Deanna Krokos is a student at Harvard Law School
17 workers in Chicago-area McDonald’s workers are suing the fast-food chain alleging that it did not do enough to protect them from violence at work. While 90% of McDonald’s stores are operated by franchisees, the suit casts blame on corporate, focusing on the way that corporate-dictated store design and training materials left workers vulnerable to physical attacks and harassment by customers. For example, the workers allege that the chain’s standard low countertops make it easy for customers to enter the kitchen and threaten or attack workers. A report by the Chicago Tribune recounts the story of a worker who was threatened with a gun, and her dismay that “people at the company I work for don’t do anything to protect us.” The workers also allege that the training materials provided to franchises fail to adequately train workers and managers on how to prevent or respond to customer violence. The claims echo a report published earlier this year by the National Employment Law Project that describes the shocking rates of violence in McDonald’s stores nation-wide, finding that “of the 721 media-covered incidents [in McDonald’s stores], guns were involved in 72 percent.”
Earlier this month, Alisha wrote about a sexual harassment lawsuit that similarly alleged that McDonald’s company-wide culture left workers vulnerable and without effective means of redress.
For the Harvard Law Review Blog, Annie argues that the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion in NLRB v. IAB Local 229 is a bit of a wet firecracker. As Ryan explained last month, the case involved a First Amendment challenge to § 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act—a provision that prohibits unions from encouraging workers engage in “secondary strikes” against neutral employers. In holding that § 8(b)(4)(i)(B) is not subject to strict scrutiny, the panel relied on decades-old Supreme Court precedent without engaging with serious constitutional questions raised by intervening developments in First Amendment jurisprudence. The result is a somewhat frustrating circuit opinion that provides few clues about how the court will engage with upcoming challenges to union-speech restrictions.
This week, organizers working for the Pete Buttigieg campaign secured voluntary recognition of their union. The campaign voluntarily recognized the union, organized under IBEW Local 2321. This follows the successful efforts of organizers on the Sanders, Warren, Swalwell, Castro and Booker campaigns who have won unions this year.
With economic and workers’ issues at the forefront of conversations in the Democratic Primary, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters announced this week that they will hold a candidate forum in Iowa on December 7th. The forum will focus on the candidates’ plans for retirement security, union rights, and the labor issues implicated by their plans on international trade.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
October 8
In today’s news and commentary, the Trump administration threatens no back pay for furloughed federal workers; the Second Circuit denies a request from the NFL for an en banc review in the Brian Flores case; and Governor Gavin Newsom signs an agreement to create a pathway for unionization for Uber and Lyft drivers.
October 7
The Supreme Court kicks off its latest term, granting and declining certiorari in several labor-related cases.
October 6
EEOC regains quorum; Second Circuit issues opinion on DEI causing hostile work environment.
October 5
In today’s news and commentary, HELP committee schedules a vote on Trump’s NLRB nominees, the 5th Circuit rejects Amazon’s request for en banc review, and TV production workers win their first union contract. After a nomination hearing on Wednesday, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee scheduled a committee vote on President Trump’s NLRB nominees […]
October 3
California legislation empowers state labor board; ChatGPT used in hostile workplace case; more lawsuits challenge ICE arrests
October 2
AFGE and AFSCME sue in response to the threat of mass firings; another preliminary injunction preventing Trump from stripping some federal workers of collective bargaining rights; and challenges to state laws banning captive audience meetings.