It remains uncertain whether the nation’s tens of thousands of rail workers will ratify the tentative agreement their unions scrambled to secure after marathon negotiating sessions facilitated by the Biden administration narrowly averted a strike last month.

Nearly half the workers have approved the agreements so far. But as the two largest rail unions head to the polls, a coordinated opposition movement has crystallized that appears to be resonating with a broad segment of the disillusioned workers, many of whom view the compromise as failing to meaningfully address their grievances. 

The railway employees would be empowered to strike should they reject the agreement, which economists warn would risk disrupting the economy and intensifying the pinch on the nation’s supply chains. Lawmakers have indicated they may move to forestall such an outcome, possibly by extending the “cooling-off” period during which rail workers are legally barred from striking or, the more aggressive approach, statutorily imposing the tentative agreement.

The management law firm Littler Mendelson published a piece yesterday previewing the implications of the midterm elections for national labor and employment policy. Predicting that labor and employment issues may emerge as a central focus of the House’s incoming Republican majority, the piece highlights several of the GOP’s antilabor legislative priorities: the Employee Rights Act, the Ensuring Workers Get PAID Act, and the Working Families Flexibility Act, among others. These measures would undermine unions and burden working people in myriad ways. To wit, they would, among other things, entrench secret ballot elections, mandate systematic union recertification votes, require employee authorization of union political spending, allow employers to bypass wage and hour enforcement by purporting to self-report violations, and authorize time off rather than premium pay as compensation for overtime.

In the latest Starbucks news, the company plans to shutter a store in Portland, Ore. next month where employees voted to unionize just a few weeks ago. While demoralizing, the move is unsurprising; as I described earlier this month, the NLRB recently issued a complaint alleging that, among other things, Starbucks unlawfully retaliated against union activity by discriminatorily closing several stores in New York. The Supreme Court has held that an employer runs afoul of the NLRA where it shutters a portion of an enterprise in an attempt to head off organizing at its remaining facilities. 

In local news, the owners of Darwin’s announced they intend to close all four Cambridge locations. The news has disquieting unionbusting overtones given the ongoing organizing efforts unfolding at the company. Indeed, in an email to the Boston Globe, one of the company’s owners candidly acknowledge that the union activity had accelerated their decision to close the business.

While a partial retaliatory closure may amount to an unfair labor practice, the Supreme Court has held that the labor law does not preclude an employer from entirely discontinuing his operations, even for antiunion purposes.  Still, the Darwins are legally obligated to bargain with the union over the effects of the closure, which they have expressed a commitment to do.