Posts tagged labor peace
Faster is Not Always Better: House Passes Bill Seeking Radical Change in First Contract Bargaining
June 17, 2026 // The bill also raises questions about the lawfulness of strikes and lockouts during these first contract negotiations. Typically, where parties agree to interest arbitration (or where it exists in the public sector) it is premised on a mutual commitment of labor peace, i.e., the union will not go on strike, and the employer will not lock employees out while negotiations are ongoing and the arbitration is pending. However, in the private sector and in the absence of such a mutual commitment, both such economic weapons may be used offensively in furtherance of a party’s bargaining demand. The FLCA does not explain if or how a party may exercise such an economic weapon in furtherance of their bargaining position if the dispute will be submitted to an FMCS panel for binding interest arbitration. Equally troubling is the FLCA’s potential impact on unilateral implementation. Unilateral implementation upon reaching a good-faith bargaining impasse has long been a vital bargaining tool for employers. The possibility of implementing terms when negotiations stall has been an effective tool to encourage the parties to continue making movement towards the other. Eliminating this option will alter bargaining leverage and strategies particularly in successor contracts where the FLCA’s temporal framework does not apply.
Impasse over NLRB nominee may be just what unions want
October 14, 2025 // The state laws would undermine the role of the NLRB, which was created to enforce the National Labor Relations Act and help ensure “labor peace” – i.e., more amicable relations between unions and management by creating a consistent set of rules for both sides. States could potentially give unions tremendous leverage in conflicts with management by changing the rules currently set down by the NLRB. Just having conflicting rules from region to region, for example, over which workers are eligible to organize, would create major logistical problems for interstate businesses. California’s law was heavily promoted by the Teamsters, who still represent many long-haul truckers.
Connecticut workers rally for unemployment insurance after 2 weeks on strike
April 20, 2025 // He added that those who are opposed to the bill are not against it because of how much it costs. “They are opposed because they don’t want things to be remotely fair,” Stanley said. “They want all the power on one side. All that has led to is growing inequality. We need a change across Connecticut and across this country.”
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.)