#Jennifer Abruzzo

[mostlysignssomeportents]

NLRB rules that any union busting triggers automatic union recognition

Tonight (September 6) at 7pm, I'll be hosting Naomi Klein at the LA Public Library for the launch of Doppelganger.

On September 12 at 7pm, I'll be at Toronto's Another Story Bookshop with my new book The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation.

American support for unions is at its highest level in generations, from 70% (general population) to 88% (Millenials) – and yet, American unionization rates are pathetic.

That's about to change.

The National Labor Relations Board just handed down a landmark ruling – the Cemex case – that "brought worker rights back from the dead."

https://prospect.org/labor/2023-08-28-bidens-nlrb-brings-workers-rights-back/

At issue in Cemex was what the NLRB should do about employers that violate labor law during union drives. For decades, even the most flagrantly illegal union-busting was met with a wrist-slap. For example, if a boss threatened or fired an employee for participating in a union drive, the NLRB would typically issue a small fine and order the employer to re-hire the worker and provide back-pay.

Everyone knows that "a fine is a price." The NLRB's toothless response to cheating presented an easily solved equation for corrupt, union-hating bosses: if the fine amounts to less than the total, lifetime costs of paying a fair wage and offering fair labor conditions, you should cheat – hell, it's practically a fiduciary duty:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/468061

Enter the Cemex ruling: once a majority of workers have signed a union card, any Unfair Labor Practice by their employer triggers immediate, automatic recognition of the union. In other words, the NLRB has fitted a tilt sensor in the American labor pinball machine, and if the boss tries to cheat, they automatically lose.

Cemex is a complete 180, a radical transformation of the American labor regulator from a figleaf that legitimized union busting to an actual enforcer, upholding the law that Congress passed, rather than the law that America's oligarchs wish Congress had passed. It represents a turning point in the system of lawless impunity for American plutocracy.

In the words of Frank Wilhoit, it is is a repudiation of the conservative dogma: "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect":

https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288

It's also a stunning example of what regulatory competence looks like. The Biden administration is a decidedly mixed bag. On the one hand there are empty suits masquerading as technocrats, champions of the party's centrist wing (slogan: "Everything is fine and change is impossible"):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

But the progressive, Sanders/Warren wing of the party installed some fantastically competent, hard-charging, principled fighters, who are chapter-and-verse on their regulatory authority and have the courage to use that authority:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

They embody the old joke about the photocopier technician who charges "$1 to kick the photocopier and $79 to know where to kick it." The best Biden appointees have their boots firmly laced, and they're kicking that mother:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/16/the-second-best-time-is-now/#the-point-of-a-system-is-what-it-does

One such expert kicker is NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. Abruzzo has taken a series of muscular, bold moves to protect American workers, turning the tide in the class war that the 1% has waged on workers since the Reagan administration. For example, Abruzzo is working to turn worker misclassification – the fiction that an employee is a small business contracting with their boss, a staple of the "gig economy" – into an Unfair Labor Practice:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/01/10/see-you-in-the-funny-papers/bidens-legacy

She's also waging war on robo-scab companies: app-based employment "platforms" like Instawork that are used to recruit workers to cross picket lines, under threat of being blocked from the app and blackballed by hundreds of local employers:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/30/computer-says-scab/#instawork

With Cemex, Abruzzo is restoring a century-old labor principle that has been gathering dust for generations: the idea that workers have the right to organize workplace gemocracies without fear of retaliation, harassment, or reprisals.

But as Harold Meyerson writes for The American Prospect, the Cemex ruling has its limits. Even if the NLRB forces and employer to recognize a union, they can't force the employer to bargain in good faith for a union contract. The National Labor Relations Act prohibits the Board from imposing a contract.

That's created a loophole that corrupt bosses have driven entire fleets of trucks through. Workers who attain union recognition face years-long struggles to win a contract, as their bosses walk away from negotiations or offer farcical "bargaining positions" in the expectation that they'll be rejected, prolonging the delay.

Democrats have been trying to fix this loophole since the LBJ years, but they've been repeatedly blocked in the senate. But Abruzzo is a consummate photocopier kicker, and she's taking aim. In Thrive Pet Healthcare, Abruzzo has argued that failing to bargain in good faith for a contract is itself an Unfair Labor Practice. That means the NLRB has the authority to act to correct it – they can't order a contract, but they can order the employer to give workers "wages, benefits, hours, and such that are comparable to those provided by comparable unionized companies in their field."

Mitch McConnell is a piece of shit, but he's no slouch at kicking photocopiers himself. For a whole year, McConnell has blocked senate confirmation hearings to fill a vacant seat on the NLRB. In the short term, this meant that the three Dems on the board were able to hand down these bold rulings without worrying about their GOP colleagues.

But McConnell was playing a long game. Board member Gwynne Wilcox's term is about to expire. If her seat remains vacant, the three remaining board members won't be able to form a quorum, and the NLRB won't be able to do anything.

As Meyerson writes, centrist Dems have refused to push McConnell on this, hoping for comity and not wanting to violate decorum. But Chuck Schumer has finally bestirred himself to fight this issue, and Alaska GOP senator Lisa Murkowski has already broken with her party to move Wilcox's confirmation to a floor vote.

The work of enforcers like DoJ Antitrust Division boss Jonathan Kanter, FTC chair Lina Khan, and SEC chair Gary Gensler is at the heart of Bidenomics: the muscular, fearless deployment of existing regulatory authority to make life better for everyday Americans.

But of course, "existing regulatory authority" isn't the last word. The judges filling stolen seats on the illegitimate Supreme Court had invented the "major questions doctrine" and have used it as a club to attack Biden's photocopier-kickers. There's real danger that Cemex – and other key actions – will get fast-tracked to SCOTUS so the dotards in robes can shatter our dreams for a better America.

Meyerson is cautiously optimistic here. At 40% (!), the Court's approval rating is at a low not seen since the New Deal showdowns. The Supremes don't have an army, they don't have cops, they just have legitimacy. If Americans refuse to acknowledge their decisions, all they can do it sit and stew:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/26/mint-the-coin-etc-etc/#blitz-em

The Court knows this. That's why they fume so publicly about attacks on their legitimacy. Without legitimacy, they're nothing. With the Supremes' support at 40% and union support at 70%, any judicial attack on Cemex could trigger term-limits, court-packing, and other doomsday scenarios that will haunt the relatively young judges for decades, as the seats they stole dwindle into irrelevance. Meyerson predicts that this will weigh on them, and may stay their hands.

Meyerson might be wrong, of course. No one ever lost money betting on the self-destructive hubris of Federalist Society judges. But even if he's wrong, his point is important. If the Supremes frustrate the democratic will of the American people, we have to smash the Supremes. Term limits, court-packing, whatever it takes:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/20/judicial-equilibria/#pack-the-court

And the more we talk about this – the more we make this consequence explicit – the more it will weigh on them, and the better the chance that they'll surprise us. That's already happening! The Supremes just crushed the Sackler opioid crime-family's dream of keeping their billions in blood-money:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/11/justice-delayed/#justice-redeemed

But if it doesn't stop them? If they crush this dream, too? Pack the court. Impose term limits. Make it the issue. Don't apologize, don't shrug it off, don't succumb to learned helplessness. Make it our demand. Make it a litmus test: "If elected, will you vote to pack the court and clear the way for democratic legitimacy?"

Meanwhile, Cemex is already bearing fruit. After an NYC Trader Joe's violated the law to keep Trader Joe's United from organizing a store, the workers there have petitioned to have their union automatically recognized under the Cemex rule:

https://truthout.org/articles/trader-joes-union-files-to-force-company-to-recognize-union-under-new-nlrb-rule/

With the NLRB clearing the regulatory obstacles to union recognition, America's largest unions are awakening from their own long slumbers. For decades, unions have spent a desultory 3% of their budgets on organizing workers into new locals. But a leadership upset in the AFL-CIO has unions ready to catch a wave with the young workers and their 88% approval rating, with a massive planned organizing drive:

https://prospect.org/labor/labors-john-l-lewis-moment/

Meyerson calls on other large unions to follow suit, and the unions seem ready to do so, with new leaders and new militancy at the Teamsters and UAW, and with SEIU members at unionized Starbucks waiting for their first contracts.

Turning union-supporting workers into unionized workers is key to fighting Supreme Court sabotage. Organized labor will give fighters like Abruzzo the political cover she needs to Get Shit Done. A better America is possible. It's within our grasp. Though there is a long way to go, we are winning crucial victories all the time.

The centrist message that everything is fine and change is impossible is designed to demoralize you, to win the fight in your mind so they don't have to win it in the streets and in the jobsite. We don't have to give them that victory. It's ours for the taking.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/06/goons-ginks-and-company-finks

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dave Jamieson at HuffPost:

Federal labor officials issued a ruling Wednesday prohibiting employers from holding mandatory anti-union meetings at work, a long-sought policy objective of unions that want to level the playing field with corporations in organizing campaigns. In its 3-1 decision, the Democratic majority of the National Labor Relations Board said such workplace gatherings — often called “captive audience” meetings due to their obligatory nature — tend to “coerce” employees and therefore violate the law. The board’s lone Republican dissented. The case revolved around the Amazon warehouse in New York City that became the retailer’s first to unionize 2 1/2 years ago. Amazon enlisted managers and outside consultants to hold meetings where they fed employees anti-union talking points in the run-up to the vote. The company spent millions on its campaign against the union.

NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, an appointee of President Joe Biden, has argued that the meetings violate workers’ rights when employees have no choice but to attend and subject themselves to the company’s messaging. Abruzzo, who prosecutes cases before the board, has said companies should still be free to make their case against unions — they just shouldn’t be able to force workers to listen to it. The board ruled that such meetings “have a reasonable tendency to interfere with and coerce employees in the exercise” of their rights, including “whether or not to unionize.” The law “does not license employers to compel employees, on pain of discipline or discharge, to attend meetings where they are forced to listen to the employer’s views,” the majority wrote.

In siding with Abruzzo and the Amazon workers, the board members overturned an NLRB precedent from 1948 that allowed for mandatory attendance under threat of punishment. They also set up what could be a protracted legal fight over the ruling, with employer groups all but certain to challenge the decision on First Amendment grounds.

[...] Trump is expected to fire Abruzzo on his first day in office and nominate a general counsel who will undo much of her agenda. (The general counsel he installed during his first presidency was hostile to unions and stood accused of trying to gut his own agency.) Trump will also be able to change the board, which normally has five members, to a Republican majority as its staggered seats open up during his presidency.

Victory for workers’ rights: The NLRB under the Biden Administration bans captive audience meetings.

[ostensiblynone]

It’s not just the kids. Abruzzo is attempting to use a sorely underfunded NLRB, which has lost 30 percent of its staff since 2010 (although the agency did get a small funding boost in December) to crack down on lawlessness by employers in union elections. The agency has successfully fought to reinstate Starbucks and other workers who were fired for union organizing.

“Jennifer Abruzzo is a very competent lawyer, very good at her job,” Pierson-Scheinberg said. “She is just busting heads and changing it all up. And it’s scary, right?”

The restaurant industry has long coordinated efforts to suppress labor costs through the NRA, a multimillion-dollar lobbying machine funded both by its restaurant members and by the fees workers pay for required food-safety classes, according to a recent New York Times report.

The group has spent its war chest on lobbying campaigns to preserve a subminimum wage for tipped workers — who are disproportionately young, women, and people of color, and far more likely to live in poverty than regular minimum wage workers — and to help block state and federal sick leave proposals and minimum wage increases.

But now, restaurant executives are on edge. Union campaigns are suddenly penetrating their industry, which employs about 10 percent of the American workforce and has one of the lowest unionization rates of any sector. Over the past few years, baristas have unionized nearly 280 Starbucks stores in the face of enormous odds, and dozens of other coffee shops and restaurants have followed suit.

[…]

“The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, every newspaper reports on every union win… when an unfair labor practice charge is filed, when there are challenges to elections,” said Felice Ekelman, a principal at Jackson Lewis, one of the oldest and most infamous union avoidance law firms in the country. “When did this become first page news?”

“And guess who’s reading it?” replied Laura Pierson-Scheinberg, one of Ekelman’s Jackson Lewis colleagues, as the two sat across from each other on the main stage of the summit. “My kids. Literally. I have an 18-year-old, my kids are into it.”

The two lawyers were discussing a new threat for the restaurant industry: the unexpected rise of union campaigns in workplaces that, for decades, have largely been immune from such organizing efforts.

[…]

“Before, I used to say… ‘[Unionization] isn’t a problem for you in the restaurant industry,’” said Pierson-Scheinberg. But now, she warned, “Kids do not care about paying union dues. Two percent of pay, are you kidding me? Their Netflix costs more. They think it’s a hell of a deal.”

The “kids,” she added, are organizing workplaces which would have previously seemed unreachable.

[reasonsforhope]

Version that doesn't require sign-in.

"Hot Labor Summer just became a scorcher.

[On August 25, 2023], the National Labor Relations Board released its most important ruling in many decades. In a party-line decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, the Board ruled that when a majority of a company’s employees file union affiliation cards, the employer can either voluntarily recognize their union or, if not, ask the Board to run a union recognition election. If, in the run-up to or during that election, the employer commits an unfair labor practice, such as illegally firing pro-union workers (which has become routine in nearly every such election over the past 40 years, as the penalties have been negligible), the Board will order the employer to recognize the union and enter forthwith [a.k.a. immediately] into bargaining.

The Cemex decision was preceded by another, one day earlier, in which the Board, also along party lines, set out rules for representation elections which required them to be held promptly after the Board had been asked to conduct them, curtailing employers’ ability to delay them, often indefinitely.

Taken together, this one-two punch effectively makes union organizing possible again, after decades in which unpunished employer illegality was the most decisive factor in reducing the nation’s rate of private-sector unionization from roughly 35 percent to the bare 6 percent at which it stands today...

“This is a sea change, a home run for workers,” said Brian Petruska, an attorney for the Laborers Union who authored a 2017 law review article on how to effectively restore to workers their right to collective bargaining enshrined in the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, which was all but nullified by the act’s weakening over the past half-century. Taken together, Petruska added, last week’s decisions recreate “a system with no tolerance for employers’ coercion of their employees” when their employees seek their legal right to collective bargaining...

Since the days of Lyndon Johnson, every time that the Democrats have controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, they’ve tried to put some teeth back into the steadily more toothless NLRA. But they’ve never managed to muster the 60 votes needed to get those measures through the Senate. The Cemex ruling actually goes beyond much of what was proposed in those never-enacted bills."

-via The American Prospect, August 28, 2023

--

Note: I didn't include it because the paragraphs about it went super into the weeds, but the reason all of this is happening is because of the NRLB's general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, who was appointed by Biden. In fact, according to this article, this "secures Abruzzo’s place as the most important public official to secure American workers’ rights since New York Sen. Robert Wagner, who authored the NLRA in 1935." Voting matters

[ausetkmt]

SpaceX and Amazon are among the companies that have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board.

In the nearly four years that Joe Biden has been president, the National Labor Relations Board has taken an assertive — some say overly aggressive — approach to protecting workers' rights to organize and collectively bargain.

Now, SpaceX and Amazon are at the forefront of a corporate-led effort to monumentally change the labor agency. On Monday, attorneys for the two companies will try to convince a panel of judges at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that the labor agency, created by Congress in 1935, is unconstitutional.

Their lawsuits are among more than two dozen challenges brought by companies who say the NLRB's structure gives it unchecked power to shape and enforce labor law.

A ruling in favor of the companies could make it much harder for workers to form unions and take collective action in pursuit of better wages and working conditions.

That would be an enormous setback for labor groups, who have enjoyed unprecedented support from the Biden administration, and a win for companies that have spent considerable amounts of resources over the past four years trying to keep unions out of their workplaces.

Complicating matters is the fact that President-elect Donald Trump has named SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk to co-lead a new commission focused on dismantling government bureaucracy, slashing spending and jobs. Whether the NLRB is one of the agencies Musk will advise on remains unclear.

Ultimately, these cases could make their way to the Supreme Court.

Board found fault at Amazon and Space X

The lawsuits brought by Amazon and SpaceX came after the NLRB issued complaints of its own. Agency investigations found the companies had violated the rights of their employees.

At Amazon, the issue was the company's refusal to collectively bargain with the Amazon Labor Union. Workers at Amazon's Staten Island, N.Y., warehouse voted to unionize in 2022.

At SpaceX, the complaint involved eight employees who said they were fired in retaliation for speaking critically of Musk.

Both companies argue that the labor agency's structure violates the separation of powers.

"The NLRB routinely exercises authority to prosecute alleged violators of federal labor law, define the legal standards that govern the prosecutions, and weigh the facts necessary to find a violation — with only limited judicial review by Article III courts," attorneys for SpaceX wrote in a court filing.

The companies also find fault with the president's inability to fire NLRB board members, who serve five-year terms, and in SpaceX's case, its administrative law judges.

Additionally, they argue the NLRB's system for adjudicating cases denies them the right to a trial by jury.

Jennifer Abruzzo, general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, sits at agency headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Monday, June 13, 2022. Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, a Biden appointee, calls the lawsuits a distraction, pointing to the agency's 90-year history of governing labor-management relations.

"We are trying to hold violators of our statute accountable," she said at the National Press Club in October. "It would be chaos if the agency was not allowed to perform its functions and do it properly."

Anticipating a slowdown in enforcement

Workers' advocates are bracing for a slowdown in labor law enforcement in a second Trump administration.

For starters, Trump is expected to fire Abruzzo immediately, exercising power he does hold. (Biden fired Trump's appointee to that position on his first day in office.)

Since 2021, Abruzzo, who acts as the NLRB's prosecutor, has taken a broad view of the protections labor law offers private-sector employees. She has worked to remove barriers to organizing, most recently winning a board ruling outlawing "captive audience" meetings, or mandatory meetings at which employers try to dissuade workers from unionizing.

Trump is expected to replace Abruzzo with someone friendly to employers, who will set a new tone for enforcement. Last time around, Trump's pick for the job was Peter Robb, a management-side labor attorney who served as lead counsel for President Ronald Reagan during the air traffic controllers' strike.

In the SpaceX and Amazon cases, all expectations are that a Trump-appointed general counsel will not fight any ruling favorable to the companies. However, similar lawsuits filed elsewhere in the country could result in conflicting court decisions.

[iww-gnv]

The National Labor Relations Board is poised to release a number of decisions in the next two weeks with the potential to significantly alter the nation’s labor doctrine in favor of unions, as Democratic board member Gywnne Wilcox’s term draws to a close later this month. The cases, which have been fully briefed, are part of an effort NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo outlined two years ago to overturn roughly 50 board precedents. The board has already adopted several of her desired changes to labor law, including protections for workers using profanity and limiting handbook provisions that could interfere with employees’ rights to organize. Wilcox, a former union lawyer who has served on the board since 2021, is up for confirmation in the Senate, but lawmakers didn’t bring her renomination to a vote before the August recess. Her current term will end Aug. 27.

[Read the rest]

[a-method-in-it]

The NLRB has been around since the National Labor Relations Act passed in 1935

It got pretty fucked up under Trump, but has been based as hell under Biden. (Seriously, labor policy might be one of the few things about the Biden administration that I have almost no quarrels with.)

Billionaires are a fucking scourge.

Jeff Bezos's Amazon and Elon Musk's SpaceX are both fighting in court to have the National Labor Relations Board declared unconstitutional. Starbuck's and Trader Joe's joined them in separate lawsuits. All of these companies have a disgraceful history of worker abuse and union busting. All of them have been charged by the NLRB with hundreds of violations of workers’ organizing rights The NLRB is standing up to their union busting. That’s why they’re trying to destroy the NLRB. I'm going to do my best to keep you all informed about this case as it snakes its way through the courts. The future of unions may depend on the final verdict. http://dlvr.it/T49LM1

[azspot]

Harris should certainly want to be at least as good as her predecessor on money in politics. Khan’s anti-monopoly agenda, Chopra’s crusade against junk fees, National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo’s support for unions, and others also poll extraordinarily well, especially among young people. Throwing these effective, progressive regulators to the curb in favor of Wall Streeters and corporate hacks would be worse than “more of the same,” it would actively pull the Democratic Party further from the public’s preferences.

Choosing the People Over the Billionaires

[moleshow]

Tell me who Jennifer Abruzzo is and what the Cemex decision did. Quickly.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Housing is a labor issue

There's a reason Reagan declared war on unions before he declared war on everything else – environmental protection, health care, consumer rights, financial regulation. Unions are how working people fight for a better world for all of us. They're how everyday people come together to resist oligarchy, extraction and exploitation.

Take the 2019 LA teachers' strike. As Jane McAlevey writes in A Collective Bargain, the LA teachers didn't just win higher pay for their members! They also demanded (and got) an end to immigration sweeps of parents waiting for their kids at the school gate; a guarantee of green space near every public school in the city; and on-site immigration counselors in LA schools:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/23/a-collective-bargain/

Unionization is enjoying an historic renaissance. The Hot Labor Summer transitioned to an Eternal Labor September, and it's still going strong, with UAW president Shawn Fain celebrating his members victory over the Big Three automakers by calling for a 2028 general strike:

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/uaw-general-strike-no-class

The rising labor movement has powerful allies in the Biden Administration. NLRB general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo is systematically gutting the "union avoidance" playbook. She's banned the use of temp-work app blacklists that force workers to cross picket lines:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/30/computer-says-scab/#instawork

She's changed the penalty for bosses who violate labor law during union drives. It used to be the boss would pay a fine, which was an easy price to pay in exchange for killing your workers' union. Now, the penalty is automatic recognition of the union:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/06/goons-ginks-and-company-finks/#if-blood-be-the-price-of-your-cursed-wealth

And while the law doesn't allow Abruzzo to impose a contract on companies that refuse to bargain their unions, she's set to force those companies to honor other employers' union contracts until they agree to a contract with their own workers:

https://onlabor.org/gc-abruzzo-just-asked-the-nlrb-to-overturn-ex-cell-o-heres-why-that-matters/

She's also nuking TRAPs, the deals that force workers to repay their employers for their "training expenses" if they have the audacity to quit and get a better job somewhere else:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/14/prop-22-never-again/#norms-code-laws-markets

(As with every aspect of the Biden White House, its labor policy is contradictory and self-defeating, with other Biden appointees working to smash worker power, including when Biden broke the railworkers' strike:)

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/18/co-determination/#now-make-me-do-it

A surging labor movement opens up all kinds of possibilities for a better world. Writing for the Law and Political Economy Project, UNITE Here attorney Zoe Tucker makes the case for unions as a way out of America's brutal housing crisis:

https://lpeproject.org/blog/why-unions-should-join-the-housing-fight/

She describes how low-waged LA hotel workers have been pushed out of neighborhoods close to their jobs, with UNITE Here members commuting three hours in each direction, starting their work-days at 3AM in order to clock in on time:

https://twitter.com/MorePerfectUS/status/1669088899769987079

UNITE Here members are striking against 50 hotels in LA and Orange County, and their demands include significant cost-of-living raises. But more money won't give them back the time they give up to those bruising daily commutes. For that, unions need to make housing itself a demand.

As Tucker writes, most workers are tenants and vice-versa. What's more, bad landlords are apt to be bad bosses, too. Stepan Kazaryan, the same guy who owns the strip club whose conditions were so bad that it prompted the creation of Equity Strippers NoHo, the first strippers' union in a generation, is also a shitty landlord whose tenants went on a rent-strike:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/20/the-missing-links/#plunderphonics

So it was only natural that Kazaryan's tenants walked the picket line with the Equity Stripper Noho workers:

https://twitter.com/glendaletenants/status/1733290276599570736?s=46

While scumbag bosses/evil landlords like Kazaryan deal out misery retail, one apartment building at a time, the wholesale destruction of workers' lives comes from private equity giants who are the most prolific source of TRAPs, robo-scabbing apps, illegal union busting, and indefinite contract delays – and these are the very same PE firms that are buying up millions of single-family homes and turning them into slums:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/08/wall-street-landlords/#the-new-slumlords

Tucker's point is that when a worker clocks out of their bad job, commutes home for three hours, and gets back to their black-mold-saturated, overpriced apartment to find a notice of a new junk fee (like a surcharge for paying your rent in cash, by check, or by direct payment), they're fighting the very same corporations.

Unions who defend their workers' right to shelter do every tenant a service. A coalition of LA unions succeeded in passing Measure ULA, which uses a surcharge on real estate transactions over $5m to fund "the largest municipal housing program in the country":

https://unitedtohousela.com/app/uploads/2022/05/LA_City_Affordable_Housing_Petition_H.pdf

LA unions are fighting for rules to limit Airbnbs and other platforms that transform the city's rental stock into illegal, unlicensed hotels:

https://upgo.lab.mcgill.ca/publication/strs-in-los-angeles-2022/Wachsmuth_LA_2022.pdf

And the hotel workers organized under UNITE Here are fighting their own employers: the hoteliers who are aggressively buying up residences, evicting their long-term tenants, tearing down the building and putting up a luxury hotel. They got LA council to pass a law requiring hotels to build new housing to replace any residences they displace:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-28/airbnb-operators-would-need-police-permit-in-l-a-under-proposed-law

UNITE Here is bargaining for a per-room hotel surcharge to fund housing specifically for hotel workers, so the people who change the sheets and clean the toilets don't have to waste six hours a day commuting to do so.

Labor unions and tenant unions have a long history of collaboration in the USA. NYC's first housing coop was midwifed by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America in 1927. The Penn South coop was created by the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union. The 1949 Federal Housing Act passed after American unions pushed hard for it:

http://www.peterdreier.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Labors-Love-Lost.pdf

It goes both ways. Strong unions can create sound housing – and precarious housing makes unions weaker. Remember during the Hollywood writers' strike, when an anonymous studio ghoul told the press the plans was to "allow things to drag on until union members start losing their apartments and losing their houses?"

Vienna has the most successful housing in any major city in the world. It's the city where people of every income and background live in comfort without being rent-burdened and without worry about eviction, mold, or leaks. That's the legacy of Red Vienna, the Austrian period of Social Democratic Workers' Party rule and built vast tracts of high-quality public housing. The system was so robust that it rebounded after World War II and continues to this day:

https://www.politico.eu/article/vienna-social-housing-architecture-austria-stigma/

Today, the rest of the world is mired in a terrible housing crisis. It's not merely that the rent's too damned high (though it is) – housing precarity is driving dangerous political instability:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/06/the-rents-too-damned-high/

Turning the human necessity of shelter into a market commodity is a failure. The economic orthodoxy that insists that public housing, rent control, and high-density zoning will lead to less housing has failed. rent control works:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/16/mortgages-are-rent-control/#housing-is-a-human-right-not-an-asset

Leaving housing to the market only produces losers. If you have the bad luck to invest everything you have into a home in a city that contracts, you're wiped out. If you have the bad luck into invest everything into a home in a "superstar city" where prices go up, you also lose, because your city becomes uninhabitable and your children can't afford to live there:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/09/27/lethal-dysfunction/#yimby

A strong labor movement is the best chance we have for breaking the housing deadlock. And housing is just for starters. Labor is the key to opening every frozen-in-place dysfunction. Take care work: the aging, increasingly chronically ill American population is being tortured and murdered by private equity hospices, long-term care facilities and health services that have been rolled up by the same private equity firms that destroyed work and housing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/26/death-panels/#what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-CMS

In her interview with Capital & Main's Jessica Goodheart, National Domestic Workers Alliance president Ai-jen Poo describes how making things better for care workers will make things better for everyone:

https://prospect.org/labor/2023-12-13-labor-leader-ai-jen-poo-interview/

Care work is a "triple dignity investment": first, it makes life better for the worker (most often a woman of color), then, it allows family members of people who need care to move into higher paid work; and of course, it makes life better for people who need care: "It delivers human potential and agency. It delivers a future workforce. It delivers quality of life."

The failure to fund care work is a massive driver of inequality. America's sole federal public provision for care is Medicaid, which only kicks in after a family it totally impoverished. Funding care with tax increases polls high with both Democrats and Republicans, making it good politics:

https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2021/4/7/voters-support-investing-in-the-care-economy

Congress stripped many of the care provisions from Build Back Better, missing a chance for an "unprecedented, transformational investment in care." But the administrative agencies picked up where Congress failed, following a detailed executive order that identifies existing, previously unused powers to improve care in America. The EO "expands access to care, supports family caregivers and improves wages and conditions for the workforce":

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/04/18/executive-order-on-increasing-access-to-high-quality-care-and-supporting-caregivers/

States are also filling the void. Washington just created a long-term care benefit:

https://apnews.com/article/washington-long-term-care-tax-disability-cb54b04b025223dbdba7199db1d254e4

New Mexicans passed a ballot initiative that establishes permanent funding for child care:

https://www.cwla.org/new-mexico-votes-for-child-care/

New York care workers won a $3/hour across the board raise:

https://inequality.org/great-divide/new-york-budget-fair-pay-home-care/

The fight is being led by women of color, and they're kicking ass – and they're doing it through their unions. Worker power is the foundation that we build a better world upon, and it's surging.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/13/i-want-a-roof-over-my-head/#and-bread-on-the-table

[justinspoliticalcorner]

John Knefel at MMFA:

Project 2025, a sprawling right-wing plan to provide policy and staffing to a future Republican president, proposes an extreme anti-worker agenda that would severely curtail unions’ ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their members and reverse gains organized labor has made in recent years. It would also weaken overtime regulations, give corporations wider latitude in misclassifying workers as independent contractors, and dismantle safety regulations that prohibit young people from working dangerous jobs.

The initiative’s policy book, Mandate for Leadership, is an attempt to roll back New Deal-era, working class victories by allowing state-level exemptions from the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, and by creating nonunion “employee involvement organizations” to undermine unions’ negotiating power. It additionally calls for sharp reductions in the budgets of the National Labor Relations Board and the Department of Labor and a freeze on new hires. Project 2025 is organized by The Heritage Foundation and includes more than 100 conservative groups on its advisory board, which have collectively received more than $55 million from groups tied to conservative megadonors Leonard Leo and Charles Koch. Leo has been pushing the Supreme Court to further erode the power of organized labor, and the Koch family has waged a war on unions for more than 60 years.

[...]

Project 2025: Eviscerate overtime and dismantle pro-worker regulations

One central proposal in Mandate that illuminates Project 2025’s extreme anti-work posture is the suggestion that employers should be allowed to eviscerate overtime regulations and potentially withhold pay. The attacks on overtime take several forms, including a proposal to allow workers to accrue vacation instead of time-and-a-half compensation — but at least 40 percent of lower- and middle-income workers already don’t use their allotted paid time off. Under this policy employers could coerce workers into “voluntarily” selecting vacation that they’re either formally or informally prohibited from taking, thereby denying them overtime compensation. Project 2025 further recommends that workers and bosses agree to extend the overtime threshold to a period of two weeks or one month. The policy would empower management to overload busy weeks with extra-long shifts and take advantage of slow periods through under-scheduling — effectively eliminating overtime altogether. 

[...]

A return to company unionism

Project 2025 seeks to roll back New Deal-era labor victories by proposing that Congress “pass legislation allowing waivers from federal labor laws” — like the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act — “under certain conditions.” Allowing state-level exemptions to the NLRA and FLSA would almost certainly trigger a race-to-the-bottom dynamic, where firms relocate to states with the weakest (or nonexistent) labor protections at the expense of workers. That’s what happened in states that passed so-called “right-to-work” laws — which starve unions of resources by preventing them from collecting fees from all employees they represent, thereby creating a free-rider problem — where employers were able to depress wages and union membership.    Unions have made significant gains under the Biden administration’s National Labor Relations Board, which enforces labor law and investigates anti-union practices. That progress is largely thanks to NLRB general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, who has taken an aggressive, pro-worker enforcement posture. Project 2025 promises to fire her on “Day One.” It also calls for reductions in the budgets of the NLRB and the Department of Labor to the “low end of the historical average,” as well as implementing a “hiring freeze for career officials.” 

[...] Project 2025 would further undermine unions by eliminating “card check” — where a majority of workers who have signed union authorization forms can ask their employer for voluntary recognition — and mandating “the secret ballot exclusively.” Although the idea of a secret ballot has the veneer of democracy, in practice it’s a power grab for management. By forcing organizers to go through the byzantine NLRB election process, an employer can buy itself time to wage an anti-union campaign and bog down the process, often through illegal means. A 2019 study found that employers violated labor laws in 41.5% of NLRB-supervised union elections in 2016 and 2017 and intimidated or coerced workers in nearly a third of all elections. 

The radical right-wing Project 2025 spearheaded by The Heritage Foundation in association with over 100 organizations has an agenda attacking labor and unions.

[apidae]

It may sound weird to say, but I find the plainness of this dynamic comforting. There is no need for anxiety. All of the questions are answered up front. Will my company treat me fairly? No. Will the boss do the right thing and look out for us? No. Now that we have a union, can we take it easy? No. Now that we have a contract, can we assume the company will follow it? No. Won’t the company follow the laws that protect workers? No. Won’t the regulators and the courts enforce the laws that protect workers? No. Won’t the elected officials stand up on our behalf? No. Your employer will hold you down and drown you in a pool of the lowest possible wages unless you use your collective power to prevent that from happening. Better take care of yourselves, together. There will be times and places when things will go workers’ way, and that’s nice. There will sometimes be nice bosses and supportive politicians and Jennifer Abruzzos at the NLRB, and that’s something to be enjoyed. But none of that, I promise you, lasts forever under capitalism. The pendulum will swing. Right wing courts will wipe away your legal protections and greedy investors will install a cruel boss and racist voters will boot the friendly Congressman. No need to cry when it happens. We know it will happen. And we know, most importantly, that we still hold in our hands the power of our own labor. The one thing they can’t take away. We do the work. If they won’t do the right thing, we won’t work. And upon that foundation, we can build the whole thing over again. — The Hammer, Not the Handshake | Hamilton Nolan

[carriesthewind]

Anyway here's some actual straightforwardly positive legal news:

"In the memo, sent to regional offices, General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo addressed what had been one of the largest questions that resulted from the ruling: Does it retroactively void broad non-disparagement agreements that were signed prior to the February ruling? Abruzzo wrote that the decision does, in fact, have “retroactive application,” meaning that already-signed and “overly broad” non-disparagement clauses are no longer considered valid by the NLRB.

...

Additionally, Abruzzo provided clarification around what non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses may still be considered legal. The provisions, she said, must be “narrowly-tailored.” In the case of confidentiality, the clause must serve to keep proprietary trade information secret “for a period of time based on legitimate business justifications may be considered lawful,” but must not have “a chilling effect that precludes employees from assisting others” or communicating with the media, a union, or other third parties.

With regards to non-disparagement, Abruzzo similarly said the provision must not only be both “narrowly-tailored” and “justified,” but limited to statements by an employee that fit the legal definition of defamation, meaning they are purposefully and maliciously untrue."

(The full guidance is linked in the article for my fellow nerds.)

[yeah-thats-probably-it]

This sort of thing is why voting matters! I have no great respect for Biden or most of the Democratic legislators, but the appointed positions in government are incredibly important.

In particular, Jennifer Abruzzo, the National Labor Relations Board General Counsel appointed by Biden, has been doing really important work to overwrite anti-labor precedents in US law. The more cases she's able to rule on, the stronger the precedent she'll be able to establish and the harder said precedent will be for future Republican General Counsels to undo.

If you don't want to vote for Biden, I understand, I'm not thrilled about voting for him either. Think of it as voting for Jennfier Abruzzo, for a Democratic FCC, for preventing Republicans from being able to appoint federal judges with lifetime terms.

The most important government workers instated following an election are the ones you don't actually vote for.

[michiganprelawland]

US Supreme Court Supports Starbucks Over Fired Workers

By Mai Nguyen, Eastern Michigan University Class of 26’

July 9, 2024

In early June of 2024, the US Supreme Court sided with the company Starbucks over a labor dispute. Starbucks was accused of violating workers’ rights after firing seven workers from Memphis, Tennessee, known as the ‘Memphis 7” for attempting to unionize [1]. Starbucks claimed that the workers’ employment was terminated after they broke company policy, such as calling press without getting corporate permission [6]. Now, there are ongoing questions about what this may mean for workers, unions, and employers.     

In 2022, seven employees from Starbucks were fired from a local Starbucks in Memphis after hosting a local news station in hopes of spreading awareness on unionizing efforts [3]. Despite the actions from the company, workers of the Starbucks voted to unionize [6]. Additionally, the union files charges of unfair treatment with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the managers who were involved with the dismissals [6]. While the case with the NLRB can take years to conclude, there can be some temporary relief given to the employees, such as reinstating their positions and providing backpay [3].

The Supreme Court recently declared that there must be a four-part test completed by the district court when a party is seeking relief [3]. Under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NRLA), those seeking relief are required to show: 1) The likelihood of success on the merits; 2) Irreparable harm if the relief is not granted; 3) Whether balancing of the relevant equities favors the injunctions; 4) Whether the issuance of the injunction is in the public interest [2]. The decision made on the case can make it more difficult for the NLRB to halt what organizations consider unfair labor practices [1].

The decision gives employees an advantage in halting union efforts throughout the nation. Due to the two-part test requirements, employers no longer have to worry about immediate legal repercussions regarding wrongful terminations [3]. Additionally, the court’s decision allows for those in executive positions to have more leeway when it comes to retaining policies that could be unfair [7]. However, if employers and those in executive positions are found guilty of wrongful termination or other unjust labor acts, they could be held responsible for the losses incurred by the employee(s) [3].

On the other hand, the Supreme Court’s decision impact means a weakened NLRB. In the past, the NLRB had a high percentage of annual success during injunction cases, up to 90% [7]. However, it will now be harder for the NLRB to temporarily prevent what the board deems unfair practices [7]. In regards to unions, the decision may make it more difficult for them to organize or form [7]. While employees may find it more difficult to be granted immediate relief before having their cases heard, as the ruling favors employers and companies [3].

After the decision was reached, Starbucks released a statement through a company spokesperson, which praises the Supreme Court for implementing consistent labor policies that allows employees to know their rights and standards of labor practices [5]. Essentially, the company appreciates the consistency and clarification that the ruling has provided in regards to fair labor practices. However, the ruling has also sparked negative comments, particularly from organizations that have historically sided with employees. For example, Lynne Fox, the president of Workers United condemns the court, by discussing the lack of tools and resources available to workers [5]. She goes on to say that the decision was “egregious,” as it creates a barrier for employees when executive members and supervisors break the law [5]. So far, the NLRB has yet to comment on the ruling, but the board has emphasized on previous statements, such as one from their general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo. Abruzzo states that without temporary relief, employers are able to get away with the benefits of violating labor laws through “the passage of time” [5]. She also points out that by the time the courts have come to a conclusion regarding a case, it will be too late for the employee [5].

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/13/politics/starbucks-supreme-court-union/index.html

[2]https://www.employerlaborrelations.com/2024/06/17/scotus-confirms-the-proper-standard-for-injunctive-relief-under-the-nlra/

[3] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/supreme-court-sides-with-starbucks-in-9606116/

[4]https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/supreme-court-backs-starbucks-over-biden-labor-board-in-memphis-7-union-case/ar-BB1oaaFd?ocid=BingNewsSerp

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/business/economy/supreme-court-starbucks-nlrb.html

[6]https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-backs-starbucks-over-fired-pro-union-workers-2024-06-13/

[7]https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/starbucks--supreme-court-victory-is-win-for-ceos-over-unions