Posts tagged First Amendment
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 leaders need Trump more than he needs them
July 18, 2024 // Collective bargaining is a right and workers should be supported in it when that represents an honest expression of their collective will. It’s part of the First Amendment’s right to “peaceably” assemble. However, that’s not the same thing as accepting the claims of leaders like O’Brien that they need more leverage to pressure workers into joining unions for their own good. Workers can make their own choices. O’Brien spoke to the GOP convention in part because many of his own members are already Trump supporters and he needed to demonstrate to his folks that he’s willing to at least talk. Trump has thus far avoided catering to union leaders and has instead talked directly to the workers. It has worked for him too, getting the Teamsters boss to sing his praises. In short, O’Brien needs Trump more than Trump needs him.
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.)
ICYMI: Amazon Appeals Controversial NLRB Decision on CEO Andy Jassy Media Interviews
June 24, 2024 // Despite these clear free speech protections, the ALJ strained credibility by finding that Jassy “threatened employees that, if they selected a union, they would become less empowered and would find it harder to get things done quickly.” Not surprisingly, the decision was quite controversial. Amazon’s appeal is good news for fans of free speech and open debate. The appeal will first go before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which we hope will reverse the ALJ. If it does not do so, Amazon can take the case up to the federal courts.
Commentary: Unions, Free Speech and Political Demagogues
June 12, 2024 // The NLRB ruled that union strikers’ “profane, vulgar, racist, and otherwise insulting language” is protected union activity so long as the speech stops short of threatening violence. The message is clear: If you are a political ally of President Biden, you can have all the speech you want. If you represent a company or industry that Mr. Biden scapegoats for political gain, you can’t express your views in the public square without the government accusing you of breaking the law.
Wisconsin unions argue for overturning 2011 law that ended nearly all collective bargaining
May 30, 2024 // Public worker and teachers unions argued Tuesday that their lawsuit seeking to strike down a Wisconsin law that drew massive protests and made the state the center of a national fight over union rights should be allowed to proceed, even as the Republican-controlled Legislature sought to have it dismissed. It is the first challenge to the law known as Act 10 since Wisconsin’s Supreme Court flipped to liberal control last year.
Op-Ed: Ensure long-lasting protection for workers with a Right-To-Work constitutional amendment
May 24, 2024 // Right-to-work laws are not a tool used to break up unions, but to protect workers from unions that are taking membership dues from members who disagree with union political practices and efforts. The law also protects non-members from being fired simply because they do not join a union. Instead of fighting against right-to-work laws, unions should strengthen their efforts to recruit new members by listening and following the direction of dues-paying members. A recent Harvard Study found that people living in RTW areas have higher employment, higher labor force participation, lower disability receipts, and higher population growth because of the attractive economy. All these factors are associated with lower childhood poverty rates in RTW locations.
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Notice to University of California Graduate Students Amid UAW Strike Orders
May 21, 2024 // The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has released a special legal notice to graduate students, teaching assistants, and researchers across the University of California system. The notice comes as officials of the United Auto Workers (UAW) union have ordered a strike at UC Santa Cruz over the university’s position on the Israel-Hamas conflict and related campus protests.
Labor Board Goes After Amazon CEO for Suggesting Workers Might Be ‘Better Off’ Without Unions
May 14, 2024 // "Reasonable people may disagree about the line between permissible and impermissible speech" within the bounds of federal labor laws, said Edwin Egee, a vice president at the National Retail Federation, in a statement. "However, if Judge Gee's decision is left to stand, the effect would be to erase this line entirely. Employers would rightly wonder whether they can speak about unionization at all, despite their legally protected right to do so." Gee's ruling in the Amazon case sits awkwardly alongside other recent rulings by the NLRB that gave wide leeway to employees' speech about similar topics. As the Washington Examiner noted, the NLRB in January forced Amazon to rehire an employee who had been sacked after directing an expletive-laden tirade at a fellow worker.
Commentary: Biden sacrifices workplace free speech to satisfy labor unions
May 8, 2024 // This attack on workplace speech is part and parcel of Mr. Biden’s ultimate goal — legalizing union harassment of workers. Mr. Biden reiterated his support for the Protecting the Right to Organize Act in his State of the Union address, legislation that would rewrite U.S. labor law to the unions’ benefit. One little-known PRO Act provision would force employers to hand over sensitive employee contact information — including phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses and shift times — to union bosses during organizing drives. If the act became legal, workers on the fence about unionization could get a 3 a.m. knock on the door from organizers attempting to “help” them make up their minds. Mr. Biden’s devotion to labor unions has come at a significant cost — the chilling of workplace speech. If Democrats are serious about being pro-worker, they should stand up and oppose Mr. Biden’s anti-speech crusade. But as long as labor unions continue to spend billions to elect Democrats, don’t hold your breath.