Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week


Ah yes, a delayed filing that potentially prohibits an attorney from arguing a motion or legal point.  Some attorneys might call that concerning; I would call it nightmare fuel.  I refer readers to the below article about a tricky situation Starbucks finds itself in due to a late filing.

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



Earlier this week, a Virginia Senate Committee blocked three different bills from proceeding ahead which would have repealed a planned statewide minimum wage hike.  Readers might recall that the current minimum wage rate, $11/hour, is set to increase yearly until it hits $15/hour in 2026.  For the time being, with this Committee blocking the three bills from moving forward, the eventual $15/hour wage rate is still full steam ahead.



As this article from The Huffington Post notes, Starbucks has been aggressively fighting unionization efforts at its stores.  In doing so, part of the company’s strategy has been to argue that elections should not occur on a store by store basis but rather by region.  (The argument follows that Starbucks could likely stand a better chance of beating back unionization efforts if they did not have to “fight” store by store.)  Following several stores in upstate New York moving to hold union elections, Starbucks asked the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) to halt any votes on a store by store basis and instead only allow regional elections.  The NLRB required Starbucks to submit a statement of position by noon on February 11th to consider the matter.  However, counsel for Starbucks apparently submitted its statement eight minutes after noon on the 11th and said the delay was due to email issues.  Unfortunately for Starbucks, a Regional Director held that the company’s untimely filing prevented them from making the arguments included in its statement.  Not good. 

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more