WASHINGTON — Employers can require their workers to sign arbitration agreements waiving all rights to class-action lawsuits over workplace grievances, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday. The ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturns a National Labor Relations Board decision last year that found such agreements conflicted with federal law giving workers the right to pursue collective action to complain about workplace conditions.

The court’s ruling is a win for businesses that want to limit legal exposure from the rising cost of class-action lawsuits over unpaid overtime and other wage violations. But it is a blow to workers who find it easier to band together when challenging the policies at a large company.

The case considered a policy in which D.R. Horton, a Fort Worth-based homebuilder, required all its employees to sign agreements to resolve any workplace disputes in individual arbitration proceedings rather than sue. The agreements prevented an arbitrator from granting relief to employees as a class or group.

In January 2012, the labor board ruled that the agreement violated workers’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Federal law has long protected the right of workers to join together to protest workplace conditions, including through litigation.

Wednesday, Dec 4th – Greendale

Open House 6:00-8:00pm

5174 Lakeside Dr, Greendale

Host: Marsha Vila


Thursday, Dec 5th – Waukesha

House Party 5:30-7:00pm

321 Harrison Ave, Waukesha

Host: Marga Krumins


Friday, Dec 6th – Brookfield

House Party 5:30-7:00pm

19160 Ashbourne Ln, Brookfield

Host: Roberta Boczkiewicz


Sunday, Dec 8th – Kenosha & Racine

Meet & Greet 11:00am-1:00pm

Caleo Coffeehouse

2324 18th St, Kenosha


Meet & Greet 2:30-4:00pm

Wilson’s Coffee and Tea

3306 Washington Ave, Racine

In light of new evidence reported in the Guardian this week, we respectfully request that the Internal Revenue Service investigate whether the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has violated federal tax law by making substantial misrepresentations on its sworn tax returns.

Petition Background

ALEC’s primary purpose is to influence legislation at the state level, yet for years it has disclaimed on its tax returns spending a penny on lobbying.

As the Guardian reported, last summer ALEC informed legislators and corporate lobbyists that it has incorporated a new organization to seek non-profit status under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. In so doing, ALEC appears to acknowledge that the allegations of tax fraud in complaints from Common Cause, the Voters Legislative Transparency Project, and Clergy Voice, supplemented by evidence provided by the Center for Media and Democracy, helped spur this incorporation.

These latest revelations about ALEC in the Guardian add weight to the argument that ALEC primarily operates like a trade group for its corporate funders, backing the bills sought by corporate lobbyists and buying lawmakers’ trips to meet with those lobbyists about bills

1. The History Test. How closely does the metaphor correspond to the facts of the case, as best we understand them? When the Arizona congressman Trent Franks compares abortion to genocide, for example, we can begin by asking what is meant by genocide, what forms does it take, what are its legal definitions. Where has it historically occurred, and under what conditions? Who has sponsored and who has suffered it? In short, we attempt to understand the term in all its legal, cultural, and historical contexts. And this means we have to know what such terms mean before using them.

2. The Resonance Test. Certain metaphors and similes have a unique cultural power to incite. Such language goes beyond literal meanings to invoke longer histories of associations and images. “Hitler” is one such term. When we think of Hitler, we think of more than an individual, no matter how invidious. We recall the Warsaw ghetto, the death camps, and the gas chambers. “Hitler” is not simply the name of a person; it is a vessel brimming with historical memories. It is a bell that, when you ring it, the room is filled with other sounds, other echoes. There are many such terms: “lynching,” “blood libel,” “apartheid.” If we are to use such terms, we need to attend to their place in our collective cultural consciousness.

3. The Proportionality Test. Is the seriousness of the metaphor proportional to that which it is applied? Some years ago, I read a story in The Boston Globe in which a sportswriter described the walls of Fenway Park as closing in on the visiting pitcher the way Russian tanks surrounded Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring. The metaphor failed, quite horribly, the proportionality test. When sensationalism overcomes judgment, we may be entering the realm of unethical discourse.

4. The Quiet Room Test. I use “Quiet Room” here to indicate a place for writers’ self-examination. The final test of the ethical metaphor, in other words, is the one we administer to ourselves. Deep down, we know—do we not?—when we are arguing to incite or to enlighten, to inflame or to understand. The last test, then, is the one we take in our own Quiet Rooms, evaluating the intentions and effects of our words.