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, 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