Posts Tagged ‘National Labor Relations Board’

Labor and employment roundup

Cato Handbook chapters on labor and employment, minimum wage law

My chapter on labor and employment law in the new 8th Edition Cato Handbook for Policymakers has caused a riffle or two of reaction, what with its proposals to repeal the NLRA, ADEA, FMLA, and a bunch of other laws (and that’s just the start, really). Robin Shea and Jon Hyman both respond with posts on the theme of what would happen if they ran the world, could push a button, or were monarch for a day. Their responses are good-tempered in both agreement and disagreement, which cannot be said for all the corresponding fun had once the list started circulating over on Twitter.

If my chapter doesn’t manage to flood the outrage zone completely for committed supporters of current law, the handbook’s chapter on the minimum wage can help provide further stimuli. It’s written by Thomas Firey.

Labor and the federal courts roundup

  • “Labor law in America has reached the absurd point where the NLRB is taking the position that a company can’t tell its employees to have a positive attitude” [Ira Stoll on Trader Joe’s controversy, following on T-Mobile case last April, earlier on predecessor 2014 decision in Hills and Dales General Hospital]
  • Judge Janice Rogers Brown, writing for D.C. Circuit, rips NLRB for “abusive tactics and extremism.” orders it to pay employer’s attorney fees [Jon Hyman, David Leishman and Seth Borden, McGuire Woods Labor Relations Today (citing Board’s “nonacquiescence” policy), opinion in Heartland Plymouth Court MI, LLC v. NLRB]
  • Quoting John Ross’s Short Circuit: Illinois telephone company “may not have violated the rights of striking worker (who allegedly followed a non-striker onto the highway, cut him off, slowed down, and did not allow him to pass) by firing her, says the D.C. Circuit. Concurring in her own opinion, Judge Millett reprimands the NLRB for long countenancing strikers’ sexually and racially demeaning behavior.” More on Millett’s concurrence in Consolidated Communications v. NLRB: Jon Hyman, and more on the case itself from the U.S. Chamber;
  • Also quoting Short Circuit: “After discussions with NLRB, Norwood, Mass. car dealership revises employee handbook. NLRB: The new dress code, which prohibits some employees from wearing ‘pins, insignias, or other message clothing,’ still restricts labor rights. First Circuit: Just so. Dissent: Pity employers who want their employees to look nice. “[T]he Board and the courts have lured businesses into a legal bog.'”
  • Congress hasn’t passed ENDA. Will courts approve EEOC’s scheme of cobbling it together virtually from other legal materials? [ABA Journal, Will Baude and more, Eugene Volokh on Seventh Circuit argument]
  • California agricultural-labor law creates a right to trespass for union organizers. Help, Ninth Circuit! [Ilya Shapiro and Frank Garrison]

Labor and employment roundup

  • “Apprenticeships: Useful Alternative, Tough to Implement” [Gail Heriot, Cato Institute Policy Analysis]
  • “Hiring Without Headaches – A Possibility or Fantasy?” [Daniel Schwartz on President Obama/Stephen Colbert “job interview”]
  • Employee misclassification as ULP: Obama NLRB “is now basically creating unfair labor practices out of thin air” [Jon Hyman]
  • In the mail: Jeb Kinnison, “Death by HR: How Affirmative Action Cripples Organizations” [Amazon/author’s site]
  • Now, for a change of pace, a less critical view of the Obama NLRB and its legacy [Andrew Strom, On Labor, parts one and two]
  • How much flexibility is there in the special California constitutional law doctrine forbidding even prospective cuts (i.e., of not-yet-earned benefits) to public employee pensions? [Sasha Volokh, earlier]

Labor roundup

  • Want or need to contract out of the rules set by Seattle’s new worker-scheduling ordinance? You’ll have to unionize. Cute, no? [Bruce M. Cross et al., Perkins Coie] Also in Seattle: ostensible safety initiative aims to force hotels to unionize, would require blacklisting of guests even absent legal complaint [Carla Murray, CrossCut]
  • “NLRB GC now wants to legalize intermittent and partial strikes” [Michael VanDervort]
  • Boston city hall to private firms: nice little outfit you got there, shame if it didn’t unionize [Steve Malanga, earlier here, here on alleged extortion scheme]
  • Less a university and more a shop floor: NLRB ruling on teaching/research assistants did more harm than good [Jon Hyman, earlier here, here]
  • NLRB makes it as quick and easy as it can for workers to join a union. But should they wish instead to leave… [Diana Furchtgott-Roth]
  • “Will NLRB’s New ‘Joint Employer’ Standard Discourage Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives?” [Seth Borden]

“The Faulty Logic Of The NLRB College Student Unionization Ruling”

Another huge ruling, as NLRB hurtles leftward at topmost speed during these final Obama months [Inside Higher Ed; Connor Wolf, Inside Source; Jarad Lucan via Daniel Schwartz] “Bringing a union into the mix could interfere with the primary purpose of the student’s relationship with the school: education. As dissenting NLRB member Philip Miscimarra writes, employers subject to NLRB jurisdiction may be required to disclose details of sexual harassment investigations to the union. Universities may also be required to tolerate ‘outrageous conduct’ by students, in their roles as unionized employees, which would otherwise violate the schools’ community standards.” [Preston Cooper, Forbes]

P.S.: No, they’re not done: “NLRB Likely To Drop More Pro-Union Rulings By End Of August” [Daniel Fisher]

Labor and employment roundup

  • “Clusters” of nursing employees “standing around and ‘chitchatting’ about their concern that their cars would be damaged if they voted against union representation.” D.C. Circuit rejects NLRB position that talk of tire-slashing by union backer known to have “been in violent altercations in the past, and [sporting current] hand injury from a knife fight” was harmless joking [John Ross, Short Circuit on Manorcare of Kingston v. NLRB]
  • Karma stalks #FightFor15, SEIU: “Union protested by its own minimum wage organizers” [Sean G. Higgins]
  • Feds raid powerful Philadelphia construction union boss, allies [Jillian Kay Melchior, Heat Street, Philadelphia Daily News, NBC Philadelphia, earlier Melchior on role of John (“Johnny Doc”) Dougherty in enactment of city’s soda tax]
  • “A New Illegal Interview Question: How Much Did You Earn In Your Last Job?” [Evil HR Lady on just-passed Massachusetts law]
  • “You have the right to replace striking workers, right?” [Jon Hyman]
  • Hillary Clinton now hinting at increased federal control over labor markets as a centerpiece of economic policy if elected [John Cochrane]

Labor roundup

  • Huffington Post writer lauds alleged Boston city hall union extortion scheme as in “pursuit of progressive social goals”. More: Peter Ubertaccio on U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz;
  • As NLRB continues leftward march, new ruling will corral more temporary workers into unions [Industry Week]
  • “Bloated, Broke, and Bullied: Mired in debt and strong-armed by its unions, the Port Authority [of NY and NJ] lavishes outlandish pay and benefits on its workforce.” [Steve Malanga, City Journal]
  • “Blistering” 13-page dissent in Schwan’s Home Service: “NLRB Member Philip Miscimarra is mad as hell about the Board’s current position on employee-handbook policies and protected concerted activity” [Jon Hyman]
  • For decades, until the Reagan administration, federal labor law banned home knitting as an organized commercial activity. During much of the same period Great Britain was proud of its equivalent [1947 Home Industries Exposition via Jot101]
  • They’ll be watching you: more on Philadelphia union drones [Connor Wolf/Daily Caller, earlier]

Labor roundup

  • Forget about event permits unless you hire union? Feds arrest Boston mayor’s tourism aide on extortion charges [Connor Wolf/Daily Caller, Boston Herald, indictment, WCVB (auto-plays)]
  • Georgia to feds: franchise law is state law, and you’re not free to tear up its terms to favor unions [International Franchise Association, Connor Wolf/Daily Caller]
  • Unique California farm-labor law binds growers to “contracts” they never signed. Is that even constitutional? [Ilya Shapiro, Cato] Upstate farmers furious over Gov. Cuomo’s move to unionize farm labor in New York [City and State]
  • NLRB strikes down innocuous handbook provision expecting employees to maintain “positive” workplace environment [Jon Hyman] “Is it time for a new NLRB rule on handbook policies?” [same]
  • “Funding Ideology, Not Research, at University of California ‘Labor Institutes'” [Steven Greenhut, Reason]
  • NLRB Philadelphia regional director, criticized over role in pro-union fund, suspended for 30 days [Law360, Labor Union Report]

Labor roundup

  • Feared Philadelphia union boss launches program to use drones to surveill non-union worksites [William Bender, Philly.com (“got into a fistfight with a nonunion electrical contractor – and broke his nose – at a construction site at Third and Reed.”)]
  • “We know where you live” continued: U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez’s “persuader rule” exposes lawyers and other professionals to intimidation, creates legal minefield for employers expressing opinion [The Hill, Jon Hyman, earlier]
  • Richard Epstein on labor unions [Libertarianism.org podcast discussion with Aaron Ross Powell and Trevor Burrus]
  • Actions protected as “concerted” by labor law include some taken by individual employee entirely alone, according to National Labor Relations Board, as it declares unlawful company policy against secretly taping conversations at the workplace [Jon Hyman, Whole Foods case]
  • “Brace for more litigation based on feds’ new joint employment guidance, labor lawyers tell companies” [ABA Journal; Insurance Journal on Browning-Ferris; Daniel Schwartz; earlier] Applying NLRB joint employer notion to company like McDonald’s could blow up franchise business model, which some union advocates might not mind [Diana Furchtgott-Roth]
  • Judge Merrick Garland shows great deference to NLRB, except in cases where it has ruled for an employer [Bill McMorris, Free Beacon]