Workplace Hazards and Violations

More stories

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Teamsters Struggle to Unionize Amazon and FedEx Delivery Workers

    by

    The Teamsters union has made little headway in organizing workers at Amazon and FedEx despite wage and other gains it secured at UPS last year.Last year, two unions representing workers at three large automakers and UPS negotiated new labor contracts that included big raises and other gains. Leaders of the unions — the United Automobile Workers and the Teamsters — hoped the wins would help them organize workers across their industry.The U.A.W. won one vote to unionize a Volkswagen factory in Tennessee last month and lost one this month at two Mercedes-Benz plants in Alabama. The Teamsters have made even less progress at UPS’s big nonunion rivals in the delivery business, Amazon and FedEx.Polling shows that public support for unions is the highest it has been in decades. But labor experts said structural forces would make it hard for labor groups to increase their membership, which is the lowest it has been as a percentage of the total work force in decades. Unions also face stiff opposition from many employers and conservative political leaders.The Teamsters provide an instructive case study. Many of the workers doing deliveries for Amazon and FedEx work for contractors, typically small and medium-size businesses that can be hard to organize. And delivery workers employed directly by FedEx in its Express business are governed by a labor law that requires unions to organize all similar workers at the company nationally at once — a tougher standard than the one that applies to organizing employees at automakers, UPS and other employers.Some labor experts also said the Teamsters had not made as forceful a push as the U.A.W. to organize nonunion workers after securing a new contract with UPS.“You didn’t have that energy that you saw with the U.A.W.’s leaders,” said Jake Rosenfeld, a sociologist who studies labor at Washington University in St. Louis.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 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Judge Blocks Rule Extending Reach of Labor Law to Franchisers

    by

    The ruling upends the National Labor Relations Board’s move to broaden the standard for determining when a company is liable for labor law violations.A federal judge, siding with business lobbying groups, has blocked a rule that would broaden the reach of federal labor law to make big franchisers like McDonald’s responsible for the conditions of workers they have not directly hired.The judge, J. Campbell Barker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, on Friday vacated a rule issued by the National Labor Relations Board determining when a company is a joint employer, making it liable under labor law for the working conditions of those hired by a franchisee or provided by a staffing agency. He said the rule, which was to go into effect Monday, was too broad.The decision by Judge Barker, a nominee of former President Donald J. Trump, keeps in place a more business-friendly standard for assigning legal liability.Unions and employees support the rule because it makes it easier to bargain for better conditions, while franchisers say it would disrupt their business model.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which led a group of business groups challenging the rule, applauded the ruling. “It will prevent businesses from facing new liabilities related to workplaces they don’t control, and workers they don’t actually employ,” Suzanne P. Clark, chief executive of the chamber, said in a statement.The labor board’s chair, Lauren McFerran, who was named by President Biden, said in a statement that the ruling was “a disappointing setback,” but “not the last word” on the joint-employer standard. If the board appeals the ruling, the case would move to the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The labor agency pushed for the case to be moved to Washington, but Judge Barker denied that request.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 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    After Gains at Big Three, U.A.W. Aims at Nonunion Plants

    by

    A looming union election at a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga could determine the trajectory of union organizing at more than a dozen auto factories.When Shawn Fain, the United Automobile Workers president, unveiled the deal that ended six weeks of strikes at Ford Motor in the fall, he framed it as part of a longer campaign. Next, he declared, would be the task of organizing nonunion plants across the country.“One of our biggest goals coming out of this historic contract victory is to organize like we’ve never organized before,” he said at the time. “When we return to the bargaining table in 2028, it won’t just be with the Big Three. It will be the Big Five or Big Six.”Four months later, the first test of that strategy has come into focus, and it features a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tenn.According to the union, more than half of over 4,000 eligible workers have signed cards indicating support for a union. Workers say they have done so because they want higher pay, more paid time off and more generous health benefits — and because the recent strikes at Ford, General Motors and Stellantis persuaded them that a union can help win these concessions.“The Big Three, they had their big campaign, and their big strike and vote, and new contracts — we paid attention to that very closely,” said Yolanda Peoples, who has worked at the Volkswagen plant for nearly 13 years.The Volkswagen plant announced an 11 percent pay increase shortly after the strikes at the Big Three. The raise brought the top hourly wage for production workers to $32.40, but the comparable wage for the Detroit automakers will exceed $40 by the end of the new contracts. (Volkswagen said the wage adjustment was part of a yearly review.)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 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Starbucks and Union Agree to Work Out Framework for Contract Talks

    by

    In an initial move, the coffeehouse chain said Workers United members would get improved benefits that other employees received in 2022.Starbucks and the union that represents employees in roughly 400 of its U.S. stores announced Tuesday that they were beginning discussions on a “foundational framework” that would help the company reach labor agreements with unionized workers and resolve litigation between the two sides.The union greeted the development as a major shift in strategy for Starbucks, which has taken steps to resist union organizing at the company since the campaign began in 2021, moves that federal labor regulators have said violated labor law hundreds of times.Starbucks, which has denied the accusations, said in a statement that it hoped to have contracts negotiated and ratified by the end of the year and would agree to a “fair process for organizing” — something the union has demanded for years. It said that, as a gesture of good faith, it was providing unionized workers with benefits it introduced in 2022 but withheld from union stores, like an option for customers to tip via credit card.Representatives of both Starbucks and the union, Workers United, said that while details must be worked out, they hoped to be back at the bargaining table in the coming weeks. Negotiations between the two sides had largely lapsed over the past several months.Workers who have helped lead the organizing said the development had surprised them. “It still feels pretty surreal right now,” said Michelle Eisen, a longtime barista at a Starbucks in Buffalo that was the first company-owned store to unionize during the current campaign. “There has not been a single call I’ve been on today where either I wasn’t crying or everyone else wasn’t crying.”If a framework is agreed to and quickly leads to contracts, experts said, it could be a major development in labor relations in corporate America, where companies like Amazon and Apple have resisted union organizing to varying degrees.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

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Amazon Argues National Labor Relations Board Is Unconstitutional

    by

    The company made the novel claim, echoing arguments by SpaceX and Trader Joe’s, in a legal filing while fighting a case.In the latest sign of a growing backlash within corporate America to the 88-year-old federal agency that enforces labor rights, Amazon argued in a legal filing on Thursday that the National Labor Relations Board was unconstitutional.The move followed a similar argument by SpaceX, the rocket company founded and run by Elon Musk, in a legal complaint in January, and by Trader Joe’s during a labor board hearing a few weeks later.The labor board consists of a prosecutorial arm, which issues complaints against employers or unions deemed to have violated federally protected labor rights; administrative judges, who hear complaints; and a five-member board in Washington, to which decisions can be appealed.Amazon’s filing was part of a case before an administrative judge in which labor board prosecutors have accused Amazon of illegally retaliating against workers at a Staten Island warehouse known as JFK8, which unionized two years ago.The company’s lawyers repeatedly denied in their filing that Amazon had broken the law. Then, under a section titled “Other Defenses,” they argued that “the structure of the N.L.R.B. violates the separation of powers” by “impeding the executive power provided for in Article II of the United States Constitution.”The company also argued that the board or its actions or proceedings violated Articles I and III of the Constitution, as well as the Fifth and Seventh Amendments — in the last case because, the filing said, board hearings can seek legal remedies beyond what’s allowed without a trial by jury.Amazon declined to comment.The claims it made in the filing echo arguments that lawyers for SpaceX made in a federal lawsuit last month, after the labor board issued a complaint accusing the company of illegally firing eight employees for criticizing Mr. Musk. SpaceX sued in Texas, but a federal judge there on Thursday granted the board’s motion to transfer the case to California, where the company’s headquarters are located.In a statement, the board’s general counsel, Jennifer A. Abruzzo, said, “I am pleased that SpaceX’s blatant forum-shopping efforts in Texas attempting to enjoin the agency’s litigation against it have failed.”Wilma Liebman, a chairwoman of the labor board under President Barack Obama, called the arguments by Amazon and SpaceX “radical,” adding that “the constitutionality of the N.L.R.B. was settled nearly 90 years ago by the Supreme Court.”The arguments appear to align with a broader conservative effort to question the constitutionality of a variety of regulatory actions, some of which have resulted in cases before the Supreme Court.In January, the Supreme Court also agreed to hear a case brought by Starbucks, which is challenging a federal judge’s order reinstating employees who were fired during a union campaign. The outcome of the case could rein in the labor board’s longstanding practice of seeking reinstatement for workers while their cases are litigated, a process that can take years. More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Supreme Court to Hear Starbucks Bid to Overturn Labor Ruling

    by

    The coffee chain has challenged a federal judge’s order to reinstate a group of union activists who were fired at a store in Memphis.The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a case brought by Starbucks challenging a federal judge’s order to reinstate seven employees who were fired at a store in Memphis amid a union campaign there.Starbucks argued that the criteria for such intervention by judges in labor cases, which can also include measures like reopening shuttered stores, vary across regions of the country because federal appeals courts may adhere to different standards.A regional director for the National Labor Relations Board, the company’s opponent in the case, argued that the apparent differences in criteria among appeals courts were semantic rather than substantive, and that a single effective standard was already in place nationwide.The labor board had urged the Supreme Court to stay out of the case, whose outcome could affect union organizing across the country.The agency asks federal judges for temporary relief, like reinstatement of fired workers, because litigating charges of unfair labor practices can take years. The agency argues that retaliation against workers can have a chilling effect on organizing in the meantime, even if the workers ultimately win their case.In a statement on Friday, Starbucks said, “We are pleased the Supreme Court has decided to consider our request to level the playing field for all U.S. employers by ensuring that a single standard is applied as federal district courts.”The labor board declined to comment.The union organizing campaign at Starbucks began in the Buffalo area in 2021 and quickly spread to other states. The union, Workers United, represents workers at more than 370 Starbucks stores, out of roughly 9,600 company-owned stores in the United States.The labor board has issued dozens of complaints against the company based on hundreds of accusations of labor law violations, including threats and retaliation against workers who are seeking to unionize and a failure to bargain in good faith. This week, the agency issued a complaint accusing the company of unilaterally changing work hours and schedules in unionized stores around the country.The company has denied violating labor law and said in a statement that it contested the latest complaint and planned “to defend our lawful business decisions” before a judge.The case that led to the dispute before the Supreme Court involves seven workers who were fired in February 2022 after they let local journalists into a closed store to conduct interviews. Starbucks said the incident violated company rules; the workers and the union said the company did not enforce such rules against workers who were not involved in union organizing.The labor board found merit in the workers’ accusations and issued a complaint two months later. A federal judge granted the labor board’s request for an order reinstating the workers that August, and a federal appeals court upheld the order.“Starbucks is seeking a bailout for its illegal union-busting from Trump’s Supreme Court,” Workers United said in a statement on Friday. “There’s no doubt that Starbucks broke federal law by firing workers in Memphis for joining together in a union.”Starbucks said it was critical for the Supreme Court to wade into the case because the labor board was becoming more ambitious in asking judges to order remedies like reinstatement of fired workers.The labor board noted in its filing with the Supreme Court that it was bringing fewer injunctions overall than in some recent years — only 21 were authorized in 2022, down from more than 35 in 2014 and 2015.A Supreme Court decision could in principle raise the bar for judges to issue orders reinstating workers, effectively limiting the labor board’s ability to win temporary relief for workers during a union campaign.The case is not the only recent challenge to the labor board’s authority. After the board issued a complaint accusing the rocket company SpaceX of illegally firing eight employees for criticizing its chief executive, Elon Musk, the company filed a lawsuit this month arguing that the agency’s setup for adjudicating complaints is unconstitutional.The company said in its lawsuit that the agency’s structure violated its right to a trial by jury. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Federal Regulators Seek to Force Starbucks to Reopen 23 Stores

    by

    The National Labor Relations Board says the locations were closed because of union organizing, violating federal law.Federal labor regulators accused Starbucks on Wednesday of illegally closing 23 stores to suppress organizing activity and sought to force the company to reopen them.A complaint issued by a regional office of the National Labor Relations Board argued that Starbucks had closed the stores because its employees engaged in union activities or to discourage employees from doing so. At least seven of the 23 stores identified had unionized.The agency’s move is the latest in a series of accusations by federal officials that Starbucks has broken the law during a two-year labor campaign.The case is scheduled to go before an administrative judge next summer unless Starbucks settles it earlier. In addition to asking the judge to order the stores reopened, the complaint wants employees to be compensated for the loss of earnings or benefits and for other costs they incurred as a result of the closures.“This complaint is the latest confirmation of Starbucks’ determination to illegally oppose workers’ organizing,” Mari Cosgrove, a Starbucks employee, said in a statement issued through a spokesperson for the union, Workers United.A Starbucks spokesman said, “Each year as a standard course of business, we evaluate the store portfolio” and typically open, close or alter stores. The company said it opened hundreds of new stores last year and closed more than 100, of which about 3 percent were unionized.The union campaign began in 2021 in the Buffalo, N.Y., area, where two stores unionized that December, before spreading across the country. More than 350 of the company’s roughly 9,300 corporate-owned locations have unionized.The labor board has issued more than 100 complaints covering hundreds of accusations of illegal behavior by Starbucks, including threats or retaliation against workers involved in union activity and a failure to bargain in good faith. Administrative judges have ruled against the company on more than 30 occasions, though the company has appealed those decisions to the full labor board in Washington. Judges have dismissed fewer than five of the complaints.None of the unionized stores have negotiated a labor contract with the company, and bargaining has largely stalled. Last week, Starbucks wrote to Workers United saying it wanted to resume negotiations.According to Wednesday’s complaint, Starbucks managers announced the closing of 16 stores in July 2022, then announced several more closures over the next few months.An administrative judge previously ruled that Starbucks had illegally closed a unionized store in Ithaca, N.Y., and ordered workers reinstated with back pay, but the company has appealed that decision.The new complaint was issued on the same day that Starbucks released a nonconfidential version of an outside assessment of whether its practices align with its stated commitment to labor rights. The company’s shareholders had voted to back the assessment in a nonbinding vote whose results were announced in March.The author of the report, Thomas M. Mackall, a former management-side lawyer and labor relations official at the food and facilities management company Sodexo, wrote that he “found no evidence of an ‘anti-union playbook’ or instructions or training about how to violate U.S. laws.”But Mr. Mackall concluded that Starbucks officials involved in responding to the union campaign did not appear to understand how the company’s Global Human Rights Statement might constrain their response. The rights statement commits Starbucks to respecting employees’ freedom of association and participation in collective bargaining.Mr. Mackall cited managers’ “allegedly unlawful promises and threats” and “allegedly discriminatory or retaliatory discipline and discharge” as areas where Starbucks could improve.In a letter tied to the report’s release, the chair of the company’s board and an independent director said the assessment was clear that “Starbucks has had no intention to deviate from the principles of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.” At the same time, the letter added, “there are things the company can, and should, do to improve its stated commitments and its adherence to these important principles.” More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Amazon Is Cracking Down on Union Organizing, Workers Say

    by

    More than a year and a half after Amazon workers on Staten Island voted to form the company’s first union in the United States, the company appears to be taking a harder line toward labor organizing, disciplining workers and even firing one who had been heavily involved in the union campaign.The disciplinary actions come at a time when union organizers appear to be gaining ground at a major air hub operated by Amazon in Kentucky, where they say they have collected union authorization cards from at least one-quarter of hourly employees. Workers must typically demonstrate at least 30 percent support to prompt a union election.In disciplining the employees, Amazon has raised questions about the extent to which they are free to approach co-workers to persuade them to join a union, a federally protected right. The general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board has said Amazon is breaking the law through a policy governing the access that off-duty workers have to its facilities, which Amazon invoked in the recent firing. The board is seeking to overturn the policy at an upcoming trial.Lisa Levandowski, an Amazon spokeswoman, said the recent disciplinary actions were strictly a response to rule violations, not to union organizing. “Employees have the choice of whether or not to join a union,” she said.The company’s off-duty access rule is “a lawful, common-sense policy,” she said, “and we look forward to defending our position.”The fired worker, Connor Spence, was a founder of the Amazon Labor Union, which won last year’s election on Staten Island. After a split within the union leadership, Mr. Spence helped start a separate group that sought to pressure the company to negotiate a contract at the warehouse, known as JFK8.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?  More