Union organizing drives dealt a blow by Supreme Court

The Lechmere case is important because it reaffirms that employers' property rights take precedence over the rights of nonemployees to engage in union organizing on employers' property. This is particularly important for hospitals and health care institutions because of their heightened exposure to union organizing activity after American Hospital Association v. National Labor Relations Board, discussed above. Providers should, however, remember two points. First, the principal focus of Lechmere was on union organizing by nonemployees; nothing in Lechmere limited the basic right of employees to form and join labor unions as guaranteed by Section 7 of the NLRA. Additionally, Lechmere notwithstanding, providers must be careful not to discriminate in their approach to union organizing activities--even by nonemployees. Thus, if a provider allows nonemployee groups other than unions to enter upon its property for purposes of soliciting employees and/or distributing literature, any attempt to bar nonemployee union organizers from the property would probably be deemed discriminatory and could indeed be an unfair labor practice. (In Lechmere, the employer consistently enforced a ban against all such nonemployee groups.)     

Being resilient to radicalisation in PVE policy: a critical examination

ABSTRACT

The problematic nature of certain policies and approaches to preventing and countering violent extremism has been robustly demonstrated; it is clear that rethinking the prevention of violent extremism requires concerted attention. One response to critiques of security-driven approaches has been the adoption of the language of resilience building. However, the turn to resilience has not been matched by a fundamental rethinking of approach, and may often mask troubling approaches in the language of objectivity and positivity. In rethinking the question of prevention, examining the concept of resilience is important not only to address a current trend in policy discourse, but also to benefit from the rich literature on resilience from which valuable lessons may be drawn. A critically informed concept of resilience has the potential to provide a framework of response that recognises individuals and communities as political actors who, rather than being shielded from ideologies, require the resources and channels to challenge violence, discrimination, and injustice, be it state or non-state driven. This article, through examining the current use of “resilience” in PVE policies, makes a modest attempt to draw on lessons from applying resilience in other contexts to articulate possible features of a critically informed approach to preventing violent extremism.