Fred Wang is a student at Harvard Law School.
Forced arbitration denies workers their day in court. Over the past few decades, the Supreme Court has made it increasingly difficult for workers to avoid arbitration. This month, the Court will hear three more cases involving arbitration-related disputes. The first — Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. — concerns whether an employee must make an additional showing of prejudice before a court will conclude that their employer waived its right to arbitrate. The second — Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon — asks whether an airline cargo loader is a worker engaged in interstate commerce and therefore exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, a federal law compelling judicial enforcement of arbitration agreements. And finally, the third — Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana — contemplates whether states can empower workers who have signed arbitration agreements to still sue their employers for labor law violations on the state’s behalf.
Alto — a new, Dallas-based ride-hailing service — is using employee classification to distinguish itself from competitors like Uber and Lyft. The company promises to set “a new standard for rideshare.” It has its own fleet of luxury SUVs and aims to transition its vehicles to all electric next year. Most importantly, Alto is the first rideshare provider to staff its workforce with full-time employees with benefits and starting wages of $17 to $20 per hour. At a time where rideshare companies are under fire for aggressively pushing to misclassify drivers as “independent contractors,” Alto’s business model is looking to capitalize on a customer base that is more sensitive to workers’ rights.
Relatedly, Teamsters union leadership is backing a Uber- and Lyft-friendly worker-classification bill currently moving through the Washington State Legislature. The bill would legally classify gig workers as “independent contractors,” not employees — in exchange for meager benefits that fall short of the pay employees would be entitled to. Union leaders maintain that compromise now will stave off more aggressive Uber- and Lyft-backed initiatives in the future. But as a new piece in Jacobin argues, there is no promise that gig employers will stand down — and workers would be foolish to trust those who have “betrayed their promises to us and local legislatures time and time again.”
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
July 3
Unions seek a preliminary injunction to prevent USDA downsizing; the D.C. District Court issues a preliminary injunction against new student loan regulations; Matt Bruenig releases an analysis of Starbucks’ ongoing legal battle against Starbucks Workers United.
July 2
First Circuit denies federal worker unions’ mandamus petition; federal court denies preliminary injunction against new union reporting rule; House introduces the Securing Agriculture’s Workforce Act.
July 1
Trump nominates Keith Sonderling as Labor Secretary; DOL eliminates disparate-impact liability from Title VI regulations; OPM finalizes rule allowing suitability-based removal of federal employees for post-appointment conduct.
June 30
SCOTUS ends removal protections for agencies; staff at NYC cocktail bar vote to unionize.
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.