The national trial lawyers’ association, the American Association for Justice, opens its winter convention in Maui today. It’s been a busy year for the AAJ and their members, lobbying (so far successfully) to keep any meaningful tort reform out of health care legislation being considered by Congress.

We don’t begrudge anyone their conventions, board meetings, cocktail parties and fundraisers. Still, the AAJ’s activities are rarely covered by the major media despite the group’s impact on the economy, business climate, legislation and the American legal system.

So for context, below is a list of some of the workshops and litigation group meetings scheduled at the convention. Litigation groups are AAJ-recognized groups of attorneys who specialize in litigation against a particular product or industry.

We’ve only included meetings that had .pdf agenda attached to the session. The entire convention program is much longer and includes other litigation groups and activities.

And for more on the convention in Maui, the politicians who are attending, and other AAJ machinations, see our posts at the Point of Law blog.

Advocacy Track Monday — Persuasion
Advocacy Track Tuesday — Persuasion
Byetta Litigation Group
Chantix Litigation Group
Civil and Employment Section
Fosamax Litigation Group
Heart Devices Litigation Group
Interstate Trucking Ltigation Group
Litigation at Sunrise [This one's especially informative in a brief, 10-minute kind of way.]
Pain Pump Litigation Group
(continue reading…)

We’ve previously quoted the following paragraph from The Nation, a leading left-wing periodical, on the stakes for employers involved in the nomination of SEIU counsel Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, that is, the possibility of administrative enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act. It’s the conclusion from a Jan. 20 article, “Obama’s Pro-Union Nominations to Labor Relations Board Stalled“:

The battle over nominations to the NLRB, even more than EFCA, may be what really determines the extent of labor’s gains under Obama. Should Obama persevere and see his nominations confirmed, there is reason to believe that much of what organized labor hopes to accomplish via EFCA will be realized through the rule-making power of the NLRB. But White House loyalty to these nominees may never gain sufficient spine unless labor and its progressive allies mobilize to push Congress to finish the confirmation process. Without mobilization, this episode may end up being yet another example of Obama’s promises not being realized and hopes going unfulfilled.

That quite clear: The NLRB is the mechanism to achieve what organized labor cannot achieve through legislation.

But now The Nation has added a “clarification” to the column, its importance emphasized by its placement at the top of the piece.

Clarification: NLRB nominee Craig Becker has written that in National Labor Relations Board proceedings related to unionizing, where a union or workers file for a “Board election”in order to form or dissolve a union, there is nothing in the National Labor Relations Act which compels the NLRB’s current policy, which is to permit the employer to be an active participant either favoring, opposing or even obstructing such an election. However, The Nation wishes to make it clear that Becker has never advocated that employers be prevented from participating in other NLRB proceedings, such as those involving alleged unfair labor practices, nor that employers be forbidden from exercising their “free speech” right to oppose union drives. Becker has made it clear that employers should retain the right to protect their legitimate interests before the NLRB.

In other words, sorry we were so upfront about the political consequences of this nomination.

We can imagine how this “clarification” came to be: Someone in the White House or perhaps a top official with Big Labor called The Nation to complain, saying, “You’ve messed us up. You know that conclusion’s going to be used to characterize Becker as labor’s man on the NLRB, the man who can accomplish what we couldn’t get done in the Senate — enact card check. You’ve got to drop that paragraph.” Being honest journalists, the reporters couldn’t put the paragraph down the memory hole, but being good progressives, they wanted to keep Becker’s hopes alive. Hence the “clarification” compromise.

That’s our speculation, at least.

For our earlier coverage of the nomination, go here.

UPDATE (Sunday, 10:30 a.m.): Most dreaded phone call at The Nation, “Yo, Corn! Nichols! Guy from the AFL-CIO on line two.”

The Senate on Thursday passed by S. 2799, Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, on a voice vote. Passage came despite serious objections to the legislation’s overreach by many U.S. business groups, warning of unintended consequences. (See earlier post.)

Engage*America and the National Foreign Trade Council issued sharply worded statements criticizing Senate passage for running counter to the Administration’s multilateral approach, reinforcing anti-democratic forces in Iran, alienating allies and harming U.S. economic growth.

America’s trading partners are also concerned, as reported in this thorough piece at The Times of India, “US sanctions on Iran may hit Indian companies.”

In his floor statement, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) noted some of the objections:

We have worked closely with administration officials as we developed and refined this measure. They support much of what is in the bill. Even so, I recognize there are still some lingering concerns. Before we left for the holidays, the State Department sent a letter to Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Kerry, describing some of these concerns. They sought a general exemption from sanctions for companies from countries that are closely cooperating with the U.S. on multilateral efforts on Iran, a mechanism which could provide an additional incentive for certain countries to work with us on imposing tougher sanctions. I am open to discussing such an incentive mechanism as we move toward conference, as long as it would contain strict criteria for the President to make a determination about what, precisely, constitutes “close cooperation.” There have been a number of discussions in recent weeks on how to craft such an exception, and we have made some progress. There are diplomatic efforts underway, led by the U.S. and others, to achieve a united approach at the U.N. Security Council on sanctions. I believe we can come to some agreement with the other body, and with the administration, on the remaining issues on this bill. I know that the administration shares our belief that we must augment current economic sanctions, and will continue to work with us on an appropriate mix of pressure tools as this process moves forward and the final version of the bill is developed.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama declared, “[To] create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives.  And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.”

Today the President reinforced that call to action with a Presidential memo instructing the Department of Energy to appoint a Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Energy Secretary Steven Chu did so, announcing that former National Security Advisor Brent Scrowcroft and retired Rep. Lee Hamilton will head the new commission to develop proposals for a safe, long-term solution to managing used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.  (DOE news release.)

With the Yucca Mountain repository stalled due to funding and politics, the question of long-term waste storage still must be resolved to provide confidence to investors and the public alike.  The NAM is an advocate of nuclear power as a reliable and a predictable low-cost supply of energy, a key element of a pro-growth agenda. Manufacturers are not only users of the clean energy nuclear plants provide, but supply the market needed to build, operate and maintain plants throughout the world.

The NAM appreciates the announcement of the Blue Ribbon Commission and looks forward to seeing the recommendations that will ensure that President Obama’s call for “safe clean nuclear power” becomes reality.

Alexis Bayer is NAM’s Director for Energy and Resources Policy

The American people must prosper in the global economy. We’ve worked hard to tear down trade barriers abroad so that we can create good jobs at home. I am proud to say that today America is once again the most competitive nation and the number one exporter in the world.

Now we must act to expand our exports, especially to Asia and Latin America, two of the fastest growing regions on Earth, or be left behind as these emerging economies forge new ties with other nations. That is why we need the authority now to conclude new trade agreements that open
markets to our goods and services even as we preserve our values.

We need not shrink from the challenge of the global economy. After all, we have the best workers and the best products. In a truly open market, we can out-compete anyone, anywhere on Earth.

President Bill Clinton, State of the Union, Feb. 4, 1997.

The U.S. economy surged in the fourth quarter to its fastest quarterly pace in six years. GDP numbers released today from the Commerce Department show an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter. Restocking of business inventories provided a major, though temporary, boost to growth in the fourth quarter, accounting for 59 percent of the increase in GDP in the final three months of the year.

While the inventory survey was expected, the big surprise today was on the trade front. Exports, which are mainly manufactured products, increased at an annual rate of 28-percent in the fourth quarter. This export rise in the fourth quarter was both the fastest and largest contribution to GDP growth in 30 years.

Outside the inventory swing and trade, the economy slowed moderately in the fourth quarter. Consumer spending weakened a bit in the wake of the “Cash for Clunkers” driven third quarter while business investment edged up moderately due to spending on information technology. With the labor market still deteriorating, and consumer confidence still down 50 percent from its level in mid 2007, the economy still faces significant headwinds.

From USA TODAY, “$5,000 tax credit for each new job a big part of Obama’s plan,” reporting on the President’s State of the Union reaffirmation of a campaign pledge, “I’m also proposing a new small business tax credit — one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages.”

There’s only one problem: Business groups say the credit won’t do much to boost hiring.

“I really don’t think it’s going to be much of an incentive,” says Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business. “Mostly it is going to be used by businesses that would have been hiring anyway.”

The National Association of Manufacturers is promoting its own job-creation package, featuring a cut in corporate income tax rates and a more generous tax credit for research and development. The group considers those changes more important than the $5,000 tax credit.

“For those manufacturers who are looking to hire, this will help,” says spokeswoman Erin Streeter. “We don’t anticipate this tax credit being a reason for them to hire. Our members are going to hire if there is a long-term need.”

Erin is referring to the NAM’s new Milken Institute study, “Jobs for America.”

Very few people take the tax credit for hiring seriously as anything other than politics.

(continue reading…)

President Obama in his State of the Union address correctly connected jobs to energy, saying, “[We] need more production, more efficiency, more incentives.” Is the Department of Interior listening?

From U.S. Rep. Doug Landborn (R-CO), ranking member on the Energy and Mineral Resources subcommittee in the House Committee on Natural Resources, a column in The Denver Post, “No-energy policies hurting Colorado.”

In Colorado, we have the keys to a partial solution to our energy problems. The U.S. Geologic Survey estimates that Colorado and neighboring states sit on a total of 1.5 trillion barrels of oil from our vast oil shale reserves, six times that of Saudi Arabia’s proven resources. This would satisfy the U.S. demand for imported oil of 10 million barrels a day for more than 200 years. Salazar has unfortunately not been willing to continue advances on research, development and demonstration projects from the previous administration.

In another job-killing move, Salazar kicked off the New Year by announcing yet more roadblocks to energy development. He will now require more detailed environmental reviews and more public input for leases on federal lands, while at the same time cutting back on the use of popular streamlined leasing provisions.

Not only could oil shale help us achieve energy independence, it could also create thousands of high-paying jobs for Coloradans. Last year, workers in the oil and gas extraction industry earned on average more than $27 an hour. Those are jobs we should be promoting and developing rather than stifling.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) from The Congressional Record, page E90:

[In] another bad move for my State, the Senate version proposes an additional $2 billion annual tax for each of the next 10 years on medical device manufacturers. This would negatively affect good companies, such as GE Healthcare in Waukesha, Wisconsin, and hundreds of our small business suppliers. In addition to stifling innovation and hindering research and development, the added costs would hurt consumers, as anyone purchasing medical products, such as wheelchairs, or whose care includes the use of equipment, such as an MRI machine, would feel the pinch. 

Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee spoke with reporters on a conference call Thursday, with the fate of the Employee Free Choice Act the subject of a question. From The Iowa Independent:

“Well, it is still under consideration,” Harkin said. “We’ve been working all last year to try to reach some agreement on a modified version of it that would be acceptable. I think we came pretty close to that, but now with this vote in Massachusetts … we just don’t know.”

And …

“Let me put it this way, something has to be done to change the laws regarding the way we conduct union elections, how they are conducted. We’re looking at some proposals to do that. While it may not be card check as we know it, it will definitely be a change in the way we conduct elections,” he said.

Given the public’s overwhelming rejection of the anti-democratic legislation, there’s good reason to suspect one of these “proposals” will be to rush through a nominee’s confirmation to the National Labor Relations Board, where he can form a majority to accomplish the bill’s goals administratively. Thus, the Senate HELP Committee hearing next Tuesday and mark-up session Thursday on the nomination of SEIU lawyer Craig Becker.

If, as we assume, Mr. Becker appears before the committee, here’s a question a Senator might pose:

The July 2009 issue of Workforce Management Online carried an article, “NLRB Decisions Could Make Card Check a Reality.” In it, former NLRB Chairman William Gould said the board could reconsider past rulings on the need for elections in union representation decisions. Gould contends, and I quote, “The board could develop new expertise based on new evidence and new facts and come to a different conclusion. In my judgment, yes, the board could issue such a ruling.”

As I read him, Chairman Gould is saying that the NLRB has the authority to establish the kind of majority sign-up included in the Employee Free Choice Act. Do you agree?

Gould was one of 66 academics who signed a letter in support of Becker’s nomination.

Note: Spelling of Gould’s name corrected.