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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more