Today’s News & Commentary — April 25, 2017

The Supreme Court will soon be presented with the opportunity to decide whether unions can constitutionally charge non-members “fair share” fees.  According to Bloomberg BNA, “the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation intends by the end of May to file a petition asking the high court to review a Seventh Circuit decision dismissing a lawsuit by two Illinois government workers who challenged the fees on First Amendment grounds.”  The Supreme Court heard a similar challenge in 2016, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, but ultimately ruled 4-4 following the death of Justice Scalia, thus affirming a lower court decision finding that public-sector unions may continue to collect “fair share” fees from nonmembers.  The Seventh Circuit similarly upheld such fees in the case at issue now.

Using colorful language about a boss does not deprive a worker of the protections of the National Labor Relations Act, according to the Second Circuit.  Consumerist reports that the Second Circuit found that the operator of restaurants at New York’s Chelsea Piers illegally terminated a worker in retaliation for engaging in protected activity when, two days before a unionization vote, the worker posted a colorful Facebook post about his boss in urging support for unionization.  The Second Circuit concluded that “the NLRB could reasonably determine that the server’s “outburst was not an idiosyncratic reaction to a manager’s request but part of a tense debate over managerial mistreatment in the period before the representation election.”

America’s male-dominated industries want to diversity.  Per the Chicago Tribune, the “Iron Workers union this month leaped to the cutting edge of the effort, becoming the first building trades union to offer up to eight months of paid maternity leave to pregnant women and new moms” despite only 2 percent of union members being women.  The union and other traditionally male-dominated employers are driven to recruit women by the aging of baby boomers, a decline in enrollment in vocational education, and other factors.

Continue reading

Today’s News & Commentary — April 11, 2017

Minors in Texas may soon need parental approval to join a labor union.  According to the Texas Tribune, “minors in the state may be required to obtain parental approval before they can join a labor union under a proposal the Texas Senate tentatively approved along party lines Monday.”  The legislator who introduced the bill “said she filed the measure in response to concerns from a constituent whose daughter ‘was persuaded to join a union without fully understanding’ the terms of agreement.”  For their part, “some union leaders argue the bill would target minors employed by grocery stores while unfairly limiting their freedom and opportunity in the workplace.”

Voters in Missouri may be deprived the opportunity to vote on the state’s right-to-work legislation, if a lawsuit is successful.  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that “supporters of Missouri’s new ‘right to work’ law have filed another lawsuit seeking to scuttle an attempt by labor officials to put the issue before voters for an up-or-down vote.”  Labor leaders “want to give voters the chance to weigh in on the issue after it was pushed quickly through the GOP-controlled Legislature this year and signed into law by Republican Gov. Eric Greitens.”  The law is set to go into effect on August 28.  Missouri residents “can call a referendum on a new law by collecting signatures totaling 5 percent of voters from two-thirds of the state’s congressional districts.”

The Fight for $15 has been incredibly successful – but not in Baltimore.  Vox explores why the effort to raise the minimum wage in Baltimore to $15 an hour fell apart, noting the city’s financial problems and fear of ensuing job loss.

Continue reading

Gig News: Court Enjoins Enforcement of Seattle Gig Unionization Ordinance

Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington has enjoined enforcement of Seattle’s first-in-the-nation ordinance giving gig economy independent contractors the right to unionize (the “Ordinance”.)  Judge Lasnik’s full decision granting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. City of Seattle can be found here.  Uber, Lyft and a third ride hailing company had been due to submit driver information this week to a union recognized as a “qualified driver representative” pursuant to the Ordinance, but the requirements “are hereby enjoined until this matter is finally resolved.”

Notably, Judge Lasnik found that the Chamber may succeed on the merits of its antitrust claim, pending analysis of the City’s claim for antitrust immunity, but that the Chamber and drivers challenging the Ordinance in a consolidated lawsuit are unlikely to succeed on their National Labor Relations Act preemption claims at the moment.  Judge Lasnik stressed “that this Order should not be read as a harbinger of what the ultimate decision in this case will be when all dispositive motions are fully briefed and considered.  The plaintiffs have raised serious questions that deserve careful, rigorous judicial attention, not a fast-tracked rush to judgment based on a date that has no extrinsic importance.”

Continue reading

Gig News: Seattle Gig Unionization Ordinance On Hold

Despite surviving multiple court challenges, the revolutionary Seattle municipal ordinance giving gig economy independent contractors the right to unionize appears to be on hold.

According to Bloomberg BNA, a Seattle city attorney announced the city will delay enforcement of the law in proceedings before the district court hearing the challenge to the ordinance last week.  Uber, Lyft and a third ride hailing company had been due to submit driver information today to a union recognized as a “qualified driver representative” pursuant to the ordinance.  Seattle will not requite the companies to disclose the driver information until Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington rules on a motion filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which brought the lawsuit challenging the ordinance.

Continue reading

Today’s News and Commentary — March 28, 2017

President Trump repealed a rule yesterday requiring federal contractors to disclose labor law violations.  Per The Hill, the “blacklisting rule” implemented by President Obama was intended “to prevent the government from contracting with businesses responsible for wage theft or workplace safety violations at any point within the last three years.”  Business groups supported the rule’s repeal, while other commentators noted the repeal could contradict Trump’s stated promises to working-class voters of improving job prospects and working conditions.

Another action by President Trump is frustrating efforts by employers to find seasonal workers.  NPR reports that “a cap will soon kick in on the number of short-term work visas provided under the H-2B program, which brings in low-skilled labor for nonagricultural jobs that U.S. employers say they can’t fill closer to home.”  The cap particularly disadvantages employers in the Northern United States, where the demand for seasonal workers begins later in the year.  A bipartisan group of senators has called for an audit of the HB-2 program to ensure the maximum number of visas are awarded, while progressives have noted problems with the program.  For his part, President Trump has espoused opposition to hiring foreign workers but has hired dozens of foreign workers under the HB-2 program at his hotels and resorts.

Universities continue to oppose efforts by graduate students to unionize.  Most recently, The Cornell Daily Sun notes a series of questionable anti-union communications by Dean Barabara Knuth of the Cornell Graduate School through an online forum.  In particular, “the Ask a Dean forum has been a breeding ground for conflict.  Administrators claim they are addressing legitimate concerns from students — who are always anonymous — while union organizers claim that it is the University’s method of circumventing the agreement reached between the two sides in May that prevents professors or administrators from trying to persuade graduates to vote ‘no.'”

Continue reading

Today’s News & Commentary — March 14, 2017

While Uber attempts to discourage the unionization of drivers in Seattle, some drivers are challenging the municipal law giving drivers the right to organize.  According to the Seattle Times, “the drivers are seeking a temporary restraining order barring the city from enforcing the law — the first of its kind in the country — saying it goes against federal labor and privacy laws, as well as violates their rights to free speech and association.”  The lawsuit is being led by the National Right to Work Foundation and the Freedom Foundation.  The drivers primarily argue that the National Labor Relations Act pre-empts the municipal law.

Another innovative municipal law has gone into effect, in San Jose, CA.  The Mercury-News notes that ” San Jose businesses with 36 or more employees must now offer extra shifts to part-time workers before hiring new staff.”  Under the Opportunity to Work measure, “companies must offer — in writing — extra work hours to existing qualified part-time employees.  If those employees aren’t qualified or decline the extra hours, an employer can then hire additional workers to fill the shifts.  The idea, advocates say, is to give existing workers access to extra hours to boost their paychecks.”

Muslim workers in Europe suffered a legal setback in seeking to assert their right to wear the hijab in the workplace.  The Washington Post reports that “The European Court of Justice issued a non-binding ruling Tuesday that employers can prohibit the Muslim headscarf in the workplace, setting an important precedent for a continent in the midst of a fraught political climate.”  The ECJ concluded that rules against the wearing of the hijab in the workplace were in fact rules against the visible wearing of religious signs, and thus not direct discrimination.  Notably, “in the absence of official internal regulations prohibiting what employees can wear to work, the court suggested, Muslim women have a stronger case for wearing the hijab to the office.”

Continue reading

Today’s News and Commentary — February 28, 2017

The fate of several of President Obama’s signature labor and employment policies could soon hang in the balance.  The Hill reports that “President Trump is facing pressure to roll back union-friendly policy changes made by the Obama-era National Labor Relations Board” from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  In particular, the Chamber urged Trump to target “policies that hold companies accountable for labor violations committed by their partners, speed up union elections, and allow small groups of workers to organize multiple unions inside a single company.”  Meanwhile, a Washington Post columnist notes that the Republican Congress is targeting President Obama’s “Fair Pay and Safe Workforces” executive order aimed at ensuring the compliance of federal government contractors with labor laws.

As President Trump acts, Americans work confidently while those without or about to lose work struggle.  USA Today highlights data from payroll company ADP which shows that American workers are increasingly “shifting into new sectors, such as a marketing manager who leaves retail for finance.”  Notably, “in eight of the 10 major industries tracked by ADP, the share of job-switchers who came from a different industry increased from late 2014 to late 2016 while the share swapping jobs within the same industry fell.  That’s up from seven of 10 sectors that met that criteria in the third quarter.”  ADP attributes such shifts to a tight labor market and worker confidence.  Many workers are, of course, struggling.  USA Today also features the story of John Feltner, an Indiana machinist whose union job is being outsourced to Mexico.  Feltner “is left to wonder how Middle America will endure in the age of offshoring moves such as the one [his employer] is executing.”

The reports of sexual harassment of female engineers at Uber continue to make headlines.  According to The New York Times, “the company dismissed the head of its engineering efforts for failing to disclose a sexual harassment claim from his previous job.”  If Americans are surprised by the allegations, many female engineers are not.  The CBC interviewed women in the tech world who note the commonality of harassment and misogyny in the industry.

Continue reading