Author Archives: afscme

Evaluating Shepard’s, KeyCite, and BCite for Case Validation Accuracy

Source: Paul Hellyer, Law Library Journal, Vol. 110 no. 4, Fall 2018

This study evaluates and compares how accurately three legal citators (Shepard’s, KeyCite, and BCite) identify negative treatment of case law, based on a review of 357 citing relationships that at least one citator labeled as negative. In this sample, Shepard’s and KeyCite missed or mislabeled about one-third of negative citing relationships, while BCite missed or mislabeled over two-thirds. The citators’ relative performance is less clear when examining the most serious citator errors, examples of which can be found in all three citators.

Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Summary, 2017

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release, USDL-18-1978, December 18, 2018

There were a total of 5,147 fatal work injuries recorded in the United States in 2017, down slightly from the 5,190 fatal injuries reported in 2016, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. (See chart 1.) The fatal injury rate decreased to 3.5 per 100,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers from 3.6 in 2016. (See table 1.)

What labor market changes have generated inequality and wage suppression?

Source: Josh Bivens and Heidi Shierholz, Economic Policy Institute, December 12, 2018

Employer power is significant but largely constant, whereas workers’ power has been eroded by policy actions.

What this report finds: Labor markets in capitalist economies are fundamentally tilted against individual workers’ ability to bargain effectively with employers. Policy does not have to be rigged for employers to give them particular clout in labor markets; instead, the very nature of these labor markets gives them clout. In the past, when economic growth was broadly shared across the population, it was because policymakers understood this basic asymmetry and used policy levers to bolster the leverage and bargaining power of workers. Conversely, recent decades’ rise of inequality and anemic wage growth has resulted from a stripping away of these policy bulwarks to workers’ labor market power.

Why it matters: Recent research on “monopsony power”—the leverage enjoyed by employers to set their workers’ pay—is a valuable contribution to our understanding of the asymmetry inherent in labor markets. However, “monopsony power” is often a confusing term to even the most savvy economic writers and researchers, and too often it is used only to describe markets that are concentrated (i.e., where there are relatively few employers). Market concentration can indeed suppress workers’ wages, but employer power exists even in markets with lots of employers. If only the narrow conception of “monopsony power” is recognized and policymakers focus only on interventions that target the effect of market concentration (antitrust, for example), then other measures that could more effectively restore the balance of power in labor markets might not get the consideration they should.

What can be done about it: There is no one panacea for restoring workers’ leverage and bargaining power in labor markets. Policymakers must be committed to working on every available margin, including restoring genuine full employment as a macroeconomic policy priority; reforming labor law so that workers who want to form a union to collectively bargain to improve their wages and working conditions are able to do so; raising the minimum wage; and strengthening enforcement of labor standards and workplace civil rights laws.

How to Save the Supreme Court

Source: Daniel Epps, Ganesh Sitaraman, Vanderbilt Law Research Paper 18-65, Last revised: December 10, 2018

From the abstract:
The consequences of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court are seismic. The new conservative majority that Kavanaugh completes represents a stunning victory for the Republican party after decades of effort by the conservative legal movement. The result is a Supreme Court whose justices—on both sides—are likely to vote along party lines more consistently than ever before in American history. That development presents a grave threat to the Court’s legitimacy. If in the future roughly half of Americans lack confidence in the Supreme Court to render impartial justice, the Court’s ability to reach settlements of important questions that all Americans can live with is serious jeopardy. Raising the stakes even higher, many Democrats are already calling for changes like court-packing to prevent the new conservative majority from blocking progressive reforms. Even if justified, such moves could provoke further tit-for-tat escalation that would leave the Court’s image, and the rule of law, badly damaged.

The coming crisis can be stopped. But preserving the Court’s legitimacy as an institution above politics will require a complete rethinking of how the Court works and how the Justices are chosen. To save what is good about the Court, we must reject and rethink much of how the Court has operated for more than two centuries. In this Essay, we outline a framework for thinking about saving the Supreme Court, evaluate existing proposals, and offer two distinct reform proposals of our own, which we call the Supreme Court Lottery and the Balanced Court. Whether policymakers adopt these precise proposals or not, however, it is imperative that they search for some kind of reforms along these lines. Saving the Court—by transforming the Court—is our best hope.

Sleepy anger: Restricted sleep amplifies angry feelings

Source: Zlatan Krizan, Garrett Hisler, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, October 25, 2018
(subscription required)

From the abstract:
Despite extensive ties between sleep disruption, anger, and aggression, it is unclear whether sleep loss plays a causal role in shaping anger. On one hand, negative affect and distress frequently follow curtailed sleep, suggesting increased anger responses. On the other hand, fatigue and withdrawal also follow, potentially muting anger. To examine these competing possibilities, 142 community residents were randomly assigned to either maintain or restrict their sleep over 2 days. Before and after, these participants rated their anger and affect throughout a product-rating task alongside aversive noise. Sleep restriction universally intensified anger, reversing adaptation trends in which anger diminished with repeated exposure to noise. Negative affect followed similar patterns, and subjective sleepiness mediated most of the experimental effects on anger. These findings highlight important consequences of everyday sleep loss on anger and implicate sleepiness in dysregulation of anger and hedonic adaptation.

Related:
Even Occasional Sleep Loss Makes People Angrier
Source: Angie Hunt, Futurity, November 27, 2018

Losing just a couple hours of sleep at night makes you angrier, especially in frustrating situations, according to new research.

While the results may seem intuitive, the study is one of the first to provide evidence that sleep loss causes anger.

Other studies have shown a link between sleep and anger, but questions remained about whether sleep loss was to blame or if anger was responsible for disrupted sleep, says study coauthor Zlatan Krizan, a psychology professor at Iowa State University.

The research, which appears in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, answers those questions and provides new insight into our ability to adjust to irritating conditions when tired. ….

Pay Communications and Fairness: An Employee Perspective

Source: Dow Scott, Compensation & Benefits Review, Advance Access, First Published November 20, 2018
(subscription required)

From the abstract:
A variety of tools are used to create perceptions of fairness including job evaluation, pay surveys and merit pay guide charts, but without effective pay communications the benefits of fair pay programs can be lost. Increased access to information about pay (e.g., salary.com, O’net and Monster.com), along with increased use of social media where personal information is routinely shared, has changed employee attitudes about pay transparency and information employers should communicate about pay. This study examines the relationships of pay communications, pay transparency and pay understanding with employee perceptions of pay fairness. Data collected from 300 full-time employees across as many organizations found that pay understanding mediated the relationship between pay communications and pay fairness, while controlling for gender, education level, age and income level of respondents. When pay communications was controlled for in mediation analysis, variance attributed to pay transparency disappeared.

Health Care Providers’ Credit Quality To Suffer If ACA Lawsuit Ruling Is Not Overturned

Source: S&P Global Ratings, December 17, 2018
(subscription required)

Last week a federal judge in Texas struck down the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional in a lawsuit brought by 20 state attorneys general. In S&P Global Ratings’ view, if this ruling is not overturned the credit quality of many health care providers, insurers, and states could be hurt….