Subject: The NLRB: Navigating a Shaky Future for Employers: LRI INK

November 21, 2024

To visit the blog post, click on the link below the article.

The NLRB: Navigating a Shaky Future for Employers

by Michael VanDervort

If you’re following the ongoing drama around the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), you know it’s been a wild ride lately. Between legal challenges to the Board’s structure, headline-grabbing policy shifts, and conflicting rulings at state and federal levels, plenty is happening to reshape the labor relations landscape. And let’s not forget the wildcard—a Trump-led NLRB that will flip the script entirely as soon as they can.


So, what’s the deal, and what should employers be doing about it? Let’s break it down.


The Legal Firestorm Over the NLRB’s Constitutionality

Big names like Amazon and SpaceX are challenging the NLRB’s very existence in court, claiming its administrative law judges (ALJs) and members are too insulated from presidential oversight. Their argument? The Board violates the separation of powers by functioning like a rogue agency.


But how are these claims holding up? According to Atlanta-based labor attorney Cary Burke, not great—at least in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Reena Raggi pointedly questioned the idea of “irreparable harm” when employers unhappy with NLRB rulings can still appeal in court. The Fifth Circuit, however, might take a harsher view, given its previous rulings against other federal agencies. If the circuits disagree, a Supreme Court showdown is almost inevitable. Buckle up.


New Rules, New Headaches: The Ban on Captive Audience Meetings

The NLRB’s recent Amazon decision to ban mandatory “captive audience meetings creates fresh challenges for employers. Once a common tactic during union drives, these mandatory meetings are now considered coercive and violate employees’ rights to free choice. Employers can still share their perspectives on unions but must ensure attendance is entirely voluntary—no attendance lists, no veiled threats.


What makes this even more complex is how the NLRB’s decision intersects with state-level captive audience laws. At least ten states, including California, Connecticut, and Minnesota, have passed laws banning these meetings, citing the need to protect workers from retaliation. The NLRB decision adds a federal twist, bolstering arguments that such bans align with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).


However, challengers argue that federal law preempts state-level efforts, setting the stage for a legal clash.


In Connecticut, where the captive audience law is being challenged, the NLRB’s decision has both sides claiming it supports their case. The state argues that the ruling confirms the validity of its ban, while opponents see it as an overreach that further justifies federal preemption claims. Employers are caught in the crossfire, with state and federal courts set to shape the future of this contentious issue.


Enter the Trump Factor 

Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room. Expect a Trump Board to hit the brakes on much of this. During his first term, Trump’s NLRB rolled back numerous pro-union policies, and there’s little doubt he’d do it again.

For employers, that means today’s changes, such as the captive audience meeting ban, could be short-lived. But compliance isn’t optional, even if the rules are in flux. Stay vigilant and prepare for potential reversals or further reforms.


The NLRB’s Stepped-Up Enforcement Game

While all these legal and political battles unfold, the NLRB remains aggressive in enforcement. Amazon recently found itself in the crosshairs again, with a federal judge ordering a third union election at one of its Alabama warehouses due to alleged interference. The takeaway? The Board is watching closely; even minor missteps during union campaigns could have significant consequences.


What Employers Should Do Right Now

Navigating the NLRB’s shifting policies and legal uncertainties can feel overwhelming, but proactive steps can keep you ahead of the game:

  • Keep Tabs on Legal Developments: Monitor the constitutional challenges and how courts handle state-level captive audience laws. Key rulings in the Second and Fifth Circuits could have nationwide implications.

  • Audit Your Policies: Ensure your workplace practices comply with the latest NLRB decisions. Ignorance isn’t bliss when it comes to labor law.

  • Adapt Communication Strategies: Mandatory meetings discussing unions are a no-go for now, so make sure you share your views while staying compliant.

  • Consult the Experts: Labor law is not a DIY project. Partner with legal professionals and labor consultants to help navigate this ever-changing landscape.

Encouraging Blue-Collar Workers To Embrace Automation Against The Backdrop Of The ILA Dispute

by Kimberly Ricci


In October, the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) suspended its strike against the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX) after reaching a semi-resolution. The parties punted automation with a new Jan. 15 strike deadline, and talks broke down last week. ILA President Harold Daggett still wants to roll back the current use of semi-automated cranes and gates. He insists upon “no automation” at Gulf and East Coast ports.


In response, the USMX criticized the ILA for aiming to “move our industry backward by restricting the future use of technology that has existed in some of our ports for nearly two decades.” Yikes. Sadly, the only way out of this automation dispute will be further union negotiations. However, if an employer can maintain a union-free workplace, can it ward off blue-collar workers’ trepidation over tech?


It’s a tricky issue but not insurmountable. After all, tech anxiety is a tale as old as time, and automation jitters run through every industry. Blue-collar workers’ existential worries are no different: they want assurances that their employer doesn’t want to replace them with machines.


Here are a few thoughts on how to broach the subject of automation:

  • First, a foundation of trust: Ideally, employers will have already fostered a workplace built upon open communication and kept promises so that workers will more readily embrace discussions on such a fear-stoking issue. In the words of the Brookings Institution, companies cannot count on the automation issue to “sort itself out on its own.” Letting those worries fester is a quick-serve recipe for opening the door to unions, who would be happy to fill that conversational vacuum.

  • Committing to helping workers future-proof their skills on a long-term basis: Workers can sniff out BS and probably sense if an employer is only providing lip service to the subject of upskilling. Employers who regularly offer on-the-job training are more likely to be trusted with skill development related to automation, and their workers will more readily embrace working alongside new tech.

  • Putting the positives into action: If workers experience how more mundane aspects of their jobs could be automated without losing job security, they’re more likely to ignore unions calling automation “a job killer.” More accurately, automation helps to ensure that the U.S. improves its own skill set. Stagnation would be the real job killer and much worse than the possibility of automation, causing the immediate loss of some jobs but creating more new ones in the process.

That final point sums up a danger posed by the ILA’s total automation ban, which would put the U.S. far behind other countries in terms of shipping capabilities and productivity. Heck, semi-automated cranes can substantially cut down loading times and instantly locate priority cargo, but the ILA doesn’t want that to happen.


It’s no wonder whether one op-ed writer wonders whether Daggett wants to “go back to taking days to load and unload ships, or workers trying to figure out how to fit random stuff on a vessel?” It seems like that might be the ILA’s real goal, to the detriment of everybody but itself.

An Organizing Cornucopia With No Incoming Holiday Cheer From The NLRB

by Kimberly Ricci

Labor news will likely downshift in the coming week with the Thanksgiving holiday ahead, and employers could use that break. After all, this month has already seen more than its fair share of upheaval, with some huge changes projected to come in 2025. 

 

Aggressive NLRB tactics from the current regime against employers also top off this month’s organizing roundup:

 

Uber and Lyft drivers can now theoretically unionize in one state, with Massachusetts being the first to take that plunge. At least, that is the result of a state-wide ballot initiative on November 5, and SEIU is ready to pounce. How this uncharted territory will work out is anyone’s guess because rideshare drivers are independent contractors and, therefore, not covered by the NLRA. 

 

Wells Fargo will soon begin its first contract talks after 22 branches out of 4,300+ total locations voted to join the CWA-affiliated Wells Fargo Workers United. Although the percentage of unionized branches remains relatively small, this remains the only successful organizing campaign at a major U.S. bank, so all eyes are on these contract negotiations.

 

CWA is increasingly targeting call center workers, and as one progressive publication sums up, it’s not surprising to some. Up to 4 million prospective members are currently working at 40,000 different locations throughout the U.S. This industry’s high turnover does pose organizing challenges regarding customer service reps and techs at cell phone and wireless internet providers, but CWA claims to have had greater success with airline call center reps, and they aren’t giving up on a bigger prize yet.

 

McMenamins hotel chain workers at two Pacific Northwest locations voted against unionization with IATSE. More than half of the potential bargaining unit decided not to vote, and of those that did, only 16 voted for the union, with 30 against representation.

 

Now for a collection of recent NLRB tactics:

 

Trader Joe’s workers at the first store to unionize (in Hadley, Mass) saw their decertification petition dismissed by an NLRB judge. Additionally, the NLRB has ordered the company to compensate workers at that location for allegedly sending them home for wearing union paraphernalia. 

 

Amazon: The Teamsters are seeking to use the Cemex doctrine after the online retailer declined to recognize the unionization of a San Francisco warehouse without a formal vote. And at the Bessemer, Alabama warehouse, the NLRB is forcing a third union vote after a judge accused the company of interfering with a previous election. 

 

Starbucks: The NLRB isn’t even close to being done with the coffeehouse giant amid a nationwide Workers United drive. A U.S. appeals court remains divided on whether the Board could order the company to reimburse a union activist for back pay after her dismissal. An NLRB judge also ruled that the company broke the law by excluding union cafes from raises because pay hikes needed to be negotiated with the union. 

 

Meanwhile, Workers United and Starbucks have been praising their progress in nailing down a framework for single-store contracts. However, that end-of-2024 contract goal will probably not be satisfied unless a sudden breakthrough happens. 

Stories You May Have Missed:


Inside the Bitter Battle Between Starbucks and Its Workers

Link


The Fight to Unionize US Call Center Workers

Link


Is the UAW's effort to unionize Alabama auto plants dead? 

Link


The UAW Leader Was Going to Upend Union Organizing. A Year Later It Hasn't Happened.

Link


Allegiant Air Teamsters Pilots, O'Brien and Zuckerman Practice Picket in Las Vegas

Link


About Labor Relations INK

Labor Relations INK is published weekly and is edited by LRI Consulting Services, Inc. Feel free to pass this newsletter on to anyone you think might enjoy it. New subscribers can sign up by visiting here.


If you use content from this newsletter, please attribute it to Labor Relations Institute and include our website: http://www.LRIonline.com 


Contributing editors for this issue: Greg Kittinger, Michael VanDervort, and Kimberly Ricci.


You are receiving this email because you subscribed to receive our labor relations newsletters and updates. You can manage your email preferences by clicking the link at the bottom of any of our email communications.


About Labor Relations Institute

LRI exists to help our clients thrive and become extraordinary workplaces. We improve the lives of working people by strengthening relationships with their leaders and each other. For over 41 years, LRI has led the labor and employee relations industry, driven by our core values and our proven process, the LRI Way.

 

Share