All Along the New Watchtower: Artificial Intelligence, Workplace Monitoring, Automation, and the National Labor Relations Act

Recent technological advances have dramatically expanded employers’ ability to electronically monitor and manage employees within the workplace. New technologies, including tools powered by artificial intelligence, are being used in the workplace for a wide range of purposes such as measuring employee work rates, preventing theft, and monitoring drivers with GPS tracking devices. These technologies offer potential solutions for many companies that may increase efficiencies and support operations, dramatically reduce human bias, prevent discrimination and harassment, and improve worker health and safety. Despite these potential benefits, the use of these technologies may raise concerns under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that protects employees who engage in concerted activities for purposes of mutual aid or protection, if the tools interfere, impair, or negate employees’ ability to engage in protected activity. This Article examines the interaction between new workplace technologies and the NLRA. It begins by exploring the widespread uses of these technologies for monitoring and surveilling employees. Against this backdrop, the Article then discusses how recent activity by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency that enforces the NLRA, portends significant implications for both unionized and non-unionized workplaces. More specifically, this Article criticizes a recent regulatory framework that was proposed by the NLRB’s General Counsel in 2022. Finally, this Article provides other positive suggestions to help ensure compliance with the NLRA

Without a Will, There is Still a Way: A Statutory Solution to Increase the Value of a Small Estate and Aid in Reducing the Racial Equity Gap in Wisconsin

For generations, communities of color have struggled to increase their generational wealth. Lack of access to estate planning tools leaves minority groups and low-income families compromised and more likely to die intestate. While the current probate system creates a safety net for those that die intestate, this comment aims to address the need for a statutory solution to aid in combatting Wisconsin\u27s racial equity gap. More specifically, this Comment suggests how increasing and indexing Wisconsin\u27s summary settlement and summary assignment small estate values to include estates of $100,000 or less will allow for more minority and low-income families to qualify as small estates. Further, this Comment also suggests that increasing the value of the small estate under Wis. Stat. 876.01 will aid in reducing the estate-planning racial equity gap

\u3ci\u3eOklahoma v. Castro-Huerta\u3c/i\u3e, Jurisdictional Overlap, Competitive Sovereign Erosion, and the Fundamental Freedom of Sovereign Nations

In addition to its stunning internal flaws, the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta exemplifies Indian law’s broader flaws as a jurisprudence. Castro-Huerta holds that states have concurrent criminal jurisdiction with federal and tribal governments over crimes by non-Indians against Indians on reservation lands. Justice Gorsuch deftly addresses many of the glaring internal flaws in Kavanaugh’s majority opinion, but not all. He does not dissect the hollow assertion that reservations are part of the surrounding state both geographically and politically. This cannot go unaddressed, particularly given its weak analysis, misguided use of precedent, and broader consequences

Volume 106, Spring 2023 Masthead

None

Table of Contents

None

Warren/Burger Courts Exalted “Free” Expression Over Other American Values

Anglo-American defamation law started with a simple condemnation of the sin of evil speaking. Eventually, this value condemning harmful speech was accommodated to the value of speaking the truth, even hurtful truth. A third value of fostering responsible self-government was injected into American defamation law at and around the time of the American Revolution. This value makes it especially important for citizens to freely speak even hurtful truth about their government

Disparities on Judicial Conduct Commissions

Every state has a judicial conduct commission responsible for investigating complaints against judges and issuing sanctions where appropriate. But the judicial disciplinary system needs fixing. This Article examines 466 cases of public discipline from five states to illustrate the shortcomings of the present system. The status quo hides judicial misconduct from the public, fails to punish judges who abuse their office, and gives judges greater protections than criminal defendants, even when the stakes are lower