Jason Vazquez is a staff attorney at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. He graduated from Harvard Law School in 2023. His writing on this blog reflects his personal views and should not be attributed to the Teamsters.
Government employers have increasingly begun issuing vaccine mandates as the nation’s mass vaccination campaign encounters public resistance and a highly contagious new variant surges across the country. On Monday the Department of Veteran Affairs became the first federal agency to adopt a vaccine mandate, requiring that the nearly 115,000 employees in its sprawling healthcare network receive the jab within two months. And at the subfederal level California and New York City mandated vaccination for nearly one million public sector employees on Monday. Reactions to the NYC mandate exhibit the tension the issue presents for union leaders, confronted with the dueling imperatives of ensuring safe workplaces while resisting employer encroachments on their members’ bodily autonomy. The largest municipal workers union has opposed the requirement, while the city’s teachers unions have largely expressed support.
In May the Republican governor of North Dakota, billionaire Doug Burgum, captured media attention and spearheaded a movement when he announced that his state would no longer provide enhanced benefits to unemployed individuals, asserting that the enhancement had driven up unemployment. This trailblazing action prompted nearly two dozen GOP-controlled states to discontinue their participation in the federally funded program. But a series of recently unearthed documents reveals that Burgum’s decision was based not on careful economic analysis but, as a progressive news outlet in the state casts it, “crass political calculus.” The outlet reports that a presentation prepared by state officials shortly before Burgum’s announcement acknowledged the significant economic benefits resulting from the enhanced benefits and concluded that any evidence of inhibited hiring was “anecdotal.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the state’s withdrawal from the program has not unleashed hiring. In fact, it has not disturbed the state’s unemployment rate at all. This aligns with emerging research increasingly indicating that, for predictable reasons, curbing the enhanced payments has failed to increase employment.
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.