New Labor Media

Would the Wisconsin demonstrations have happened without social media? Probably, but with it the event is more dynamic and dramatic. New Labor Media gets it correct.

Public or private: Who is paid more?

An interesting new study from the self-proclaimed non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggests the answer is complicated.

Mums the good word

Looks like the NFL/NFLPA mediation is getting serious. Here is the statement from the mediator. Also now he says we ain't commenting anymore. Sounds like progress otherwise everybody would be posturing talking.

mo' protests

Not only Wisconsin, but in many other places, support for Wisconsin collective bargaining rights exists. And for a little humor at Gov. Walker's expense, take a look at the 100 best protest signs.

Survey says?

A new USAToday/Gallup poll finds 61% oppose taking away public sector employees collective bargaining rights.

On Wisconsin and more

Here's another interesting post (pro-labor) about the Wisconsin protests. Randy Shaw's take is less positive, and starkly critical of the current administration fumbling the mandate of 2008. While another pro-labor site Labornotes reports on public sector labor unrest in Indiana and Ohio. And the Newspaper Guild notes a broadening nationwide awakening, and a funny graphic.

Wisconsin demonstrates

Chris Bowers at Daily Kos has a detailed piece with video about the remarkable demonstrations ongoing in Wisconsin as Governor Walker continues to target public sector unions. Of course its favorable to labor . . .

Healthcare worker religious objection rules recinded

The Obama administration has rescinded key parts of federal regulations on "conscience protections" for health workers. The Bush rule was widely seen as a way employees could object to providing a broad range of healthcare services the individual employee found objectionable on personal or religious grounds, and be protected against discipline.

Showdown in union country

Massive protests have erupted in Wisconsin in response to Republican efforts to repeal collective bargaining for public employees. Wisconsin was first in the nation to grant collective bargaining rights (1959) to public sector employees. Not something you will see in this part of the world.

NFL accuses players' union of failing to bargain in good faith

In a move that seems more designed to curry favor with fans and the media, the National Football League (NFL) has filed refusal to bargain charges against the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA). The charges are largely directed at the players threat and authorization to decertify (disband) the union, which likely would bring into play antitrust claims against the owners if they choose to lock out the players. There is an antitrust exemption for collective bargaining, but if the union goes away, so does the reason supporting the exemption. The players have decertified the union before, and that resulted in free agency and the salary cap which were created to settle earlier antitrust litigation. This is another volley in the public relations battle for fan support. While one observer claims the owners will win the PR battle, I'm not a believer. In fact I think his argument that things will get too complicated for fans to sort out works in favor of the players. If the owners lock the players out, you can expect the anti-labor noise machine to crank up full volume in support of the owners, but the simple issue for fans will be the owners created the problem.

Union busting disclosure

Former union organizer Mike Elk has a post at In these Times about proposed DoL changes to employer's reporting requirements when they engage union busters. The big targeted change? Requiring employers to fill out detailed disclosures of expenses for union busters, including law firms. Under current rules legal advice is exempt from the reporting requirements as long as the law firm does not directly engage in persuading employees (persuader activity) to reject unionization.

There is no free lunch

Well, thats the conventional wisdom, but there are some compelling reasons why certain employers can benefit from providing lunch for employees. Take a look at this post on the I Need a Job Blog. There is another idea in this vein, albeit more defensive. Employers with a large hourly workforce don't necessarily need to provide lunch, but by paying employees for their half hour lunch break, they can avoid wage hour claims for not providing the uninterrupted time off, and prevent the nit-picking overtime claims for employees working a bit beyond their scheduled 40 hours.

Productivity/compensation gap

There is a new essay detailing the gains in productivity outpacing the gains in compensation. No surprise the trend has accelerated since about 1970.

NLRB launches new web site

The NLRB has launched a revamped web site. The new site retains the old resources which made it one of the more useful cyber venues for practitioners, employers and employees. Now though it has a modern feel and easier navigation as well as new case tracking functionality.

Comments on social media as protected concerted activity

You see occasional news references for applicants and employees getting in trouble with employers for things posted on social media. The NLRB recently issued a complaint against an employer who disciplined an employee for for posting negative comments about a supervisor on her Facebook page. The NLRA protects employees who discuss the terms and conditions of their employment with co-workers and others. The NLRB just announced the case has settled and the employer has agreed to revise their social media and internet policies revise its overly-broad rules to ensure that they do not improperly restrict employees from discussing their wages, hours and working conditions with co-workers. Employers should review these policies to ensure there is not a problem like this which could result in a legal challenge.

Unemployment drops to 9%

An unexpectedly large drop in unemployment (9.4% to 9%) occurred in January, but only 36,000 jobs were created. Full report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is here.

Underpaid or jobless?

Ezra Kline has an interesting analysis of options to curtail the decline of the middle class. His suggestion: invest in education, particularly in community colleges.  And the New York Times has a story about permanent unemployment at age 50. Happy Friday!

Speechless

The IAM has sued the Governor of South Carolina claiming anti-union remarks made by her were designed to intimidate workers into not joining a union. Interesting. The Attorney General claims the comments were made before the Governor took office, and in any event were protected by the First Amendment. This story harkens back to a previous post.

Speechless

The IAM has sued the Governor of South Carolina claiming anti-union remarks made by her were designed to intimidate workers into not joining a union. Interesting. The Attorney General claims the comments were made before the Governor took office, and in any event were protected by the First Amendment. This story harkens back to a previous post.

Preemption of state secret ballot legislation

Earlier this month NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon urged threatened to sue four states unless they acknowledge their recently passed state laws requiring secret ballot elections are preempted by the NLRA. The four state's attorneys general have now responded. The point asserted is that the state laws are consistent with the NLRB's current law which also requires a secret ballot election when an employer refuses to recognize a union voluntarily. If that were the end of discussion, the AG's would be correct, but the head scratchers would ask what is the reason to pass such legislation. It is widely believed the legislation is a preemptive strike against the possibility the NLRB might change its rules, or Congress might pass something like EFCa. If such a conflict arose, it would be real and implicate federal preemption. Also, the state laws purport to regulate voluntary recognition, which likely will revert to pre-Dana law which guarantees no secret ballot election.

NFL and NFLPA spar in cyberspace

The New York Times has an interesting article about the NFL and NFLPA wooing and informing the public about the looming labor dispute.

Support workers still seek unionization at Jefferson Parish schools

The Times-Picayune has a good piece on the Jefferson Parish Support workers bid for unionization. Hint: It ain't happening. Previous posts here.

Goodell may work for less

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell promises to reduce his $9,760,000.00 annual salary to $1.00 if there is a work stoppage in 2011.

Third Party retaliation claims under Title VII approved by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has decided an important retaliation case, and again has broadly construed Title VII's protections against retaliation. In Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 09-291 the employee claimed he was fired because his fiancee had filed a sex discrimination charge against their common employer. More after the jump.

Unemployment

USA Today profiles the unemployed.