Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


Player protests in the NFL have dominated the news cycle for several weeks now (with it likely to continue for the foreseeable future).  While we will not delve into the specifics of these protests, an article from The New York Times makes this topic applicable to this blog as that New York Times article addresses whether the National Labor Relations Act provides "protection" for these players.  Even for those who have heard enough about the protests, this article is well worth a read as it provides some guidance on how things could play out if a player were terminated for protesting, sued their employer (the NFL team/owner), and the matter played out in court.

As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week.


Is Universal Basic Income the Next Frontier For Democrats?

Forget "Fight for $15", it appears that some Democrats (or at the very least, progressives) are seeking to make universal basic income the next rallying cause.  Universal basic income, for those unfamiliar with the term, is the ideal that every citizen would receive a regular stipend from the government as a way to bolster the social safety net, combat wage stagnation, and account for job loss as a result of automation.  In recent weeks, former Vice President Joe Biden has announced his reluctance to back universal basic income, while the progressive "champion" Bernie Sanders has thrown his weight beyond the movement.  While I think we are still a long, long, longggg way from universal basic income becoming a realistic possibility in the country, this could be the next cause that becomes a major talking point in politics.


NFL Player Protests & the NLRA

Without getting too far into the weeds, I am sure that many readers are aware of the protests that some NFL players are engaging in during the national anthem (and President Donald Trump's recent calls for NFL owners to fire any player who participates in these protests).  The question inevitably turns to could these protests be protected under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA")?  Noam Scheiber at The New York Times provides a concise answer:  Yes.  Under the NLRA, an employee's action must be conducted in concert with co-workers; address an issue of relevance to their job; and be carried out using appropriate means.  Noam goes more in depth on these three factors and how they apply in this case...certainly well worth a read for those curious about the topic.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more