Labor and Employment Law Books

I have many friends from the US, and I have over the years heard they mentioning of "AA-programs". Some of my friends are positive to the AA-programs while others are against them. I must confess that I have absolutely no first-hand experience on this topic at all. I have the "preferred" skin-color, and also I'm living in Norway - which is one of the more advanced countries when it comes to equal opportunities - equal pay etc. Therefore, in the past, I had little to contribute with when the topic was discussed. And lack of knowledge was probably my strongest motive for reading "Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby".

One would think that a serious topic as Affirmative Action really is, would make a dry and rather verbose book. But Dr. Carter has an easy writing style, combined with his personal anecdotes - "Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby" was an entertaining read! I greatly enjoyed the book from page one. It was too good to put down, so I finished it in a few long sittings.

After reading this book, I have a better understanding on how the different AA-program works. And I must admit that I side with the ones of my friends whom are against such programs. This, simply because I truly believe that "color-blind is best". Treat everyone as individuals, and stop the stereotyping, and the building up under the belief that minorities cannot compete in a level playing field. For example, when American universities admit Blacks, Hispanics or others with lower exam scores than the rest, it is a waste of resources. They are more likely to follow the trend with lower test results than the rest, to not pass the exams, or fail to graduate at all (Thomas Sowell "Race and Culture - A world view", 1995). If any minority group be it Blacks, Hispanics or others, score lower than other groups, the recourses should be put in to improving the schools rather than telling them (the minorities) they do not need to meet the same standards as others. I can of course never completely comprehend or understand the terrible injustice and the endless frustrations that the minorities must have suffered, as I believe you have to have "walked in their shoes" to do so. But I am at least much more knowledgeable when discussing the topic.

After reading the book I passed it on to my friend, Rosa. She is living in US, but her parents moved from Puerto Rico to US some 30 years ago. She too, finished the book in a sitting or two, and she passed it on to her mother who was visiting from US. Both Rosa and her mother could perfectly well identify with Dr. Carter's book. I can never imagine what it is like to feel the doubt of colleagues to whether my success was achieved because of my race (and thereof by the privileges granted under an AA-program) rather than merit. But according to what Rosa told me, that is something all minorities has to live with. I am sure she knows what she is talking about, being a highly successful woman teaching (and doing her Ph.D.) at one of the best universities in Chicago. Another (black) friend of mine (also very successful) says "..My SAT-score was way above the score required, and I would have been admitted to the West Point Academy even if I was polka-dotted. But I am so used to the accusations of me achieving what I have achieved due to my skin-color rather than to my merits, to the point where that I am not even offended by it anymore..."

"Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby" is a book that taught me many things, and it should be required reading for everyone.

It is a book that leaves you thinking - which is not necessarily a bad thing...

Stephen Carter is just the man to do it. He has written many books on the many aspects of law and, as he conveys in this cultural memoir, has aquired views notoriously hard to pin down (how many 'liberals' do YOU know who wrote books suggesting that church/state seperation has been taken too far?!) Accordingly, he can admits both being helped by affirmative action and being psychologically hurt by some of it's misguided effects. His willingness to think and write about these quandaries, so often neglected by other thinkers, makes this a fascinating read. No dogmatic diatribes or easy answers, just discussion that is passionate yet objective.

While affirmative action dominates the first half of the book, it is used as a springboard to the second half, which discusses a deeper problem- that of a noticeable distrust in Black America of dissenting political voices. Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Clarence Thomas and the like are quick to be called 'white' or 'inauthentic' if they voice opinions contrary to mainstream black thought. Whether or not you agree with Carter's observation, his discussion here is lively, thoughtful and always respectful of all angles.

So, to close, the reason for the subtracted star is the fact that this book might disappoint two expectations readers may have for it- First, there are no conclusions reached here. While this is a good thing in itself, the reader looking for winning intellectual argument will need to look elsewhere. The second is that the title is a bit misleading as only about 100 pages are actually on affirmative action. Again, the discussion after is just as mind-capturing. Still, because of the title and synopsis, it is a bit misleading.

"Kim," I answered, "what makes you think that black people don't think that everytime we see unqualified white people who've "made it"? Do you really think George W. Bush would have been admitted to Yale if he'd been black?" That gave her some food for thought so I was able to finish my share of the sushi before we moved on to dissect "Memento". I loved it; she hated it.

The point is, the argument that affirmative action is somehow unfair to blacks because it lumps the "unqualified" in with the "qualified" is bull. Life lumps the "unqualified" in with the "qualified" all the time. Which is why both a D student cheerleader like George W. Bush and and an A+ student bi-lingual Academy Award winner like Jodie Foster hold degrees from Yale.

Why is it that all of the black intellectuals who come out against affirmative action owe their educations and careers to its existence? It's amazing how these men and women want to turn around and lock the doors that openly admitted them so that no more minorities can pass through.

Stephen L. Carter's argument is flawed. But I'm sure it helped sell his book, so more power to ya, brotha! Count your cash and forget the cost to minorities in America.

Carter is a provocative writer and thinker. Having read other works of his on culture and religion and law, this is yet another which shows us this talented man's ability to present a lucid, well thought out opinion.

Many points put forth in this work caused me to seriously ponder my views, and my culture's. My sensisitivity has been heightened, my horizons have been stretched and broadened. Admittedly so, I have not had enough exposure to all the voices Carter provides besides his own. This is of tremendous value to me.

Still horrifying and repugnant to me personally to know the reality of racism and all of its trump cards that both sides play. Carter seeks to expose them all for what they're worth. The solidarity and love he has for his heritage shines forth, as well the balance and passionate opinions he expresses for resolve in the future.

They have all of these laws designed to protect workers from discrimination. It takes years, over 3 in my case, to get an EEOC administrative jusge to hear your case, and after it is all said and done, the agency doesn't have to accept the administrative judge's decision.

Now who is being abused???????

The author goes takes an indepth look at several laws like the American with Disabilities Act and gives countless examples of how these laws may not necessarily be accomplishing their original purpose.

Having recently started a small business, and wanting to be proactive in understanding the law, I decided to learn all the laws that apply to me as a small business owner. I have been completely overwhelmed by how many laws there are and how difficult it is to fully understand or correctly interpret their implications. After two years of slowly getting up to speed by reading books by publishers like Nolo (that offer excellent interpretations of various laws), I was thoroughly fascinated by The Excuse Factory. It is like reading a book with several short stories except these are real life stories of the history behind these laws and the cases that resulted in the current state of the laws.

The writing style of the author keeps the reader engrossed in the book. There is a sense of drama throughout the book and going through the book can be an emotional roller coaster ride. Fortunately, the various chapters in the book can be read independently without losing the gist of what the author is trying to communicate. So, you can read the book in several sessions spread out over time based on how much of the roller coaster ride you can take on any given day.

Though at first glance it may seem like the author is against these new laws, after digging deep into the book it becomes clear that the author is fairly objective in capturing both sides of the story. The author is just trying to present to the reader the way things are right now. These laws were instituted to provide justice and fairness. But those are difficult ideals to achieve and the downside of these laws could be a result of that difficulty. Hopefully over time, these laws will self-correct (as a result of public intervention, of course). I definitely plan on reading the author's other books and am eagerly looking forward to the experience. He has a sharp insight and is not afraid to state his opinions. I can't wait to see what other aspects of the legal system he tackles next. Enjoy reading this legal drama!

First, a disclaimer: I only read the first two-thirds of the book.

Excuse Factory's cover presents it as reporting the impact of the new laws, but in fact it merely argues the case against them, and ignores impact that is positive. In particular, Olson totally ignores the enormous financial and emotional cost to a grievant attempting to obtain his or her rights under these laws. For example, those familiar with the U. S. Postal Service's handling of those laws will notice the absence of any mention of major procedural hurtles such as years-long backlogs and the resultant opportunities such obstacles have given violators to ignore such laws with impunity.

I did up the rating of this to a 3 because Excuse Factor documents the unintended consequences of some laws. For example, Olson makes a good case that age discrimination laws have caused buyouts which have caused potential retirees uncertainty about when to retire, because to retire at the wrong time means missing a lucrative buyout.

In summary, I agree with "whhatlaw@ix.netcom.com, 6/25/97's" assessment, below.

If you accept the libertarian premises that state redistribution is theft and that private contracting should always be respected, Epstein's arguments do follow. I would say that that just shows how flawed libertarianism is. Society has an undoubted interest in combating private discrimination and the resulting inequalities.

Still, whatever you think of his conclusions, Epstein contributes to clarifying the debate.

While I disagree with the final premise, I am not saying that this is not an important book to read. Epstein is, as always, a fantastic writer and strong persuader. Worst comes to worst you will have a great time arguing with the pages.

This book does have its weaknesses. First, it gets repititive frequently, and could have used better editing. Second, Phillips never gets beyond his internalist perspective and fails to relate the Court's actions to what was going on in the outside world, to state and lower court decisions, or to much of anything else. Nevertheless, the book is a welcome antidote to the silly nonsense that has been propagated about Lochner by historians and law professors for generations.

"The Lochner era Court was practically out of control; it struck down approximately two hundred economic regulations on substantive due process grounds." "Economic substantive due process was a radical innovation supported only by reactionary Justices." "The Lochner era Court's substantive due process decisions overturned `social legislation' that would have aided the poor and necessitous at the expense of the wealthy and powerful." "The Lochner era Court's reactionary nature is demonstrated by the fact that it limited its concern for `liberty' to `liberty of contract.'" "Most, perhaps all, of the regulations invalidated by the Lochner era Court served the public interest."

This book does have its weaknesses. First, it gets repititive frequently, and could have used better editing. Second, Phillips never gets beyond his internalist perspective and fails to relate the Court's actions to what was going on in the outside world, to state and lower court decisions, or to much of anything else. Nevertheless, the book is a welcome antidote to the silly nonsense that has been propagated about Lochner by historians and law professors for generations.

Here is the problem, much of what the Supreme Court does is not really easily classified as a set of numbers. Saying that because the court reject more substantive due process claims than it accepted does not really prove that the Court was progressive. Actually, how the Court reaches a decision is often as important as the result and Phillips only measures the later. A case in point: In Muller v. Oregon (1908) the Court uphelp a maximum hour law for women. Now Phillips would apparently call this progressive but in actuallity the reasoning forced the state to jump through a number of constitutional hoops that the Court itself had been creating. Essentially the justices made it clear that they thought the law was good policy and that was the only reason they upheld it. Also, Phillips's model does not adequately account for repetitive cases, where well settled law is challenged repeatedly and the Court summarily ignored them. Additionally, the model fails to take into account doctrinal shifts on the Court over time; the "Lochner Court" was not a stable, unified whole. During the teens, a small but noticible shift towards a progressive outlook was experienced and was followed during the twenties by a strong conservative reaction.

The most damaging fault with this book is the fact that Phillips seems to suggest that the conservative economic activism of the Lochner Court is justified by some extent by the liberal activism experienced during the sixties and seventies. This is a bad position for a scholar. Phillips even seems to admire the Locher era's activism, such as when he notes that the invalidation of rate fixing was OK because they were bad policy anyway. Perhaps this is a byproduct of his status as a Business professor. Phillips fails to realize that activism does not cancel activism and bad policy does not equal unconstitutionality.

While this work presents valid questions concerning the Court's history and how it is viewed by scholars, it is hardly the final and authoritative voice on the subject. I hope that one day a much better study is undertaken.

At the first few chapters, there are a lot of philosophies, which the author wants readers to have a basic knowledge about the classical theory that is essential in business negotiation. However, readers (like me) not familiar with the classical theories may not easy to catch up with the idea discussed in the later chapter. Moreover, the use of German case studies for the illustration of the negotiation issue is quite difficult to follow because of the unfamiliarity with the situation of the German privatization. And, it is suggested that the book should use a more ¡§global¡¨ example of business negotiation to illustrate the ideas the author wants to deliver.

Although the content may not be easily understood, the central idea of the book are delivered through the chapter of introducing the CER and how to use it properly. I think that the CER can be well illustrated without going through the philosophy in the early chapters.

One main insight I got from the book is how negotiation may change depending on the interaction with others. And, different people may have different rationality, so that negotiation may be difficult to be measured or predicted accurately by the theory.

Actually Mark Young showed the limitations of the classical theories, like Game Theory, in the real situation of negotiation. I am looking forward for Mark Young to investigate and discuss more about other theories relating to negotiation topic.

At the first few chapters, there are a lot of philosophies, which the author wants readers to have a basic knowledge about the classical theory that is essential in business negotiation. However, readers (like me) not familiar with the classical theories may not easy to catch up with the idea discussed in the later chapter. Moreover, the use of German case studies for the illustration of the negotiation issue is quite difficult to follow because of the unfamiliarity with the situation of the German privatization. And, it is suggested that the book should use a more ¡§global¡¨ example of business negotiation to illustrate the ideas the author wants to deliver.

Although the content may not be easily understood, the central idea of the book are delivered through the chapter of introducing the CER and how to use it properly. I think that the CER can be well illustrated without going through the philosophy in the early chapters.

One main insight I got from the book is how negotiation may change depending on the interaction with others. And, different people may have different rationality, so that negotiation may be difficult to be measured or predicted accurately by the theory.

Actually Mark Young showed the limitations of the classical theories, like Game Theory, in the real situation of negotiation. I am looking forward for Mark Young to investigate and discuss more about other theories relating to negotiation topic.

Books on negotiation are broadly split into two major categories: the "normative" approach to negotiation, which draws on mathematical game-theory, and the "pragmatic" approach, which builds on studies in psychology, management studies and real-life experience. On one hand, normative models based on game-theory are elegant and rigorous, but fail to capture and solve a vast amount of real-world negotiations, due to the oversimplification of the complex mental processes that drive negotiators. On the other hand, pragmatic approaches seem to be ad-hoc, lacking rigour in the analysis of issues, and largely consumer-oriented (Of course, there are exceptions, based on solid empirical studies, such as those coming out of the Harvard Program Negotiation).

What this book offers, however, is the best attempt I have seen to achieve both rigorous normative validity as well as pragmatic prescriptive advice. Mark Young digs as deep as the most fundamental philosophical traditions that underlie the current common conception of rationality (that of utility maximisation), and builds, buttom-up, a new theory of "considered" economic rationality, which forms the basis of his theory of business negotiation. Hence, the book represents a very interesting and unique grounding of negotiation in philosophy, reaching a normatively valid account of negotiation, both descriptive and prescriptive, without falling into the trap of oversimplification that the elegance of mathematical game-theory leads people to.

I recommend this book to any serious negotiator or researcher on negotiation, both normative and pragmatic. I recommend the book particularly to game-theorists, since it would give them very interesting insights about the limitations of game-theory that might eventually lead to a paradigm shift in the study of strategic interaction.