Posts tagged captive audience meetings
Foxx Reacts to Latest Biden-Harris Attack on Employer-Employee Relationship
November 13, 2024 //
This housekeeper fought to unionize Trump’s Vegas hotel. Now, she’s fighting to keep him out of office
November 5, 2024 // “It’s important for a president to be pro-union,” said Olvera. “Without a union, a worker invests the majority of their time at work only to find they can’t afford health care for their kids. They leave work tired, have to work two jobs, and still find that the money isn’t enough.”
Commentary: Democracy Is at Risk and on the Ballot in November Employee and Employers Are at Risk
October 27, 2024 // With membership down to a little more than six percent in the private sector, unions have grown desperate. They have run a highly effective PR campaign to reinvent themselves as human rights groups, appealing to the millennials and the plurals which are making up the workforce. As Vincent Vernuccio has recently written in his report, “Unions Need Democracy, “private sector unions are becoming less democratic and representative — even as they claim to represent all workers at unionized worksites. Ninety-five percent of union members in the private sector never had the opportunity to vote to be in the union.”
Employer Free Speech on the Ballot in Alaska
October 10, 2024 // The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects such meetings, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized their legality and importance in helping employees gather information on potential union representation. As a result, even if the referendum were to pass, a court would likely find it unlawful. Alaska’s referendum also increases the state’s minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2027 and provides at least 40 hours of paid sick leave to many workers.
New law bans California companies from forcing employees to meet on politics, religion or union issues
October 4, 2024 // But starting next year, California employers will no longer be able to force employees into so-called “captive audience” meetings about politics, including unions, or religion. Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill Friday banning these compulsory meetings. The new law, which was supported mostly by unions, prohibits employers from retaliating against employees when they don’t attend a meeting related to religion or politics, including union organizing.
Innercare staves off unionization for now
August 21, 2024 // The fight to unionize 14 Innercare facilities in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys fell short last month, as the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West lost a unionization election in a 214-132 vote last month.
4 reasons why labor unions love Tim Walz
August 8, 2024 // The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers noted that Walz, a former teacher, understands the struggles of working people. The AFL-CIO hailed the governor as a principled fighter and labor champion. The Service Employees International Union pointed to what it called "the Minnesota Miracle," a sweeping package of pro-worker laws passed by the state's Democratic legislature last year and signed into law by Walz.
Illinois bans companies from forcing workers to listen to their anti-union talk
August 2, 2024 // U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business are challenging similar laws in other states. The groups say the laws are a violation of the First Amendment, denying employers their right to free speech, and are also in conflict with the National Labor Relations Act, which protects an employer's communications with employees as long as they do not contain threats of reprisals or promises of benefits.
Judge grants temporary halt in UFW’s unionization of Wonderful Co. nursery workers
July 21, 2024 // Within days, Wonderful accused the UFW of having baited the employees into signing the authorization cards under the guise of helping them apply for $600 each in federal relief for farmworkers who labored during the pandemic. The company submitted nearly 150 signed declarations from nursery workers saying they had not understood that by signing the cards they were voting to unionize.
Op-Ed: Union membership is now political. So can the government still require people to associate with a union?
July 10, 2024 // Since then, employees have argued that exclusive union representation does violate the First Amendment. Exclusivity saddles them with the “services” of nakedly political bargaining agents. Lower courts have turned those arguments aside mostly because of an older case, Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, which suggested that exclusive representation was okay in the public sector. Knight seemed to say that when the government bargains about working conditions, it can choose its own bargaining partner. And if it chooses one exclusive union to bargain with, that choice burdens no one’s associational rights. But whether or not that’s what Knight meant, the decision has no bearing on private-sector bargaining. In the private sector, the government does not choose its own bargaining partner; it imposes one on private parties. And some of those parties object to their unions’ political views—views that are increasingly central to unionization itself. So private-sector bargaining raises a different question: can the government force private citizens to associate with a union when that union’s core purpose is increasingly political? (Elsewhere, I have argued at greater length that it cannot.)