A GUIDE TO LABOR POLICY IN US STATES
This interactive map enables you to explore specific policies in your state.
This table contains the full list of rankings.
Florida 37
South Carolina 46
North Carolina 47
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon/rolleyes.gif)
I'm not sure that some of them have any labor laws left to litigate.
You may have thought that funny, but actually the fewer the labor laws, the more litigation. Places like California, that have everything spelled out to a great detail, get things settled administratively. Mississippi, which has basically no labor laws (other than keepin' them New York Jewish organizers out) is a rats nest for lawsuits. What in most states would be a labor violation turns into a personal injury in Mississippi.
O Really wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:50 pmYou may have thought that funny,
A little.![]()
![]()
but actually the fewer the labor laws, the more litigation. Places like California, that have everything spelled out to a great detail, get things settled administratively. Mississippi, which has basically no labor laws (other than keepin' them New York Jewish organizers out) is a rats nest for lawsuits.
Ah, thanks.
What in most states would be a labor violation turns into a personal injury in Mississippi.
How so?
[/quote]
Thoughts on the agreement?Improved labor and environmental rights. The new USMCA makes a number of significant upgrades to environmental and labor regulations, especially regarding Mexico. For example, USMCA stipulates that Mexican trucks that cross the border into the United States must meet higher safety regulations and Mexican workers must have more ability to organize and form unions. Some of these provisions might be difficult to enforce, but the Trump administration says it is committed to ensuring these happen — a reason U.S. labor unions and some Democrats are cheering the new rules.
No opinion yet. Heard on NPR that the ratification vote won't come until 2019, so we'll have lots of time to examine the details.
Tennessee 43Vrede too wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:28 pmTHE BEST STATES TO WORK INDEX
A GUIDE TO LABOR POLICY IN US STATES
This interactive map enables you to explore specific policies in your state.
This table contains the full list of rankings.
Florida 37
South Carolina 46
North Carolina 47
![]()
Coffee County taxpayers hit with $1 million in damages in employee discrimination lawsuit
Nearly 8,000 Marriott workers are on strike right now, taking a stand against one of the most powerful and profitable companies on the planet.
Despite high profits, the hotel chain pays some of its workers so poorly that they have to take second jobs to make ends meet. Their rallying cry will resonate with many of our members: Just like we have championed fair pay for educators, one job should be enough to live on.
I joined the workers’ picket line in Boston, one of the strike locations, on Monday to demonstrate the AFT’s support and solidarity. The workers are grateful for our support, but we need to do more. You can help right now by taking a pledge to not stay at a Marriott hotel during the strike.
It’s not just hotel workers who have to work second jobs or make other sacrifices to take care of their families. Educators take weekend jobs at restaurants or delay having kids or going to graduate school because of low pay. Others, as Time magazine reported last month, supplement their salaries by selling their blood plasma.
These striking hotel workers and the educators who walked out of their schools earlier this year are part of the same fight. America needs an economic framework where the dignity of workers—whether teachers or housekeepers—is respected and people are paid a living wage. It’s what labor unions try to do—fighting for one job to be enough to raise our families on, enough to provide the security and safety we need, and enough to allow us to retire with dignity.
Marriott is a billion-dollar company, and it’s profitable because of the people who work there. Hotel work can be backbreaking—be it housekeeping, working in the kitchen or the laundry room, waiting tables or the myriad other jobs. The people who put that effort into making Marriott successful deserve their fair share of that success. They deserve to be paid enough so that one job is enough for them to live on.
We’re in the middle of one of the most consequential elections of my lifetime. I’ve been crisscrossing the country, working to elect people who share our values and who stand with working people. And I’ve pledged to not cross the picket line. As you know, we can’t show our solidarity only when it’s convenient to do so.
Take the One Job pledge. Let’s make sure Marriott knows that America stands with these workers.
In unity,
Randi Weingarten
American Federation of Teachers President
Trump’s NLRB Just Quietly Ruled to Make Union Pickets Illegal
An all-Republican panel of President Trump’s National Labor Relation Board (NLRB) recently ruled that janitors in San Francisco violated the law when they picketed in front of their workplace to win higher wages, better working conditions and freedom from sexual harassment in their workplace. The ruling could result in far-reaching restrictions on picketing that limit the ability of labor unions to put public pressure on management.
The NLRB reached its conclusion by using the complex and convoluted employment structure created by the janitors’ employers. The janitors were technically employed by one company, Ortiz Janitorial Services, which was subcontracted by another company, Preferred Building Services, to work in the building of a third company.
This type of confusing employment relationship is increasingly common, resulting in workers being put in a position where it’s difficult to negotiate higher wages and better working conditions, or protect their basic employment rights.
The NLRB based its decision on a particularly onerous provision in federal labor law that prohibits employees from engaging in boycotts, pickets or other activities that are aimed at a secondary employer. The provision was added as part of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, taking away one of labor’s most powerful weapons.
In this case, the NLRB overturned an administrative law judge’s ruling that because the second company had significant control over the employment relationship, it constituted a joint employer. The judge based her conclusion on evidence that Preferred Building Services was involved in the hiring, firing, disciplining, supervision, direction of work, and other terms and conditions of the janitors’ employment with Ortiz Janitorial Services. Therefore, both Ortiz and Preferred acted as joint employers to the janitors.
This matters because if the various companies were joint employers, there were no prohibited secondary activities. But the NLRB held that the janitors worked for the subcontractor, and any actions aimed at any other company was illegal under the law....
O Really wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:00 pmNot to nitpick (OK, to nitpick), but the NLRB ruled that the picket action in this instance violated a long-standing prohibition against secondary picketing. One could argue over whether it's a good ruling (I would say "no"), but it didn't "make union pickets illegal."
O Really wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:00 pmNot to nitpick (OK, to nitpick), but the NLRB ruled that the picket action in this instance violated a long-standing prohibition against secondary picketing. One could argue over whether it's a good ruling (I would say "no"), but it didn't "make union pickets illegal."
An item of bigger concern from the Nazi Labor Reprobate Bastards is their overall weakening of the joint employer standards, which does indeed make it easier for big companies to dodge the law.
O Really wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:31 pmWell, you know me. I think there's enough horror in Trump administration wreckage without need for exaggeration or distortion. This one really should - and previously would - have been considered joint employment, though, IMNVHO. Several years ago the distinction was drawn between a "payrolling service" and a "professional employment organization." The payrolling service simply provides the software, recordkeeping, tax payments and sometimes benefit programs for employees but has no real control over them in regard to their hiring, termination, work place, schedule or performance. That isn't what this was, and the janitors got screwed.
The full description of 1st Amendment limitations for unions is depressing.What is remarkable about this case is how it makes things much worse for workers by only subtly reinterpreting the law.