A recent development out of Florida from last week was noteworthy, in so much that a Congressional candidate's campaign staff became the first campaign staff in the state to unionize. However, as Alex Daugherty at The Miami Herald writes, that development has become overshadowed by subsequent terminations of some of the candidate's campaign staff. I think it is appropriate to lead this post off with that topic.
As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week.
Florida Congressional Candidate Comes Under Fire After Terminating Employees After Unionization Effort
Earlier this month, David Richardson, a Democrat in Florida running for a Congressional seat, came under heavy criticism after he terminated eight employees after his campaign staff became the first political campaign in Florida to unionize. This move was especially noteworthy as Richardson had previously stated that he would "oppose efforts that are anti-union or that weaken the ability to organize and bargain collectively" if he were to be elected to Congress. The reason for the layoffs? Richardson's campaign apparently decided to spend money on television advertising rather than field organizers (which were primarily the campaign staff that was laid off). Nevertheless, the proximity between the campaign staff unionizing and the terminations has caused some to raise an eyebrow.
NLRB Upholds Board Member Emanuel's Disqualification From Hy-Brand Participation
On June 6th, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") issued a decision in which it denied a Motion for Reconsideration of Hy-Brand, which had reversed the joint employer standard back to the direct control test. As readers recall, that decision was vacated after it was held that Board Member Emanuel should have recused himself from participating in that decision because of a conflict of interest. I refer readers to the decision issued earlier this month for a further review of the matter. However, as I pointed out last week, this is all likely mute as the NLRB appears intent to use rulemaking to revert the joint employer standard back to the "original" direct control test.
Even in Las Vegas, Big Labor Shows It Can Navigate Even In a Right to Work State
Dave Jamieson over at The Huffington Post has a fascinating look at how the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 has managed to become a major player in the Las Vegas labor market, despite the state’s right to work law that does not require forced union dues by non-members. As Jamieson writes, the Union has managed to score victory after victory in a majority of casinos across the city over the years which has spurred union membership. What are some of those victories? Higher wages for workers, improved working conditions, and unified organization and strikes to protest contract talks with employers. That has led, in part, to many workers in Las Vegas finding value in becoming a union member (at the cost of approximately $60/month). One noted benefit that Jamieson points out is the ability for union members to secure a $20,000.00 loan from the union when a union member buys a house (and perhaps just as tantalizing, that loan only has to be paid back if the employee sells the home or rents it out). This article is well worth a read to see how big labor can manage to survive, if not thrive, in a right to work state.
Comments
Post a Comment