Proposition 64 Poll

According to The Recorder, via The UCL Practitioner, a poll shows voters favor Proposition 64.

Nothing on the website of the group sponsoring the proposition.

Janik case uproar

Blawgosphere is in an uproar over the Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff case, which apparently will require B&P 17200 counts in business litigation.

The Legal Reader has this pro-reform comment here, and the pro-17200 UCL Practicioner site has this comment.

One argument raised by Rudy, Exelrod was that before the Cortez decision, there was no authority to support a UCL claim for unpaid wages. Slip. Op. at 16-17.

Before we all get carried away, please understand the procedural posture of this case. This case reversed a demurrer on the grounds that there was in fact a duty owed to certain class members; it is not an imposition of a fine or a judgment.

So, stay tuned.

Effect of Fed hike; jobs report on its way

All the papers have news on yesterday's Fed rate hike. The WSJ (subscription req'd.) reports that the Fed did an excellent job of preparing the economy for the hike, so effects should be built-in to any decisions at this point. Economists consider the rates to be approaching a neutral, non-stimulus, non-restraint level sometime in 2005. Labor costs are aceelerating.

The NY Times reports that jobless claims rose by 1,000 last week, and reports an economic forecast of 240,000 new jobs in June (report will be out this week.) Nevertheless, the unemployment rate should remain at 5.6%. Workers' earnings should rise about 0.3%.

Factory activity cools in June, prices rise in the WSJ (subscription req'd.)

What does it mean for lawyers?

Right now, the indications are that hiring is up, but perceptions haven't quite caught up with that. People will be working harder, but may be more litigious in times like these.
In tightening economies, employers have historically faced increased exposure for employment litigation and administrative investigations. Layoffs, reductions, and restructuring frequently trigger legal action. Our current economy is no exception.

--The Denver Business Journal, 3/15/02, citing EEOC data.

Mission Statement

This legal weblog (b-law-g) is dedicated to issues of labor and employment law in California. A finer definition than that would render this discription over- and under-inclusive.

I plan to include more than case law summaries and analysis. Law and lawsuits don't exist in a bubble. There are political and economic forces at work that shape them. To the extent I believe there is a causal nexus, those things will be covered as well. This will include at a minimum, tracking and discussions of pending bills in the legislature (and, sometimes, in Congress), and discussions of economic indicators that are relevant.

I am going to do my best to give objective, neutral commentary on these issues. This means I won't be championing issues on the side of the plaintiff's bar or the industry side. That's not the point. There are thousands of blogs that amount to an un-edited, narrowly read op-ed page.

This is also not a blawg of record. Not every issue will be documented, largely because they are already so well documented. Just to give an example, the Wal-Mart case is causing a big buzz in the employment law world right now, but there's nothing really that earth shattering from a practitioner's point of view.

I am leaving comments open for now, and I invite them--from any side of the issue. Letting others voice their comments on the issue will provide interesting insight to the reactions of all sides, but, again, I won't be championing any side here.

Update: This site has received the ok from the firm, so I will no long be anonymous. My name is Jon Storm. I practice labor and employment law in San Luis Obispo, CA.