Decisions and Verdicts

Latest story

113 Shares109 Views

NLRB Bars Mandatory Anti-Union Meetings After Amazon Draws Complaint

by

The ruling, stemming from a complaint against Amazon, bars companies from compelling workers to attend meetings on unionization’s downsides.The National Labor Relations Board ruled on Wednesday that companies may not compel workers to attend meetings on the downsides of unionization, a tactic that unions say stifles worker organizing.The decision, the latest in a slew of labor board rulings under the Biden administration aimed at supporting workers’ right to unionize, stems from a complaint over Amazon’s conduct before a successful union election in 2022 at a Staten Island warehouse, the first Amazon warehouse in the nation to unionize. The company held hundreds of meetings there and at another location to discourage workers from supporting a union.The N.L.R.B.’s ban on so-called captive audience meetings is a precedent with potential impact beyond Amazon, though it could be reversed after President-elect Donald J. Trump takes office. Facing a wave of union campaigns since the onset of the pandemic, large employers including Starbucks, Trader Joe’s and REI have held such meetings in what labor regulators and unions have described as an effort to clamp down on organizing. The companies have denied accusations of anti-union campaigns.These meetings, which employees are often required to attend, give employers “near-unfettered freedom to force their message about unionization on workers,” Lauren McFerran, the Democratic chairman of the labor board, said in a statement. She added that they undermine employees’ ability to choose whether they want union representation, a right guaranteed under federal law.“Today’s decision better protects workers’ freedom to make their own choices in exercising their rights,” Ms. McFerran said, “while ensuring that employers can convey their views about unionization in a noncoercive manner.”Amazon intends to appeal the decision, said Mary Kate Paradis, a company spokeswoman, calling the ruling a violation of the First Amendment and adding that it “contradicts the express language” of the National Labor Relations Act. Meetings are often held “because the decision about whether or not to join a union is an important one, and employees deserve to understand the facts so they can make an informed choice,” she said in a statement.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 88 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Alabama Prison Labor Program Faces Legal Challenges

    by

    In the back of a nondescript industrial park on the outskirts of Montgomery, Ala., past the corner of Eastern Boulevard and Plantation Way, there is a manufacturing plant run by Ju-Young, a car-part supplier for Hyundai. On a Tuesday in May, about half of the workers there — roughly 20 — were prisoners.Listen to this article with reporter commentaryThey were contracted to the company by the Alabama Department of Corrections as part of a “work-release” day labor program for inmates who, according to the state, have shown enough trustworthiness to work outside prison walls, alongside free citizens.The inmates bused there by the state make up just one crop of the thousands of imprisoned people sent to work for private businesses — who risk disciplinary action if they refuse.Sitting against a chain-link fence under the shade of a tree in the company parking lot, commiserating over small talk and cigarettes with fellow assembly workers, one of the imprisoned men, Carlos Anderson, argued that his predicament was simple. He could work a 40-hour week, at $12 an hour — and keep a small fraction of that after the state charges transportation and laundry fees, and takes a 40 percent cut of pretax wages — or he could face working for nothing at the prison.Under Alabama prison rules, there are thin lines between work incentives, forced labor and “involuntary servitude” — which reforms to the Alabama Constitution in 2022 banned. From the viewpoint of Mr. Anderson and more than a dozen other Alabama inmates interviewed by The New York Times, the ultimate message, in practice, is straightforward: Do this, or else.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Amazon Could Be Forced to Treat Drivers as Employees

    by

    Amazon’s delivery system depends on third-party companies. But labor regulators have challenged that model, possibly opening the way for unionization.Vans marked with Amazon’s arrow logo have become ubiquitous on residential streets, a symbol of the nearly instantaneous delivery that has transformed online shopping.But behind the wheel, that image of high-tech efficiency is being overshadowed by drivers’ complaints about working conditions. Recent federal labor rulings could pave the way for unionization in the company’s last-mile delivery network and change how it does business.Hundreds of thousands of drivers who deliver Amazon packages don’t work directly for the e-commerce giant; instead, they’re employed by third-party logistics companies, called delivery service partners. Last year, Amazon ended a contract with a delivery company in Palmdale, Calif., after drivers started organizing with the Teamsters union.A regional director for the National Labor Relations Board in Los Angeles issued the first formal complaint last week targeting the company’s delivery model, arguing in the Palmdale case that Amazon is a joint employer of the drivers and, as such, must bargain with the union.Last month, another N.L.R.B. regional director issued a preliminary finding that Amazon is a joint employer of drivers in Atlanta seeking to unionize with the Teamsters, and that it must be held liable for unlawfully discouraging unionization.Amazon contracts over 3,000 delivery service partners, which determine pay, schedules and work conditions for drivers, the company said.By Christopher Smith For The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Kroger and Albertsons Confront a Skeptical F.T.C. in federal court

    by

    The Federal Trade Commission, which is trying to block Kroger’s plan to acquire Albertsons, said in court that the merger of grocery giants would also hurt workers’ pay and benefits.A trial that could determine whether the two largest supermarket chains in the United States can merge opened in Portland, Ore., on Monday, pitting the grocery giant Kroger against regulators who argue that its takeover of Albertsons would eliminate competition at the expense of consumers and workers.Before Judge Adrienne Nelson of U.S. District Court, the Federal Trade Commission and the supermarket chains laid out their arguments in court for the first time, as union representatives and workers protested the deal on the courthouse steps. Less competition, the agency’s lawyers said, would give Kroger more leverage to raise prices on millions of consumers.The highly anticipated proceedings, set to last three weeks, come as high food prices have become a critical focus in the presidential race. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has backed a federal ban on price-gouging in the food and grocery industries to combat high grocery costs.Kroger and Albertsons defended the $24.6 billion deal, which would be the biggest supermarket merger in U.S. history, saying it would bolster their leverage with suppliers and improve competition against major retailers like Costco, Amazon and Walmart. But the F.T.C. — backed by a chorus of unions, consumer advocates, politicians and independent grocery chains — reiterated its position that the merger would probably result in higher prices for groceries and worse conditions for workers.The deal “would eliminate the competition that shoppers and workers depend on in one fell swoop,” Susan Musser, the F.T.C.’s chief trial counsel, said in her opening statement. “This lawsuit is part of an effort aimed at helping Americans feed their families.”In bringing the case, the F.T.C. has been joined by the attorneys general of eight states, including California and Illinois, as well as the District of Columbia. It’s part of a regulatory push under the Biden administration to rein in corporate consolidation in an array of industries, including airlines, Big Tech, book publishing and pharmaceuticals.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 63 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Judge Blocks F.T.C.’s Noncompete Rule

    by

    The Federal Trade Commission was deemed to lack the authority to bar companies from restricting their employees’ ability to go to work for rivals.A federal judge on Tuesday upheld a challenge to the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on noncompete agreements, blocking it from taking effect in September as scheduled.Judge Ada Brown of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the antitrust agency lacked authority to issue substantive rules related to unfair methods of competition, including the noncompete rule, which would have prohibited companies from restricting their employees’ ability to work for rivals.The push to adopt the rule is part of the Biden administration’s effort to crack down on practices that regulators argue are anticompetitive, unfairly constraining workers.Judge Brown had temporarily blocked the ban in July. Her decision on Tuesday renders that injunction permanent, and nationwide in scope.Banning noncompete agreements would increase workers’ earnings by at least $400 billion over the next decade, the F.T.C. has estimated. The agreements affect roughly one in five American workers, or around 30 million people, according to the agency, whose purview includes antitrust and consumer protection issues.Victoria Graham, an F.T.C. spokeswoman, said the agency was disappointed by Judge Brown’s decision and would “keep fighting to stop noncompetes that restrict the economic liberty of hardworking Americans, hamper economic growth, limit innovation and depress wages.”“We are seriously considering a potential appeal, and today’s decision does not prevent the F.T.C. from addressing noncompetes through case-by-case enforcement actions,” Ms. Graham added.A tax firm, Ryan, sued to block the rule just hours after the F.T.C. voted 3 to 2 in April to adopt it. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce later joined the case as a plaintiff, as did the Business Roundtable and two Texas business groups.The Chamber of Commerce and other groups have asserted that the F.T.C. lacks constitutional and statutory authority to adopt the rule, with Ryan calling it “arbitrary, capricious and otherwise unlawful” — a position with which Judge Brown agreed. Business groups have also argued that the ban would limit their ability to protect trade secrets and confidential information.In response to Judge Brown’s ruling, G. Brint Ryan, chief executive of Ryan, called the rule “continuing overreach and overregulation” by the federal government, adding that the firm was “happy we were able to successfully stop the overreach in this instance.”But the three Democrats on the five-member F.T.C. maintain that it can legally issue rules defining unfair methods of competition under the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the law that created the agency.In a separate case, a federal judge in Pennsylvania declined last month to block the rule. Diverging rulings on the fate of the ban could leave the door open to review by higher courts.“Many businesses will welcome the reprieve, but the uncertainty continues as the fight now moves to the appellate courts,” said Kevin Goldstein, an antitrust partner at Winston & Strawn. More

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Michigan Supreme Court Ruling to Raise Minimum Wage in the State

    by

    The ruling, raising the minimum wage and phasing out a lower wage for tipped workers, said legislators had acted improperly in dodging a referendum.The Michigan Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that legislators had unconstitutionally subverted a voter-sponsored proposal to raise the state’s minimum wage.As a result of the 4-to-3 ruling, labor groups expect Michigan’s hourly minimum wage of $10.33 to increase by at least $2 in February, once the state treasurer calculates inflation adjustments. There will be subsequent cost-of-living increases through 2029.In addition, tipped workers, who currently can be paid as little as $3.84 per hour, will be subject to the same minimum as all other workers by 2029, putting Michigan on a path to be the eighth state to establish a standard wage floor for all workers.Labor activists and union groups celebrated the Michigan court’s decision.“We have finally prevailed over the corporate interests who tried everything they could to prevent all workers, including restaurant workers, from being paid a full, fair wage with tips on top,” Saru Jayaraman, the president of One Fair Wage, a national nonprofit organizing group, said in a statement.Her group is directly cited in the case because of its involvement in gathering the necessary signatures from Michiganders in 2018 to invoke the ballot initiative and send the proposal to the Legislature, which Republicans led at the time.To prevent the wage increase proposal from reaching the 2018 general election ballot, a large cohort of restaurateurs — led by the Michigan Restaurant and Lodging Association — pushed the Legislature to simply adopt the proposal sponsored by One Fair Wage and other groups, which the Legislature did. Legislators then rolled back the law’s provisions after the election.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Judge Refuses to Block F.T.C.’s Noncompete Ban as Lawsuits Play Out

    by

    A federal judge in Pennsylvania denied a request to delay the rule, siding with the agency and diverging from another court’s decision earlier this month.A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Tuesday declined to block the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on noncompete agreements, diverging from another judge’s recent finding that the agency’s move was on shaky legal ground.The decision clears one obstacle to the F.T.C.’s move to prohibit virtually all noncompete agreements, which prohibit employees from switching jobs within an industry and affect roughly one in five American workers. The rule is set to take effect on Sept. 4.Several business groups sued to block the ban as soon as the F.T.C. voted to adopt it in April, saying it would limit their ability to protect trade secrets and confidential information. ATS Tree Services, a tree-removal company, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, arguing that it used noncompetes to “provide its employees with necessary and valuable specialized training while minimizing the risk that employees will leave and immediately use that specialized training and ATS’s confidential information to benefit a competitor.”But on Tuesday, Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge ruled that ATS had not proved that it would suffer irreparable harm from the rule. Denying the company’s motion for a preliminary injunction, she said the lawsuit was unlikely to ultimately prevail on the merits.Judge Hodge’s decision “fully vindicates” the F.T.C.’s authority to ban noncompete clauses, “which harm competition by inhibiting workers’ freedom and mobility while stunting economic growth,” Douglas Farrar, a commission spokesman, said in a statement.A lawyer representing ATS, Josh Robbins of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian law group, said the firm was disappointed by the court’s decision and would “continue to fight the F.T.C.’s power grab.” Mr. Robbins declined to say whether the firm intended to appeal.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Democrats’ Dream of a Wealth Tax Is Alive. For Now.

    by

    A narrow Supreme Court ruling left the door open for Congress to expand taxes on billionaires, but it’s not a guarantee.For years, liberal Democrats have agitated for the United States to tax wealth, not just income, as a way to ensure that rich Americans who derive wealth from real estate, stocks, bonds and other assets were paying more in taxes.On Thursday, that dream survived a Supreme Court scare, but just barely.Thanks to a narrow court ruling, a raft of plans to use the tax code to address the gaping divide between the very richest Americans and everyone else appear set to live for years to come in the campaign proposals and official budgets of top Democrats.The idea of a wealth tax was not directly before the court on Thursday. Justices were considering the constitutionality of a new tax imposed under former President Donald J. Trump that applies to certain income earned by businesses overseas. But in taking the case, the court could have pre-emptively ruled federal wealth taxation unconstitutional.It did not, and liberal groups celebrated the victory.“The Supreme Court also could have taken an activist turn of the worst kind by pre-emptively ruling federal wealth taxes unconstitutional today,” Amy Hanauer, the executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which supports higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, said in a statement. “To its credit, the court did not do so.”But the case also offered a window into the legal fight to come over various iterations of a wealth tax should Congress ever adopt one. It showed a solid four justices firmly opposed to such a tax — and two more who appeared skeptical.“This is a narrow decision,” Joe Bishop-Henchman, the vice president of the National Taxpayers Union, which opposes wealth tax proposals, said in a statement on Thursday. But, he added, “the court makes clear it is not opening the door to a wealth tax.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Supreme Court Backs Starbucks Over ‘Memphis 7’ Union Case

    by

    In a blow to the National Labor Relations Board, the justices made it more difficult to order employers to reinstate fired workers.The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks on Thursday in a challenge against a labor ruling by a federal judge, making it more difficult for a key federal agency to intervene when a company is accused of illegally suppressing labor organizing.Eight justices backed the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate opinion that concurred with the overall judgment but dissented on certain points.The ruling came in a case brought by Starbucks over the firing of seven workers in Memphis who were trying to unionize a store in 2022. The company said it had fired them for allowing a television crew into a closed store. The workers, who called themselves the Memphis Seven, said that they were fired for their unionization efforts and that the company didn’t typically enforce the rules they were accused of violating.After the firings, the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint saying that Starbucks had acted because the workers had “joined or assisted the union and engaged in concerted activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.” Separately, lawyers for the board asked a federal judge in Tennessee for an injunction reinstating the workers, and the judge issued the order in August 2022.The agency asks judges to reinstate workers in such cases because resolving the underlying legal issues can take years, during which time other workers may become discouraged from organizing even if the fired workers ultimately prevail.In its petition to the Supreme Court, the company argued that federal courts had differing standards when deciding whether to grant injunctions that reinstate workers, which the N.L.R.B. has the authority to seek under the National Labor Relations Act.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More