I must confess that I was quite overwhelmed at first. Fischer tends to present a major case very clearly and then fully explains its implications and outcomes. However, he then presents several other related cases that often have conflicting or opposing outcomes to the original point.

What I learned from this text is that there is very little "black and white" when it comes to interpreting school law. I was interested to learn that even the landmark decision cases are still constantly debated in the courts and sometimes ignored when decisions are made by judges or juries. It took our experienced professor to help us understand the subtext of some of the cases and discern the probable reasons why some cases were decided in seemingly arbitrary ways.

In general, Teachers and the Law greatly increased my understanding of school law, but without an experienced professor, I would not have gleaned as much practical information.

Case law, unless done perhaps by the likes of John Grissam, is not page turning material. However, the authors have done an incredible job of putting very pressing and often complex areas into an accessible and engaging book. Written in an easy to use question and answer format, the updated book touches on education legal issues ranging from free speech, to students with disabilities, to internet issues. While of great use for educator (or educators to be), the book could also easily be adapted for classroom use, either as a debate or research starter. Worth every penny of its price.

The format of this book is a restatement, where each principle is set out as a bold black letter section and underneath it are both commentary and case references. I have found it to be invaluable and fun to read. The principles are divided into different categories commonly associated with labor arbitrations and this is a multi-author work. It may be out of print, and this is a shame, but if you can get it, buy it. Highly recommended for anyone involved in or interested in labor arbitration.

As an arbitrator, and also a member of the National Academy of Arbitrators, I disagree strongly with the other review. To begin, the book itself makes it clear that it is NOT official National Academy of Arbitrators Policy or viewpoint. Second, the reviewer actually ignored the WHOLE title of the book. It is "The Common Lw of the Workplace: The Views of Arbitrators." If you read it (and this is a readable book, unlike Elkouiri, How Arbitration Works for example), you will find 15 scholarly articles written with differing viewpoints. In fact, the arbitrators disagree with each other on some really major points. These analyses are tied to the record made before the arbitrator, and the unique elements of the contracts which the arbitrator is trying to apply and interpret. Black letter princples are followed by analytical examples. One learns that first line arbitrators are not applying a monolithic "The law of the Shop," but are instead trying to apply "The law of a Shop.' The book deals with matters of procedure and substance. It gives a surprisingly succinct overview of such issues as "just cause" for discipline. The section of "Troubled employees' is lyrical. The intricacies of contract interpretaiton are well laid out -- a difficult subject is made understandable. It has a new section on ethics. Rather than getting a "common law," the careful reader will find a sweet and melodious chorus, which will give you some useful insight into how arbitration cases are really decided by arbitrators. If I could only buy one book on arbitration, this would be it. It provides a lot of 'bang for the buck,'

I am the director of labor relations for a state government. I disagree with the fundamental premise of this book inasmuch as I reject the notion that there IS a common law of workplaces. That said, the arbitrators are all citing to this work and it is authoritative. At minimum a practitioner should have it to see what the Academy is thinking and adjust your argument and presentation accordingly.

My beef with the Academy, and they know who they are, is the whole notion of "inherent ambiguity" in contract language espoused in this book. To my mind, it is simply a rationalization for broad equity powers for arbitrators, power that I deny that they have unless expressly conferred by the agreement.

As I said, I disagree with it, but I have it and insist that my staff at least consult it.

If only hindsight wasn't 20/20! If someone had recommended this book to me before my nightmare experience of being wrongfully terminated by Western Temporary Services after being employed as Manager of their Hawaii office some years ago, I could have saved myself a lot of emotional pain and heartache. Even though I've rebuilt my life (and dignity) since that event, the scars will always be there. I've made a point to recommend this book to other friends/associates who have been through similar experiences, and hope that these authors will write an updated version soon to reflect the new laws and policies that continue to erode our rights as workers, and human beings in the workplace.

or for those who know little about their rights, Human Resoures or Employment Law. (There, that sounds better.) This book was difficult to find six weeks after publication. It flew off the shelves. Here's why:

The authors provide real cases of sexual harassment, employee discrimination, front and back pay awards, and how different jurisdictions favor employers or employees. Many of these stories are three or four pages that reduce the legaldygook to the vernacular. Sometimes the authors are tongue-in-cheek, or emphatic.

The last printing of this book was 1995. While the information is very useful for those who know little or nothing of employee rights, the reader should consider a few things before feeling "employee-invincible: Some states are still "empoyment-at-will" which means they can fire in those states at any time, without reason, or having to provide one. Two, the administration has changed. Many more conservative judges have been appointed under Bush than under President Clinton. Many of them have made controversial decisions in favor of corporations. And third, the employee may have to pay taxes on the total of an award or settlement. That means even paying taxes on that part that goes to the lawyer. That means the awardees could find themselves in debt to the IRS. (Read "Perfectly Legal.")

This is easy-to-read and good to have. It's in paperback and worth the investment.

If you work for a large Corporation you should read this book PERIOD. Wish I had read it before a bad day. The author gives you everything you need to know to protect yourself should you find yourself terminated suddenly. Especially useful to long service employees but anyone with 10 years plus should make themselves read it.

I had purchased this book for a masters level class I was in. It is incredibly comprehensive and will be your one-stop source for employment law as it relates to Human Resource practices.

There are lots of case studies and discussion questions should you feel the text doens't challenge you enough.

The only drawback is that the text is two-tone; it could have done with being a tad more colorful. Having said that, that's all that kept it from being five stars.

The book was top shelf and much cheaper than the bookstore. Delivery was prompt as promised. I've recommended your site to other students!

This book has everything you need to know! It is clear, easy to read, and easy to understand. Great Case Studies and online supplemental material. If you are in the field, get it today!

Readers looking for an impassioned tirade against racial quotas will be disappointed. Readers who are fed up with all the impassioned tirades against and all the fanatical polemics in favor of giving certain people Most Favored Race status will find this book a welcome relief.

Chapter 1 (pp. 1 - 20) makes the point that prejudice by any other name is still prejudice. It doesn't cease to be prejudice depending on which race it is directed against.
Chapter 2 (pp. 21 - 38) sketches the history of the America's insistence on no discrimination based on "race, color, creed or country of national origin."

Chapter 3 describes the about-face the nation did in the 1960s. "It is hard to find in the speeches or statements of civil rights leaders prior to the early 1960s any sustained interest in `preferential treatment' for blacks." (p. 42). In 1961, CORE, then a small splinter party, began to agitate for racial preferences. One thing that helped cause the about-face was rioting. "The traditional response to a riot had been to hold the rioting individuals responsible." (p. 44). A commission appointed by President Johnson in 1968 held that "white racism" was responsible. (p. 45). This began the now-accepted practice of holding the victims responsible for the crimes of racially ennobled individuals.

Once the crack had been opened to preferences based on factors other than skills and performance, the dam burst and many other groups were granted Most Favored Group status until by 1990 the only group not eligible for preferential treatment was white American heterosexual males.

As legal challenges were mounted and public opposition swelled, the wording of laws became more cagey: race, ethnicity and country of national origin were to be "one factor among many" in determining who was preferred. This protected the preferred groups from legal challenges and allowed them to go on doing preference-as-usual in college admissions, hiring and contracting.

What most Americans do not realize is that this rather bizarre program and its rationale was only one among several that has placed this nation in great peril. If you want to read the whole story, get While America Sleeps: How Islam, Immigration and Indoctrination Are Destroying America from Within. All of these threats were started and are allowed to continue because of a change in the mind-set of American leaders and media people. The only way to save America is to change this mind-set.

This is another in a growing wave of anti-affirmative action books. It is also one of the best.

It focuses on the twisted history of affirmative action and how the original purpose of the civil rights movement was respect for individual liberty without the "group rights" philisophy intrinsic in affirmative action.

Bureaucrats looking for short cuts and easy solutions pushed affirmative action - without democratic legislative approval. Minority groups behaved as anyone receiving a state-sponsored benefit does - they adopted the "philosophy" and began to protect their newly discovered "rights". The fact that these "rights" had no legal basis and questionable pedigree in the cast and race-obsessed systems of India, Malaysia and Yugoslavia seemed of little consequence at the time. The term "Balkanisation" (a sad relic of Old World ethnic hatred) now has a disturbing echo in the affirmative action policies of the New World.

Other reviewers may argue that affirmative action policies cannot be "unjust" because, although discriminatory, they are not designed to humiliate or alienate whites - only to benefit that amorphous group called "underrepresented minorities". The argument turns to dust when it is realised the biggest losers in the affirmative action contest are Asians. But no one wants that little secret revealed.

The fatal flaw in Terry Eastland's book is his interpretation of Justice John Marshall Harlan's famous dissent in the case Plessy v. Ferguson. Indeed, this is the same flaw that can be found in the arguments many of the opponents of affirmative action.

Astonishingly, Mr. Eastland's book refers to Justice John Marshall Harlan as Justice John Paul Harlan.

Mr. Eastland argues that Justice Harlan, in his dissent in Plessy, wrote "that government should not have the authority to engage in racial regulation of any kind." Mr. Eastland uses Justice Harlan's now famous statement "Our constitution (sic) is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens" to build a case that affirmative action violates our Constitution. Mr. Eastland, along with other opponents of affirmative action is mistaken. Contrary to the assertions of Mr. Eastland affirmative action respects Justice Harlan's "color-blind" Constitution. Like other opponents of affirmative action, such as Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom who in their book, America in Black and White, have the same flaw in their argument, Mr. Eastland misunderstands Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy.

Plessy v. Ferguson was the Supreme Court case decided in 1896 which upheld the 'separate but equal' doctrine. It was this doctrine that formed the Constitutional justification for the set of racial laws known as Jim Crow. The case arose as a result of a Louisiana law which required equal but separate accommodations aboard passenger trains for the black and white races. Justice Harlan was the only Supreme Court Justice to dissent in the Plessy case.

Justice Harlan made it very clear in his dissent that he opposed Louisiana's law because it was "conceived in hostility to, and enacted for the purpose of humiliating, citizens of the United States of a particular race." Justice Harlan acknowledged that the white race was the dominant race in wealth and in power. This dominance, Justice Harlan noted, did not give the white race a superior position with regard to the rights protected by the Constitution. The Constitution, according to Justice Harlan, recognizes "no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no cast here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved."

Justice Harlan did not object to the Louisiana law because it recognized the social, political, and cultural reality of race. Justice Harlan found the Louisiana law contrary to our Constitution because the action of the Louisiana legislature proceeded, according to Justice Harlan, "on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens?" Justice Harlan's "color-blind" Constitution is "color-blind" precisely because it recognizes "every right that inheres in civil freedom, and of the equality before the law of all citizens of the United States without regard to race." Thus, Justice Harlan argued, laws that would allow individuals of one race to degrade and put into an inferior position individuals of another race notwithstanding any inequalities in the actual social, political, and economic positions of these individuals, would be unconstitutional.

Regarding affirmative action the issue is whether these programs conform to or violate Justice Harlan's "color-blind" Constitution. To find out, I have formulated the following questions that are based on the reasons Justice Harlan used in finding that the Louisiana law violated the principles of the "color-blind" Constitution. The words in quotation marks are the words used by Justice Harlan in his Plessy dissent.

Are affirmative action programs "conceived in hostility to" the white race?

Are affirmative action programs "enacted for the purpose of humiliating" the white race?

Are the effects of an affirmative action program such that it "practically, puts the brand of servitude and degradation upon" whites?

Do affirmative action programs proceed on the belief that white "citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed" in our schools of medicine and law?

Do affirmative action programs violate any "right that inheres in civil freedom" and deny "the equality before the law of all citizens of the United States without regard to race?"

The answers to these questions are no.

Affirmative action, therefore, conforms to the principle of the "color-blind" Constitution and does not violate the rights of whites. Mr. Eastland and the other opponents of affirmative action are seriously mistaken when they insist otherwise. I agree with the other reviewers, such as Linda Chavez, who note that "Terry Eastland puts forth the best argument to date" for opposing affirmative action. But I have shown that this argument, though it is the best that the opponents of affirmative action can make, is fatally flawed.

"Reference material is in plain English - I'm looking forward to getting the CD." Mr. Steven Peterson Director of Safety and People Development Savage Industries, Inc.

"...A helpful guide on federal employment laws..." Kiplinger Washington Letter

As an employer, manager, or HR professional are you continually grappling with employee compliance concerns? Vizia Enterprises has produced just the right publication that will provide answers to all your employment law questions. The business guide is entitled How To Comply With Federal Employee Laws, written by Sheldon I London, Esq.. Mr. London has done an excellent job of explaining all the significant federal employment laws in a plain, understandable English format. Topics covered in How To Comply With Federal Employee Laws include: employee health insurance laws, polygraph usage in the workplace, employee/contractor relationships, hiring procedures and checklists, job descriptions and analysis, age discrimination, Family & Medical Leave Act, American's with Disabilities Act, discipline and termination procedures, drugs and alcohol in the workplace, sexual harassment, equal pay, race, sex and religious discrimination and numerous others. I use this business guide daily. In addition to explaining all the significant federal employment laws, this reference guide expands the laws by offering question and answer sections as well as checklists for complying with the laws and sample forms for OSHA, FMLA, COBRA and Immigration. The 240-page guide is updated annually and each copy of How to Comply With Federal Employee Laws includes a free 5 in 1 federal compliant poster.....what a bonus. Finally, if you need a guide to ensure your compliance with employment laws, this is the book for your library shelf. I strongly recommend this guide for its easy-to-understand format and comprehensive nature of an ever-changing topic.

This book addresses basic concepts and is easy to read and understand. The content gets to the point and provides step by step examples.

If you need this book, you don't need to be preparing and presenting arbitrations. If all you know is what you get here, you will get your lunch eaten by any experienced advocate and an experienced employment law attorney will have you stammering, stuttering, and wondering what you're doing there.

That said, if you're an HR type who wants to get into the world of LR or a union steward who wants to get into the world of advocacy it is good foundation. Add this to your library so you have an idea what is going on and can ask intelligent questions, but if you are the one who's going to answer when the arbitrator asks for appearances, there is no substitute for a lot of mock arbitrations and a lot of second chair time with an experienced advocate. This book will teach you what is going on, but it will not teach you how to effectively prepare and present an arbitration.

N.b.: Arbitrators are incredibly solicitous of inexperienced advocates who happen to have a meritorious case, so don't ever think that just because you won the case, you won the hearing; it's two totally different things. And if you wonder if I know what I'm talking about, go Google my name - and only a minor percentage of my appearances are published.

As an novice union represenative I needed some guidance on how to prepare and due arbitrations/grievances. This book has helped me in my first three mediations and now is helping me get ready for my first arbitration case. It gives some excellent insight (e.g. notebook and file box idea). It also helps you in doing your research on questioning, cross examination of your witness. It gives you some questions to ask and not to ask. For an indidvidual or union steward with no background in paralegal or law I would recommend this book to be on the top 3 of your book list to have as a union steward. The author did an excellant job and put it in a way that makes the book user-friendly. Now I have other union stewards coming to me for information on arbitrations.

With all of the recent attention paid to employment discrimination in the media and in the courts, I thought I should read Job Discrimination II. I'm really glad I did. I now feel like an expert on the law and I am fully armed with the information I need if I should ever have problems at work. So far I haven't had any problems but I have some friends who have. I recommended this book to all of them. Bernbach manages to illuminate the reader on all aspects of employment law without ever sounding like a legal textbook. He also provides many examples from real life situations that make the book enjoyable as well as informative. This is a must read for anyone who works for a living.

This quick-and-easy read provided me with the ammunition I needed to combat and overcome injustice in my workplace. This book helped me to not only learn my rights, but also to gather my courage during a difficult and trying time. Anyone who suffers from discrimination, or thinks they are suffering from discrimination, should read this book.

Bernbach's book is a useful primer on the mechanics of considering whether to file and how to file a discrimination based legal action. In that regard, it is practical and useful. It therefore fulfills one of its subtitle's promises - How To Fight.

It does not substantively address the second promise - How to Win which is why I only give it 3 stars. While its case comments (not really studies) are interesting, there is little or no discussion of what can determine the ultimate success or failure of a legal action. For age discrimination cases, there is a much better book by Raymond F. Gregory titled "Age Discrimination in the American Workplace - Old at a Young Age." This book is very helpful in determining what it takes to win and presents more complete case studies in illustrating the important legal points and trends. This book, also available on Amazon, is not as procedural, so can best be considered an adjunct to rather than a substitute for Bernbach's book.