leasure, unfairly penalized in violation of the intent of antitrust goals (Pleasure, 2000, p. 561).
Pleasure presents his argument through a review of literature including relevant court cases (Brown v. ProFootball) and analysis of various legislation (including the Sherman and Clayton Acts). By providing the historical background, Pleasure seeks to discern the actual intent of the Sherman Act, and suggests that union organizers at that time recognized that the Sherman Act was being manipulated to attack union organization although that was not its intent, according to Pleasure.
Scholars are likely to find Pleasure's historical context interesting and may use it as the basis for investigating whether his claims that labor has been unfairly targeted by antitrust actions. More significantly, managers may take Pleasure's research as a warning that continuing to support anti-union efforts among independent contractors may attract additional legal challenges by unions who read Pleasure's work.
These organizers may find encouragement in Pleasure's work and seek to challenge the legal precedents which have prevented organizing independent contractors. As increasing numbers of American workers are classified as contractors rather than employees, Pleasure's suggestion that the emphasis in legislation covering unionization be refocused on "work" rather than "employees" could have far-reaching consequences. Extending the same protection to independent contractors that is currently provided to employees could prove costly to companies (since, according to Pleasure, wages and benefit costs would most likely increase), and so management may well have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Future researchers are likely to use Pleasure's contributions as part of the foundation for additional studies focusing on the economic performance of independent contractors measured against company employees. In addition, researchers ma...