FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1090   1091   1092   1093   1094   1095   1096   1097   1098   1099   1100   1101   1102   1103   1104   1105   1106   1107   1108   1109   1110   1111   1112   1113   1114  
1115   1116   1117   1118   1119   1120   1121   1122   1123   1124   1125   1126   1127   1128   1129   1130   1131   1132   1133   1134   1135   1136   1137   1138   1139   >>   >|  
ice Black announced its refusal "to return, * * * to * * * [a] due process philosophy that has been deliberately discarded. * * * The due process clause," it maintained, does not "forbid a State to pass laws clearly designed to safeguard the opportunity of nonunion workers to get and hold jobs, free from discrimination against them because they are nonunion workers."[169] Also in harmony with the last mentioned pair of cases is Auto Workers _v._ Wisconsin Board[170] in which was upheld enforcement of the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act which proscribed as an unfair labor practice efforts of a union, after collective bargaining negotiations had become deadlocked, to coerce an employer through a "slow-down" in production achieved by the irregular, but frequent, calling of union meetings during working hours without advance notice to the employer or notice as to whether or when the employees would return, and without informing him of the specific terms sought by such tactics. "No one," declared the Court, can question "the State's power to police coercion by * * * methods" which involve "considerable injury to property and intimidation of other employees by threats."[171] Finally, in Giboney _v._ Empire Storage Co.,[172] the Court acknowledged that no violation of the Constitution results when a State law forbidding agreements in restraint of trade is construed by State courts as forbidding members of a union of ice peddlers from peacefully picketing a wholesale ice distributor's place of business for the sole purpose of inducing the latter not to sell to nonunion peddlers. REGULATION OF CHARGES; "BUSINESSES AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST" History In endeavoring to measure the impact of the due process clause upon efforts by the States to control the charges exacted by various businesses for their services, the Supreme Court, almost from the inception of the Fourteenth Amendment, has devoted itself to the examination of two questions: (1) whether that clause precluded that kind of regulation of certain types of business, and (2) the nature of the restraint, if any, which this clause imposes on State control of rates in the case of businesses as to which such control exists. For a brief interval following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court appears to have underestimated the significance of this clause as a substantive restraint on the power of States to fix rates chargeable by an indus
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1090   1091   1092   1093   1094   1095   1096   1097   1098   1099   1100   1101   1102   1103   1104   1105   1106   1107   1108   1109   1110   1111   1112   1113   1114  
1115   1116   1117   1118   1119   1120   1121   1122   1123   1124   1125   1126   1127   1128   1129   1130   1131   1132   1133   1134   1135   1136   1137   1138   1139   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

clause

 

nonunion

 

restraint

 

process

 

control

 

States

 

employees

 

peddlers

 

notice

 
businesses

Supreme

 
Wisconsin
 
business
 

Amendment

 
Fourteenth
 

efforts

 

employer

 

return

 
workers
 

forbidding


CHARGES

 

BUSINESSES

 

REGULATION

 
purpose
 
inducing
 

construed

 

acknowledged

 

violation

 

Storage

 

Finally


Giboney

 
Empire
 

Constitution

 

results

 

members

 

peacefully

 

picketing

 

wholesale

 
courts
 

AFFECTED


agreements
 
distributor
 

imposes

 

exists

 

nature

 

regulation

 

interval

 
substantive
 

chargeable

 
significance