{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Final Review Sheet

Final Review Sheet - Vegelahn v Gunter(1896 Massachusetts...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Vegelahn v. Gunter (1896) – Massachusetts Supreme Court What happened: They went on strike and then there was an injunction issued pendente lite (pre-trial) – used this because they thought they were going to win, and pendente light can only be issued if the strike will definitely cripple the business – but also have to have fair amount of proof that says you will most likely win in trial. They were picketing using illegal tactics – they were blocking entrances, threats, and coercion, etc. NB: yellow dog contract – when you sign a paper saying you wont join a union and if you do you will be blacklisted *Also appears in Adkins v. Children’s hospital Pre-Trial – injunction issued – everything must be stopped Trial 1 – Holmes – reviews the case and issues injunction. Patrol is acceptable, threats and intimidation is not … what is considered a threat? Trial 2 – Allan – third injunction … should the defendants be stopped from patrolling? That gets into … is the patrol legitimate in the first place? It can interfere with the employer carrying on business, free enterprise, and it is unlawful competition (even if it is just picketing) Final Decision from trial 2 – The original injunction stands – patrol is out line in any aspect NB: The dissent is that patrolling and trying to bargain for better wages is a form of free- market for the workers. Adkins v. Children Hospital (1923) – US Supreme Court (bc its DC) What it is about: Minimum wage for women & children Question: Is minimum wage constitutional Why: Brought into question bc wanted to keep women healthy and moral. Two cases in Adkins: 1. Children’s Hospital Reason they went to court: many women and children were being paid under minimum wage and were content with their wages and didn’t want the law to be enforced bc they were being ordered to terminate their jobs bc they couldn’t pay them min. wage. The HOSPITAL, not the workers, challenged the law. 2. Hotel Case Woman worked as an elevator operator. Was content with her job and wages. Said she couldn’t find a job with equally good conditions and pay and that she was being harmed by having this law enacted. NB Police power – can override due process clause because its for the good of the people Main points: There is no such thing as absolute freedom of contract Statutes are upheld because they serve public use Hours can be limited if it can affect health 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
** This case is about minimum wage, not hours No matter how much you get paid, it doesn’t mean you will have high moral standards Interstate commerce can have a cap of hours (8 hour maximum) There is no reason women cant make their own contracts Conclusion: There is a difference between changing wages and hours. Minimum wage law does not account for conditions or type of job, it is based on opinion – money doesn’t equal morals and not everyone requires the same amount of money to sustain their lifestyle. Minimum wage does not remain the same across occupations. Need doesn’t = entitlement (just because they want more money doesn’t mean that they deserve it).
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}