Bargaining for concessions: what information must the employer provide?

Employers faced with the current bleak economic situation increasingly are demanding concessions from the unions representing their employees. Unions faced with such demands are fighting back by requesting confidential information from their employers concerning the need for concessions. In recent years, the scope of the information to which a union may be entitled has been expanded greatly. This article examines recent decisions and suggests some alternatives for avoiding disclosure of information to the union.     

The neurological determination of death: what does it really mean?

The recent Canadian forum's recommendations regarding "neurological determination of death" claim to have determined a "Canadian definition, criteria, and minimum testing requirements for neurological determination of death." In this review the problems with this statement are discussed. The criterion of neurological determination of death does not fulfill the definition of death, because there is continued integration of the organism as a whole. The tests for neurological determination of death do not fulfill the criterion of neurological determination of death because they do not show the irreversible loss of all critical brain functions. The forum has provided no coherent argument for why neurological determination of death should be considered death. I suggest that one cannot invoke expert opinion to clarify a criterion of death, and tests for this criterion of death, without a clear concept of what death is. The forum has clarified tests for what they call "neurological determination of death," but this is not death itself; rather, it is a neurologically devastating state. Whether this state of "neurological determination of death" is enough to justify the morality of harvesting organs prior to death is the real question. A potential solution to this question is discussed.     

Horses or unicorns: can paying for performance make quality competition routine?

The competitive benefits of pay-for-performance (P4P) financial incentives are widely assumed. These incentives can affect health care through several mechanisms, however, not all of which involve competition. This insight has three implications. First, federal antitrust enforcement should continue to scrutinize P4P arrangements. Second, government needs to play a larger role in P4P than through antitrust oversight. Third, widespread enthusiasm for a particular health policy reform does not relieve policy makers of the obligation to understand its theoretical basis.     

The Compensation Culture: Cliché or Cause for Concern?

The ‘compensation culture’ has featured frequently in the popular press over the last decade. There have, however, been comparatively few academic studies and such studies as there have been have largely focused on personal injury claims. A compensation culture, if it exists, could extend much wider than that. This article compares the exponential increase in the use of the term ‘compensation culture’ in the national printed media since 1995 with available statistics relating to the Queen's Bench, County Courts, and employment tribunals. Far from spiralling upwards, these statistics show a broad decline across a range of claims with the exception of claims before the employment tribunals, where the government has created a slew of new heads of claim. In order to counter the misconceptions founded by the popular media, and to allow for greater scrutiny, more attention should be paid to the collection and dissemination of judicial and claims statistics.     

The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?

Flawed expert scientific testimony has compromised truth finding in American litigation, including in medical malpractice and in product liability cases. The Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court in Daubert and other cases have established standards for testimony that include reliability and relevance, and established judges as gatekeepers. However, because of lack of understanding of scientific issues, judges have problems with this role, and juries have difficulties with scientific evidence. Professionals and the judiciary have made some advances, but a better system involving the court's use of neutral experts and a mechanism to hold experts accountable for improprieties is needed.