Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week


While I could have lead this post off with a nod to the news earlier this week that the National Labor Relations Board has extended the comment period for its proposed rulemaking to determine joint employer status (thanks for the write up, HR Dive), there is not a lot to say beyond the comment period has been extended into December.  As a result, I wanted to instead focus on next Tuesday and the employment law related referendums and propositions facing voters across the country.  In particular, Measure L, which is on the ballot in Anaheim this Election Day, is worth a review.  (Do not forget to also check out Proposition B, a minimum wage ballot measure facing voters in Missouri on Tuesday).

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



The Los Angeles Times published an article earlier this month that focused attention on the millions of dollars being spent by Disney and labor unions ahead of a vote Tuesday in Anaheim over a ‘living wage’ ballot initiative.  That proposal, Measure L, would require large hospitality employers that accept a city subsidy to pay their employees a ‘living wage” of $15/hour beginning in January with increases of $1/year until 2022.  After that point, wage hikes would be tied to the cost of living.  There is currently a debate over whether Disney falls within the scope of an employer under Measure L, as a result of construction bonds that were issued in 1996 to help Disney build a parking garage.  (Bed taxes from Disney and other parts of the city are being used to pay off the 40 year bonds).  While Anaheim’s City Attorney has issued an opinion that the bond agreement does not qualify as a subsidy, it is widely expected the matter will be resolved in court.  In the interim, Disney is not taking any chances as it seeks to prevent Measure L from being approved by Anaheim voters next week.



Readers will recall that I have highlighted the ongoing efforts of the Fight for $15 movement over the past few years.  While the movement has achieved some degree of success, it remains an ongoing and hard fought slog, especially in certain industries.  Kalena Thomhave wrote an article a few weeks ago and noted that the Fight for $15 movement is turning its attention to establishing unions at low wage places of employment, such as the fast food industry.  Thomhave highlighted the strikes by fast food workers recently as evidence that there is a desire (if not a grassroots underpinning) for a large scale union presence in the fast food industry.  Will anything come of it?  Perhaps, although like with the Fight for &15 movement itself, there likely will be no overnight or quickly won victories here.


Marriott Workers’ Strike Picks Up Steam

For those that have been reading the blog over the last few weeks, you likely recall the strike occurring by nearly 8,000 workers at the Marriott hotel chain & the picket lines that have popped up outside many Marriott properties. Drew Philip at The Guardian notes that the strikers have recently adopted the mantra ‘One Job Should Be Enough’ and have started to use that as a rallying cry at picket lines across the country.  As the article notes, strikes have become somewhat rare within the past few decades (compared to the hundreds that occurred every year in the 1960’s), nevertheless, Unite Here (which represents the striking Marriott workers) has called this “the largest multi-city hotel strike in North American history.”  Things are still touch and go on the negotiation front, but I highlight this article in particular to call attention to the new mantra adopted by the striking workers.  Will ‘One Job Should Be Enough’ achieve its intended result/catch on elsewhere?  Time will tell.


The Gig Economy & Department of Labor Opinion Letters

Bloomberg published an article a few weeks ago that speculated the Department of Labor would likely soon start zeroing in on the gig economy, specifically how to classify these workers as employees or independent contractors, via opinion letters.  (Department of Labor opinion letters help clarify employment and labor law related matters).  Given the continued focus on gig economy workers and the repeated requests that have started to pile up asking for the Department of Labor to address the matter, many legal experts expect opinion letters on the matter to be issued in the coming months.  This article from Bloomberg notes several of the requests made so far, for those looking for additional information on the matter.



The Fair Labor Standards Act: A Primer

Every month, I come across several Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") cases and developments to highlight.  With that being said, while I gloss over the basics of the FLSA and often dive right into one of the more nuanced portions of the Act which are in dispute in a given case, some readers might feel a bit in the dark about the entire scope of the FLSA itself.  Never to fear as Katie Clarey has an FLSA primer that touches on all the relevant portions of the Act as well as a few helpful guides on what employers can do to avoid liability for failing to pay their employees the proper wages due and owing.

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. ...