OnLabor

Law. Workers. Organizing.

News & Commentary

January 3, 2025

Esther Ritchin

Esther Ritchin is a student at Harvard Law School.

In today’s news, the holiday season strikes against Amazon and Starbucks both conclude, and Amazon mandates a full-time return to office for its corporate employees.

The strike against Amazon, held at warehouses in the five days leading up to Christmas Eve, ended as scheduled. The strike was officially held at nine different warehouses, but there were protests and demonstrations at at least 200 locations throughout the strike period. While the strike has concluded, the Teamsters “will never let up and workers will never stop fighting for their rights at Amazon.” The complaints that brought workers to strike, including safety violations and unjust pay, continue. Starbucks workers also concluded their strike as scheduled at the end of the holiday season.

In related news, yesterday, the first workday of the new year, marked Amazon’s new mandatory return-to-office policy, five days a week, for its corporate employees. Many employees are frustrated by the policy, especially after inconsistent messaging from leadership on remote work and rumors of Amazon using this policy as a way to lower their number of corporate employees without having to lay people off.

Daily News & Commentary

Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all

OnLabor In The News

Browse all

More From OnLabor

See more

Tracking Attacks on the NLRB: Fifth Circuit Finds NLRB Removal Protections Unconstitutional

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that removal protections for NLRB Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and Board Members are unconstitutional. This ruling affirmed district court injunctions that halted unfair labor practice proceedings against three companies: SpaceX, Energy Transfer, and Findhelp. The Fifth Circuit held that being subject to an unconstitutional […]

Ruelas v. County of Alameda — California Pretrial Detainees Denied Minimum Wage for Corporate Labor (Part 3)

In Ruelas v. County of Alameda, the Supreme Court of California denied pretrial detainees’ state minimum wage claim, reasoning that section 4019.3 of the state’s Penal Code — capping jail laborers’ wages at two dollars per day — instead governed.  The first part of this three-part series discussed the California Supreme Court’s holding and reasoning.  The second part gave a history of California’s constitution and jail labor in the state, concluding that the two-dollar daily wage cap could not have applied to plaintiffs, who were pretrial detainees performing unpaid labor for a corporation.  

Ruelas v. County of Alameda — California Pretrial Detainees Denied Minimum Wage for Corporate Labor (Part 2)

In Ruelas v. County of Alameda, the Supreme Court of California held that pretrial detainees forced to labor for a corporation are ineligible for a minimum wage under the state’s Labor Code.  The court construed Penal Code section 4019.3 broadly, interpreting it as incompatible with California’s Labor Code. The court concluded that the Penal Code prevents pretrial detainees from earning more than two dollars per day for their labor, absent a local ordinance.  

How Three Simple Labor Laws Helped Unions Organize Amazon and UBER in Canada

In early July,  the British Columbia Labour Relations Board (BCLRB) certified UFCW-Canada as the bargaining representative for over 500 UBER drivers in the province’s capital city of Victoria.  A few days later, the BCLRB issued another decision that certified the union Unifor (formerly the Canadian Auto Workers) for a bargaining unit of hundreds of employees employed at an Amazon distribution centre […]

Enjoy OnLabor’s fresh takes on the day’s labor news, right in your inbox.

Sections

Connect