The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

As with many labor & employment law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on. On March 22nd, the Labor and Public Employees Committee (a committee of the Connecticut General Assembly) voted 9 - 4 to advance SB 318 which would prohibit employers from requiring workers to attend or participate in meetings concerning the employers’ views on religious or political matters. The vote ending up along party lines should not necessarily be a surprise as both sides have started to dig in and fight.  For instance, Republicans and business groups that oppose SB 318 argue that the passage of the legislation would amount to a “gag order” on employers.  The argument follows that SB 318’s definition of “political matters” is far too broad in that the legislation could be interpreted as preventing employers from speaking to their employees about executive laws, orders, and related measures that ...

Last Thursday, New York City Mayor Eric Adams held a press conference in which he announced that professional sports players, entertainers, musicians, and DJs would not be required to be vaccinated in order to play or perform in New York City. Readers might recall that New York City enacted one of the most stringent coronavirus vaccine policies in the country which included requirements that New York City athletes, entertainers, musicians, and DJs get the coronavirus vaccine or be barred from playing or performing in the city.  New York City’s coronavirus vaccine policy also required many public and private sector employees to get vaccinated as well or face termination.  (Note, approximately 1,400 public employees were terminated over their failure to get vaccinated.) While some cheered the Mayor’s decision to ease coronavirus vaccine mandates for certain players and performers, labor unions pushed back and argued these carve outs should exist for unvaccinated public and priva...

Hang onto your hats because this is an interesting story. Initiative 82 is a potential ballot measure that might go before voters in Washington, DC this coming June in which voters would be able to do away with the tipped wage in the city.  If approved, Initiative 82 would require that tipped workers (who currently receive $5.05/hour, plus tips) have their pay rate increased to $15.20/hour.  Eliminating this sort of sub minimum wage is a common fight for minimum wage advocates around the country.   Now in order for a ballot initiative to get before voters, at least 5% of registered voters in DC must provide their signature as well as at least 5% of registered voters from five of DC’s eight wards.  Last week it was announced that the 5% requirement of registered voters in DC was met.  However, the DC Board of Elections noted that it was not yet clear whether the 5% of registered voters from five of DC’s eight wards had been satisfied.  According to reports, ...

While we await results on the second election at the Amazon warehouse in Alabama, I want to highlight an article relevant to that topic (as well as a few other articles on other matters.)  To call 2022 the year of unions, so far, is a fair statement.  On that note, the first article about Starbucks and its efforts to curb the ongoing unionization is worth leading things off this week. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Howard Schultz Returning to Starbucks Amid Unionization Surge Recently, it was announced that Howard Schultz would return to Starbucks as interim CEO as the company following the retirement of its current CEO.  Of course, amidst the shuffle in its corporate structure, the company is trying to find a way to stymie the ongoing unionization efforts sweeping across its stores around the country.  In his nearly 30 year tenure with Starbucks, Schultz had a track record of preventing unionization of its company owned stores. ...

Yesterday, it was announced that a Seattle area Starbucks had voted to unionize with a 9 - 0 vote in favor of unionization (with one ballot being challenged by the company.) Yesterday’s vote marks yet another victory for workers at Starbucks that are seeking to turn the company on its head and unionize company owned locations.  Of course, this is not the first Starbucks location to unionize.  While it is not the first, it marks the first store in the Seattle area to unionize (as well as the first in the Pacific Northwest, home to Starbucks.) The past few months have proven to be quite fruitful for workers at Starbucks that have sought to unionize.  While this is the most recent successful unionization of a Starbucks, I think it is safe to say this will not be the last.  Stay tuned. For additional information:   https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/business/starbucks-union-seattle.html

As with many labor & employment law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on. Last Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 2116, also known as the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2022 (the “CROWN Act”) with a 235 - 189 vote in favor of the legislation.  For those unfamiliar with this bill (or related bills that have previously been passed in cities and states), employers would be barred from discriminating against a worker on the basis of that worker’s hair texture or hairstyle, if that hair texture or hairstyle is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin. Now remember, just because the legislation cleared the House, that does not necessarily mean it is going to become law.  First, the Senate must approve it, which is no sure thing.  After all, the legislation can be filibustered in the Senate.  With Democra...

At 12:01 AM this morning, over 500 workers at a Chevron owned refinery in the San Francisco area went on strike, following a breakdown in negotiations between the union, the United Steelworkers, and the company. The union indicated the strike would take place after Chevron’s most recent contract proposal was voted down and Chevron apparently refused to continue further discussions.  Keep in mind the prior contract between the union and Chevron expired about two months ago.  Despite the contract expiring, the parties continued working toward a settlement without striking.  What changed?  In short, the union has argued that given the high cost of living in the area, the workers needed a more substantial pay raise than what Chevron offered.  Despite Chevron apparently taking steps in the right direction, according to the union, the most recent proposal was still too far off from the union’s demands.  With Chevron withdrawing from the negotiation table (for the...