Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


Some weeks seem to fly by; this one was no exception.  Before I realized it, it was Friday morning and I was putting the finishing touches on this post.  This week’s articles ran the gamut of labor law issues/updates, save for an article on separation agreements.  Even for those that might not be in the labor law field (or follow it very closely), I would suggest glancing through a few of the articles below.  I think both Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner’s longstanding opposition to big labor and the ongoing right to work fight in Missouri both have the possibility of getting more contentious and gaining increased national attention.  Buckle up, those two matters are far from over.

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


Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner's Fight With Unions Hits Close to Home

Readers might recall that Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, a Republican, has had an ongoing fight with unions, namely over right to work zones in the state.  However, as Monique Garcia at The Chicago Tribune writes, the tension between both sides has hit close to home, with a dispute arising over a vacant piece of city owned land across the street from the Governor's mansion.  The Governor has backed a nonprofit group's proposal to turn the lot into a park with rolling hills, a sidewalk cafe, and pools of water that can be lit up in the summer and used for ice skating in the winter.  However, a Springfield City Council committee tabled that proposal after protests by a group of union members.  Unions want a project labor agreement which would ensure workers hired to work on the park are paid a "prevailing wage".  The Springfield Mayor originally asked for the labor agreement to included this proposal but the development group backed by the Governor removed it on the grounds that the proposal would cede a lot of control to the union.  As a result, the project remains on hold while both sides remain in a standoff.  Going on the Governor's past demeanor toward unions, I would think he is going to dig in his heels here and not give up much ground.  However, given that this is an election year and he might be cognizant of his Democratic challenger, perhaps he will find a way to come to an agreement with the unions (or simply push the matter off until after the election). 


Major Labor Union Appears To Be Take Reduced Role in Fight for $15 Movement

Recently, Dave Jamieson at The Huffington Post pointed out that the Service Employees International Union (which has been a major financial supporter of the Fight for $15 movement in recent years) spent about $10.8 million on the movement last year, down from $19 million in 2016.  The cuts have been characterized by the union as investments in other portions of the movement that are not necessarily reflected in government filings.  However, critics of the union and the Fight for $15 movement have instead attempted to characterize it as an acknowledgement by the union that its funding of the movement has not produced more union members or measurable progress to justify continued spending.  I suspect it is likely a bit of both...but given that this is an "off year" in terms of elections (notwithstanding the fact that several Senators have seats up for election this year), I would look for the union to ramp up spending on the Fight for $15 movement again as we approach 2020.



Last week, labor unions staged a rally in the state capitol to protest against the state's right to work law.  That law, which had been pushed through the state legislature and signed by Governor Eric Greitens last year, hit a roadblock when enough voters submitted signatures to put the measure on the ballot this November.  That measure, Prop A, will enable voters in Missouri to decide whether to allow the right to work law to stand (and go into effect) or if the law will ultimately be rejected.  I had noted previously that there was quite a bit of funding going into the fight (namely in an attempt to defeat the right to work law).  While we are still a ways off from November, I would suspect that there will continued to be an increase in funding and action on both sides of Prop A, leading up to the vote.


A Few Things to Consider Adding to a Separation Agreement

Earlier this week, Daniel Schwartz posted an article on his blog with a ‘checklist’ of things some employers might want to consider adding to their separation agreements.  Of course not all employers have separation agreements and even those that do might not find all of Daniel’s suggestions applicable.  Putting that aside, I think he has a few suggestions of what employers might want to add to their separation agreements, namely a confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions, that some employers might not have thought of.  Give his article a review for those interested in a brief overview of the topic.

Comments

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,...

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

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. ...