Posts tagged mandatory arbitration
Hawley Sells Moreno on Government Control of Private Contracts
February 7, 2025 // PunchbowlNews has reported that Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) is cosponsoring one of the bills based on Senator Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) recently released legislative framework implementing a “new direction” for Republican labor policy, which ironically appears to consist entirely of provisions stolen from Senator Bernie Sanders’ (D-VT) Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (S 567, HR 20, 118th Congress) and Senator Markey’s bill that brings the warehouse sector under government control and creates a new subagency at the Department of Labor (Warehouse Worker Protection Act, S 5208, 118th Congress). The framework is expected to be broken down into five pieces, and Moreno is reportedly cosponsoring the legislation that would implement government control over management-union contract negotiations. The legislation, the Faster Labor Contracts Act, requires employers and unions to begin negotiating collective bargaining agreements within 10 days after a union wins a representation election and execute their agreement within months
Senator’s bill would override SUPCO ruling in workplace
June 14, 2024 // Many times, when a worker has this clause in a contract and then wants to pursue some kind of violation against the company, employees are forced to go to arbitration rather than directly to a courtroom. Typically, both sides must go along with what the arbitrator decides. If approved, the bill would override a 2018 Supreme Court ruling decision in the case Epic Systems v. Lewis, which allowed employers to continue to enforce the arbitration clause in employee contracts.
Will Starbucks’ union-busting stifle a union rebirth in the US?
August 28, 2023 // Many baristas say one Starbucks strategy in particular has discouraged workers from unionizing. In May 2022, Schultz announced that Starbucks would give certain raises and benefits to workers at its more than 9,000 non-union stores, but not offer those raises and benefits to its unionized workers. Starbucks insists it would be illegal to impose any raises or benefits on its unionized stores without first negotiating about them, but the NLRB’s general counsel asserts that this policy constitutes unlawful discrimination against Starbucks’ unionized workers. Under this policy, Starbucks has given its non-union workers, but not its unionized ones, a more relaxed dress code, increased training, faster sick leave accrual and, most important, credit card tipping. (Workers at the first few Starbucks stores to unionize had asked early on for credit card tipping.)