Podcast appearances and mentions of jennifer abruzzo

The firing of National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo—and the rescission of many of the policies initiated under the Biden administration—is just the start of the new administration's overhaul of labor policy. Labor Law Insider host Tom Godar welcomes Husch Blackwell's Rufino Gaytán and Tracy Wolf for this fascinating discussion that takes stock of where we are now and, more significantly, what the next few months will bring as the Trump administration takes full hold of the NLRB machinery.The insiders discuss not only the expected pro-management changes to come, but the unexpected appointment of a union-friendly Department of Labor secretary and pro-union comments by the president regarding the longshoremen who threatened a strike in January. Please join us for this entertaining discussion of what we know about real or potential changes in policy, including how the administration will likely approach the National Labor Relations Act. The insiders offer predictions for what might happen and when. Part II of this podcast will assess how these changes will impact policies and processes of employers in every sector and industry.

Dan Kaufman joins guest host Chali Pittman today to discuss Jennifer Abruzzo's legacy, Elon Musk, and the future of the NLRB. The post The Future of Labor Organizing with Dan Kaufman appeared first on WORT-FM 89.9.

In an unprecedented move, President Trump fired two members of the National Labor Relations Board as well as the General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo. While removing the GC is permissible, the removal of Board members without cause is legally tenuous at best and most likely not legal at all. We take a look. And the no taxes on tips conversation is raging at the state level with a number of states tackling the issue. Is this good news or another challenge for the industry to navigate? We'll do a deep dive on that. We'll talk about those issues and wrap it up with the legislative scorecard.

Joe Biden called himself "the most pro-labor President in American history," and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo was key to his enforcement efforts. As an administration with a much different posture on labor shapes up, Dan Kaufman, contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and author of The Fall of Wisconsin: The Conservative Conquest of a Progressive Bastion and the Future of American Politics (W. W. Norton & Company, 2018),  looks back through a century of the NLRB and NLRA.=>"What Labor Could Lose" (The New York Review of Books, 1/19/25)

It's Hump Day! Sam and Emma speak with KJ Boyle, research assistant with The Revolving Door Project, to discuss his recent piece in The New Republic entitled "Donald Trump Is No Friend to the Working Class." Then, they speak with Prem Thakker, politics reporter at The Intercept, to discuss his recent reporting on the use of chemical weapons on pro-Palestine demonstrators at Columbia University. And THEN, they are joined by David Bedar, history teacher and member of the Newton Teacher's Association (NTA), to discuss the teacher's union ongoing strike efforts. First, Sam and Emma run through updates on Donald Trump's New Hampshire win, US strikes on Yemen and Iraq, fracturing among the House and Senate GOP, mass layoffs, Sweden's NATO pitch, Ukraine's defensive, and US abortion travel bans, before parsing through Nikki Haley's response to her concrete loss in New Hampshire and Donald Trump's response to her. KJ Boyle then joins, diving right into his assessment of the incredible flourishing of the US labor movement under President Biden – particularly coming out of Donald Trump's administration – despite some pushback. Boyle tackles Donald Trump's very typical GOP approach to the labor wing of his administration, appointing CEOs and union-busting lawyers to the DOL and NLRB, before stepping back to assess Biden's appointments in Jennifer Abruzzo at the NLRB, and Julie Su as Secretary of Labor, and their importance in pushing us towards a return to the Joy Silk doctrine, and a re-establishment of US labor rights. Prem Thakker, next, walks Sam and Emma through Columbia University's long history of student activism and divestment campaigns, beyond and including Israel, before running through a briefer summary of the recent developments on Columbia's campus in the wake of October 7th, which have seen the disbanding of multiple pro-Palestinian student organizations and the rampant discrimination and harassment of Palestinian students and allies. Thakker wraps up with the recent attack on a Colombia protest by alleged Zionist students, and Colombia's refusal to address the incident without extreme pressure. David Bedar joins from the picket line in Newton, MA, as he walks through the basis for the NTA's strike in the city and the Mayor's complete mismanagement of the education sector, from underfunding and understaffing to poor pay and absurdly poor family policy, before wrapping up the show by walking through the incredibly important role of the Newton community and alumni network in standing with the Teachers' association, and what those of us outside of the community can do to help. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma discuss Jimmy Dore's new alchemical grift (it's just Silver Hawkery), Donald Trump shouts out Q in the year 2024 (and it works), and Nikki Haley's subdued performance among the best possible electorate for her. Barbara Lee kills her debate response to Adam Schiff over calls for a ceasefire, the MR Crew watches another Israeli dissident speak out against their country's failures and abuses, and Charlie Kirk downgrades his bigotry to purely speculative. Fox calls out the “media training” of the “Vice President” and the super mean statements by “snowflake” AOC, and the MR Crew walks through developments in the Child Tax Credit, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out KJ's piece here: https://newrepublic.com/article/178233/working-class-2024-biden-labor Check out the Revolving Door Project here: https://therevolvingdoorproject.org/ Check out Prem's reporting here: https://theintercept.com/2024/01/22/columbia-university-palestine-protest-skunk/ Find out more about the NTA and how you can support them here: https://www.newteach.org/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: HelloFresh: Go to https://HelloFresh.com/majorityfree and use code majorityfree for FREE breakfast for life! One breakfast item per box while subscription is active. That's free breakfast for life at https://HelloFresh.com/majorityfree with code majorityfree. Henson Shaving: It's time to say no to subscriptions and yes to a razor that'll last you a lifetime. Visit https://HENSONSHAVING.com/MAJORITY to pick the razor for you and use code MAJORITY and you'll get two years' worth of blades free with your razor–just make sure to add them to your cart. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

On this day in history, August 25, 1921, the U.S.–German Peace Treaty was signed in Berlin, marking a significant moment in the aftermath of World War I. The treaty was necessitated by the U.S. Senate's refusal to ratify the multilateral peace treaty signed in Versailles, leading to a separate peace agreement with Germany. The U.S. had declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917, and was part of the Allied Powers that defeated the German Empire. The end of the war saw the overthrow of the German monarchy and the establishment of a republic. Spoiler alert for those that haven't read the next chapter in the metaphorical history book yet, that would not go well.The U.S. Senate's objections to the Versailles Treaty were largely due to its provisions regarding the League of Nations. As a result, the U.S. and Germany began negotiations for a bilateral peace treaty, culminating in the signing of the treaty on August 25, 1921. The treaty became effective on November 11, 1921, after ratifications were exchanged in Berlin. It laid the foundations for American-German cooperation outside the strict supervision of the League of Nations, partially assisting the Weimar Republic in easing the burden of war reparations. Diplomatic relations were reestablished, and a supplementary treaty was signed in 1922 to decide the amount of reparations to be paid by Germany to the U.S. The signing of the treaty also led to the retirement of the Morgan silver dollar in favor of the new Peace dollar design, symbolizing a new era of peace and cooperation–in aspirations if not in reality. Treaty between the United States and Germany restoring friendly relations, signed at Berlin August 25, 1921The Biden administration is collaborating with Texas to restore Medicaid coverage to approximately 90,000 individuals who had lost it erroneously, according to senior officials from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The officials are working with the state's Medicaid agency to reinstate coverage back to the date when it was terminated. The restoration is expected to be completed by the end of the month. This move follows a letter from Democratic House members from Texas, urging the CMS to investigate reported problems at the Texas Medicaid agency. A whistleblower letter had alleged system failures leading to incorrect coverage terminations, affecting thousands of pregnant women and seniors. The Texas Democrats accused the state of not complying with federal Medicaid requirements and called for CMS intervention. Nearly 600,000 Texans have already lost Medicaid coverage in recent months, mostly due to procedural reasons. Legislators have warned of further "catastrophic coverage losses" as Texas sends renewal notices to more enrollees. Rep. Lloyd Doggett emphasized the need for swift federal action to prevent interruptions in care for disadvantaged families.HHS Moves to Restore Medicaid Coverage to 90,000 in Texas (1)JPMorgan Chase & Co. has won a federal appeals court ruling that a $1.8 billion leveraged loan was not a security, marking a significant victory for the banking and private equity sectors. The ruling came in a securities fraud lawsuit related to a 2014 syndicated loan deal led by JPMorgan for drug-testing company Millennium Health, which later filed for bankruptcy. Currently, loan notes are not considered securities, so a ruling against JPMorgan could have had broad implications for the regulation of the leveraged loan market. If classified as securities, loans would require additional disclosures, more financial data, and quicker settlement of trades. The decision is seen as favorable for banks and private equity firms, which frequently use leveraged loans in buyout deals. Advocates for reclassifying leveraged loans have argued that it would bring transparency to an opaque part of the financial markets. The appeals court agreed with a lower court's dismissal of the plaintiff's fraud claims, finding that the notes were not securities. The Securities and Exchange Commission declined to offer its opinion on the matter, despite heavy lobbying from the Loan Syndications and Trading Association. The trustee had claimed that JPMorgan and other banks withheld crucial information about Millennium's troubles. The appeals court found that the notes did not meet three of the four factors required to be considered a security under U.S. law.The test to determine whether a financial instrument is considered a security under U.S. law comes from the Supreme Court case of SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946). This test is commonly referred to as the Howey Test, and it has four factors that must be considered:* Investment of Money: There must be an investment of money or other tangible or definable consideration.* Common Enterprise: The investment must be in a common enterprise, meaning that the fortunes of the investor are interwoven with those of either the promoter or a third party.* Expectation of Profits: There must be an expectation of profits from the investment. This could include capital appreciation resulting from the development of the initial investment or a participation in earnings.* Efforts of Others: The profits must come solely from the efforts of others, typically the promoter or third party, not the investor. This element emphasizes that the investor must be a passive participant in the business.Subsequent cases, such as United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975), have further clarified the Howey Test, specifically focusing on the economic realities of the scheme and noting that the form should be disregarded for the substance. Moreover, other cases such as Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 (1990), introduced a "family resemblance test" which helps in differentiating notes that are securities from those that are not.The Howey Test remains a fundamental standard in securities law, providing a broad and flexible framework to accommodate the evolving nature of investment schemes.JPMorgan Wins Ruling That Leveraged Loans Are Not Securities (2)Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has lost a bid to force Google and YouTube to restore videos in which he questioned the safety of Covid-19 vaccines. Kennedy, who is seeking to be the Democratic Party's 2024 presidential nominee, alleged that YouTube violated his First Amendment right to political speech when it removed the videos due to its medical and vaccine misinformation policies. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California stated that the suit is likely to fail because Google and YouTube are not state actors subject to the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Judge Trina L. Thompson denied Kennedy's motion for a temporary restraining order that would prevent the tech companies from keeping the videos off their platform. The judge ruled that emails between government officials and Google personnel about vaccine misinformation were not enough to show that YouTube's decisions were state decisions or evidence of a conspiracy to censor speech. There was no evidence that government officials demanded that Google adopt a Covid-19 misinformation policy, nor that they communicated with Google regarding Kennedy specifically. The evidence showed that communications between government officials and Google were merely "consultation and information sharing." The case is scheduled for a hearing on November 7 regarding Kennedy's motion for a preliminary injunction and the companies' motion to dismiss.RFK Jr. Loses Bid to Force YouTube to Re-Post Anti-Vax VideosStarbucks Corp. is on the verge of defeating a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) attempt to obtain a temporary injunction from a New York federal court. US District Judge John Sinatra ruled that the NLRB's move to block the court's discovery order in the case is "repugnant" and necessitates the dismissal of the agency's injunction petition. The NLRB has until September 1 to avoid dismissal by ceasing efforts to obstruct the discovery order. This ruling is a significant victory for Starbucks' aggressive discovery strategy in response to the NLRB's attempts to quickly obtain court orders. The NLRB has authorized its General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, to sue Starbucks 10 separate times for 10(j) injunctions. The NLRB has won two cases and obtained an interim settlement in a third, while Sinatra's decision could mark the second loss for the agency. Three cases are ongoing, and one authorized petition hasn't been filed yet. Abruzzo plans to challenge Sinatra's ruling at the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Starbucks Workers United criticized the decision, while a Starbucks spokesperson said the ruling made clear that the NLRB "crossed the line." The injunction case has lasted over 400 days, mainly due to discovery disputes, with Sinatra permitting Starbucks to issue nearly 22 subpoenas for various information related to union activities.Starbucks on Verge of Beating NLRB Injunction Bid in N.Y. (1)Former U.S. President Donald Trump was booked at an Atlanta jail on more than a dozen felony charges related to his attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat in Georgia. Though his mugshot was released, the focus of the case is on the wide-ranging criminal charges he faces. Trump spent only about 20 minutes at the jail before returning to his New Jersey golf club, maintaining that the prosecution is politically motivated. Judge Scott McAfee set a trial date of October 23 for one of Trump's 18 co-defendants, but the schedule does not yet apply to Trump or the other defendants. Trump faces 13 felony counts in the Georgia case, including racketeering, for pressuring state officials to reverse his election loss. Trump's legal team is expected to push for a later trial start date. In total, Trump faces 91 criminal counts across four cases. He has pleaded not guilty in the three other cases and denied wrongdoing. In the Georgia case, arraignments are requested to begin the week of September 5. Trump agreed to post a $200,000 bond and accepted bail conditions that would bar him from threatening witnesses or his co-defendants in the Georgia case. Republicans who control the U.S. House of Representatives announced they would investigate whether the prosecutor improperly coordinated with federal prosecutors.Trump's mug shot released after booking at Georgia jail on election charges | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Join Michael VanDervort and guest co-host Phil Wilson of The Labor Relations Institute as we discuss some weird Teamster organizing shenanigans involving Amazon in California, the impact of the Glacier Northwest decision by SCOTUS, Jennifer Abruzzo's latest overreach, and the nuances of negotiating with new unions at a large employer like Starbucks.  Click here for some bonus useful tips to help HR practitioners build out a strategy for gathering evidence on a picket line.     

On today's episode, NLRB General Counsel Abruzzo talks directly about the new Memorandum she issued this week and why she believes that the proffer, maintenance, and enforcement of non-compete agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act.

Ep233: Like a balloon filling up with air to the point it explodes, your workforce just might be filling up with stress. So how can employers prevent employees from blowing up? Good question. To help with answers, we welcome Dr. Cathy Daus, Professor at SIUE, and an expert in stress management and emotional intelligence. Police organizations, hospitals, and AAIM members alike look to her for guidance when it comes to improving wellness and enjoying the positive results that follow.   Lawyer on the Clock: 4:04 - The NLRB's General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, has issued a memorandum that non-compete agreements in employment contracts and severance agreements violate the NLRA except in limited circumstances. This does not cover management, and does not stray from advice or recommendations that non-compete really should be narrowly tailored to those employees who really can impact or hurt the organization just simply by leaving to go to a competitor.  7:30 - The nomination of Julie Su to Secretary of Labor is currently held up in congress.  8:42 - The EEOC has announced it will be cracking down on the construction industry for anti-bias enforcement, particularly as it relates to gender and race.  9:16 - The NLRB, Division 14 in Missouri has concluded that workers at a Missouri cannabis dispensary can move forward with unionization without including two other stores because they are categorized as a health care employer under the MO Department of Health and Senior Services.  Philburt's Phorum: 13:01 - An empty test email was accidentally sent out to the HBO Max mailing list by an intern. The people of the internet responded with the biggest (and most amusing) mistakes they had made in their careers.  The Employers' Lounge: Workplace Stress 16:40 -  Dr. Cathy Daus, Professor at SIUE, and an expert in stress management and emotional intelligence, joins the program to discuss stress, and provide tips on emotional management and stress response in the workplace.  23:33 - Workers in the US have been stressed for many decades, and we have seen the trend increase over time. 25:19 - One of the biggest, most consistent buffers for stress is social support. 28:50 - People bring themselves into the workplace, and all aspects of themselves need to be nurtured and supported.  32:37 - It is unsurprising that micromanagement came up as one of the biggest stressors in our poll. Being micromanaged makes people feel like they don't have control.    Host(s):  Phil Brandt, President and CEO, AAIM Employers' Association Burt Garland, Shareholder, Ogletree Deakins   Special Guest(s):  Dr. Cathy Daus, Professor and Director of the I/O Psychology Program at SIUE, and Trainer at AAIM   Powered by AAIM Employers' Association and Ogletree Deakins, a Feature Group USA production

We have a somber anniversary to acknowledge today as our “this day in legal history” entry. On this day in 1921 the Tulsa race massacre occurred in Tulsa, Oklahoma. In May 1921, the Greenwood neighborhood in Tulsa, Oklahoma, was a thriving and prosperous community built by Black people. It was known as America's Black Wall Street and was home to approximately 10,000 residents. Greenwood had a vibrant economy with businesses, homes, schools, churches, and entertainment venues.However, in less than 24 hours, the neighborhood was destroyed by racial violence during the Tulsa Race Massacre. A white mob of looters and arsonists attacked Greenwood, killing hundreds of residents and destroying homes and businesses. The violence was fueled by resentment towards the Black prosperity found in Greenwood.The financial toll of the massacre was estimated to be $1.8 million in property loss claims, equivalent to $27 million in today's dollars. The destruction of property was just one aspect of the devastation caused by the massacre. The real loss was the incalculable generational wealth that could have shaped the fortunes of Black families and contributed to their economic prosperity.Greenwood was rebuilt in the years following the massacre, but it eventually declined due to urban renewal and other factors. The legacy of the massacre has been deliberately buried in history, and even many descendants of perpetrators and victims only learned about it as adults. The survivors faced challenges in rebuilding their lives, including resistance from white officials and insurance companies.To this day, no one has been held accountable for the destruction caused by the Tulsa Race Massacre. WHAT THE TULSA RACE MASSACRE DESTROYED1921 Tulsa Race Massacre - Tulsa Historical SocietyI've been reluctant to report on this story, just owing to the fact that it has been presented as an AI-gone-wrong story and it isn't clear to me it is really about AI at all. It seems to be, in chief, a story about legal malpractice and the misuse of technology more generally. It has been making the rounds, however, and so…A recent incident involving a lawyer and the use of OpenAI's ChatGPT chatbot highlights the risks of relying on AI technology without appropriate safeguards. Lawyers Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca are facing potential sanctions after submitting a court brief, written by ChatGPT, that cited six nonexistent cases, which were themselves fabricated by ChatGPT. Schwartz initially believed the tool had provided authentic citations but later discovered that they were invented. This case raises concerns about over-reliance on AI and the need for regulatory guidance in the legal profession.While AI tools like ChatGPT promise to ease lawyer workloads by compiling information and engaging in human-like conversations, they should not replace the need for careful verification of work.Schwartz used ChatGPT while representing a client in a case involving an injury on an Avianca Airlines flight. District Judge Kevin Castel noticed the nonexistent cases and bogus quotes in the brief, which were provided by ChatGPT. Schwartz had not used ChatGPT for legal research before and was unaware that its content could be false. The case raises questions about whether lawyers should disclose their reliance on AI tools in their work.The incident has been pointed to as highlighting the need for law firms to establish internal policies addressing the use of generative AI. To my mind, it is more about the need to establish internal policies addressing the use of technology more generally – this same result could have happened with any form of research gone awry, or even through the misuse of autocorrect. While law firms expect their personnel to become proficient in using generative AI, they must also remain mindful of the risks and limitations associated with these technologies and the limitations of their own staff that may not be the most technologically proficient folks. Technology training, more than AI-specific training, is what is needed. Lawyer's AI Blunder Shows Perils of ChatGPT in ‘Early Days'A debt-limit deal reached between President Joe Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy is set to be voted on in the House of Representatives after passing a crucial procedural hurdle. The legislation aims to suspend the US borrowing ceiling and cap federal spending, and it needs to be passed before June 5 to avoid a potential US default. While leaders in both parties support the deal, they face opposition from members who are unhappy with the concessions made during the negotiation process. The bill would set federal spending for the next two years and suspend the debt ceiling until January 2025. In exchange for Republican votes, Democrats agreed to cap federal spending, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating that the bill would reduce deficits by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The fate of the bill was uncertain, but it cleared the Rules Committee with the support of some conservatives, allowing it to move forward for a vote in the House. Both parties express optimism about the bill's passage in the House and its potential to meet the June 5 deadline. Dissatisfaction among conservative members has grown, with some calling for McCarthy's removal as speaker.Debt-Limit Deal Heads to House Vote After Clearing Key HurdleManhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has filed documents to prevent former President Donald Trump from moving a state criminal case to federal court. The case involves charges of falsifying business records prior to the 2016 election. Bragg argues that Trump is not entitled to a change in venue since he is not a federal officer. Additionally, Bragg asserts that Trump was not a federal officer at the time of the alleged crimes, which relate to a hush money payment to a porn star before Trump became president. Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records, and prosecutors claim that he falsified records to conceal reimbursements to his former lawyer related to the payment to the porn star. Trump's lawyers had argued that the federal court had jurisdiction because the charges involved conduct during his presidency. The trial is scheduled for March 2024, coinciding with Trump's campaign for the 2024 presidential election.Manhattan prosecutor seeks to keep Trump hush money case in state court | ReutersCredit Suisse Group AG and its ex-auditor KPMG LLP are facing a lawsuit filed by stockholder Gregory Stevenson, who accuses them of "recklessly" mismanaging and "plundering" the bank for over a decade prior to its collapse in March. Stevenson is suing 29 current and former directors and officers of Credit Suisse, its New York-based units, and KPMG on behalf of a proposed class of investors. The complaint alleges that KPMG knew about Credit Suisse's lack of internal controls for more than 15 years while certifying its financial statements. KPMG's motivation was purportedly the desire for substantial fees from Credit Suisse, on which it had become dependent. KPMG was replaced as Credit Suisse's auditor by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2020. The lawsuit also claims that KPMG stole an oversight board's confidential list of audits it would review, and then destroyed and altered workpapers to deceive regulators. Stevenson seeks compensatory and treble damages, an accounting of leaders' compensation, disgorgement of benefits, and equitable relief. Credit Suisse and KPMG have declined to comment on the matter.KPMG, Credit Suisse Leaders Sued for ‘Reckless' Bank ManagementNoncompete agreements in employment contracts and severance agreements generally violate federal labor law, according to a memo issued by the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo. The memo states that noncompete pacts are illegal when they could be interpreted as impeding workers' ability to change jobs or quit, thus hindering their right to engage in collective action to improve working conditions. Such agreements undermine workers' bargaining power during labor disputes and limit job options for those terminated for unionizing or participating in workplace activism. The memo highlights regulatory convergence between the NLRB and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which initiated steps to ban noncompetes earlier this year. Around one in five Americans is subject to noncompete agreements, with higher prevalence in certain industries like technology. Abruzzo's memo signals her intent to establish NLRB precedent on noncompetes, and she called for regional agency officers to submit cases involving potentially illegal noncompete agreements. While some tightly crafted noncompetes may be justified to protect proprietary information, the memo suggests that employers' desire to avoid competition or retain workers is unlikely to warrant such agreements, particularly when imposed on low- or middle-wage workers without trade secrets or in states where noncompetes are unenforceable.Noncompete Pacts Violate Labor Law, Top NLRB Lawyer Says (1) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The cost of success for Kansas State, BYU's AD Tom Holmoe pens a letter to fans over football season ticket/seating issues, NLRB's Jennifer Abruzzo weighs in on the potential unionization of collegiate athletes, Texas looks to protect schools in NIL matters and more. Be sure to check your inbox to see more of today's news and notes from around the nation. We would love to know what you think of the show and you can let us know on social media @D1ticker. If you are not subscribed to D1.ticker, you can and should subscribe at www.d1ticker.com/.

The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, Jennifer Abruzzo, is back to discuss the latest developments on the potential employee status and unionization of college athletes.  Ms. Abruzzo breaks down what to expect next in the USC/Pac-12/NCAA NLRB case and what this all might mean for the future of college athletes and college sports.  

Last week, on March 16th, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan against the National Labor Relations Board's General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo (aka ‘The Memo Writer').At issue, according to a report by The Center Square, was a public memorandum announcing that she would “urge the Board to correct its longstanding precedent that allowed business owners to speak to their employees about unionization” and the ‘chilling effect' her memo has had on employers' First Amendment rights.The plaintiff in the lawsuit is the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) of Michigan, a statewide trade association.In this episode of Labor Relations Radio, Buck Dougherty, a Senior Attorney at the Liberty Justice Center, and one of the attorneys representing ABC of Michigan, discusses the lawsuit and its possible ramifications.“Courts have made it clear that when a government official's speech is not an attempt to convince but an attempt to coerce, then that official has crossed the line into threatening behavior,” LJC senior attorney Buck Dougherty said in a statement. “And the Supreme Court held many years ago in its Bantam Books decision that a threat of prosecution designed as a censorship scheme violates the First Amendment.”Related:Trade association sues labor board prosecutor over alleged First Amendment violationsThe Lawsuit: Associated Builders and Contractors of Michigan, plaintiff v. Honorable Jennifer A. Abruzzo, in her official capacity as General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, defendant Labor Relations Radio, Ep. 31—Guest: Attorney Matt Miller On The Texas Lawsuit Against The NLRB's Attempt To Restrict Employer SpeechFor prior episodes of Labor Relations Radio, go here.__________________________LaborUnionNews.com's Labor Relations Radio is a subscriber-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber here.

Share this episode of Labor Relations Radio with your colleagues.Last week, on March 16th, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan against the National Labor Relations Board's General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo (aka ‘The Memo Writer').At issue, according to a report by The Center Square, was a public memorandum announcing that she would “urge the Board to correct its longstanding precedent that allowed business owners to speak to their employees about unionization” and the ‘chilling effect' her memo has had on employers' First Amendment rights.The plaintiff in the lawsuit is the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) of Michigan, a statewide trade association.In this episode of Labor Relations Radio, Buck Dougherty, a Senior Attorney at the Liberty Justice Center, and one of the attorneys representing ABC of Michigan, discusses the lawsuit and its possible ramifications.“Courts have made it clear that when a government official's speech is not an attempt to convince but an attempt to coerce, then that official has crossed the line into threatening behavior,” LJC senior attorney Buck Dougherty said in a statement. “And the Supreme Court held many years ago in its Bantam Books decision that a threat of prosecution designed as a censorship scheme violates the First Amendment.”Related:* Trade association sues labor board prosecutor over alleged First Amendment violations* The Lawsuit: Associated Builders and Contractors of Michigan, plaintiff v. Honorable Jennifer A. Abruzzo, in her official capacity as General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, defendant * Labor Relations Radio, Ep. 31—Guest: Attorney Matt Miller On The Texas Lawsuit Against The NLRB's Attempt To Restrict Employer SpeechFor prior episodes of Labor Relations Radio, go here.LaborUnionNews.com's Labor Relations Radio is a subscriber-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, become a subscriber. Get full access to LaborUnionNews.com's News Digest at laborunionnews.substack.com/subscribe

In late 2021, following a class action suit in which the Supreme Court decided some college athletes should be allowed to earn money off their image and likeness, a Biden administration lawyer with the National Labor Relations Board named Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo clarifying that some college athletes could now be considered employees of state universities.This memo led to breathless articles from well-known, hard left outlets like In These Times arguing that employees of the state designation meant potential unionization of college athletes and, as In These Times said, “a new progressive institution powerful enough to bend the South to its will.”This idea gained traction in December of last year when the NLRB determined that the Pac 12 Conference and the University of Southern California were indeed employers of athletes at the school and were violating the law by failing to treat student basketball and football players as employees.Joining me today to discuss sports unions and the possibility of collective bargaining at the collegiate level is my colleague Mike Watson. Links: https://inthesetimes.com/article/nlrb-college-football-union-labor-ncaa-abruzzo https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/ncaa-violated-athletes-labor-rights-us-labor-officials-say https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/minor-league-baseball-players-unionize-minor-leaguers-officially-join-mlbpa-after-authorization/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2022/02/12/players-union-unimpressed-with-mlbs-new-proposal-lockout/6767700001/ Follow us on our Socials: Twitter: @capitalresearch Instagram: @capitalresearchcenter Facebook: www.facebook.com/capitalresearchcenter YouTube: @capitalresearchcenter

Hear insights from Jennifer Abruzzo, General Counsel of the NLRB and Mike Sellars, Executive Director of the Washington PERC on some of the main labor law topics of the day. References:General Counsel MemosNLRB.govPERC.wa.gov

Workers are standing up for their rights across America, but to fight back against corporate power, they need help. This week Adam is joined by the General Counsel of the NLRB, Jennifer Abruzzo, to explain how the NLRB protects workers, and how to know YOUR rights in the workplace. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Workers are standing up for their rights across America, but to fight back against corporate power, they need help. This week Adam is joined by the General Counsel of the NLRB, Jennifer Abruzzo, to explain how the NLRB protects workers, and how to know YOUR rights in the workplace. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The National Labor Relations Board is a federal agency tasked with making sure workers can organize to improve their working conditions, wages or form a union. But the NLRB says some employers are using technology to prevent or discourage workers from doing just that. The agency released a public memo on Oct. 31 saying it plans to protect employees from “intrusive or abusive electronic monitoring and automated management,” practices the NLRB says are increasingly happening as the technology gets better and companies seek more oversight of their workers, especially with more people working remotely. Marketplace’s Kimberly Adams spoke with Jennifer Abruzzo, general counsel for the agency and author of the memo, about some of the new surveillance methods that concern her.

The National Labor Relations Board is a federal agency tasked with making sure workers can organize to improve their working conditions, wages or form a union. But the NLRB says some employers are using technology to prevent or discourage workers from doing just that. The agency released a public memo on Oct. 31 saying it plans to protect employees from “intrusive or abusive electronic monitoring and automated management,” practices the NLRB says are increasingly happening as the technology gets better and companies seek more oversight of their workers, especially with more people working remotely. Marketplace’s Kimberly Adams spoke with Jennifer Abruzzo, general counsel for the agency and author of the memo, about some of the new surveillance methods that concern her.

OPEIU 2 workers at MTA last week approved a historic deal. Today's labor quote: Jennifer Abruzzo.   Today's labor history: Google employees walkout to protest sexual harassment.      @wpfwdc #1u #unions #LaborRadioPod @AFLCIO @OPEIULocal2 @NLRBGC Proud founding member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network.

OPEIU 2 workers at MTA last week approved a historic deal. Today's labor quote: Jennifer Abruzzo.   Today's labor history: Google employees walkout to protest sexual harassment.      @wpfwdc #1u #unions #LaborRadioPod @AFLCIO @OPEIULocal2 @NLRBGC Proud founding member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network.

Gallup reports that a whopping (and record) 72 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 approve of labor unions. That's especially remarkable given that a bare 3 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 belong to one. Despite the recent victories of Starbucks workers and noteworthy efforts by Amazon warehouse workers, the rate of union membership in America has fallen to its lowest in seventy years: now a bare 6 percent of private-sector employees.Republicans hate unions. Democrats won't abolish the filibuster, so lack the votes to strengthen unions. (With any luck, that will change in the next Congress.)Yet there's a direct and unambiguous relationship between the rate of union membership and the share of total income going to the top 10 percent, as this graph makes clear: The fortunes of American unions and workers are starting to look up nonetheless— and that's mainly because of a person you probably never heard of, in the most important job you probably didn't know existed.Her name is Jennifer Abruzzo. A year ago she was confirmed on a party-line vote to be general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).The NLRB hears cases, makes rulings, and sets binding precedents about what does and doesn't constitute a violation of America's labor laws.Its general counsel is the agency's chief prosecutor, directing roughly 500 attorneys across the nation in 26 regional offices.Which gives Abruzzo a huge say over how the private sector in America may or may not treat workers.Installing Jennifer Abruzzo as the NLRB's general counsel may be the single most important initiative the Biden administration has taken for working people so far — and least known. Abruzzo is no newcomer to the agency. She spent 23 of her 58 years as an attorney there, starting as a field attorney in Miami and rising to deputy general counsel during the Obama administration. But she has taken her new job by storm, instructing her 500 attorneys to make it far more costly for employers to illegally fire workers for trying to form unions. It's about time. American companies have been charged with violating federal law in over 40 percent of all union election campaigns. But until Abruzzo came on the job, the worst that could happen to them was the equivalent of a weak slap on the wrist. Starbucks, for example, has illegally fired dozens of employees for trying to organize a union. Abruzzo has responded with complaints accusing Starbucks of 81 illegal labor practices — including those firings, plus spying on workers and closing stores in retaliation for unionizing. (The Starbucks workers' union also wants her to file a complaint against the company for giving raises and improved benefits to baristas at non-union stores but not to workers at stores that have already unionized. Hopefully, she will; it's also blatantly illegal.)Apple has been telling workers at its retail stores that joining a union could result in fewer promotions and inflexible hours. The National Labor Relations Board just issued a complaint against Apple over accusations that it interrogated its retail workers about their union support and prevented pro-labor flyers in a store break room.Rather than give employers such as Starbucks and Apple mere slaps on wrists, Abruzzo is seeking to increase worker power overall, in seven important ways: * Getting workers who have been illegally fired back into their jobs right away, while their organizing campaigns are still ongoing. She is getting courts to compel this (by injunction) by arguing that waiting for the legal process to unfold will be too late. * Getting back pay for these workers that covers financial losses as well as lost wages — including their withdrawals from savings and retirement funds, loans, and credit card fees. And she wants employers to compensate unions for expenses incurred in fighting their illegal behavior.* Making it illegal for employers to require that workers attend “captive audience” meetings to hear management's case against unionizing. (The union seeking to organize Amazon's warehouse workers in Bessemer, Alabama, has alleged that Amazon is doing just this.)* Making employers recognize a union once a majority of workers sign cards saying they want one (thereby returning to a 1949 NLRB rule). “We should not be allowing those employers to delay recognition so that they can coerce these workers to think differently or choose differently,” she says. * Making it illegal for employers to misclassify workers as independent contractors — which the Board can remedy by finding that the workers are employees and thus eligible to unionize. (On March 17th, NLRB attorneys filed a complaint against a port trucking company at the Los Angeles harbor for illegally misclassifying drivers. If upheld, the firm will have to compensate the drivers for lost wages and expenses and provide a union access to the drivers for an organizing campaign.)* Allowing graduate students and college athletes to unionize. * Recommitting the NLRB to protect the right of immigrants to organize regardless of their immigration status.Abruzzo can't make any of this happen by waving a wand. She and her 500 attorneys must first win cases before administrative law judges, and then the NLRB. These cases are underway. With a Democratic majority on the NLRB, there's a good chance she'll prevail there. Yet many companies that lose will appeal the NLRB's decisions to the federal courts. A few of these cases will end up at what's become a viciously anti-labor Supreme Court.  But it normally takes years for NLRB rulings to reach the highest court, by which time workers may have gained a real voice for the first time decades. As Harold Meyerson has reported, a new generation of 20- and 30-somethings are organizing at warehouses (Amazon Labor Union leader Chris Smalls is 34), at retail and food outlets ranging from REI and Starbucks to Chipotle and Trader Joe's, and even at nonprofits, museums, state legislatures, and universities.If they succeed, Jennifer Abruzzo will deserve much of the credit. “We are a neutral, independent federal agency, but we have a pro-worker congressional mandate, and I'm going to vigorously protect the right of workers to self-organize, join a union and bargain collectively with representatives of their own choosing.” Abruzzo says. She's on her way to doing this, folks. More power to her — which means more power for American workers to countervail the immense power of big American corporations.P.S. Thank you for being part of this community. Subscribers to this newsletter are keeping it going. Please consider joining if you haven't already. We also appreciate you sharing this content with others and adding your thoughts in the comments. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

The National Labor Relations Board, primarily through its General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, has initiated a course of seeking increasingly stiffer remedies from employers who are either found to have committed an unfair labor practice, or even for those who are subject to an unfair labor practice complaint and are merely seeking to resolve the complaint through negotiation with the National Labor Relations Boards (NLRB) agent. As discussed in Part I of this Labor Law Podcast series on remedies, the General Counsel issued two memos (General Counsel memo 22-02 and General Counsel memo 21-07) admonishing the regions to seek even more inclusive remedies, as well as instructing the Regional Directors to initiate the federal court process for injunctive relief earlier in the process and perhaps more frequently than had been the case earlier. Husch Blackwell's Labor Law Insiders Tom Godar, Terry Potter, Adam Doerr and Rufino Gaytán continue the discussion, and review the NLRB's more aggressive posture for 10(j) injunctive relief, which must be granted by federal courts. In addition, the discussion reviews the potential impact of tougher remedies, including the incentive for employers to litigate more often since they gain very little relief from a settlement when the Board is seeking full remedies. This reluctance to settle a charge might be even greater given the Board's insistence that employers publicly record and distribute a notice admitting to the alleged violations of the Act, or even apologize to workers if the Board concludes that they were subject to discrimination based on their protective and concerted activities. The Labor Law Insiders emphasize that employers should take appropriate steps to avoid, or at least minimize, the likelihood that an unfair labor practice (ULP) claim will be filed. Our panel suggests that there must be a renewed emphasis on training supervisors and communicating effectively and with transparency with employees.  In addition, employers should review handbooks and other policies that might invite the Board's scrutiny as it seeks to reverse Trump-era decisions and expand its interpretation of employee and union rights, especially as it relates to work rules pertaining to social media use and other employee communications. In addition, review by counsel of actions that might result in employee discipline or discharges is essential, given the greater risks and costs of facing a ULP charge. Even while this podcast was being recorded, the General Counsel issued still another remedies memo (General Counsel memo 22-06), which celebrates and advocates for very harsh remedies for alleged ULPs. In addition, the Board is seeking broad remedies related to some of the hundreds of Starbucks organizing efforts, including bargaining orders as opposed to new elections, when it believes that employees' rights to participate in an election have been violated. Those developments are the focus of a special third part to this Insider podcast series, featuring attorney Terry Potter. Terry draws on his experience and expertise to describe these changes and the further impact they have upon employee, union and employer behavior. Stay tuned for Part III of this series, which will be released very soon.

In today's new episode, I am joined by NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo to discuss significant recent activity at the Board, including her position that employer "captive audience meetings" held with employees violate the National Labor Relations Act.

The general counsel of the NLRB, Jennifer Abruzzo, made some startling recommendations to the Board this week, one of which would essentially revitalize card check, long a top labor union priority. We'll discuss what she is doing and the impacts it could have on restaurant operators. And the SEC has turned down McDonald's request to omit a shareholder resolution from its annual proxy calling for a civil rights audit of the company. We'll discuss the dynamics behind the resolution as well as discuss the growing influence activist shareholders are having on corporate decision making. And of course, the latest and greatest on Starbucks as they overwhelmingly lost another big pile of elections this week. We'll discuss those issues and wrap it up with the legislative scorecard.

American Prospect editor Harold Meyerson on NLRB general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo's push to restore eroded worker rights.     Today's labor quote: Harold Meyerson. Today's labor history: Debs imprisoned for opposing war.    @wpfwdc #1u #unions #LaborRadioPod @AFLCIO @TheProspect @NLRB @HaroldMeyerson Proud founding member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network.

American Prospect editor Harold Meyerson on NLRB general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo's push to restore eroded worker rights.     Today's labor quote: Harold Meyerson. Today's labor history: Debs imprisoned for opposing war.    @wpfwdc #1u #unions #LaborRadioPod @AFLCIO @TheProspect @NLRB @HaroldMeyerson Proud founding member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network.

American Federation of Teachers Mississippi (AFT-MS) President Geraldine Bender joined the America's Work Force Union podcast and discussed the struggle to raise teacher pay in Mississippi amidst an ongoing teacher shortage across the state.    Labor Lawyer Joyce Goldstein was today's second guest and addressed a memo by Jennifer Abruzzo, National Labor Relations Board General Counsel, who stated captive audience meetings should be considered illegal. She also discussed the recent successful vote to unionize at an Amazon Fulfillment Center in Staten Island and what she expects to happen next in this ongoing battle. 

Broadcast on April 7, 2022 Hosted by Chris Garlock & Ed Smith American Prospect editor at large HAROLD MEYERSON on the historic win at the Amazon JFK8 warehouse, plus exciting news about big changes in labor law thanks to NLRB general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. Hundreds of workers at Howard University Hospital are planning a one-day strike next Monday; YRAW co-host Ed Smith, who's Executive Director of the District of Columbia Nurses Association (DCNA), explains why. Commercial security officers rallied Wednesday for a fair contract; we hear more from JUDITH HOWELL, a longtime security officer and board member at SEIU 32BJ. At another rally yesterday, AFSCME Local 2401 members demonstrated in support of telework for DC city workers; the local's chief shop steward, ROGER SCOTT, reports. Today's music: Union Strike Folk Song; Lisa Simpson. Labor news headlines: Senators announce funding for Capitol cafeteria workers facing layoff; Southern California grocery workers union signs tentative wage hike agreement, averting strike; Bus operators for the DC Circulator approve strike; Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz Says Companies Are Being ‘Assaulted' by Unions. Produced by Chris Garlock; engineered by Michael Nassella. @wpfwdc @aflcio #1u #unions #laborradiopod

As former secretary of labor, I'm always interested in the annual count of unionized workers issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This year's count shows that the 70-year decline of unions continues. The share of unionized American workers dropped from 10.8 percent last year to 10.3 percent now. The rate among private-sector workers hit a new rock bottom of 6.1 percent — about one-seventh of its level in the middle of the 20th century.How to square this with the huge surge in labor activism that began last fall? From Alabama to the Midwest to California, workers have headed to the picket lines. 10,000 John Deere workers. Over 1,000 Alabama coal miners. New York City taxi drivers. Health care workers. Food production plant workers at multiple companies. Workers at media outlets, think tanks, museums, and universities. At worksites staffed predominantly by millennials and GenZ's — among whom support for unions hovers near 80 percent — unionization is soaring (Starbucks baristas, graduate student workers, and so on).Oh, and public support for unions is at a 50-year high. The answer to this seeming paradox is found in the law. The 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) once ensured workers' right to form unions and bargain collectively. But the Act has been steadily weakened by the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, court decisions, Ronald Reagan's repudiation of unions, and decades of inaction by Democratic politicians. Today, corporations typically intimidate and even fire workers seeking to unionize. These tactics are illegal under the NLRA, but companies don't care because the penalties are small — at worst, rehiring and giving backpay to workers who have been fired, and allowing new elections. Many companies consider these little more than costs of doing business. (Consider last year's failed organizing drive at Amazon's Bessemer, Alabama warehouse, when the company intimidated its workers into rejecting the union.) Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama promised they'd make it easier for workers to unionize by pushing legislation to increase penalties against employers who violate the Act and speed the process of forming unions. But neither followed through on those promises, even though both had Democratic congresses during their first two years in office. Why didn't they follow through? I know because I spoke with each of them (and tried to get Clinton to support such legislation). They didn't want to spend the political capital necessary to get the legislation through Congress. They also took union voters for granted. “Who else are they going to vote for?” I was told over and over again by political advisers to Clinton and Obama. This has proven to be a huge mistake. Unionized workers used to be the ground troops of the Democratic Party. And they made sure Democrats paid attention to the concerns of America's working class — which is why we have a 40-hour workweek, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, Medicare and Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act. Now, much of the non-college working class votes Republican. These voters no longer believe Democratic politicians are on their side, and have succumbed to GOP-Fox News cultural and racial paranoia. At least Joe Biden made his promise to strengthen unions tangible by supporting the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (also known as the PRO Act). It passed in the House earlier this year. But — as with Build Back Bigger and voting rights — getting it through the Senate is impossible so long as the filibuster enables senate Republicans to block it (not surprisingly, all 50 Republicans oppose the PRO Act). In the meantime, I'm encouraged by recent actions of the National Labor Relations Board (which has the responsibility for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act). With its new Biden-appointed majority and its new Biden-appointed general counsel (Jennifer Abruzzo), the Board is flexing its muscles. Last week it accused Amazon of illegally surveilling and threatening workers who are trying to unionize a warehouse in Staten Island. (The Board has already ordered a new election at Amazon's Bessemer warehouse.)The Board may require companies that violate workers' rights during unionization campaigns to recognize those unions. It's also considering whether companies that misclassify their workers as independent contractors violate the NLRA. (The number of misclassified workers who could unionize—potentially including the drivers at companies like Uber and Lyft—could be well into the millions.) Big corporations like Amazon and Starbucks will continue to do whatever possible to squelch worker power. And if any of these issues get to the Supreme Court you can expect its Republican majority to do the same. But America's working people outnumber the billionaires and CEOs by a wide margin. If we stand in solidarity, it's possible to reverse 40 years of stagnant wages, declining economic security, and widening inequality -- and build a more prosperous middle class where the gains are shared by everyone. My strong advice to Democratic politicians: Stand up for unions. Fight to strengthen them. Join workers on picket lines. Don't let Republicans pretend they're the party of the working class when they're a trojan horse for the moneyed interests. PS: I thought you might find useful the following video that my colleagues and I at Inequality Media just made about the labor union movement. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

On this very special episode, Johanna and Nathan are joined by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Jennifer Abruzzo to discuss her September 29 memo entitled “Statutory Rights of Players at Academic Institutions (Student-Athletes) Under the National Labor Relations Act.” That memo has been widely interpreted as open season for the organizing of campus athletic workers, so we went to the source to ask about its implications for college sports and what exactly it means for college athletes who want to organize.   For any listeners who are unfamiliar, we begin the show by sharing the most salient passages of the memo and explaining the function of the NLRB. From there, we talk to the General Counsel about why she felt the memo was necessary, what it means for college athletes, whether it applies to non-scholarship athletes, and if the NLRB has jurisdiction over public universities. We also get at the tricky question of NCAA rules about compensation and what that means for bargaining with a university over wages. Finally, Johanna and Nathan conclude by breaking down the implications of the conversation and what it means for college sport.   You can find the full memo here.     For a transcription of this episode, please click here. (Updated semi-regularly Credit @punkademic) Research Assistance for The End of Sport provided by Abigail Bomba. __________________________________________________________________________ If you are interested, you can support the show via our Patreon! As always, please like, share, and rate us on your favorite podcast app, and give follow us on Twitter or Instagram. www.TheEndofSport.com

Friend of the podcast Nathan Kalman Lamb is co-host of The End of Sport Podcast.  Please enjoy this short preview from their latest episode and subscribe to their amazing show on your podcatcher.        

Alex and Richard interview Jennifer Abruzzo, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, who wrote the September memo that says college football players in certain situations are employees who should have federal labor protections. They talked about why this piece of paper matters, how it could change college sports, and what would need to happen for this ball to really get rolling. We do lots of these kinds of interviews on our Patreon, which we'd be excited to have you subscribe to at splitzoneduo.com. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

College sports have been in the crosshairs of federal and state legislation and antitrust litigation for the last few years, and a new challenge to the status quo has emerged.  Jennifer Abruzzo, General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, recently released a memo that concludes that scholarship college football players at FBS schools are employees.  She also explains that use of the term "student-athlete" could violate the law because it leads college athletes to believe that they are not employees.What does this all mean for the future of college athletes and college athletics?  Does this apply to all college athletes in all sports, or just football players? Will this lead to the unionization of college athletes?   Pay for play? What can we expect next?  Jennifer Abruzzo breaks it all down for us.  

The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, if enacted, would make the most significant changes to the National Labor Relations Act since the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was created in 1935. The PRO Act is a top priority of the union movement in the United States and is supported by President Biden, who claims to be the most pro-union president in U.S. history. Attorney Steve Swirsky discusses the potential impact the PRO Act could have on employers. Beyond the PRO Act, Steve also looks at how Jennifer Abruzzo's confirmation as NLRB general counsel could impact the agency's litigation and enforcement agenda. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw219. Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday - https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/. Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com. The EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® and DIAGNOSING HEALTH CARE podcasts are presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments.  Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments.  These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.