Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: House Bill 53 (Ohio)


As with many employment and labor law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Last month, Ohio Representatives John Becker and Craig Riedel introduced House Bill 53 in the Ohio Legislature which seeks to make Ohio the next right to work state.  As a refresher, this type of right to work bill would prohibit public employee unions from requiring union membership or membership fees (also called agency fees, which are what non-union members pay to receive the collective bargaining benefits of the union).  Representative Becker pointed out that passage of House Bill 53 would "align Ohio law to federal case law."  (He is referring to the Supreme Court case from this past summer, Janus v. AFSCME.  Readers will likely recall the importance of that case).  Representative Riedel has argued that allowing an individual to be terminated because they chose not to be a part of the union is "unfair" and produces an inequitable result for workers in the state.

At one of the initial hearings on the bill, labor unions and their supporters made their opposition known.  One of the key arguments against making Ohio the 29th right to work state has revolved around the idea that a right to work bill would limit a union's resources which would consequently limit workers' access to benefits.

As some have pointed out, outgoing Ohio Governor John Kasich has not made right to work a priority during his time in office.  Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately, depending how you view right to work), incoming Governor Mike DeWine also has indicated he does not view right to work as a priority.  For the time being, while House Bill 53 might garner headlines, there does not appear to be widespread optimism that it will secure passage anytime soon.


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, it was noted that emplo

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

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