Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week


Remote work has been a common topic in the workplace for well over the past year and a half.  With remote work comes the topic of where these workers will work when not physically present in the office.  A recent article from Vox takes a look at the topic and where (or rather where not) many of these workers have chosen to live in the age of the remote workplace.

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


Southwest Airlines Raises Hourly Pay Rate to $15/Hour for 7,000 Workers

Effective August 1, Southwest Airlines is expected to raise the hourly pay rate for nearly 7,000 workers to $15/hour.  The move, intended to attract and retain workers, comes as the company sees a ramp up in travel following well over a year of slowdowns as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.  Will other airlines follow suit?  Perhaps, but with Southwest being one of the few airlines to post a profit in Q1, others such as Delta, American, and United might not have the funds to do so.


Survey: Support For Passage of PRO Act Wanes

A recent study of 1,000 voters took stock of how they view the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (“PRO Act”) (a friendly, and I do mean friendly, labor law bill pending in Congress).  For those unfamiliar with the PRO Act, it would do away with right to work laws in the 27 states that have enacted such legislation, it would prohibit employers from holding mandatory meetings to counter unionization efforts, and would strengthen the ability of workers to join unions, among other measures.  However, according to this recently released survey, 70% of respondents said they are concerned that the PRO Act would abolish the right to work laws.  As well, 68% of respondents answered that they were concerned the PRO Act would hamper the ability of small businesses to obtain legal advice on labor law matters.  While the PRO Act has cleared the House, it is pending in the Senate with a continually diminishing chance of being approved.


Workers Leaving Big Cities Are Not Necessarily Destined For the Midwest

The flow of workers out of big cities such as New York City and San Francisco became a common topic following the increase in remote work during the coronavirus pandemic.  While some workers relocated to more remote (and significantly cheaper parts of the country) given their flexible work arrangements, this recent article from Vox suggests that many workers did not move too far from their major cities of employment.  For instance, many workers in the Bay Area relocated to the suburbs rather than somewhere in the Midwest.  The reason?  While many employers did/continue to offer remote work options, more and more employers are switching to a hybrid model:  a few days working in the office and a few days working remotely.  It goes without saying that having to commute from Topeka, KS to San Francisco or Gloucester, MA to New York City a few days a week is not feasible.  Sorry to those in the Midwest expecting to see an influx of workers from the coasts...that does not appear to be happening in any large scale.


Hiring Bonuses: Not All They Are Cracked Up To Be?

NPR published a recent article in which it recognized the growing trend among employers, large and small, that are using hiring bonuses to lure workers.  Readers might have heard that many jobs, predominately hourly positions, struggling to find workers as many choose to instead receive unemployment or COVID related benefits instead.  However, while many employers are utilizing hiring bonuses, the article notes this one time pay boost does little to actually lift the long term wages of workers.  A one time cash influx upon hiring is often not as beneficial in the long run compared to higher wages.  Granted, I do not think anyone would turn down a hiring bonus...but maybe this is not the solution to the labor shortage in many industries.

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. ...