Podcasts about national labor relations act

We dive into employee rights in the workplace and the legacy of Tiger Woods. Whether you're a business owner, a worker wondering about pay transparency, or a lifelong golf fan, this episode brings something for everyone!

Sponsored by: Set for LifeSet For Life Insurance helps doctors safeguard their future with True Own Occupational Disability Insurance. A single injury or illness can change everything, but the best physicians plan ahead. Protect your income and secure your future before life makes the choice for you. Your career deserves protection—act now at https://www.doctorpodcastnetwork.co/setforlife____________In this episode, host Dr. Bradley Block welcomes Marisa Powell and Gabrielle Hanley, to demystify physician unions. They explain how unions empower employed physicians to improve working conditions, protect professional autonomy, and advocate for patient care. The discussion covers why physician unions were rare historically, who is eligible to unionize (non-managerial employees), and the legal nuances under the National Labor Relations Act. Marisa and Gabrielle share real-world examples, including a Washington State urgent care strike over PPE access, and discuss strategies like collective bargaining for better contracts and public advocacy to influence hospital policies. A must-listen for physicians considering unionization in an increasingly corporatized healthcare system.Three Actionable Takeaways:Identify Common Issues Across Specialties – Start union conversations by finding shared concerns among colleagues in different specialties to build a unified front.Leverage Collective Advocacy – Use coordinated efforts, like public campaigns or media outreach, to pressure employers on issues like patient safety or workplace policies, even before formal negotiations.Research Union Options – Contact organizations like Doctors Council (doctorscouncil.org) to explore unionization, but ensure strong colleague support for sustained impact.About the Show:The Physician's Guide to Doctoring covers patient interactions, burnout, career growth, personal finance, and more. If you're tired of dull medical lectures, tune in for real-world lessons we should have learned in med school!About the Guest:Marisa Powell and Gabrielle Hanley are lead union organizers with Doctors Council, part of SEIU Local 10MD. They spearhead physician union campaigns and collective bargaining efforts nationwide, helping doctors advocate for better working conditions, patient care, and professional autonomy in both private and public healthcare settings.Website:  https://www.doctorscouncil.orgLinkedIn - Marisa Powell: https://www.linkedin.com/in/marisa-powell-b31110b4/Gabrielle Hanley : https://www.linkedin.com/in/gabrielle-hanley-747013113/About the host:Dr. Bradley Block – Dr. Bradley Block is a board-certified otolaryngologist at ENT and Allergy Associates in Garden City, NY. He specializes in adult and pediatric ENT, with interests in sinusitis and obstructive sleep apnea. Dr. Block also hosts The Physician's Guide to Doctoring podcast, focusing on personal and professional development for physiciansWant to be a guest? Email Brad at brad@physiciansguidetodoctoring.com  or visit www.physiciansguidetodoctoring.com to learn more!Socials:@physiciansguidetodoctoring on Facebook@physicianguidetodoctoring on YouTube@physiciansguide on Instagram and Twitter Visit www.physiciansguidetodoctoring.com to connect, dive deeper, and keep the conversation going. Let's grow! Disclaimer:This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical, financial, or legal advice. Always consult a qualified professional for personalized guidance.

In this installment of our Workplace Strategies Watercooler 2025 podcast series, Dee Anna Hays (shareholder, Tampa) and Lucas Asper (shareholder, Greenville), who are co-chairs of the firm's Multistate Advice and Counseling Practice Group, join Todd Duffield (shareholder, Atlanta) to discuss the latest tips and trends for multistate handbooks. Dee Anna, Lucas, and Todd touch on various state and local law-specific issues and key topics for employers' consideration, including revisiting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), leaves of absence, and reasonable accommodation policies. They also stress the importance of understanding employee monitoring and privacy limitations and employee rights to engage in protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act, a protection that extends to all employees, including those not represented by a union.

Leslie is joined by Megan Salrin and Jimmy O'Donnell of the United Steelworkers (USW). The trio analyzes why workers need a Pro-Labor National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In one of his early acts as president, Donald Trump not only fired National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo but also removed NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox. Firing Wilcox upended nearly 90 years of Supreme Court caselaw and left the NLRB unable to perform its vital mission of upholding workers' rights. So what is the NLRB, and why do workers depend on it to ensure they have a voice on the job? The NLRB is an independent federal agency tasked with safeguarding workers rights in a number of ways.         - It oversees union elections – and ensures that employers abide by the law when workers seek to organize.         - It also prevents and remedies unfair labor practices, again ensuring that workers are free to engage in concerted activity and access their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.     The NLRB is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has 26 different Regional Offices.         - There are five seats on the Board, which are filled through presidential nomination and then Senate confirmation.         - The members serve five-year terms, and the terms are staggered so that one seat is supposed to be open each year – though delays can cause vacancies to occur.     The NLRB shapes labor law in several ways including by issuing decisions on cases, which sets national precedent, and by issuing rule making.         - Because the president nominates members to the board, they have the ability to influence how it operates based on their priorities.         - Pro-worker presidents traditionally appoint members who take the job to enforce workers rights' seriously while pro-corporate leadership effectively limits workers' ability to form unions and collectively bargain.                - Under the previous administration, for example, the NLRB made key advances when it came to leveling the playing field for workers, such as banning the captive audience meetings employers too often used to try to thwart union elections. Currently, the board is down to just two members, which means it does not have a quorum and cannot make decisions or enforce labor laws. That means:     - Workers facing unfair treatment—like illegal firings, intimidation, or bad-faith bargaining—could be left waiting months or even years for justice.     - Striking and organizing workers will have fewer protections.     - Employers who break the law may get away with it if cases can't be heard.     - Furthermore, this upheaval has emboldened greedy corporations looking to block workers from exercising their rights.        - For example, Whole Foods (which is owned by Amazon) is arguing that they will not recognize a union formed in January because of the lack of quorum at the Board. An NLRB member can only be fired for serious misconduct—like neglecting their job or breaking the rules. No President has ever fired a Board member like this before, and there does not appear to be any valid reason to remove Wilcox.     - Wilcox filed a lawsuit in response to her firing. While a DC District Court judge ruled in her favor and reinstated her, her case has gone through a number of appeals and is now headed to the Supreme Court, which recently once again removed her from her position until it can rule on the merits of the lawsuit.       - Oral arguments are due to begin on May 16, which means between now and then the board is again hobbled.   As more and more workers signal that they want the protections of a union contract it's essential that we have a labor board that takes its job seriously.     - This means allowing members like Wilcox to finish their terms.     - And pushing our elected leaders to nominate and confirm qualified members who will take the job of protecting workers seriously. Megan Salrin is the National Coordinator for the United Steelworkers' Rapid Response program, the union's nonpartisan initiative for education, communication, and action on legislative and policy issues affecting USW members. Before this role, she served in USW's Legislative and Policy Department and worked for several Members of Congress from the Midwest. Jimmy O'Donnell is a Legislative Representative for the USW, where he advocates for pro-worker policies related to labor rights, workplace health and safety, clean energy manufacturing, and workforce development. Previously, Jimmy spent several years working at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. Follow the USW on Facebook, Instagram and X, using the handle @steelworkers, and visit their website at USW.org. Also, check them out on Blue Sky where their handle is @steelworkers.bsky.social.

In this episode of Hiring to Firing, hosts Tracey Diamond and Emily Schifter dive into the intriguing intersection of reality TV and employment law. Joined by Troutman Pepper Locke Labor and Employment Partner Richard Reibstein (author of the popular Independent Contractor Misclassification & Compliance blog), they explore the lawsuit alleging that contestants on the hit Netflix reality series Love Is Blind have been misclassified as independent contractors instead of employees — and the real-life implications for other production companies as well as companies in other industries. Tune in for an insightful discussion that ‎blends legal expertise with the drama of reality television.‎Troutman Pepper Locke's Labor + Employment Practice Group provides comprehensive thought leadership through various channels. We regularly issue advisories that offer timely insights into the evolving employment law landscape, and maintain the HiringToFiring.Law Blog, a resource spotlighting best practices for employers. Our Hiring to Firing Podcast, hosted by Tracey Diamond and Emily Schifter, delves into pressing labor and employment law topics, drawing unique parallels from pop culture, hit shows, and movies.

In late January, President Donald Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board. The termination was controversial because Member Wilcox, like all Board members, was arguably protected from removal by the National Labor Relations Act. The Act says that a Board member may be removed only for “malfeasance” or “neglect of […]

In late January, President Donald Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board. The termination was controversial because Member Wilcox, like all Board members, was arguably protected from removal by the National Labor Relations Act. The Act says that a Board member may be removed only for “malfeasance” or “neglect of duty.” It also requires the member to be given “notice and a hearing.” In firing Member Wilcox, the President cited no malfeasance or neglect; nor did he give her a hearing. Instead, he argued that regardless of the Act’s language, he could remove her under his inherent authority as head of the executive branch.Member Wilcox responded by suing for reinstatement. A federal district court will hear arguments in the case on March 5. Join us that afternoon as Alex MacDonald, co-chair of Littler Mendelson’s Workplace Policy Institute, breaks down the case.Featuring:Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Share this episode of Labor Relations Radio with your colleagues.If the workers surrender control over working relations to legislative and administrative agents, they put their industrial liberty at the disposal of state agents. — Samuel Gompers, 1915On Tuesday, Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO), as well as Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the Faster Labor Contracts Act—a bill that is endorsed by the Teamsters, which would put federally-mandated arbitrators in the position of dictating first-time labor contracts onto employers, employees, and unions. The Faster Labor Contracts Act would:* Amend the National Labor Relations Act to require that after workers have voted to form a union, employers must begin negotiating with the new union within 10 days.* Provide that if no agreement is reached within 90 days, the dispute will be referred to mediation.* Stipulate that if mediation fails within 30 days, or additional periods agreed upon by the parties, the dispute will be referred to binding arbitration to secure an initial contract (view more details of this provision in highlights here).* Commission a Government Accountability Office report on average workplace time-to-contract one year after enactment.Read the full highlighted bill here.“The Faster Labor Contracts Act is a massive expansion of the federal government's authority over the private sector,” noted Kristen Swearingen, spoksperson for the Coalition for Democratic Workplace. “It would allow government bureaucrats to dictate the employment terms of workers via mandatory, binding arbitration, meaning they can set the workers' wages, benefits, workplace safety standards, pensions, and so on with no oversight by the workers, employers, unions, or even the judicial branch.”In this episode of Labor Relations Radio, returning guest Alex MacDonald, Co-Chair of Littler's Workplace Policy Institute, joins host Peter List to discuss the ramifications of this bill if it becomes law.Follow Alex MacDonald on LinkedIn here.Follow Alex MacDonald's writings at the Federalist Society here.Prior Labor Relations Radio episodes with Alex MacDonald:* Labor Relations Radio, E161—WPI's Alex MacDonald On The Legal Theory Behind The Firing Of NLRB Member Wilcox* Labor Relations Radio, E149: An Accidental Outcome? Alex MacDonald returns to discuss how the NLRA's success has resulted in fewer unions & what might happen under a new administration in DC.* Labor Relations Radio E144—Alex MacDonald Explains How Unions' Right to"Exclusive Representation" May Be Unconstitutional* Labor Relations Radio E138 — Attorney Alex MacDonald On The Constitutionality Of 'Exclusive Representation'LaborUnionNews.com's Labor Relations Radio is subscriber-supported. To receive new posts and support our work, become a subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit laborunionnews.substack.com/subscribe

WPI's Alex MacDonald returns to the podcast to discuss a "bipartisan" bill to allow the federal government to mandate first-contracts on private-sector employers.______________________________If the workers surrender control over working relations to legislative and administrative agents, they put their industrial liberty at the disposal of state agents. — Samuel Gompers, 1915_____________________________On Tuesday, Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO), as well as Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the Faster Labor Contracts Act—a bill that is endorsed by the Teamsters, which would put federally-mandated arbitrators in the position of dictating first-time labor contracts onto employers, employees, and unions.The Faster Labor Contracts Act would:Amend the National Labor Relations Act to require that after workers have voted to form a union, employers must begin negotiating with the new union within 10 days.Provide that if no agreement is reached within 90 days, the dispute will be referred to mediation.Stipulate that if mediation fails within 30 days, or additional periods agreed upon by the parties, the dispute will be referred to binding arbitration to secure an initial contract (view more details of this provision in highlights here).Commission a Government Accountability Office report on average workplace time-to-contract one year after enactment.Read the full highlighted bill here.“The Faster Labor Contracts Act is a massive expansion of the federal government's authority over the private sector,” noted Kristen Swearingen, spoksperson for the Coalition for Democratic Workplace. “It would allow government bureaucrats to dictate the employment terms of workers via mandatory, binding arbitration, meaning they can set the workers' wages, benefits, workplace safety standards, pensions, and so on with no oversight by the workers, employers, unions, or even the judicial branch.”In this episode of Labor Relations Radio, returning guest Alex MacDonald, Co-Chair of Littler's Workplace Policy Institute, joins host Peter List to discuss the ramifications of this bill if it becomes law.Follow Alex MacDonald on LinkedIn here.Follow Alex MacDonald's writings at the Federalist Society here.Prior Labor Relations Radio episodes with Alex MacDonald:Labor Relations Radio, E149: An Accidental Outcome? Alex MacDonald returns to discuss how the NLRA's success has__________________________LaborUnionNews.com's Labor Relations Radio is a subscriber-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber here.

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.

Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act states an employer's communication is not an unfair labor practice if it does not contain a threat of reprisal, force, or a promise of a benefit. Historically, this provision was understood to protect employers' free speech rights to hold mandatory meetings with employees to express their views […]

Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act states an employer’s communication is not an unfair labor practice if it does not contain a threat of reprisal, force, or a promise of a benefit. Historically, this provision was understood to protect employers’ free speech rights to hold mandatory meetings with employees to express their views on unionization.However, in Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (Nov. 14, 2024), the National Labor Relations Board held that mandatory meetings where an employer expresses its views on unions violate the Act. The Board deemed such meetings unlawful, even if the views expressed during them do not independently constitute an unfair labor practice.Bill Messenger and Roger King will examine the history of Section 8(c), the Board’s interpretation of its scope, and the potential outcome of the Board’s decision on appeal to the 11th Circuit.Featuring:William L. Messenger, Vice President and Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

What could a second Trump administration mean for HR and labor law? In this episode ofWhat the Heck is Happening in HR?, we break down the key nominations shaping the future of the Department of Labor (DOL) and beyond. We'll explore Keith Sonderling's nomination for Deputy Labor Secretary, Lori Chavez-DeRemer's stance on protecting the PRO Act, and potential shifts in the National Labor Relations Act.We also discuss the Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program, what changes might come to the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, and how AI is poised to become a priority in the DOL's future policies. Tune in to learn what these changes could mean for HR professionals and how to stay ahead of upcoming labor law developments.⁠Learn more about CTPE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Podcast Disclaimer⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠#USF #Business #Upskill #Reskill #HR #2025 #Employee #President #Nomination #Nominee #LaborPolicy #DepartmentOfLabor #HRCompliance #WorkplaceLaw #KeithSonderling #LoriChavezDeRemer #PROAct #NLRB #PayrollAudit #ArtificialIntelligence #HRTrends #EmploymentLaw #FutureOfWork #HRLeadership

In episode 185, Coffey talks with Kara Kelley about the impact of President Trump's affirmative action order, how not to respond to employee criticism, and nervous candidates.They discuss the implications for federal contractors following the President's rescission of Executive Order 11246, eliminating most affirmative action program and DEI requirements; the ongoing relevance of Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws; JP Morgan's return-to-office mandate and their decision to shut down employee feedback channels; how hiring managers should handle candidate nervousness in interviews; and the importance of focusing on job-relevant criteria in hiring decisions.Links to stuff they talked about are on our website at https://goodmorninghr.com/EP185 and include the following topics:Trump Rescinds Affirmative Action by Contractors Based on Race, GenderENDING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AND RESTORING MERIT-BASED OPPORTUNITY2025: A Comprehensive Analysis of Class Action LitigationJPMorgan Just Decided That Employee Feedback Doesn't Matter. It's a Spectacularly Bad DecisionHiring Managers of Reddit: How likely are you to give someone a second chance if they seemed nervous during a phone screening and froze up on one question?Good Morning, HR is brought to you by Imperative—Bulletproof Background Checks. For more information about our commitment to quality and excellent customer service, visit us at https://imperativeinfo.com. If you are an HRCI or SHRM-certified professional, this episode of Good Morning, HR has been pre-approved for half a recertification credit. To obtain the recertification information for this episode, visit https://goodmorninghr.com. About our Guest:Kara works with Dental Practice Leaders to develop strategic HR systems that engage their team and strengthen their practice. She is the founder and CEO of Clinical HR LLC, a Human Resources advisory firm for dental and medical practices. Kara focuses on cultivating leadership skills, managing employee relations issues, and implementing competitive total rewards systems. She also works with practices to develop employee policies and establish compliant HR systems.Though Kara initially enrolled in a Marketing degree program, she took an HR course for a general business credit and fell in love with it, eventually earning a B.S. in Business with a concentration in Human Resource Management. Kara is a Society for Human Resource Management Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP) and holds Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) designation from the HR Certification Institute (HRCI). She is also an Everything DiSC Workplace Certified Facilitator and a Five Behaviors Certified Practitioner.A life-long learner who is never content with the status quo, Kara serves on several professional boards and committees. She is the Co-Chair of the Mentorship Committee and a member of the Legal & Legislative committee for Austin SHRM. Kara is currently serving as President of the National Speakers Association Austin chapter. In 2022, she helped found the ADMC Memorial Foundation, a scholarship program for new practice owners.Kara Kelley can be reached athttps://www.facebook.com/ClinicalHRLLC https://twitter.com/ClinicalHR http://www.instagram.com/clinicalhrllc https://www.linkedin.com/in/karadkelleyAbout Mike Coffey:Mike Coffey is an entrepreneur, licensed private investigator, business strategist, HR consultant, and registered yoga teacher.In 1999, he founded Imperative, a background investigations and due diligence firm helping risk-averse clients make well-informed decisions about the people they involve in their business.Imperative delivers in-depth employment background investigations, know-your-customer and anti-money laundering compliance, and due diligence investigations to more than 300 risk-averse corporate clients across the US, and, through its PFC Caregiver & Household Screening brand, many more private estates, family offices, and personal service agencies.Imperative has been named the Texas Association of Business' small business of the year and is accredited by the Professional Background Screening Association. Mike shares his insight from 25 years of HR-entrepreneurship on the Good Morning, HR podcast, where each week he talks to business leaders about bringing people together to create value for customers, shareholders, and community.Mike has been recognized as an Entrepreneur of Excellence by FW, Inc. and has twice been recognized as the North Texas HR Professional of the Year. Mike is a member of the Fort Worth chapter of the Entrepreneurs' Organization and is a volunteer leader with the SHRM Texas State Council and the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce.Mike is a certified Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) through the HR Certification Institute and a SHRM Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP). He is also a Yoga Alliance registered yoga teacher (RYT-200).Mike and his very patient wife of 27 years are empty nesters in Fort Worth.Learning Objectives:Respond to changes in affirmative action and diversity initiative expectations for federal contractors.Develop effective change-management strategies for workplace policy shifts that avoid National Labor Relations Act claims.Build employee-selection systems that focus on job-relevant attributes.

In this episode of Nobody Told Me That!, I sit down with HR expert Alan Twigg from Bent Erickson and Associates to discuss HR policies and how they can make or break a dental practice. From avoiding legal pitfalls with proper documentation to navigating the National Labor Relations Act, we cover items you need to know to safeguard your practice. It's not easy to create and maintain a productive, compliant workplace but it's part of our job as practice leaders. We talk about these key HR issues: Managing sensitive conversations versus toxicity in the workplace. Building legally sound ‘no gossip' policies (this is where many managers are surprised by the law!) The importance of annual reviews and continuing education investments. Plus, we'll explore the real cost of mishandling harassment claims and tips for keeping wages and benefits competitive. It's a must-listen for anyone leading a dental practice!   Connect with Alan   Website: https://bentericksen.com/   The Dental HR Podcast   ------------- https://www.odysseymgmt.com/synergy NTMT listeners receive a 2 Month Free Trial + a 3rd Month if you buy anything from any vendor during the trial period. Also, new Darby customers receive a $200 Darby statement credit with a purchase.  ------------- My insurance course is out! Dental Insurance Design and Management is geared toward those who want to understand the how and why of insurance. As a loyal podcast listener, please use "NTMT" for a $75 courtesy toward your investment.  ------------- Visit odysseymgmt.com to check out my book, webinars and courses. ------------- Don't forget to check out my other podcast Chew on This - A Dental Podcast!  **If you like the show then I'd appreciate a good rating. Tell your friends. Even podcasters ask for referrals!** YouTube: https://youtube.com/@odysseymgmt  

Husch Blackwell attorneys Mary-Ann Czak and Rufino Gaytán join Labor Law Insider host Tom Godar in a post-election analysis of anticipated policy changes in connection with the incoming Trump administration. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) became stridently pro-union under the leadership of its General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo and the majority of the board members appointed by President Joseph Biden. Through decisions and general counsel memos, the board marched an aggressive path extending the reach of the National Labor Relations Act, including shortening the time for elections, upending a decades-long election process, stiffening remedies for unfair labor practices, and skewering employer policies in both union and nonunion settings.In Part I of our discussion, our guests explore both the process to be undertaken to appoint new board members and a new general counsel and the pace at which that might happen, as well as policy changes which could be expected even in the first days and months of the Trump administration. The discussion will carry over into Part II, where we will address specific decisions, as well as the risks and benefits of anticipating a more neutral NLRB on the horizon. Join us for this fascinating post-election discussion on the Labor Law Insider.

Both political parties have called this the most consequential election in recent history, which means that this morning in your workplace, some employees are celebrating, and others might be feeling hurt, disappointed, or maybe even fearful. What can employers do to help? Epstein Becker Green attorneys Susan Gross Sholinsky and Michael S. Ferrell outline proactive strategies employers can adopt to prevent potential workplace incidents and describe protections surrounding political speech, as governed by laws like the National Labor Relations Act. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw367 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is 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.

hom Hartmann is an American radio personality, author, former psychotherapist, businessman, and progressive political commentator, whose talk show has been rated in the top 10 shows for over a decade by Talkers Magazine. His most recent book is “The Hidden History of the American Dream?” America, primarily thanks to FDR and unionization, was a catapult for the middle class until the early 1980s. The Reagan influence of Neoliberal economics contributed to the decentralization of regulations, race to the bottom, union busting and globalization for cheaper wages. The National Relations Labor Act legalizing unions was some of the most substantive legislation supported by FDR.  Five suggestions to reactivate the American Dream: 1) encourage unionization and National Labor Relations Act; 2: raise top income bracket for the rich; 3) raise top corporate income tax to reduce bogus tax deductions; 4) reestablish inheritance tax; and,  5) guarantee social safety movement with health insurance.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Starbucks Corp. v McKinney.      In this case, the court considered this issue: What test must courts use to evaluate requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act? The case was decided on June 13, 2024. The Supreme Court held that when considering the NLRB's request for a preliminary injunction under §10( j), district courts must apply the traditional four factors articulated in Winter v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Section 10( j) authorizes a federal district court “to grant . . . such temporary relief . empowers courts to grant equitable relief, there is a strong presumption that courts will exercise that authority in a manner consistent with traditional principles of equity. For preliminary injunctions, the four criteria identified in Winter encompass the relevant equitable principles. Nothing in §10( j) displaces the presumption that those traditional principles govern.  The traditional rule is that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must make a clear showing that “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” “These commonplace considerations applicable to cases in which injunctions are sought in the federal courts reflect a ‘practice with a background of several hundred years of history.' ” When interpreting a statute that authorizes federal courts to grant preliminary injunctions, the Court “does not lightly assume that Congress has intended to depart from established principles.” Absent a clear command from Congress, then, courts must adhere to the traditional four-factor test articulated in Winter. Section 10( j)'s statutory directive to grant injunctive relief when the district court “deems” it “just and proper” does not jettison the normal equitable rules; it simply invokes the discretion that courts have traditionally exercised when faced with requests for equitable relief. Furthermore, §10( j)'s text bears no resemblance to the language that Congress has employed when it has altered the normal equitable rules.  The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this episode of our Multistate Monday podcast series, Dee Anna Hays (co-chair of the firm's Multistate Advice and Counseling Practice Group) and Susan Gorey take on the timely topic of voting and election leave laws, as well as other related issues that may arise during this busy political season. Susan and Dee Anna review a wide range of state law requirements relating to paid and unpaid leave for voting, and associated posting and timing requirements. They also provide important reminders about the National Labor Relations Act's protections of political speech and the EEOC's guidance on anti-harassment.

The NLRB is facing significant legal challenges from employers after a series of controversial rulings. Could the NLRB's structure be at risk? Epstein Becker Green attorneys Stuart M. Gerson and Laura H. Schuman discuss how the NLRB's broad interpretation of their enforcement authority under the National Labor Relations Act has invited legal challenges. Additionally, they examine how the U.S. Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision is perceived to create a more favorable environment for contesting the NLRB's authority. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw364 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is 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.

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.Unlock the mysteries of employee speech rights within private companies and discover the surprising realities that might affect you. Have you ever questioned whether your freedom of speech truly extends into the workplace? We'll unravel the limitations of the First Amendment for private workers and spotlight when speech is, in fact, protected under laws like the National Labor Relations Act and whistleblower statutes. With examples from state-specific protections such as Connecticut's General Statutes 31-51Q, this episode empowers you with the knowledge to navigate workplace speech with caution and confidence. Whether you're speaking out on public matters or simply trying to understand company policies, grasp the nuances of your legal standing and know when it's time to consult a legal expert. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Sports Law: Legal Principles in Professional and Amateur Athletics Chapter 1: Introduction to Sports Law Purpose: This chapter provides an overview of the field of sports law, introducing readers to its key concepts and the legal issues that permeate the sports industry. Key Topics: Definition and Scope of Sports Law: Sports law is a unique blend of multiple areas of law—contract law, labor law, antitrust law, intellectual property law, and tort law—all applied within the context of the sports industry. It covers legal matters that arise in both professional and amateur sports, including issues related to governance, contracts, competition, player conduct, and commercialization. This multidisciplinary field serves athletes, teams, leagues, sports organizations, and regulatory bodies, addressing everything from player contracts to antitrust concerns and intellectual property rights. Distinction Between Professional and Amateur Sports Law: While professional sports law typically revolves around commercial and employment issues like contracts, compensation, and league governance, amateur sports law often focuses on eligibility, athlete rights, and regulatory compliance, especially in collegiate sports. Professional athletes negotiate contracts with teams and sponsors, whereas amateur athletes—particularly in the U.S. under NCAA rules—have historically been restricted by rules around compensation and endorsements, although recent changes in NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) rights have begun to shift that landscape. Historical Development of Sports Law: The legal regulation of sports has evolved significantly. Historically, the law treated sports as a private matter governed by internal rules. Over time, as sports grew into a major economic and social institution, external legal frameworks were developed to address issues like antitrust concerns, labor disputes, and intellectual property protection. Milestones like the establishment of the reserve clause in baseball, the formation of player unions, and landmark antitrust cases such as Flood v. Kuhn have shaped modern sports law. Key Legal Frameworks Governing Sports (Domestic and International): Sports are governed by a variety of legal frameworks that vary based on jurisdiction and the nature of the sport. Domestically, key frameworks include contract law, labor law (especially through the National Labor Relations Act), and antitrust laws like the Sherman Act. Internationally, sports are subject to regulations from bodies like the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Various national and international regulatory bodies such as FIFA for soccer and the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) provide oversight and resolve disputes in the international arena. Role of Courts, Arbitrators, and Regulatory Bodies in Sports Law: Courts, arbitrators, and regulatory bodies play crucial roles in resolving disputes in sports law. Courts interpret laws and contracts, resolve labor disputes, and address antitrust concerns, while arbitration is often used to settle disputes efficiently, particularly within leagues and between players and teams. Specialized bodies like CAS are essential in handling disputes at the international level, particularly in matters related to doping, athlete eligibility, and contract disputes. Summary: This chapter introduces the diverse legal challenges inherent in the sports industry, emphasizing the field's multifaceted nature. It explains how sports law intersects with other areas of law and sets the stage for deeper exploration of specific issues, from contracts to antitrust law and doping regulations. Through understanding the historical development and the legal frameworks at play, readers will grasp how the sports industry navigates complex legal landscapes. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Sports Law: Legal Principles in Professional and Amateur Athletics Chapter 1: Introduction to Sports Law Purpose: This chapter provides an overview of the field of sports law, introducing readers to its key concepts and the legal issues that permeate the sports industry. Key Topics: Definition and Scope of Sports Law: Sports law is a unique blend of multiple areas of law—contract law, labor law, antitrust law, intellectual property law, and tort law—all applied within the context of the sports industry. It covers legal matters that arise in both professional and amateur sports, including issues related to governance, contracts, competition, player conduct, and commercialization. This multidisciplinary field serves athletes, teams, leagues, sports organizations, and regulatory bodies, addressing everything from player contracts to antitrust concerns and intellectual property rights. Distinction Between Professional and Amateur Sports Law: While professional sports law typically revolves around commercial and employment issues like contracts, compensation, and league governance, amateur sports law often focuses on eligibility, athlete rights, and regulatory compliance, especially in collegiate sports. Professional athletes negotiate contracts with teams and sponsors, whereas amateur athletes—particularly in the U.S. under NCAA rules—have historically been restricted by rules around compensation and endorsements, although recent changes in NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) rights have begun to shift that landscape. Historical Development of Sports Law: The legal regulation of sports has evolved significantly. Historically, the law treated sports as a private matter governed by internal rules. Over time, as sports grew into a major economic and social institution, external legal frameworks were developed to address issues like antitrust concerns, labor disputes, and intellectual property protection. Milestones like the establishment of the reserve clause in baseball, the formation of player unions, and landmark antitrust cases such as Flood v. Kuhn have shaped modern sports law. Key Legal Frameworks Governing Sports (Domestic and International): Sports are governed by a variety of legal frameworks that vary based on jurisdiction and the nature of the sport. Domestically, key frameworks include contract law, labor law (especially through the National Labor Relations Act), and antitrust laws like the Sherman Act. Internationally, sports are subject to regulations from bodies like the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Various national and international regulatory bodies such as FIFA for soccer and the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) provide oversight and resolve disputes in the international arena. Role of Courts, Arbitrators, and Regulatory Bodies in Sports Law: Courts, arbitrators, and regulatory bodies play crucial roles in resolving disputes in sports law. Courts interpret laws and contracts, resolve labor disputes, and address antitrust concerns, while arbitration is often used to settle disputes efficiently, particularly within leagues and between players and teams. Specialized bodies like CAS are essential in handling disputes at the international level, particularly in matters related to doping, athlete eligibility, and contract disputes. Summary: This chapter introduces the diverse legal challenges inherent in the sports industry, emphasizing the field's multifaceted nature. It explains how sports law intersects with other areas of law and sets the stage for deeper exploration of specific issues, from contracts to antitrust law and doping regulations. Through understanding the historical development and the legal frameworks at play, readers will grasp how the sports industry navigates complex legal landscapes. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Many employees are surprised to learn that they don't enjoy the free speech rights they thought they were entitled to at their jobs. In some cases, workers actually have fewer rights than previously believed. Suddenly, we're looking to employment law for answers.Join Cathy Creighton ‘87, a labor relations expert and director of the Cornell ILR Buffalo Co-Lab, to examine employment law and employees' legal rights at work. Whether you are an employee or an employer, you may be surprised by what you'll discover about free speech rights at work in the United States.What You'll LearnWhat legal rights you have in the workplaceHow the Constitution protects — or does not protect — your rights at workWhat legal remedies you have if you are retaliated against or fired for protesting at workWhat your rights are after terminationThe Cornell Keynotes podcast is brought to you by eCornell, which offers more than 200 online certificate programs to help professionals advance their careers and organizations. The Buffalo Co-Lab is part of the Cornell ILR School, a leader in employment and labor relations education. Nearly two dozen certificate programs from the ILR School are open for enrollment, including:Employment LawEmployee Relations and InvestigationsHuman Resources ManagementStrategic Human Resources LeadershipDiversity, Equity and Inclusion for HRDiscover more human resources certificate programs on the eCornell website.Did you enjoy this episode of the Cornell Keynotes podcast? Watch the Keynote. Follow eCornell on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, and X.

Federal labor charges have been filed against former President Donald Trump and Elon Musk due to their livestream conversation about union rights. The United Auto Workers Union (UAW) claims that both individuals attempted to threaten and intimidate workers regarding strikes and union activities. During the discussion, Trump suggested firing employees who participate in strikes, contradicting federal protections under the National Labor Relations Act. The UAW's lawsuit argues that such threats violate employee rights. UAW President Shawn Fain criticized the actions of Trump and Musk, highlighting a disregard for workers' rights. Musk's recent layoffs at his companies, including after acquiring Twitter and terminating the Tesla Supercharger team, contributed to the scrutiny surrounding him.Learn more on this news visit us at: https://greyjournal.net/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, doggedly opposed by organized labor, included compliance with practicable portions of the federal rules of evidence and civil procedure, barring the Board from treating supervisors and independent contractors as protected employees, expressly incorporating employer free-speech rights, and more. Where are the Taft-Hartley amendments today and […]

The 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, doggedly opposed by organized labor, included compliance with practicable portions of the federal rules of evidence and civil procedure, barring the Board from treating supervisors and independent contractors as protected employees, expressly incorporating employer free-speech rights, and more. Where are the Taft-Hartley amendments today and why?Featuring:Fred B. Jacob, Solicitor, National Labor Relations Board Hon. John F. Ring, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, former Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v International Brotherhood of Teamsters. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the National Labor Relations Act preempt a state-court lawsuit against a union for intentionally destroying an employer's property during a labor dispute? The case was decided on June 1, 2023. The Supreme Court held that The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) did not preempt Glacier's state-court lawsuit alleging that the union intentionally destroyed the company's property during a labor dispute. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion of the Court. The position of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is that while the NLRA generally recognizes the right of workers to strike, it does not protect from liability strikers who fail to take “reasonable precautions” to protect their employer's property from foreseeable harms caused by the sudden cessation of work. At the motion to dismiss stage, the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true. Accepting the allegations here as true, the Union failed to take reasonable precautions to protect Glacier's property, as the Union knew that concrete is highly perishable and, if left to harden in a truck's drum, will cause significant damage to the truck. Because the Union knew of this risk—and indeed intended that result—the strike went beyond the conduct protected by the NLRA. Because the strike was not protected by federal law, the state tort claims were not preempted. Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Justice Thomas would reach the same conclusion that the state-court claims are not preempted based on adherence to the Court's decision in ___. He wrote separately to emphasize the “oddity” of the “broad pre-emption regime” in the case the majority relied on—San Diego Building Trades Council v Garmon, —and suggesting that the Court reassess its holding in that case. Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which both Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined. Justice Alito would reach the same conclusion based solely on the Court's longstanding position that the NLRA does not immunize strikers who engage in trespass or violence against the employer's property. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, pointing out that the test in Garmon is only whether the conduct at issue is “arguably” protected by the NLRA, as determined by the Board. She criticized the Court for stepping in to make that determination instead of allowing the Board to do so. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Labor Law Insiders Trecia Moore, Megann McManus, and Terry Potter continue their discussion with Labor Law Insider host Tom Godar regarding remedies the National Labor Relations Board is trying to impose for unfair labor practices. The Fifth Circuit overturned the Board's Thryv decision and described the Board proposed remedies as “Draconian” and containing a “novel, consequential-damages-like labor law remedy” not generally available under the National Labor Relations Act. The Insiders also consider the aggressive remedies imposed by the Board in the Cemex case, mandating union recognition and issuing a bargaining order upon an employer whose unfair labor practice occurred in the course of a union campaign.  Listen to the practical discussion reviewing these developments and some takeaways that can help companies manage regulatory risk.

"I'll be the judge of that!" In this episode, Karen discusses the misconceptions surrounding social media and the workplace, and whether one can be fired for what they post on social media. She debunks the idea that personal social media sites and private Facebook chats are protected by privacy laws, as anyone in the chat could share the information. She also clarifies that private sector employees do not have First Amendment rights in the workplace, as the First Amendment only applies to government action. Private sector employees do have rights under the National Labor Relations Act to engage in concerted protected activity for mutual aid and protection, which includes discussing working conditions collectively on social media. However, certain controversial posts on social media can lead to discipline or termination, as demonstrated by several cases. Overall, Karen stresses the importance of being mindful of social media activity and understanding the potential consequences for one's employment. The Job Judge Podcast is a podcast for anyone who works. This is not legal advice! Engaging and informative, it's a must-listen/watch for any manager, business owner, HR professional, or anyone who works. Relying on three decades of experience as an employment law attorney and HR Executive, Karen Michael uses real case studies in the news and navigates through the legal landmines and workplace dysfunction that we know is probably happening right now in your organization.

"I'll be the judge of that!" Employees have the right to discuss their wages for many reasons, and employers cannot prohibit them from doing so. The National Labor Relations Act protects employees' rights to engage in conversations about their wages, even before a union is formed. However, this only applies to non-management employees in private sector organizations. Federal contractors are also governed by the Executive Order 11246, which includes a provision on pay transparency. This means that any employee or job applicant who works for or applies to work for a federal contractor has the right to discuss their wages. Employers who attempt to prevent employees from discussing their wages may face legal repercussions. It is important for employers to understand these laws and ensure they are not violating their employees' rights. The Job Judge Podcast is a podcast for anyone who works. This is not legal advice! Engaging and informative, it's a must-listen/watch for any manager, business owner, HR professional, or anyone who works. Relying on three decades of experience as an employment law attorney and HR Executive, Karen Michael uses real case studies in the news and navigates through the legal landmines and workplace dysfunction that we know is probably happening right now in your organization.

On this week's show: The Supreme Court's latest ruling on the National Labor Relations Act; EPI Chief Economist Josh Bivens discusses the economic performance of the Biden administration in a historical context; longtime organizer Chris Townsend on the organizing surge in Virginia; Madeline Gamsemer Topf, co-president of TAA Local 3220 in Wisconsin discusses grad workers, and we wrap up with a report on the attack on unionists in Hong Kong. This week's featured shows are Work Stoppage, The State of Working America Podcast, Payday Report, We Rise Fighting and RadioLabour. Please help us build sonic solidarity by clicking on the share button below. Highlights from labor radio and podcast shows around the country, part of the national Labor Radio Podcast Network of shows focusing on working people's issues and concerns. @WorkStoppagePod @EconomicPolicy @radiolabour#LaborRadioPod @AFLCIO Edited by Patrick Dixon, produced by Chris Garlock; social media guru Mr. Harold Phillips.

Taylor Swift's Influence in Ticketmaster Lawsuit: The antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, influenced by Taylor Swift's ticketing fiasco, underscores the Sherman Act's role in preventing monopolistic practices. The Act aims to maintain fair competition for the benefit of consumers, ensuring that monopolies do not stifle innovation or drive up prices. This case could set a precedent for how digital marketplaces operate and are regulated. Alec Baldwin's Legal Battle in ‘Rust' Shooting: The denial of Alec Baldwin's request to dismiss his criminal charge brings to light the legal principles of duty of care and negligence. In the context of film production, it raises questions about the responsibility of actors, producers, and crew members to ensure safety on set and the extent to which they can be held liable for accidents. International Court of Justice's Decision on Israel's Military Operations: The International Court of Justice's order for Israel to halt military operations in Rafah touches on international humanitarian law, particularly the principles of distinction and proportionality in armed conflict. It also raises issues about the enforcement of international court decisions and the sovereignty of nations. Uvalde Families Sue Gun Maker and Tech Companies: This lawsuit challenges the legal boundaries of product liability and marketing practices. It questions the extent to which manufacturers and tech platforms can be held responsible for the misuse of their products, especially when they are used to commit crimes. Unionization Efforts at Mercedes-Benz: The objections filed by the UAW against the unionization vote at Mercedes-Benz highlight the National Labor Relations Act's provisions on fair labor practices and the right to unionize. It also brings up the role of the National Labor Relations Board in overseeing union elections and addressing complaints of unfair labor practices. Exxon Mobil's Shareholder Rights Lawsuit The lawsuit by Norges Bank Investment Management against Exxon Mobil focuses on shareholder rights and corporate governance. It examines the fiduciary duties of corporations to their shareholders and the legal mechanisms available to shareholders to hold corporations accountable. NCAA's Historic Revenue Sharing Agreement: The NCAA's settlement to share revenue with athletes represents a significant shift in amateurism and the legal concept of student-athletes' rights. It challenges the traditional notion that student-athletes should not be compensated beyond scholarships and could redefine the economic landscape of collegiate sports. FTX Bankruptcy Developments: The support for Sullivan & Cromwell's role as the main bankruptcy attorney for FTX, despite potential conflicts of interest, brings up ethical considerations in legal practice. It also highlights the complexities of bankruptcy law, particularly in the emerging field of cryptocurrency. Peter Navarro's Stance from Prison: Peter Navarro's decision not to seek a pardon while focusing on a new MAGA agenda from prison raises questions about the legal and political strategies of individuals involved in high-profile investigations. It also touches on the presidential pardon power and its implications for justice and accountability. AI Bias Law in Colorado: Colorado's AI bias law is a pioneering move to regulate artificial intelligence and prevent discrimination. It sets a legal framework for transparency and accountability in automated decision-making processes, potentially influencing future legislation in other states and at the federal level. Supreme Court Ethics Spotlight: The call for an official code of ethics for Supreme Court justices reflects the principles of judicial conduct and integrity. It underscores the importance of impartiality, independence, and public confidence in the judiciary. Legal Battles in the World of Sports: The consideration of facial-recognition technology at the Miami Marathon and the NCAA's revenue-sharin --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

One of the most common ways workers can find support and camaraderie is through a union. But what if your role doesn't allow you to be a part of a union? That's the case for middle managers. According to the National Labor Relations Act, managers are prevented from joining unions because it creates a conflict of interest. So where does that leave managers when it comes to support? Like in so many other instances, they are falling through the cracks. Without formal support groups, middle managers, like today's guest, have to go out of their way to create their own. Erin Mantz is currently a middle manager at communications agency Zeno Group, who has also been a middle manager at big tech companies throughout her career. She says her informal support group is necessary to stay above water. In this episode, she tells us how her support group operates, the benefits of having a support network, and where other managers might find their own support to get one of the hardest corporate jobs done.

Frank Mathews, Administrative Director of the Communication Workers of America District 4, joined the America's Work Force Union Podcast to discuss the potential end to the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) and the plan's possible extension. John Nichols, a journalist with The Nation, joined the America's Work Force Union Podcast to talk about his story about attacks on the National Labor Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Board for being unconstitutional.

In this podcast recorded at Ogletree Deakins' national Workplace Strategies seminar, our panel discusses the latest requirements for multistate employers' handbooks and how employers can keep up with the patchwork of federal, state, and local laws. Dee Anna Hays (shareholder, Tampa), who is chair of Ogletree Deakins' Multistate Advice and Counseling Practice Group, joined by Todd Duffield (shareholder, Atlanta), and Heather Ptasznik (shareholder, Detroit (Metro)), cover trends regarding parental leave policies, the EEOC's new guidance on harassment, and unlawful policies under the National Labor Relations Act. Todd and Dee Anna close out with a discussion of the tests the National Labor Relations Board uses to evaluate employer policies.

Bob is fascinated by the balance between the need for regulation and the vast growth of the administrative state. We are also fascinated by just how much the political winds impact the law...even though we like to believe it is solid and hard to change.  Look no further than the 88-year-old National Labor Relations Act, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which it created. It is now under fire at the Supreme Court.A product of the New Deal, the NLRB has yet to face such a challenge in the modern era, but major companies like SpaceX, Starbucks, and Trader Joe's have marshaled a constitutional challenge to the legitimacy of its composition and enforcement activities, hoping to eventually find a sympathetic ear before the U.S. Supreme Court, currently controlled by a conservative majority. These arguments range from challenges to the board's impartiality to issues concerning the separation of powers doctrine, given the inability to remove board members except “for cause,” to violations of due process and deprivation of the right to trial by jury under the Fifth and Seventh Amendments, respectively. And given the Biden NLRB's aggressive policy and enforcement prerogatives, these arguments have begun to become commonplace defenses against its actions.John Balitis knows the NLRB. He knows what it is like to "walk in" and face an administrative investigation/prosecution/enforcement/judicial and appellate body...ALL IN ONE!His prediction? Somehow the board...which impacts virtually every workplace...is likely going to be a different animal once the Supreme Court rules.  How different?  What does it mean for employers?  Employees?Take a listen now!

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney sits at an interesting intersection of Labor and Administrative law. The facts of the case concern Starbucks Corp.'s alleged retaliation against seven Memphis workers for unionization efforts. The employees received disciplinary action and ultimately lost their jobs in the wake of their involvement in a unionization effort. In the following investigation, the NLRB found that there was reasonable cause to believe Starbucks had acted in retaliation against protected unionization efforts. A district court issued a temporary injunction and required the 7 former employees to be reinstated. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on appeal, concluding the NLRB had satisfied its burden in showing there was "reasonable cause" that Starbucks had violated the National Labor Relations Act and thus the NLRB could use its remedial power. Starbucks appealed again and the case was heard by the Supreme Court on April 23, 2023.The question before the Supreme Court, however, is not the Labor Law question of whether Starbucks violated the NLRA, but an Administrative law one as the case asks what standard the NLRB needed to meet to obtain an injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA from a court. Is "reasonable cause" enough or is there a more stringent test a court should use?Join us as we break down and analyze this interesting case and the Oral Argument in the days following the argument before the Court.Featuring:Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether courts must evaluate the National Labor Relations Board's requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act using the traditional, stringent, four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or some other more lenient standard. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A case in which the Court will decide what test courts must use to evaluate the National Labor Relations Board's requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Snyder v. United States (April 15) - Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon (April 15) - Whether Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claims are governed by the charge-specific rule, under which a malicious prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge even if other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause, or by the “any-crime” rule, under which probable cause for even one charge defeats a plaintiff's malicious-prosecution claims as to every other charge, including those lacking probable cause.Fischer v. United States (April 16) - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.Thornell v. Jones. (April 17) - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit violated this court's precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington when it disregarded the district court's factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the state's rebuttal when it reversed the district court and granted habeas relief.City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (April 22) - Constitutional Law, First Amendment - It explores the standards required for a plaintiff alleging an arrest in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment, focusing on what evidence must be shown to prove such a claim, especially in light of exceptions outlined in precedent cases.Smith v. Spizzirri (April 22) - Whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration.Department of State v. Munoz (April 23) - (1) Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen; and (2) whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due.Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (April 23) - Whether courts must evaluate the National Labor Relations Board's requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act using the traditional, stringent, four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or some other more lenient standard.Moyle v. United States (April 24) - Whether the Supreme Court should stay the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoining the enforcement of Idaho's Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, on the ground that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts it.Trump v. United States (April 24) - Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.Featuring:Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for JusticeG. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy AssociationHarry Graver, Associate, Jones Day Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Litigation, Goldwater InstituteProf. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover InstitutionModerator: Danielle Thumann, Partner, McGuireWoods

This Day in Legal History: UK's House of Lords Becomes Elected BodyOn March 7, 2007, a pivotal moment in British legal and political history unfolded as the House of Commons, Britain's lower house of Parliament, voted in favor of transforming the House of Lords into an elected body. This significant decision marked the beginning of the end for the centuries-old tradition of appointments based on noble birth, a system that had shaped the composition of the United Kingdom's upper chamber of Parliament. For hundreds of years, the House of Lords had been composed largely of hereditary peers, bishops, and appointed life peers, a reflection of a hierarchical society rooted in aristocracy and privilege.The vote by the House of Commons was not just a legislative act; it was a profound statement about the evolution of democratic principles and the push for greater accountability and representation in the UK's legislative process. The move towards an elected House of Lords aimed to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the Parliament by ensuring that members of the upper house were chosen by the public or their representatives, rather than by accident of birth or political appointment.This historic vote was the culmination of years of debate and reform efforts aimed at modernizing the United Kingdom's parliamentary system. Previous attempts to reform the House of Lords, including the significant House of Lords Act of 1999, which removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in the House, laid the groundwork for this dramatic shift. The 2007 vote was a clear indication of the changing attitudes towards governance and representation, emphasizing the importance of aligning the UK's legislative bodies with contemporary democratic standards.The decision to make the House of Lords an elected body faced both applause and criticism. Proponents argued that it would lead to a more democratic and transparent legislative process, while detractors raised concerns about the potential implications for the balance of power and the traditional roles of the Houses of Parliament. Regardless of the varied opinions, the vote on March 7, 2007, remains a landmark in the journey towards reforming one of the oldest parliamentary institutions in the world, reflecting the ongoing evolution of democracy and governance in the United Kingdom.The Dartmouth College men's basketball team's decision to unionize, with a 13-2 vote in favor of being represented by the Service Employees International Union on March 5, could potentially initiate a wave of unionization across Ivy League schools. This move comes after a protracted legal battle culminating in a National Labor Relations Board official's February 5 decision, recognizing the athletes as employees under the National Labor Relations Act, despite Dartmouth College's ongoing appeal. This decision represents a significant challenge to the NCAA, which has been entrenched in legal disputes regarding athletes' labor and employment rights. Dartmouth's case, while seemingly atypical due to the school's lower-profile athletic program and lack of scholarships or deals for name, image, and likeness (NIL) for its players, reflects a broader discontent with current NCAA policies. Economic and legal experts suggest that the lack of NIL deals makes unionization more appealing for athletes at Ivy League schools, where players often balance academics, sports, and part-time jobs without athletic scholarships.The resurgence of union activity at Dartmouth, highlighted by undergraduate dining hall workers' successful organization with SEIU Local 560, demonstrates a wider trend of labor organizing in higher education. The legal struggle for the Dartmouth basketball team is far from over, indicating that future unionization efforts at other institutions may encounter similar challenges. Dartmouth College's steadfast position that its athletes are not employees, juxtaposed with the NLRB's contrasting view, underscores the ongoing debate over the classification and compensation of college athletes. This case, and the broader movement it may inspire, challenges longstanding norms regarding athlete compensation and labor rights in college sports, signaling a potentially transformative period in the relationship between student-athletes and collegiate athletic programs.Dartmouth Players' Vote Poised to Spark Ivy League Union WaveCigna Group has entered into agreements with Eli Lilly & Co. and Novo Nordisk A/S to enhance coverage for obesity medications, specifically aiming to mitigate the financial burden on employer-sponsored health plans for drugs like Wegovy and Zepbound. These deals, orchestrated through Cigna's Express Scripts pharmacy benefits manager, introduce a novel financial guarantee, capping annual spending increases for these medications at 15%. This initiative is designed to broaden access to these in-demand treatments by offering companies a safeguard against the soaring costs associated with GLP-1 treatments. Adam Kautzner, president of Cigna's Express Scripts, highlighted the unprecedented demand for weight-loss medications and the financial strain they impose on employers, with some witnessing annual spending surges of 40% to 50%.Express Scripts, serving 120 million individuals under various health plans, is now offering EncircleRx, a program that besides the drug coverage, includes patient support aimed at fostering lifestyle changes essential for the drugs' effectiveness. This program represents a strategic response to the challenges of covering high-cost obesity treatments, providing a structured framework for managing these expenses. Despite the reluctance of Lilly and Novo to discuss the specifics of their agreements with Cigna, these partnerships signal a significant shift towards addressing the affordability and accessibility of obesity treatments. The deals reflect a broader industry challenge in balancing drug costs with patient access, amidst calls from insurers for drug manufacturers to lower prices. Cigna's move to revise its long-term earnings growth forecast upwards underscores the financial implications and potential benefits of these strategic agreements in managing the costs of high-demand medications.Cigna Strikes Deals With Lilly, Novo for More Obesity CoverageThe Republican-led House Oversight Committee has formally requested Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, to testify in an open hearing on March 20 as part of their ongoing impeachment investigation into the president. This inquiry has scrutinized Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine and China during the time his father was vice president from 2009 to 2017, although no evidence implicating Joe Biden in any wrongdoing has been found. Alongside Hunter Biden, the committee also extended invitations to three of his former business associates to appear for testimony. Despite previous indications from Hunter Biden that he would only testify publicly, he participated in a closed-door deposition with the committee last month after facing potential contempt charges. During this contentious deposition, Hunter Biden emphasized that his father had no involvement in or benefit from his business activities. Hunter Biden's legal team has acknowledged receipt of the committee's latest request and plans to respond in writing.US House Republicans ask Hunter Biden to testify in open March 20 hearing | ReutersFTX and BlockFi, both of which declared bankruptcy in 2022, have reached a settlement agreement where FTX will pay BlockFi up to $874 million. This settlement follows lawsuits between the two companies over financial dealings and loans made to each other before their respective financial collapses. A significant part of the settlement, $250 million, is to be prioritized for BlockFi, with the balance contingent on FTX's ability to repay its own customers and creditors. The relationship between the two firms became complicated after a market crash in 2022 exposed FTX's misuse of customer funds, leading to BlockFi turning to FTX for rescue financing. Furthermore, FTX has committed to an additional payment of $185.3 million to BlockFi to cover funds held in FTX trading accounts at the time of the collapse. Despite the agreement, full repayment to FTX customers remains uncertain, and BlockFi has indicated that it is unlikely to fully repay its interest-bearing account holders, projecting that they might only recover between 39.4% and 100% of their account values. The deal also includes BlockFi's decision to withdraw its lawsuit concerning 56 million Robinhood shares previously pledged as collateral, which were seized by the U.S. Department of Justice following FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried's arrest and subsequent conviction for embezzling $8 billion from FTX customers.FTX reaches settlement with BlockFi, may pay up to $874 million | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

It's Hump Day! First, in a pre-taped conversation, Sam speaks with Seth Goldstein, legal counsel for Trader Joe's United & the Amazon Labor Union (ALU), to discuss a recent legal filing by Amazon, Trader Joe's, and SpaceX that alleges that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is unconstitutional. Then, Emma speaks with Dr. Tarek Loubani, associate professor at the University of Western Ontario and leader of the Glia Project, to discuss what is happening on the ground now that hospitals in Gaza are mostly non-operational. First, Emma runs through updates on the US vetoing a UN ceasefire resolution for the THIRD time, Gaza's dire situation, Ukrainian troops, US sanctions on Russia, Trump's legal woes, the FBI's Biden Informant and his foreign connections, SCOTUS attacks, student debt, Starbucks unions, and the murder of a nonbinary child in Oklahoma, before watching Nikki Haley put on her best Hillary Clinton pants(uit) and accuse Trump of Russia-connected authoritarianism. Then, Sam is joined by Sam Goldstein as they dive into the evolution of the legal attacks on the NLRB, beginning with Amazon's objections to the NLRB's role in the Amazon Labor Union elections of 2022, and seeing Elon Musk file suit against the NLRB's constitutionality in the wake of a decision against SpaceX. Next, Goldstein steps back, walking through the establishment of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 as an attempt to institutionalize the conflict between labor and management in an attempt to somewhat protect workers' rights, and the near-nonexistent changes in its management (outside of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act) over the following eight decades, despite the overwhelming changes to the labor market with the rise of Tech and the gig economy. After tackling the history of challenges to its unconstitutionality, Seth walks Sam through the three major planks of SpaceX's case – namely: the requirement of good cause for Presidents to remove NLRB judges, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury, and the Board's combination of legislative, judicial, and executive powers. Exploring each point, Goldstein tackles the absurdity of each point within the broader operations of the US government, and the devastating impact the case could have on both the NLRB and the administrative state writ large. After discussing SpaceX's attempt to keep this legal battle in Texas, Goldstein wraps up with Trader Joe's similar case coming out of Connecticut, the threat IT poses to the NLRB, and what to expect moving forward. Dr. Tarek Loubani then joins, first parsing through his experience doing humanitarian and medical work in Gaza over the last decade, and touching on his experiences during Gaza's Great March of Return in 2018, which saw thousands of Gazans shot during peaceful and civil demonstrations against their conditions, including Dr. Loubani himself. Next, Loubani assesses the complete devastation of Gaza's medical care during Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing of the region, with Israel's active attacks on both medical institutions and medical personnel setting a new standard for depraved warfare, also exploring the harrowing and devastating realities of genocide and apartheid on the ground, from both a medical and broader perspective. Tarek also discusses his experiences at Al-Shifa Hospital, and unpacks the insane claim that Hamas could operate its military out of overpacked and overwhelmed medical centers, before wrapping up by addressing the active culpability and complicity of the West and the need to hold our politicians accountable. And in the Fun Half: Emma is joined by the great RM Brown as they tackle the NBA All-Star game, watch Norm Finkelstein dunk on Rabbi Shmuley, and touch on some highlights from Rabbi Shmuley's agitprop tape. They also watch Dr. Irfan Galaria reflect on his experiences in Gaza with Joy Reid, and bask in the heckling of genocide-endorsers Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, plus, your IMs! Follow Seth on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/SethGoldstein13 Check out the "Repair Gaza" campaign courtesy of the Glia Project here: https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/rebuild_gaza_help_repair_and_rebuild_the_lives_and_work_of_our_glia_team#!/ Find out more about the Glia Project here: https://glia.org/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Get emails on the IRS pilot program for tax filing here!: https://service.govdelivery.com/accounts/USIRS/subscriber/new Check out a preview of Janek Ambros's documentary "Ukrainians in Exile" here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6HGVL6FJ-U&ab_channel=AssemblyLineEntertainment Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ 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: Zippix Toothpicks: Make your lungs happy and try Zippix Nicotine Toothpicks. Ditch the cigarettes, ditch the vape and get some nicotine infused toothpicks at https://ZippixToothpicks.com today. Get 10% off your first order by using the code MAJORITY10 at checkout. Your lungs will be glad you did. MUST be 21 or older to order. Warning, nicotine is an addictive chemical. 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/

In this episode, we discuss the recent activity at the NLRB this last year, particularly employees' protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act, as it affects not only employers that deal with unions, but also those that are union free.  Subscribe to our podcast today to stay up to date on employment issues from law experts worldwide.Host: Tara Stingley (email) (Cline Williams Wright Johnson & Oldfather, LLP / Nebraska) Guest Speaker: Francine Esposito (email) (Day Pitney LLP / New Jersey) View the related article here. Support the showRegister on the ELA website here to receive email invitations to future programs.

Labor: Did Elon Musk's anti-union tweet violate the National Labor Relations Act? - Argued: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:33:29 EDT

Norma Rae (1979) describes the struggle of Norma Rae Webster (Sally Field), a factory worker with limited education, to unionize a textile mill in North Carolina. The film was directed by Martin Ritt from a screenplay by Irving Ravetch and Harriet Frank Jr., and is based on the true story of Crystal Lee Sutton (as told in the 1975 book Crystal Lee, A Woman of Inheritance by New York Times reporter Henry P. Leifermann). Reuben Warshowsky (Ron Leibman), a union organizer from New York City, persuades Norma to help him organize a union. But Norma and Reuben must overcome a series of obstacles, including pressure and harassment from management as well as internal divisions among the textile workers. Norma, moreover, must navigate issues in her personal life, including with her new husband Sonny (Beau Bridges), who resents Norma's growing commitment to the union. Ultimately, Norma succeeds as the workers vote to unionize. The film offers a snapshot of the labor movement on the cusp of the Reagan era in American and features a memorable, Oscar-winning performance by Sally Field in the title role. My guest is Fred B. Jacob, Solicitor of the National Labor Relations Board and labor law professor at George Washington University Law School. Fred's views on this podcast are solely his own and not those of the National Labor Relations Board or the U.S. Government.Timestamps:0:00        Introduction3:33        An inflection point in U.S. labor history6:40        Unionizing the textile industry13:29      The clash between culture and economics14:03      Organizing a workplace 21:08      How unions are protected24:17      A snapshot of the middle of the J.P. Stevens campaign27:08      How the law operates in Norma Rae28:38      Management's pressure tactics31:09      Why you need a “Norma Rae” when trying to organize people32:46      The film's iconic moment of worker power35:30      Violence against the labor movement40:17      Management's exploitation of racial divisions49:58      How the union helps empower Norma 53:57      What happened next at the factory59:30      Crystal Lee Sutton: The real Norma Rae1:01:36   Unions today1:05:14  How the National Labor Relations Act helps people to be brave1:08:51   Other great labor moviesFurther reading:Allan, Angela, “40 Years Ago, ‘Norma Rae'  Understood How Corporations Weaponized Race,” The Atlantic (Mar. 2, 2019)Dray, Philip, There is Power in a Union (2011)Dubofsky, Melvyn & McCartin, Joseph A., Labor in America: A History (9th ed. 2017)Fry, Naomi, “The Ongoing Relevance of ‘Norma Rae,'” New Yorker (Aug. 4. 2020)Kazek, Kelly, “When Hollywood came to Alabama to film 'Norma Rae,'” Al.com (May 3, 2019)Leifermann, Henry P., Crystal Lee, A Woman of Inheritance (1975)Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/faculty/full-time/jonathan-hafetz.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

For this episode of The Jason Cavness Experience, I am covering HR Laws you have to follow if your company has 49 or fewer employees CavnessHR Product/Market Fit Validation and Tech Platform Validation To help us with our product market fit and tech platform validation. We are providing Employee Handbooks and HR policies at no cost to companies with 49 or fewer people in the city of Seattle. Email me at jasoncavness@CavnessHR.com if you are interested in this. Go to www.thejasoncavnessexperience.com for the full episode and other episodes of The Jason Cavness Experience on your favorite platforms.  Sponsor  CavnessHR delivers HR companies with 49 or fewer people with our HR platform and by providing you access to your own HRBP. www.CavnessHR.com HR Laws for Small Business with 49 or fewer employees  If you have at least one employee, the following HR laws apply to you.  Drug-Free Workplace Act: The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 only applies to federal grant recipients and federal contractors with a contract for more than $100,000. Drug-Free Workplace Requirements Generally, it requires that covered employers: adopt a drug-free workplace policy; and establish a drug-free awareness program. Employers faced with alcohol and drug use in the workplace often consider employee and applicant drug testing as a way to reduce safety risks and avoid other problems caused by employee drug use. Employers that use drug testing should be aware of the many laws and regulations governing safety, employee privacy, and disability.  The issues involved include both legally mandated and voluntary drug-free workplace programs, discrimination and accommodation, testing, and special requirements for the transportation industry. Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA): Prohibits intentional interceptions of wire, oral, or electronic communications. https://it.ojp.gov/privacyliberty/authorities/statutes/1285 Employee Polygraph Protection Act: Forbids most employers to use lie detectors. Poster required.  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/polygraph Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): Regulates benefits through a complex series of rules covering pensions, profit-sharing, stock bonus, and most insurance and other benefit plans. What is ERISA? The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was enacted to ensure that employees receive the pension and other benefits promised by their employers. ERISA also incorporates and is tied to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) provisions designed to encourage employers to provide retirement and other benefits to their employees. Most provisions of ERISA and the IRC are intended to ensure that tax-favored pension plans do not favor the highest-paid employees over rank-and-file employees. ERISA has a complex series of rules that cover pension, profit-sharing, stock bonus, and most “welfare benefit plans,” such as health and life insurance. ERISA has created a single federal standard for employee benefits, and it supersedes almost all state laws that affect employee benefit plans. An employer's responsibilities under ERISA vary depending on the type of plan involved. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/retirement/erisa Military Leave -Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994: Prohibits discrimination against those who serve in the military; mandates military leave of absence.  With the increased use of reserve and National Guard troops in full-time military service, employers must frequently deal with the requirements of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994 when those employees are called to active services and when they return. USERRA governs the leave and reinstatement requirements for military personnel. The law contains specific requirements for protected leave, rules for benefits employees are entitled to during military leave, and the requirements for reinstatement back in the civilian workforce.  https://www.dol.gov/vets/programs/userra/userra_fs.htm Employee Right to Know Laws (Hazardous Chemicals in Workplace): A disclosure rule that requires private sector employers with hazardous substances in their workplace to develop a comprehensive hazard communication program to train and inform employees.  https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3111.html National Labor Relations Act (NLRA): Employees have the right to organize and bargain collectively for wages, hours, and working conditions. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) was passed by Congress to encourage a healthy relationship between private sector workers and their employers. It was designed to curtail work stoppages, strikes, and general labor strife, which were viewed by Congress as harmful to the economy and the nation's welfare. To this end, the Act defines and protects the rights of employees and employers, encourages collective bargaining, and prohibits certain practices on the part of both labor and management. The NLRA also provides a system for conducting elections to determine who represents the employees and for enforcement of the strictures against unfair practices by any of the parties.  https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/national-labor-relations-act Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA): Employers must furnish a workplace that is free from recognized hazards. Poster required. https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/elg/osha.htm Equal Pay Act (EPA): Forbids discrimination in pay on the basis of gender. Poster required. Two federal statutes prohibit gender-based differences in pay: the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Title VII and other federal laws also prohibit pay discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, age, and disability. Although the EPA and Title VII both prohibit pay discrimination based on gender, the laws differ in several aspects, including coverage, enforcement, and remedies.  https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): Regulates the payment of minimum wages and overtime. Poster required. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), also known as the federal Wage and Hour Law, regulates minimum wage, overtime, equal pay, recordkeeping, and child labor for employees of enterprises engaged in interstate or foreign commerce and employees of state and local governments. The FLSA is enforced by the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The FLSA applies in all states, but states are permitted to develop their own laws and regulations to provide even greater protection for their workers than is provided under federal law. In cases in which the two laws conflict, the law most beneficial to the employee prevails. Therefore, it is essential that employers understand both the state and federal laws. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA): Employers must verify that workers are legally entitled to work in the United States. IRCA also prohibits employers from discriminating in hiring, firing, recruiting, or referring based on national orgin or citizensip status. It is also illegal to retaliate against an employee who has filed.  The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) bars employers from hiring individuals, including undocumented immigrants, who are not legally entitled to work in the United States Employers must verify that individual are eligible to work by obtaining an Employment eligibility Verification Form, know as Form I-9 and inspecting the required supporting documents at the time of hiring. I-9 forms must be retained for 3 years after the worker is hired or for one year after termination, whichever is longer. https://www.uscis.gov/i-9 Federal Income Tax Withholding:  Employers are required to make deductions from employees' pay for Social Security. Employers are required by law to make deductions from the pay of their employees for federal income tax, for Social Security tax under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA), and for Medicare tax. The government provides detailed tables for the computation of these withholding amounts. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Publication 15 (Circular E), Employer's Tax Guide, provides details and may be obtained on the IRS website athttps://www.irs.gov/forms-instructions.  What do employers need to consider regarding Social Security and Medicare? The Social Security program was created by the federal Social Security Act. It is a worker-employer-government insurance program, covering benefits for retirement, survivors, disability and Medicare. Employers withhold two separate taxes from employees' paychecks. One is the Social Security tax and the other is the Medicare tax. Medicare, which is funded through taxes, provides health insurance for people aged 65 or older and many people with disabilities. Medicare consists of Parts A (hospital insurance), B (medical insurance), and C (Medicare Advantage), which offer additional preventive health benefits and patient protections. In 2006, Medicare began offering prescription drug plans, known as Part D.  https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/federal-income-tax-withholding Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) of 1935 (Social Security): Employers and Employees are required to contribute to Social Security and Medicare. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA): Limits the duration of pre-existing condition exclusion in group health plans and gives new enrollees credit for prior coverage. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/index.html If you have at least 15 employees, the following HR laws apply to you. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Forbids discrimination against the disabled. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits disability discrimination. In the workplace, employers cannot discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability. Reasonable accommodation by employers is required absent undue hardship. The ADA Amendments Acts of 2008 (ADAAA) and its regulations significantly broadened the definition of disability, shifting the focus away from whether an individual has a disability and toward whether discrimination occurred.  https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/disability/ada Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA): Forbids discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Several federal laws protect or grant rights to workers on the basis of pregnancy or related medical conditions. These rights and protections may include the right to be free from discrimination, harassment, and stereotypes; the right to reasonable workplace accommodations, such as job modifications, extended or additional breaks, and leave; the right to leave for pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, and bonding; and the right to equivalent fringe benefits, such as health insurance. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act: To prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) prohibits genetic information discrimination against employees or job applicants. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/gina.cfm Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Federal fair employment laws protect employees from discrimination based on age, race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, and genetic information. Federal law covers employers of 15 or more employees, except for the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which covers employers with 20 or more employees. State laws often cover employers with fewer employees and provide protection for groups not covered under federal law. Certain individuals in the workplace, such as independent contractors, are not protected by federal fair employment laws if they are not employees. Employers are liable for discriminatory acts by supervisors—in some cases, strictly liable. There are many preventive measures an employer can take to reduce the probability of being sued for discrimination. Civil rights laws also impose numerous recordkeeping requirements on employers. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Update): Extends prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex to gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/863498848/supreme-court-delivers-major-victory-to-lgbtq-employees If you have at least 20 employees, the following HR laws apply to you. Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): Forbids the discrimination on the basis of age 40 and over. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits all public employers and private employers with 20 or more employees from discriminating against employees or applicants based on age. Individuals must be at least 40 years of age to be covered by the ADEA. Harassment of employees based on age is also unlawful discrimination. The ADEA also protects an older worker's disability payments, retirement incentives, life insurance, pension, and retirement plans. Amendments to the ADEA set out standards for waivers of legal rights by older employees in return for retirement incentives. Many states also have fair employment laws that prohibit age discrimination. Different age groups may be protected under state law, and smaller employers may be subject to state requirements. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm Consolidated Omnibus Benefits Reconciliation Act (COBRA): Requires that employees who lose coverage under group health plans be given a continuation option. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/cobra CavnessHR Product/Market Fit Validation and Tech Platform Validation To help us with our product market fit and tech platform validation. We are providing Employee Handbooks and HR policies at no cost to companies with 49 or fewer people in the city of Seattle. Email me at jasoncavness@CavnessHR.com if you are interested in this.

In episode 128, Coffey talks with Julia Gannaway about recent regulatory and legal items that all employers can learn from.They discuss Whole Foods' wins in federal court and before a National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge related to dress code enforcement and Black Lives Matter paraphernalia; a business owner who was alleged to have interfered with a Department of Labor wage and hour investigation, going so far as to retaliate against employees who cooperated with investigators; and an employer who settled an age discrimination suit for $90 million.Links to stuff they talked about are on our website at https://goodmorninghr.com/EP128 and include the following topics:- Judge dismisses Whole Foods workers' lawsuit over 'Black Lives Matter' masks- Whole Foods beats NLRB case over ban on Black Lives Matter apparel- Administrative Law Judge's Decision (PDF)- Court Orders Haslett Healthcare Facility Owner Who Allegedly Threatened to Fire Employees for Cooperating with Investigation to Attend Anti-Retaliation Training- Consent Judgment and Order (PDF)- Exact Sciences to Pay $90,000 to Settle EEOC Age Discrimination LawsuitGood Morning, HR is brought to you by Imperative—premium background checks with fast and friendly service. For more information about our commitment to quality and excellent customer service, visit us at https://imperativeinfo.com. If you are an HRCI or SHRM-certified professional, this episode of Good Morning, HR has been pre-approved for half a recertification credit. To obtain the recertification information for this episode, visit https://goodmorninghr.com. About our Guest:Julia Gannaway is a 1991 graduate of Texas A&M with an economics degree and obtained her J.D. from the University of Houston in 1994. Her law firm – Ross, Gannaway, Clifton PLLC – dedicates itself solely to assisting employers. She advises clients on matters relating to federal and state agency investigations, conducts employer investigations, prepares and revises employer handbooks, and advises clients on pay matters including the FLSA and the Texas PayDay Act. She is a member of the Texas Bar College. Julia currently serves on the Fort Worth HR Board of Directors as Legal and Legislative Director.Julia can be reached at https://rossgannaway.law https://www.linkedin.com/company/rossgannawayclifton/About Mike Coffey:Mike Coffey is an entrepreneur, human resources professional, licensed private investigator, and HR consultant.In 1999, he founded Imperative, a background investigations firm helping risk-averse companies make well-informed decisions about the people they involve in their business.Today, Imperative serves hundreds of businesses across the US and, through its PFC Caregiver & Household Screening brand, many more private estates, family offices, and personal service agencies.Mike has been recognized as an Entrepreneur of Excellence and has twice been named HR Professional of the Year. Additionally, Imperative has been named the Texas Association of Business' small business of the year and is accredited by the Professional Background Screening Association. Mike is a member of the Fort Worth chapter of the Entrepreneurs' Organization and volunteers with the SHRM Texas State Council.Mike maintains his certification as a Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) through the HR Certification Institute. He is also a SHRM Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP).Mike lives in Fort Worth with his very patient wife. He practices yoga and maintains a keto diet, about both of which he will gladly tell you way more than you want to know.Learning Objectives: Understand when dress codes may or may not be implicated by the National Labor Relations Act. Implement training to avoid retaliation claims during federal investigations. Recognize language and behaviors that suggest age discrimination.

U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown joined the America's Work Force Union Podcast to talk about the proposed Amtrak expansion in Ohio. Brown also discussed his work to maintain steel industry jobs in the United States. Labor Lawyer Andrew Strom joined the America's Work Force Union Podcast to talk about the decisions of the National Labor Relations Board in 2023 and how different interpretations of the National Labor Relations Act led to problems with the U.S. Supreme Court and the Board.