On the heels of the “Fight for Fifteen” campaign, The New York Times reports that the movement is significant for “political activists looking to the 2016 presidential campaign and beyond” as a “potentially pivotal moment.” The wage fight coincides with several important political developments in the last two years. These developments include city and state campaigns to increase the local minimum wage as well as President Obama’s endorsement of a federal minimum wage hike. Professor Leslie McCall of Northwestern University argues that public opinion seems to be shifting at the same time. According to the General Social Survey, the percentage of Americans who agreed that “inequality continues to exist because it benefits the rich and powerful” increased by more than 10% from 2010 to 2012 alone. Professor McCall notes that an increasing number of political moderates seem to attribute the responsibility to mitigate economic inequality to major corporations.
In a similar vein, the Editorial Board of The New York Times writes that the 2016 presidential candidates must now face the “reality of grindingly low pay amid great corporate plenty.” All candidates, regardless of their political views, should now feel obligated to detail their stance on raising the minimum wage and other labor issues. However, calling for a higher minimum wage is not enough. The Editorial Board writes that political candidates must also support the right to organize without retaliation in an act of “real leadership.” According to the Editorial Board, President Obama’s “support for unions has been disappointing” in the context of recent attacks on unions in many states.
Politico reports that the NLRB has set its sights on the right-to-work movement and has published a call for briefs on the issue. Unions are currently not allowed to collect fees from non-members in right-to-work states under NLRB caselaw. However, the agency has indicated that it might allow an exception if the non-member “avails himself of union grievance procedures” even in a right-to-work state. Opponents of the idea surmise that the NLRB’s invitation for briefs means that the agency has already made up its mind about changing the rule.
Four weeks after employees of the public broadcaster Radio France decided to strike, most have since returned to work. The employees had protested a proposal that would have reorganized Radio France and led to “hundreds of layoffs and the closing of the country’s oldest orchestra.” Radio France currently operates seven radio stations and two orchestras and is seem as “one of France’s most trusted voices in news and entertainment.” Network employees are represented by five unions, four of which voted to end the strike on Tuesday after the government appointed a labor mediator. The fifth union, CGT union, is expected to return to work this week.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
June 29
In today’s News and Commentary, student-athletes file a class action suit challenging the NCAA’s new Age-Based Rule, a federal judge declines to issue a preliminary injunction against FEMA’s reduction in force but expedites proceedings, and Gavin Newsom opposes California’s proposed billionaire tax in favor of a federal approach. On Thursday, DeJuan Campbell, at basketball player […]
June 28
Philadelphia utility workers announce July 4 strike; national parks workers vote to unionize; Michigan considers “right to disconnect” bill.
June 26
Mamdani issues workplace heat protections order; Fifth Circuit denies enforcement of NLRB order against Starbucks; AFGE unlikely to secure injunction against FEMA layoffs.
June 25
NLRB orders Amazon to bargain with workers; federal judge blocks ICE agents from making arrests in courthouses.
June 24
NYC primary vies for union support; NLRB ruling tees up Cemex challenge; Sixth Circuit deals blow to NLRB policymaking.
June 23
The Supreme Court declines review of a taxpayer lawsuit against a teacher union's paid leave policy; Congressional Democrats oppose Labor Department's proposed joint employer rule.