How to Probe for Settlements on Grievances

[Excerpt] Experienced stewards know that sometimes you have to ask management a lot of questions if you want to reach your goal. There may be a way for both sides to come out satisfied, but you have to know how to determine if that\u27s possible, and you can only do that by posing the right questions

Drafting the Nineteen Propositions, January to July 1642

This article analyses the drafting of the document eventually printed as the Nineteen Propositions. Section two addresses certain issues regarding the methods and concepts employed in the subsequent analysis, focusing on consensus-building, constitutional leanings and the drafting of parliamentary declarations in early 1642. Section three examines the origins of the Nineteen Propositions in the draft Declaration of Ways and Means (January 1642) (hereafter cited as the Ways). Section four traces the emergence of the Declaration Concerning Grievances and Remedies (hereafter cited as the Grievances) from the Ways (January–February). Section five examines the junta's efforts to overcome the Lords' prevarication over passing the Grievances (February–May). Section six examines the emergence of the initial draft of the Nineteen Propositions from the Grievances (24–7 May). Section seven analyses the 28 May draft, while section eight explores the amendment of that draft (31 May and 1 June). Section nine examines parliament's abortive attempts to revise the Nineteen Propositions in light of His Majesty's Answer to the XIX Propositions (21 June–2 July). It is concluded that, contrary to the received view, the text of the Nineteen Propositions began to emerge in January rather than May 1642, and that the junta in the Commons rather than the Lords drove this process. The three appendices identify, respectively, the constitutional leanings of the relevant parliamentarians, the parts of the text of the Ways that were repeated in the Grievances, and dates on which the various parts of the final text of the Nineteen Propositions were written

Verité Update, vol.2: Clear Voice

This issue of Verite Update announces a new partnership with Clear Voice hotline service, an independent social enterprise that offer workers a mechanism through which to express grievances, reveal mistreatment, and talk about conditions with an independent third party. It reaches workers in Latin America, Taiwan, and China

Designing Redress: A Study About Grievances Against Public Bodies

How grievances against public bodies are resolved is important not only for the individuals concerned and the decision-makers complained about but also to the whole system of government. People need to have confidence that when things go wrong, they will be put right. There is a general public interest in that being done in accordance with constitutional principles and in ways that are effective and efficient. Over many years, a great variety of different ?mechanisms? for dealing with grievances have been created, ranging from internal complaints processes through to the work of external bodies (including ombudsmen, tribunals and courts). This project has focused on how mechanisms are designed. The study explores how different mechanisms can be thought of as relating to each other. It also looks at the various reasons why mechanisms have to be designed. Drawing on interviews with people involved in the design process and analysis of public information, a map of where the activity of designing redress has been created. Evaluating the ?administrative justice landscape?, two particular deficiencies emerge: there is no strong political or official leadership in relation to how mechanisms ought to be designed and the system is fragmented, with many different people, in various organisations all contributing to design activities. Might a toolkit of guiding principles for designing redress be one way of achieving a better design process and outcomes? A number of principles are proposed in this report, and the authors hope to engage stakeholders in a debate about how this might best be taken forward

Voices from Varick: Detainee Grievances at New York City's Only Federal Immigration Detention Facility

Analyzes one year of grievances filed by immigration detainees housed in the Varick Federal Detention Facility. It documents detainee stories of inadequate medical care and mistreatment by the facility's staff. It adds to the growing chorus of voices that have concluded that the federal government has failed in its responsibilities to provide adequate care to detainees housed in immigration facilities

Bougainville: Large-scale Mining and Risks of Conflict Recurrence

Research on conflict resolution suggests that the significant risk of conflict recurrence in intrastate conflicts is much reduced by political settlements that �resolve the issues at stake� between parties to the conflict, and that in conflicts involving grievances about distribution of natural resource revenues, such settlements should include natural resource wealth-sharing arrangements. This article shows that the Bougainville conflict origins involved far more complexity than natural resource revenue distribution grievances, and that the conflict itself then generated new sources of division and conflict, the same being true of both the peace process and the process to implement the Bougainville Peace Agreement (BPA). As a result, the BPA addresses many more issues than natural resource-related grievances. Such considerations make it difficult to attribute lack of conflict recurrence to particular factors in the BPA. While the BPA provisions on wealth-sharing address relations between the Papua New Guinea National Government and Bougainville, moves by the Autonomous Bougainville Government to explore possible resumption of large-scale mining has generated a new political economy in Bougainville, contributing to new tensions amongst Bougainvilleans

Justiciable Generalized Grievances

The Supreme Court\u27s prevailing test for Article III standing - injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability - generally restricts suits to remedy injuries affecting broad segments of the public in substantially equal measure. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court appeared to depart from this proposition in holding that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has standing to sue the EPA to prompt it to slow global warming, a harm that affects everyone on Earth. The dissenting Justices assailed the majority for finding justiciable a so-called “generalized grievance” in contravention of prior standing precedent that is based on the notion that if parties seek to redress public harms, they must do so via the political branches and not the courts. Scholarly reflections on the case have addressed the Court\u27s idiosyncratic anointing of Massachusetts with something it called “special solicitude” in standing analysis, occasioned by its status as a state. In this Article, I discuss a more subtle aspect of Massachusetts: how the majority wrestled with the controversial injury-in-fact test, which is ill-suited for analyzing standing in public law disputes. Implicit in Massachusetts is a paradigm for resolving statutory enforcement cases brought to vindicate public harms indistinguishably suffered by the masses. It is animated by three characteristics: (1) the plaintiff\u27s invocation of “procedural rights” established by statute; (2) a “concrete” and “personal” stake that distinguishes the plaintiff from the pure ideologue; and (3) a congressional authorization of the suit. I suggest that the Court should draw upon this reconceptualized framework in future statutory enforcement cases, as it offers several advantages for suits brought to remedy commonly-shared public harms. First, it is more attuned to the realities of public law litigation. Next, it is based on premises that a majority of the current Justices - including an architect of modern injury-in-fact, Justice Scalia - already embrace. Moreover, it cabins the muddied generalized grievance bar to its original purpose - preventing citizens from suing on purely ideological grounds. Furthermore, it gives appropriate weight to congressional judgments about required procedure. Finally, it enforces formal separation of the executive and judicial branches while recognizing that the separation of powers operates to ensure executive accountability through judicial review