Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week


For those readers that are TikTok aficionados (or simply like a good story about a large scale employer potentially wading into a minefield), I refer you to the last article I am going to highlight this week.  I will caution readers that the story is still developing and not all the facts are yet known.  However, this is one that I will be interested to see progress.

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



Recently, Workers United, the union representing unionized workers at Starbucks, filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board and accused Starbucks of unlawfully closing an Ithaca, New York location that had voted to unionize back in April.  According to Workers United, workers at the Ithaca location went on strike following complaints about an unsafe working condition in relation to a grease trap at the store.  Starbucks thereafter decided to permanently close the sore and cited the grease trap as the reason.  However Workers United have argued that this closure is unlawful on the grounds that Starbucks is actually closing the store in retaliation for April’s unionization vote rather than because of the grease trap matter.



Ryan Golden over at HRDive recently wrote an article in which he reminds employers (and HR professionals) the importance of taking into account workers with visual and hearing disabilities as many workplaces transition back into in person (or a hybrid) work schedule.  Many employers have likely found ways to accommodate these workers when the workplace was virtual.  However, it is oftentimes easy to forget to plan for how to accommodate these workers as the work setup changes.  After all, while it has been many months since some workplaces were requiring an in person work schedule, the requirement to accommodate those workers with disabilities does not change.



File this under things you never want to hear an employer say:  “I don’t believe in maternity leave.”  Unfortunately, that is what is alleged to have been uttered by Joshua Ma, a TikTok executive.  While Ma has taken a step back from his role in the company following these alleged comments, TikTok has started an investigation.  The tricky thing for any employer is to have an executive/supervisor utter these words (or something similar), a pregnant employee feel they have been discriminated against (because of their pregnancy), and then proceed to file a pregnancy discrimination claim against their employer using the executive/supervisor’s comments as Exhibit A at trial.  While it is not clear if Ma actually said those words, I would be curious to see how this plays out as additional facts are uncovered.

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