Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week: Labor Law Edition


Last week I dedicated the post to a few relevant EEOC matters I had come across.  This week, I came across a wealth of labor law related topics that I think merit a post dedicated to the topic.  (And that is not even taking into account the advice memo released by the NLRB on Tuesday which concluded that rideshare drivers should be classified as independent contractors rather than employees.)  Of course, even for those that might not find labor law (or the National Labor Relations Board) to be entertaining, I still think there is something here for everyone.

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


Fight Intensifies Over Unionization Efforts By Delta Flight Attendants & Ground Workers

Late this week, the ongoing fight by Delta flight attendants and ground workers to unionize took a turn when a complaint was filed with the National Mediation Board alleging Delta was engaged in “systematic, widespread, and egregious forms of interference with employee choice” in regard to unionization.  (Reports had started to trickle out that Delta had posted signs in employee break rooms, suggesting spending money on things such as video games or sporting events was a better use of money than putting it toward union dues.  These posters were largely met with scorn and disdain once they reached Twitter.)  As Josh Eidelson at Bloomberg writes, Democratic Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have even jumped into the fray, accusing Delta of engaging in foul play to prevent the nearly its 40,000 flight attendants and ground workers from unionizing.  Something tells me this unionization effort by these Delta employees has a long way to go before there is a resolution.  Not to mention, we are on the eve of a Presidential election where 20+ Democratic candidates will be hungry to make a name for themselves and rally a traditionally strong Democratic base (unions).  Stay tuned.


Protecting the Right to Organize Act Introduced by Democratic Representatives & Senators

At the end of April, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act was introduced in Congress which, if passed, would provide sweeping changes to collective bargaining rights and increase penalties for employers that are found to have violated labor laws.  The legislation, which boasts 140 House and Senate co-sponsors, would be a boon to employees and labor groups if it manages to pass Congress.  However, with a Senate that maintains Republican control, although the Protecting the Right to Organize Act will likely clear the House, I would not expect enough support in the Senate exists to ensure passage.  (And that does not even take into account Republican President Donald Trump who could veto the legislation if it reached his desk.  I am highly skeptical that even if Congress found enough votes to pass the legislation, that there would be enough votes to override a veto.)


Unfair Labor Practice Charges Have Dropped Nearly 11% in the Past Few Years

Put this one under the "win" column for pro-employer groups:  Since President Donald Trump took office, there has been a nearly 11% drop in unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB").  In fiscal year 2017, there were 9,900 charges filed with 9,600 charges being filed in the following fiscal year.  (This is a drop from fiscal year 2016 when 11,100 charges were filed with the NLRB.  In fact, the number of charges filed by unions had not dipped below 10,000 since at least 2011.)  There has been speculation that the drop in unfair labor practice charges is a result of unions wanting to keep issues away from the NLRB which might be used to reverse existing precedent.  (With an NLRB that has a decidedly pro-employer tilt, this is likely a good strategy.)  For the time being, until the NLRB takes on a more labor friendly approach, it would not surprise me to see the number of unfair labor practice charges remain at these low levels...or possibly even dip a bit lower.


Democratic Presidential Candidate Beto O’Rourke Supports Fair Share Fees

Earlier this month at the United Steel Workers Local 310, a campaign stop in Iowa, Beto O’Rourke answered a question in which he indicated his support for fair share fees.  For those not familiar with fair share fees, these are the fees charged to non-union members to cover the costs of collective bargaining work done by the union.  Readers might recall that these type of fees were deemed by the United States Supreme Court to be in violation of the First Amendment and therefore unlawful (in regard to public sector unions.)  Irrespective of that case, O’Rourke has made clear his intention to support a fair share law should he become President.


Following the Recent Independent Contractor Classifications For Rideshare Drivers, Eyes Turn to the States

It goes without saying that there has been a wave of developments in recent months in regard to how rideshare drivers are classified and whether they are entitled to unionize.  (In short, if these workers are independent contractors, they are not protected by federal labor law and cannot unionize.  If they are instead found to be employees, they would fall under the protection of federal law law and be able to unionize.)  With the memo coming from the NLRB recently finding that these rideshare drivers are independent contractors (coupled with the Department of Labor opinion letter reaching the same conclusion), those hoping that these workers would be classified as employees have looked to the states for ‘help.’  As this article from The Mercury News points out, many anticipate California could be the first state to step in, given the ‘ABC Test’ that was created (which is more receptive to finding workers are employees) as well as attempts to codify that ABC Test.  For the time being, with an employer friendly NLRB and Department of Labor, more labor friendly states like California are likely the lone bright spot for those hoping for increased protections for those rideshare drivers and others working in the gig economy.

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