Maxwell Ulin is a student at Harvard Law School.
Yesterday, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healy announced that rideshare companies could move forward with their proposed state ballot measure to exempt their drivers from employment law protections. The proposal, modeled closely on California’s Proposition 22, was one of 17 out of 30 proposed ballot initiatives certified by the Attorney General as having met baseline state constitutional requirements. Last month, the Coalition to Protect Workers’ Rights—a collection of worker advocacy groups headed by friend of the blog Mike Firestone—urged Healy to block the measure, arguing that it violated the “relatedness” prong of the Bay State constitution and would unduly confuse voters. Like Proposition 22, rideshare companies’ new proposal would expressly guarantee a series of perks for drivers, such as an enhanced minimum wage, while indirectly reducing overall benefits by excluding them from Massachusetts’s otherwise broad definition of employee status. The Attorney General’s decision will allow rideshare giants to begin collecting signatures in order to qualify the measure for the ballot.
Two major pieces of workers’ rights legislation stand on the cusp of passage in California in the coming days. On Tuesday, State Senator Connie Leyva’s S.B. 331, which would ban the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to prohibit ex-employees’ discussion of discrimination and harassment in the workplace, cleared the upper chamber for the second time after accepting amendments from the Assembly. Dubbed the “Silence No More Act”, the bill broadens existing NDA restrictions under a prior law by Senator Leyva, the Stand Together Against Non-Disclosures (STAND) Act, which only limited NDAs from banning discussion of sexual harassment and discrimination. The new proposal, which expands the NDA-ban to all forms of workplace discrimination, now heads to Governor Gavin’s Newsom’s desk.
At the same time, legislation designed to crack down on unsafe working conditions at Amazon warehouses is expected to come before the State Senate within the next week. The bill, A.B. 701, would ban so-called “time-off-task” penalties that may affect the health and safety of warehouse employees, such as those that penalize bathroom breaks. The legislation also prohibits retaliation and requires warehouse companies to disclose any work-speed quotas or metrics to both employees and government agencies. Studies have shown that Amazon’s algorithmically driven warehouses experience over twice the rate of workplace injuries as other warehousing companies, with around 6.5 mishaps for every 100 workers. Senate voting on the bill, which has already passed the State Assembly, is expected to be close, with a number of business groups lobbying hard against the proposal. The legislation has the strong backing of organized labor, particularly from the Teamsters, who have begun using local legislative advocacy as a point of leverage in their campaign to unionize the nation’s several thousand Amazon warehouses.
Finally on Monday, Starbucks employees at three locations in Buffalo, New York filed petitions for union elections with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) within the next two weeks. As Jon reported last week, workers had announced the formation of an organizing committee last week and had written to Starbucks requesting that the company agree to a series of “fair election principles,” including offering the union the right to discuss the campaign with workers on company time in response to any company-held captive audience meetings. The organizing committee, known as Starbucks Workers United, claims to have collected signed union cards from “strong majorities” at each of the three locations. Nonetheless, workers are requesting the NLRB to hold separate elections at each rather than consolidating them into a single unit, as Starbucks may seek to do. If successful, the effort would mark the first instance of unionization at any of the company’s more than 8,000 stores nationwide.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
July 3
California compromises with unions on housing; 11th Circuit rules against transgender teacher; Harvard removes hundreds from grad student union.
July 2
Block, Nanda, and Nayak argue that the NLRA is under attack, harming democracy; the EEOC files a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by former EEOC Commissioner Jocelyn Samuels; and SEIU Local 1000 strikes an agreement with the State of California to delay the state's return-to-office executive order for state workers.
July 1
In today’s news and commentary, the Department of Labor proposes to roll back minimum wage and overtime protections for home care workers, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by public defenders over a union’s Gaza statements, and Philadelphia’s largest municipal union is on strike for first time in nearly 40 years. On Monday, the U.S. […]
June 30
Antidiscrimination scholars question McDonnell Douglas, George Washington University Hospital bargained in bad faith, and NY regulators defend LPA dispensary law.
June 29
In today’s news and commentary, Trump v. CASA restricts nationwide injunctions, a preliminary injunction continues to stop DOL from shutting down Job Corps, and the minimum wage is set to rise in multiple cities and states. On Friday, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. CASA that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that […]
June 27
Labor's role in Zohran Mamdani's victory; DHS funding amendment aims to expand guest worker programs; COSELL submission deadline rapidly approaching