CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
14,662
edits
National Labor Relations Board: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "Reuters" to "Reuters"
m (Text replacement - "LII" to "Legal Information Institute") |
m (Text replacement - "Reuters" to "Reuters") |
||
| Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
Joint employer standard reinstated: In 2020, the NLRB reinstated the joint employer standard that had been overturned in 2017, making it easier for employees to hold companies liable for labor violations committed by their subcontractors or franchisees. | Joint employer standard reinstated: In 2020, the NLRB reinstated the joint employer standard that had been overturned in 2017, making it easier for employees to hold companies liable for labor violations committed by their subcontractors or franchisees. | ||
In 2023, in response to the company [[Cemex]] having been found guilty of illegal labor practices by interfering with a union election, the NLRB instated a new policy meant to deter election interference. Under the new policy if a majority of workers demonstrate support for a union, the company must recognize them or ask the NLRB to conduct an election. However, if they commit unfair labor practices, the union will automatically be recognized, and the company will be required to bargain.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Board Issues Decision Announcing New Framework for Union Representation Proceedings {{!}} National Labor Relations Board |url=https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-issues-decision-announcing-new-framework-for-union-representation |access-date=2024-03-16 |website=www.nlrb.gov |language=en}}</ref> This differs from the then-defunct [[Joy Silk]] standard, which had required employers to recognize a union unless they had a good-faith doubt that the union had majority employee support. Nonetheless, Cemex was noted as a significant strengthening of union protections and a partial revival of Joy Silk.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Wiessner |first=Daniel |date=2023-08-25 |title=NLRB paves way for workers to unionize without formal elections |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/nlrb-paves-way-workers-unionize-without-formal-elections-2023-08-25/ |access-date=2024-03-16 |work= | In 2023, in response to the company [[Cemex]] having been found guilty of illegal labor practices by interfering with a union election, the NLRB instated a new policy meant to deter election interference. Under the new policy if a majority of workers demonstrate support for a union, the company must recognize them or ask the NLRB to conduct an election. However, if they commit unfair labor practices, the union will automatically be recognized, and the company will be required to bargain.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Board Issues Decision Announcing New Framework for Union Representation Proceedings {{!}} National Labor Relations Board |url=https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-issues-decision-announcing-new-framework-for-union-representation |access-date=2024-03-16 |website=www.nlrb.gov |language=en}}</ref> This differs from the then-defunct [[Joy Silk]] standard, which had required employers to recognize a union unless they had a good-faith doubt that the union had majority employee support. Nonetheless, Cemex was noted as a significant strengthening of union protections and a partial revival of Joy Silk.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Wiessner |first=Daniel |date=2023-08-25 |title=NLRB paves way for workers to unionize without formal elections |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/nlrb-paves-way-workers-unionize-without-formal-elections-2023-08-25/ |access-date=2024-03-16 |work=Reuters}}</ref> | ||
In 2024, [[SpaceX]], [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]], and [[Trader Joe's]] argued in various court filings that the NLRB was [[unconstitutional]] by the theory that it violates [[Separation of powers under the United States Constitution|separation of powers]] and [[Due Process Clause|due process]].<ref>{{cite news |author=Jules Roscoe |date=February 16, 2024 |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ake93/amazon-spacex-nlrb-unconstitutional |title=Amazon Joins Elon Musk's SpaceX In Mission to Destroy Federal Agency Protecting Workers |publisher=Vice}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=U.S. Corporations Are Openly Trying to Destroy Core Public Institutions. We Should All Be Worried. |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7bnyb/meta-spacex-lawsuits-declaring-ftc-nlrb-unconstitutional |author=Jules Roscoe |date=February 1, 2024 |publisher=Vice}}</ref> | In 2024, [[SpaceX]], [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]], and [[Trader Joe's]] argued in various court filings that the NLRB was [[unconstitutional]] by the theory that it violates [[Separation of powers under the United States Constitution|separation of powers]] and [[Due Process Clause|due process]].<ref>{{cite news |author=Jules Roscoe |date=February 16, 2024 |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ake93/amazon-spacex-nlrb-unconstitutional |title=Amazon Joins Elon Musk's SpaceX In Mission to Destroy Federal Agency Protecting Workers |publisher=Vice}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=U.S. Corporations Are Openly Trying to Destroy Core Public Institutions. We Should All Be Worried. |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7bnyb/meta-spacex-lawsuits-declaring-ftc-nlrb-unconstitutional |author=Jules Roscoe |date=February 1, 2024 |publisher=Vice}}</ref> | ||