Podcasts about National Labor Relations Board

Send us a text On this episode, I'm joined by the former General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, Jennifer Abruzzo. Jennifer discusses:1) Why she thinks college athletes should be unionized employees who engage in collective bargaining2) Why collective bargaining help, not hurt, college athletics as a whole3) How and why conferences should collectively bargain with college athletes4) Why she wasn't surprised to be fired by President Trump, and 5) Her perspective on the now-paused SCORE Act and President Trump's executive order on college sports.Thank you for listening! For the latest in sports law news and analysis, you can follow Gabe Feldman on twitter @sportslawguy .

#podcast #politics #progressives #workingclass #CorporateGreed #CorporateCorruption #GovernmentCorruption #Unions #Medicaid #Michigan #Economy #Trump #MAGA #Republicans #Democrats #Democracy #LeftOfLansing Here's the Left of Lansing "Monday Musing" for September 1, 2025. On this Labor Day 2025, Pat Johnston reviews how the Trump Regime has enacted the most anti-worker, anti-union, pro-corporate greed and corruption agenda in recent memory.  Whether it's the insane tariff scheme, the gutting of the National Labor Relations Board, or the MAGA Murder Budget, Dear Leader Trump's "economics" is hurting workers across the country, and especially in Michigan. Please, subscribe to the podcast, download each episode, and give it a good review if you can! leftoflansing@gmail.com Left of Lansing is now on YouTube as well! leftoflansing.com NOTES: "Labor Day report: Michigan has fourth-highest unemployment rate in U.S., wage disparities persist." By Jon King of Michigan Advance "Labor Day Report: A Snapshot of Michigan's Workforce." By Michigan League For Public Policy "Labor Day Spotlight: Trump promised to revive manufacturing. Will he deliver?" By Kelena Thomhave of Michigan Advance "The UAW at 90: Still fighting for the middle class—and its own future." By Rick Haglund of Michigan Advance "Trump's shock-and-awe tariffs haven't fueled a manufacturing jobs boom." By Matt Egan of CNN "Trump Celebrates Labor Day as the Most Anti-Union President Ever." By Harold Meyerson of American Prospect

Part 1: Jennifer Abruzzo, former general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, has outlined an agenda that would transform the American workplace. https://prospect.org/labor/memo-writer-jennifer-abruzzo/Jennifer has left her position at the NLRB, and is now general counsel for one of the largest unions in the US. We discuss the future for unions, and how unions may be the leaders for the resistance to trumpism. Part 2: We talk with John Nichols is the executive editor of The Nation. He previously served as the magazine's national affairs correspondent and Washington correspondent. Nichols has written, cowritten, or edited over a dozen books on topics ranging from histories of American socialism and the Democratic Party to analyses of US and global media systems. His latest, cowritten with Senator Bernie Sanders, is the New York Times bestseller It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism.We discuss what is ahead for American workers, and what we can all do to mitigate the damage that Trump's actions are doing to the American worker. WNHNFM.ORG  productionMusic: David Rovics

This week, we're covering four key employer-focused developments: a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB's) authority, another Fifth Circuit decision restoring pregnant worker protections, the White House's reversal of a key non-compete executive order, and a court ruling against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC's) early right-to-sue policy. NLRB Authority in Jeopardy The Fifth Circuit has ruled that the structure of the NLRB is likely unconstitutional, setting the stage for a potential U.S. Supreme Court review. Epstein Becker Green attorney Erin E. Schaefer tells us more. Fifth Circuit Restores Pregnant Worker Protections The Fifth Circuit also upheld the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), reversing a lower court's preliminary injunction. Employers must now ensure reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions under the PWFA. White House Rescinds Non-Compete Order The current administration has reversed President Biden's 2021 executive order on expansive antitrust enforcement, signaling a return to a more traditional approach to competition reviews. Court Strikes Down EEOC Right-to-Sue Policy A federal court has ruled against the EEOC's policy of automatically issuing early right-to-sue notices in discrimination cases, limiting the practice and its impact on claimants. - Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw402 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-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.

Jennifer Abruzzo was General Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board during the Biden administration. She pioneered changes to help restore the right to organize unions to American workers. Trump […] The post Former NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. She was the best we’ve had and Trump fired her appeared first on KKFI.

Jennifer Abruzzo was General Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board during the Biden administration. She pioneered changes to help restore the right to organize unions to American workers. Trump […] The post Former NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. She was the best we've had and Trump fired her appeared first on KKFI.

Immigrant workers at W&W Dairy in Monroe strike their new owners and the community and organized labor comes out in support, hotel workers at the Hilton-Madison Monona Terrace join UNITE HERE Local 1 in an NLRB certified election with two-thirds of the vote, workers at Mercy Health East represented by UAW Local 95 carry their strike into the seventh week and get support in Madison, Teamsters local 705 is striking Mauser Packaging Solutions in Chicago, striking flight attendants reach an agreement with Air Canada, and US courts are ready to make the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional.

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Ahead of the central bank's big meeting in Jackson Hole this week, President Trump is ramping up pressure on the Federal Reserve, calling for Fed governor Lisa Cook to resign over accusations of fraud. We'll get into it. And, SpaceX got a win in federal court that could have lasting effects on the power of the National Labor Relations Board. Plus, what makes a good life?"Appeals court says NLRB structure unconstitutional, in a win for SpaceX" from Tech Crunch"The Government Just Made it Harder for The Public to Comment on Regulations" from 404 Media"Trump Says Smithsonian Focuses Too Much on ‘How Bad Slavery Was'" from The New York Times"Trump Considers Firing Fed Official After Accusation of Mortgage Fraud" from The Wall Street Journal"There's a path to a good life beyond happiness and meaning" from The Washington Post We love hearing from you. Leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART or email makemesmart@marketplace.org.

Ahead of the central bank's big meeting in Jackson Hole this week, President Trump is ramping up pressure on the Federal Reserve, calling for Fed governor Lisa Cook to resign over accusations of fraud. We'll get into it. And, SpaceX got a win in federal court that could have lasting effects on the power of the National Labor Relations Board. Plus, what makes a good life?"Appeals court says NLRB structure unconstitutional, in a win for SpaceX" from Tech Crunch"The Government Just Made it Harder for The Public to Comment on Regulations" from 404 Media"Trump Says Smithsonian Focuses Too Much on ‘How Bad Slavery Was'" from The New York Times"Trump Considers Firing Fed Official After Accusation of Mortgage Fraud" from The Wall Street Journal"There's a path to a good life beyond happiness and meaning" from The Washington Post We love hearing from you. Leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART or email makemesmart@marketplace.org.

Two separate federal court rulings have struck legal and financial blows against Elon Musk and his business interests, raising questions about whether the world's richest man is losing leverage in the court system he's long relied on to defend his corporate strategies.On Monday, a judge in Delaware formally invalidated Musk's $56 billion Tesla compensation package, denying the company's request to move its incorporation to Texas. That same day, a federal judge in California ruled against Musk's attempt to dismiss a lawsuit accusing him of illegally firing employees at SpaceX who had circulated an internal letter criticizing his behavior.The Delaware decision directly affects the most valuable CEO pay package ever created. Judge Kathaleen McCormick denied Tesla's motion to transfer its incorporation from Delaware to Texas, which the company had hoped would retroactively affirm shareholder approval of Musk's compensation. She ruled that the original shareholder vote on Musk's 2018 pay package had not been fully informed due to undisclosed conflicts of interest among Tesla's board members.Tesla attempted to shift its corporate charter after McCormick voided the pay package in January, stating that Musk had undue influence over the supposedly independent directors who approved it. Monday's ruling now cements her earlier opinion, keeping Tesla under Delaware jurisdiction and invalidating the proposed Texas move.Tesla claimed that 77% of shareholders voted in favor of reincorporation to Texas. McCormick concluded that such votes did not repair the flawed process used to approve Musk's compensation. She emphasized that the Texas vote did not constitute a ratification of the original pay package because shareholders still lacked full information at the time.In California, Judge Maggie B. Corley rejected Musk's request to throw out a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by eight former SpaceX employees. These workers claim they were fired after distributing a letter calling Musk's online behavior damaging to the company's culture. Musk's lawyers argued that the letter itself disrupted SpaceX's mission and violated internal policies.Corley dismissed those arguments. She stated that the terminated employees had exercised protected rights under the National Labor Relations Act. She ruled that Musk's defense failed to show that the firings were lawful or that the internal letter disrupted business operations to a degree that would justify dismissal.The California ruling moves the case toward trial. It also affirms the position of the National Labor Relations Board, which has supported the fired workers' claims since 2022. If SpaceX loses at trial, the company could face orders to reinstate the employees or pay damages.The dual rulings came just hours apart. Neither involved criminal charges, but both potentially carry long-term consequences. Musk could lose tens of billions in stock options if the Tesla compensation package remains void. He also risks reputational harm and further scrutiny into labor practices at his companies.The Delaware ruling may increase shareholder pressure on Tesla's board to renegotiate Musk's compensation. Several investors have raised concerns about the pay package's scale and the influence Musk holds over board members. The board has not signaled plans for a revised compensation deal.The California decision draws attention to Musk's management style and public conduct, which critics say can alienate workers and investors. The internal letter cited examples of Musk's tweets and online behavior as distractions that conflicted with SpaceX's workplace values.Musk's legal team has not yet announced plans to appeal either ruling. Tesla has not released a statement following the Delaware court's decision, and SpaceX has declined to comment on the wrongful termination case.

A federal appeals court handed SpaceX a win on Tuesday, in a ruling that prevents the National Labor Relations Board from prosecuting unfair labor practices against the company. The ruling by the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which suggests the structure of the NLRB is likely unconstitutional, could have far-reaching effects. Also, Meta is rolling out an AI-powered voice translation feature to all users on Facebook and Instagram globally, the company announced on Tuesday. The new feature, which is available in any market where Meta AI is available, allows creators to translate content into other languages so it can be viewed by a broader audience. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Amazon.com Services, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has come under increasing criticism, with some accusing it of constantly reversing precedent, especially in cases involving labor policy issues. Professor Sam Estreicher of the NYU School of Law describes this supposed “policy oscillation” as having created unpredictability for employers, unions, and all stakeholders under the Act as to the state of the law under the NLRA. Many have also brought into question the independence of the NLRB, especially after the recent termination by the President of NLRB Member Gwynne Wilcox. The ensuing litigation regarding her termination will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.In hopes of remedying the alleged policy oscillation and partisan interference with the Board’s decision-making, Professor Estreicher, Professor David Sherwyn, and G. Roger King have proposed establishing an Article I labor court to replace the five-member National Labor Relations Board. This panel will discuss the current state of the National Labor Relations Board and the potential merits of replacing the Board with an Article I labor court.Featuring:Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law; Director, Center for Labor, New York University School of LawRichard F. Griffin, Jr., Of Counsel, Bredhoff & Kaiser PLLC; Former General Counsel, National Labor Relations BoardProf. David Sherwyn, Professor of Law, Cornell University School of Hotel AdministrationGlenn Taubman, Staff Attorney, National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

After three years the Game Workers Alliance union at Raven Software in Middleton secures its first contract, a representative of UAW Local 95 on strike in Janesville addresses Labor Radio listeners, Teamsters Local 120 inks a contract at Sysco Minnesota and alleges poor bus maintenance support in Madison, the Secretary of the Veterans Administration tears up VA collective bargaining agreements, Madison celebrates the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, Trump doesn't like the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers so kills the messenger, Machinists at Boeing in Missouri and Illinois go out on strike, Amazon workers will have trouble appealing to the National Labor Relations Board as the board is dragging along without a quorum, and there will be a fundraiser for striking UAW Local 95 workers in Janesville at the Madison Labor Temple on August 15th.

 The National Labor Relations Act recently turned 90 years old, but there appear to be a series of new “what's old is new again” challenges to the constitutionality of National Labor Relations Board's powers, a replay of arguments harking back to the New Deal.  Guests Eric Dreiband and Diana Reddy explore the current state of employment and labor law and recent challenges to NLRB oversight and the president's power over the board.  The Act and the NLRB sprang from the Great Depression and were incorporated into New Deal policies in an attempt to fix what went wrong. The NLRB and Act have provided protections to workers and unions and sought to level the bargaining process for decades.  But what was believed to be settled law might not be as “settled” as many thought. Today a flurry of new legal challenges question the constitutionality of some provisions and the extent of a sitting president's power over leadership at the NLRB along with the role of administrative law judges. Legal professionals who have been counting on the “bedrock” of established labor relations law may find that foundation is shaking again.  Mentioned in This Episode: “Relitigating the New Deal: The Stakes of Current Constitutional Challenges to the NLRB” by Diana Reddy, Duke University, Labor National Labor Relations Act “Is the NLRB Unconstitutional? The Courts May Finally Decide, by Alexander T. MacDonald, Federalist Society “National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation,” Oyez “Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board,” Justia “Donald J. Trump, President Of The United States, Et Al. V. Gwynne A. Wilcox, Et Al. On Application For Stay,” U.S. Supreme Court National Labor Relations Board  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ABA Labor and Employment Law Section ABA Labor and Employment Law events Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Host Tom Godar welcomes to the show Husch Blackwell partner Jon Anderson for the second installment of a two-part conversation with Howard Bellman, a fixture in the world of dispute resolution for many decades who has helped to shape the procedures and fora associated with mediation and arbitration in Wisconsin and nationally.In this episode, Tom and Jon build on their prior discussion with Howard, covering the role that mediation and arbitration plays in maintaining labor-management peace. The conversation explores the arbitrator's point of view in the dispute resolution setting, and Howard provides signature perspectives on taking the temperature of the disputants and learning how to read a room, even when that room is virtual. Tom, Jon, and Howard then consider some best practices for the arbitration process, including the need to be clear in communicating with the arbitrator, to understand what the case is ultimately about, and to confront the weaknesses of your case. The group also discusses the value of written briefs and opening statements in the context of arbitrations, where arbitrators often have no real knowledge of the substance of the matter until the disputants present their cases.The episode concludes with a brief summary of how the arbitration process has evolved as public policy has shifted repeatedly—particularly at the National Labor Relations Board—during the first quarter of the 21st century. Be sure to catch this interesting discussion about the crucial role arbitration plays in maintaining accord between labor and management.

Former Amazon Labor Union organizer Chris Smalls is freed from Israeli captivity after being abducted on the sea while bringing aid to Gaza, Amazon workers finally get rulings on charges filed at the National Labor Relations Board, national unions are having trouble unifying against actions of the Trump administration, a Wisconsin bill to strip gig workers of employee status goes to the desk of Governor Tony Evers, the president of IATSE Local 415 in Arizona talks to Labor Radio, there will be a march in support of Social Security in Madison this month, and the Rick Smith show remembers the police shooting of striking dock workers in Hilo, Hawai'i, in 1938.

This week, we look at the potential restoration of a quorum at the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”), the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) deregulatory initiatives, and lessons from a high-profile workplace incident at a Coldplay concert. NLRB May Regain Quorum Lacking a quorum, the NLRB is currently unable to issue decisions affecting workplace policies and disputes. On July 17, 2025, President Trump nominated two Republicans to fill vacant seats on the Board. Senate confirmation of the nominees is required to restore the Board's authority and ensure continued guidance for employers. DOL Begins Deregulation Push The DOL's deregulatory agenda could reshape compliance priorities for employers. Plans include 63 actions to roll back regulations and align with federal mandates. Coldplay Concert Exposes Workplace Romance  A viral “kiss cam” moment at a recent Coldplay concert led to the resignations of a CEO and a Chief People Officer and heightened legal exposure for their company. This is a reminder that employers must implement and consistently enforce relationship policies to prevent risk and uphold workplace credibility. --  Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw398 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-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.

Since January 2025, the National Labor Relations Board has had only two sitting members—one less than necessary for a quorum. When it lacks a quorum, the Board can’t do things like resolve alleged unfair labor practices or rule on election-related objections. Seeing a policy gap, some states are moving to fill it. California, New York, and Massachusetts are all considering legislation that would transfer at least some of the inactive Board’s duties to state agencies. These bills have sparked a controversy about federal preemption and the role of states in regulating labor relations. Our panelists will flesh out the debates and explain where the debate is likely to go in the coming months.Featuring:Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.Prof. Benjamin I. Sachs, Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry, Harvard Law School(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

This week, the gals walk out to shed some light on the power of the working class. Topics include pot-stirring sailors, wildcats, and a malfunctioning garbage truck that led to a nationwide movement. Rustle up a bottle of Striking Red South Australian Cabernet Sauvignon, do NOT cross that picket line, and tune in for Strikes! For a full list of show sponsors, visit https://wineandcrimepodcast.com/sponsors. To advertise on Wine & Crime, please email ad-sales@libsyn.com or go to advertising.libsyn.com/winecrime.

Heather MacDougall, a lawyer and advisory board member, was in Washington, D.C., when an offer to join the National Labor Relations Board under the Bush Administration changed her career trajectory forever.A lawyer? On a safety and leadership podcast? It makes perfect sense, just trust us.While she didn't get that position, she did shortly thereafter become the Chief Counsel to the Chairman at the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, eventually becoming Commissioner of the Council before joining Amazon as the Chief Safety Officer.See, we told you it would start to make sense.From labor lawyer to leading safety at one of the world's largest companies, Heather has shaped a powerful perspective on what it takes to lead in safety today and how innovation and technology are useful tools in reducing incidents. Tune into this episode of My Big Safety Challenge as Heather shares why she believes safety is never a finished product and why the constant pursuit of improvement is one of the field's greatest strengths.

The National Labor Relations Board is operating without a quorum and its case backlog is continuing to grow. Now the Trump Administration is proposing a smaller budget and fewer staff. Here to help us understand the details and the implications for employers and unions is Senior Counsel in the Labor & Employment Law Department at Proskauer, Josh Fox.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

National Labor Relations Board v. North Mountain Foothills Apartments, LLC

The podcast show we are releasing this week focuses generally on the so-called “Unitary Executive Theory” and specifically on the legality of President Trump firing without cause the Democratic Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission and the members of other independent agencies, despite language in the governing statutes that prohibit the President from firing a member without cause and a 1935 Supreme Court opinion in Humphrey's Executor holding that the firing of an FTC Commissioner by the President is unlawful if done without cause. Our guest is Patrick Sobkowski who teaches constitutional law, courts and public policy, and American politics at Marquette University. His scholarship focuses on constitutional and administrative law, specifically the administrative state and its relationship to the other branches of government. Our show began with an explanation of the “Unitary Executive Theory” which is defined as a constitutional law theory according to which the President has sole authority over the executive branch including independent federal agencies. It is based on the so-called “vesting clause “of the Constitution which vests all executive power in the President. The theory often comes up in disagreements about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch (including Federal agencies); transparency and access to information; discretion over the implementation of new laws; and the ability to control agencies' rule-making. There is disagreement about the doctrine's strength and scope. More expansive versions are controversial for both constitutional and practical reasons. Since the Reagan Administration, the Supreme Court has embraced a stronger unitary executive, which has been championed primarily by its conservative justices. We then discussed a litany of Supreme Court opinions dealing with the question of whether the President has the unfettered right to remove executive agency employees: a. Myers v. US (1926) b. Humphrey's Executor (1935) c. Morrison v. Olson (1988) d. Seila Law (2020) We then discussed Trump's removals of the Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board and the Supreme Court's opinion and order staying the lower court's order that the removals were unlawful. In addition to casting doubt on the continued viability of Humphrey's Executor, the Court included dicta to the effect that the logic of its opinion about the NLRB and the MSPB would not apply to the Federal Reserve Board because the Fed is not really an executive agency and that its functions are more akin to the functions performed by the First Bank and Second Bank of the United States. Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted the podcast. The podcast recording is here.

July 5 marked the 90th anniversary of the Wagner Act, also known as the National Labor Relations Act, which created the National Labor Relations Board and created mechanisms for workers to expand their rights and protections. Clearing the FOG speaks with longtime labor activist Steve Early about how worker militancy led to the Wagner Act, which was successful in increasing the percentage of unionized workers. Early explains how attacks on workers have weakened the Wagner Act, leading to a sharp decline in unionization. He states that now, "corporate America is moving in for the kill." Early provides insight into ways workers can fight back in the current system. For more information, visit PopularResistance.org.

Administrative law is in flux, nowhere more so than at the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has long made labor law (or “policy”) by issuing decisions and applying its own precedent. But in a recent oral argument at the Seventh Circuit, one member of the panel suggested that he didn't want to hear about […]

Administrative law is in flux, nowhere more so than at the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has long made labor law (or “policy”) by issuing decisions and applying its own precedent. But in a recent oral argument at the Seventh Circuit, one member of the panel suggested that he didn’t want to hear about “Board law.” The judges, he said, could read the statute for themselves. That statement was controversial and thought-provoking. After last term’s blockbuster decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts are no longer supposed to defer to administrative agencies on legal questions. So does that mean Board law is dead? Or is the issue more complicated? Join our panelists as we dissect the issue.Featuring:Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU School of LawAlexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.(Moderator) Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC

Against the backdrop of soaring stock prices and multi-million dollar executive packages, the labor movement is undergoing a resurgence. A Starbucks location in Buffalo, NY became the first within the coffee chain to unionize in 2021, and since then, more than 330 stores in 39 states have followed suit – with more elections underway. All the while, the Starbucks corporation was engaging in controversial labor-busting practices: the National Labor Relations Board found that Starbucks violated federal labor laws and a federal judge ruled that Starbucks engaged in “egregious and widespread misconduct.” Guest Gianna Reeve is an employee of the Camp Road Starbucks in the Buffalo area – and an organizer with Starbucks Workers United. Reeve joins Alec Baldwin to share her experience at one of the first stores to organize, the conditions that led to the unionization efforts, and what the Starbucks Workers United organization hopes for the future. Gianna Reeve is a featured participant in the upcoming documentary “The Baristas vs The Billionaire.” To learn more, visit: www.baristasvsbillionaire.com Originally aired June 27, 2023See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jody Calemine, the AFL-CIO's Director of Advocacy, joined America's Work Force Union Podcast to discuss attacks on federal unions, the crisis at the National Labor Relations Board and proposed legislation affecting workers' rights. Dave Steiger, a Cleveland attorney, joined the America's Work Force Union Podcast and discussed a recent Ohio Supreme Court case involving a workplace fatality in a steel plant near Canton, Ohio.

Leslie is joined by Liz Shuler, President of the 63 unions and over 15 million members of the AFL-CIO, and the first woman leader of America's labor movement. The pair discusses the Supreme Court ruling upholding Trump's firings of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board members, the draconian House budget bill, and the field hearings the Union conducted through the 'Department of People Who Work for a Living,' which they released a report on last week. The website for the AFL-CIO is www.AFLCIO.org and their BlueSky handle is @aflcio.org. Liz's handle is @lizshuler.bsky.social‬.

Leslie is joined by Liz Shuler, President of the 63 unions and over 15 million members of the AFL-CIO, and the first woman leader of America's labor movement. The pair discusses the Supreme Court ruling upholding Trump's firings of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board members, the draconian House budget bill, and the field hearings the Union conducted through the 'Department of People Who Work for a Living,' which they released a report on last week. The website for the AFL-CIO is www.AFLCIO.org and their BlueSky handle is @aflcio.org. Liz's handle is @lizshuler.bsky.social.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThis week's show is heavy on economic policy. Yay! We discuss a ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade that many of Trump's beloved tariffs are illegal and then, a strange shadow-docket order in U.S. v. Wilcox, a case about the National Labor Relations Board that raises a key economic question: Does that mean the president can fire the entire Federal Reserve Board, too?For paying subscribers: an update on the administration's dealings with Big Law, updates about the Mahmoud Khalil and Kseniia Petrova cases, the Francesca Gino saga, and about Trevor Kirk, the LA County Sheriff's deputy convicted of using excessive force who the Trump administration is trying to keep out of prison.Upgrade your subscription at serioustrouble.show!

Andrew and Mary launch this week's episode by digging into the details on some of the latest acts of retribution coming out of the Trump administration as Trump targets Harvard, the Jenner & Block law firm gets a decision and Rep. LaMonica McIver gets charged with assault. Afterwards, they review a preliminary decision from the Supreme Court to stay a DC District Court's injunction that paused the firing of Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board, as well as Cathy Harris from the MSPB governing board while they challenge their removals. And lastly, Andrew and Mary get listeners up to speed on the O.C.G. case and the DOJ's continued defiance of Judge Murphy's TRO regarding extractions of migrants to countries they have no ties to.Further listening: HERE is a clip of Rep LaMonica McIver responding to the charges against her.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Andrew Bakaj, Chief Legal Counsel at Whistleblower Aid, joins Kevin Frazier, AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and Contributing Editor at Lawfare, to discuss a declaration by a National Labor Relations Board employee Daniel Berulis that DOGE facilitated the exfiltration of potentially sensitive information to external sources. The two also analyze the merits of whistleblower protections more generally.Read more about the declaration here: https://www.npr.org/2025/04/15/nx-s1-5355896/doge-nlrb-elon-musk-spacex-securityFor a copy of the letter penned by several members of Congress, go here: https://www.npr.org/2025/04/24/nx-s1-5375118/congress-doge-nlrb-whistleblowerTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

NPR's cybersecurity correspondent Jenna McLaughlin recently broke a story about a whistleblower inside the federal government who says DOGE representatives appear to have taken sensitive data, then covered their tracks. Daniel Berulis works for the National Labor Relations Board and he has shared evidence that DOGE engineers disabled security protocols, exported reams of sensitive data and used a "hacker's toolkit" to hide their activities. And he thinks his agency is not alone. Today on The Sunday Story, what this possible breach could mean for the private data of millions of Americans.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Ralph talks about his new book, “Civic Self Respect” which reminds us that our civic lives have different primary roles—not only voter, but also worker, taxpayer, consumer, sometimes soldier and sometimes parent—and how each one offers special opportunities for people to organize to make change. Plus, we welcome back former commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, John Koskinen, who tells us exactly how the Trump/Musk cabal is both gutting and weaponizing the IRS.John Koskinen served as the IRS Commissioner from 2013 to 2017.This is not a how-to book. It starts at a much more elementary level and therefore should interest a much greater number of people. Because, as I say, if you can expand your civic dimension as a part of your daily role without disrupting the rhythms of your daily life (in fact, actually making them more gratifying and more interesting, less boring), you're on your way.Ralph Nader author of Civic Self-RespectThe people who really fight for justice in this country have to fight for recognition, they have to fight for media, they have to fight an onslaught. And the people who lie and cheat and say the most terrible things and do the most terrible things are really the best-known people in the country. I mean, if you say who are the best-known people in Congress? They're the blowhards, the cruel and vicious people who've said things that are illegal, outrageous against innocent groups here and abroad.Ralph NaderI used to say to the Congress (trying to get appropriations) that the IRS is the only agency where if you give it money, it gives you more money back. Because the more you can actually audit people who aren't paying the proper amount or aren't filing at all, the better off you are. So no one has ever disagreed with that.John KoskinenGoing back a thousand years, tax collectors have never been particularly popular. And so when you talk about the IRS, people say, "Oh, the poor old IRS." In some ways, they don't understand just the points you're making about the impact on them, on the country, of an ineffective IRS going forward. And that's why my thought is this move toward using the IRS to attack people ought to be a way for everyone to say, "You know, I may not love paying taxes, but I certainly don't want the government and the president or the treasury secretary or somebody else ordering an audit of my taxes just because they don't like my political position or what I'm teaching in my course.”John KoskinenRalph Nader's new book Civic Self-respect is available now from Seven Stories Press.News 4/16/251. On Thursday April 17th, Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland departed for El Salvador in an effort to personally track down Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an immigrant who was arrested and deported to CECOT, the notorious Salvadoran prison camp, WUSA9 reports. Garcia was legally protected against deportation by a 2019 court order and a Trump administration official admitted in court that he “should never have been on that plane.” Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously ordered that he be returned to the U.S. Van Hollen is quoted saying “You go out, you get disappeared, they say they did it in error, but they're not helping bring you back…it's a very short road to tyranny.” Gracia has not been heard from since he was deported, raising concerns about his health and wellbeing. This comes after ICE Director Todd Lyons said he wanted to see a deportation process “like [Amazon] Prime, but with human beings,” per the Guardian. This episode is among the most chilling in American history and we are less than four months into a four-year term.2. Another gut-wrenching immigration story concerns Palestinian Columbia University student, Mohsen Mahdawi who was tricked, trapped, and abducted by ICE. The Intercept reports “Even before his friend and fellow Columbia activist Mahmoud Khalil was arrested by immigration authorities, Mahdawi asked university administrators to help him find a safe place to live so he would not be taken by ICE agents…The school did nothing.” Then, “After ICE abducted Khalil last month, Mahdawi sheltered in place for more than three weeks for fear of being picked up himself.” So, the immigration authorities apparently devised a scheme. “Instead of taking him off the street…immigration authorities scheduled the citizenship test at the Colchester USCIS office and took Mahdawi into custody when he arrived.” This action is clearly intended not only to capture Mahdawi but to frighten immigrants and discourage them from seeking citizenship through the legal immigration channels for fear of being deported. Not only that, Mahdawi will be sent back to Palestine, which continues to be the target of relentless Israeli bombing. Mahdawi is quoted saying, “It's kind of a death sentence…my people are being killed unjustly in an indiscriminate way.”3. In more international news, CNN reports China has “halted” its deliveries of Boeing planes. According to President Trump, will “‘not take possession' of fully committed to aircraft.” According to CNN, Boeing is particularly vulnerable in a trade war scenario because “Boeing builds all of its planes at US factories before sending nearly two-thirds of its commercial planes to customers outside the United States.” Boeing anticipated China purchasing 8,830 new planes over the next 20 years. The aircraft manufacturer's stock value fell in the wake of this announcement and is unlikely to fully recover unless some accommodation is reached with China.4. On the other side of the trade war, the Trump administration is preparing to roll out steep sectoral tariffs in addition to the country-specific tariffs already announced, per the Washington Post's Jeff Stein. Stein reports these will target imports of various "critical" products, including autos, steel and aluminum, copper, lumber and semiconductors. Yet, likely no sectoral tariff will bite American consumers more than the proposed tariff on pharmaceutical drugs. On April 8th, POLITICO reported that Trump told the RNC he is planning to impose “major” tariffs on pharmaceuticals. FIERCE, a healthcare news service, reports these could be as high as 25%. Coalition for a Prosperous America, an advocacy group opposed to free trade with China, reports that “Over 90% of all Generic Drugs [are] Dependent on Imports.”5. Turning to domestic matters, the Federal Trade Commission is proceeding with their anti-trust case against Facebook. According to the FTC, “The…Commission has sued Facebook, alleging that the company is illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly through a years-long course of anticompetitive conduct.” Further, “The complaint alleges that Facebook has engaged in a systematic strategy—including its 2012 acquisition of…Instagram, its 2014 acquisition…WhatsApp, and the imposition of anticompetitive conditions on software developers—to eliminate threats to its monopoly.” According to Ars Technica, “Daniel Matheson, the FTC's lead litigator, [started the trial with a bang] flagg[ing] a "smoking gun"—a 2012 email where Mark Zuckerberg suggested that Facebook could buy Instagram to ‘neutralize a potential competitor.'” It is hard to see how the company could argue this was not anticompetitive corporate misbehavior.6. A dubious tech industry scheme is also underway at the highest levels of the federal government. WIRED reports that the Social Security Administration is shifting their communications exclusively to Elon Musk's X app, formerly known as Twitter. Wired quotes SSA regional commissioner Linda Kerr-Davis, who said in a meeting with managers earlier this week, “We are no longer planning to issue press releases or…dear colleague letters to inform the media and public about programmatic and service changes…Instead, the agency will be using X to communicate to the press and the public … this will become our communication mechanism.” WIRED further reports that, “The regional [SSA] office workforce will soon be cut by roughly 87 percent,” going from an estimated 547 employees to 70. Musk has called Social Security “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time,” per the AP.7. Over at the National Labor Relations Board, a whistleblower claims Elon Musk and his cronies at DOGE may have extracted data including “sensitive information on unions, ongoing legal cases and corporate secrets,” per NPR. If that wasn't shady enough, “members of the DOGE team asked that their activities not be logged on the system and then appeared to try to cover their tracks…turning off monitoring tools and manually deleting records of their access.” This whistleblower took his concerns to Congress and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel – whistleblower activities that are protected by law – but faced retaliation in the form of someone, “'physically taping a threatening note' to his door that included sensitive personal information and overhead photos of him walking his dog that appeared to be taken with a drone,” clear attempts to intimidate and silence this employee. The Trump administrations have been rife with leaks at every level and instead of responding by addressing the issues raised, the administration has launched a permanent inquisition to plug the leaks by any means.8. In better news, the Independent reports that DOGE itself is finally being subjected to an audit. The audit is being undertaken by the Government Accountability Office at the urging of Congressional leaders after “'alarming' media reports of DOGE infiltrating federal systems,” according to a congressional aide. One DOGE worker has reportedly been identified by as “a 19-year-old high school graduate who was booted from an internship after leaking company information to a rival firm,” raising ever-deeper concerns about the purpose of the “fishing expeditions” DOGE is undergoing at every level of the federal government.9. Another uplifting story comes to us from New York City. In the latest round of public matching fund awards, Zohran Mamdani – the Democratic Socialist candidate surging from obscurity into second place in the polls – was granted nearly $4 million in public matching funds, “the largest single payment to any candidate in the 2025 Democratic mayoral primary race to date,” according to Gothamist. Meanwhile, former Governor Andrew Cuomo was awarded exactly $0. As Jeff Coltin of POLITICO New York explains, “Cuomo's campaign [was] scrambling to get the necessary info from donors to get matched…sending…dire warning to [his] entire email list, rather than…targeted outreach to donors.” If he had collected the necessary information, Cuomo would have been awarded $2.5 million in matching funds, Coltin reports. Cuomo still leads in the polls; as it becomes increasingly clear that Zohran is the only viable alternative, there will be increased pressure on other candidates to throw their support behind him.10. Finally, let's take a peek into the political climate's effect on Hollywood. New York Magazine, in an extensive profile of Warner Brothers-Discovery mogul David Zaslav, includes a piece about Zaslav seeking to ingratiate himself with Trump. According to this report, “a company representative recently reached out to the Trump0 orbit seeking advice about how the company might advantageously interact with the Whitte House.” Their answer: “look at the example of…Jeff Bezos paying Melania Trump $40 million to participate in a documentary about herself. Don Jr. might like a hunting and fishing show on the Discovery Channel, they were told.” Just like the Ivy League universities and the big law firms, if given an inch Trump will take a mile and use it for nothing short of extortion. Hollywood would be wise to steer clear. But wisdom has never been their strength.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

The entity known as DOGE has been used as part of the Trump administration's efforts to radically reshape the federal government. But a whistleblower alleges DOGE may have improperly accessed data at the National Labor Relations Board, a regulatory body that investigates and adjudicates complaints about unfair labor practices. The agency has opened investigations into unfair labor practices at DOGE figurehead Elon Musk's businesses. This episode: political correspondent Ashley Lopez, political reporter Stephen Fowler, and cybersecurity correspondent Jenna McLaughlin.Have information or evidence to share about DOGE's access to data inside the federal government? Reach out to Jenna McLaughlin through encrypted communications on Signal at jennamclaughlin.54. Stephen Fowler is available on Signal at stphnfwlr.25. Please use a nonwork device.The podcast is produced by Bria Suggs & Kelli Wessinger and edited by Casey Morell. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

The National Labor Relations Board protects workers' right to organize and investigates unfair labor practices. A whistleblower complaint filed by an IT staffer claims Elon Musk and his DOGE team gained access to sensitive data that could have led directly to a “significant cybersecurity breach.” Amna Nawaz discussed more with NLRB whistleblower Daniel Berulis and attorney Andrew Bakaj. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Ryan Silverstein, JD candidate at Villanova University, joins Chris Spangle to explain the unitary executive theory through the case of Gwen Wilcox, former chair of the National Labor Relations Board, who sued after being fired by President Trump. Ryan discusses the legal history, constitutional questions, and implications for executive power in American government. A Gift To The Conservative Legal Movement - https://archive.ph/wCaU0#selection-491.0-627.381 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele says he has no plans to return a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador, an NPR report details unusual data events at the National Labor Relations Board, and Harvard University says that it won't comply with a list of demands from the Trump administration.Want more comprehensive analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.Today's episode of Up First was edited by Roberta Rampton, Brett Neely, Steven Drummond, Mohamad ElBardicy, and Janaya Williams. It was produced by Ziad Buchh, Carla Estevez, Ashley Montgomery, Nia Dumas and Christopher Thomas. We get engineering support from Arthur Laurent. And our technical director is David Greenburg. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

President Trump's Department of Government Efficiency team, or DOGE, appears to be grabbing sensitive data from all over the government. A whistleblower has come forward by filing an official disclosure to Congress about concerning activity on the systems at one independent federal agency, the National Labor Relations Board. Elon Musk says DOGE is searching for savings throughout the government. But is the data being accessed valuable? For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.Email us at considerthis@npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Thursday, April 10th, 2025Today, in a move that only everyone could have predicted; Trump has paused the tariffs for 90 days but says he's raising tariffs on China to 125%; judges in New York and Texas issue temporary restraining orders in the Alien Enemies Act cases; a federal judge gave the Trump administration until Wednesday night to show any proof to justify the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil; the Supreme Court has stayed a lower court's order and have effectively re-re-fired Gwynn Wilcox and Cathy Harris; an ex-Facebook employee is set to tell Congress that Zuckerberg compromised National Security; the National Park Service has restored the Underground Railroad and Harriet Tubman web pages; the acting IRS Commissioner has resigned after a data sharing deal with immigration authorities; Abrego Garcia's lawyers file a surreply with the Supreme Court emphasizing how wild it is that the DOJ is disavowing its own lawyers; an appeals court has cleared the way for Trump to fire probationary employees; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, IQBAR20% off all IQBAR products. Text dailybeans to 64000. Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details. Guest: Paula PoundstoneNobody Listens to Paula Poundstone - PodcastTour • Paula PoundstonePaula Poundstone.comStories:WATCH: Trump ‘simply floated' idea of deporting U.S. citizens, White House's Leavitt says | PBS NewsMelanie Krause: Acting IRS commissioner resigning after agency reaches data-sharing deal with immigration authorities | CNN PoliticsAppeals court clears way for Trump to restart mass firings of probationary workers | POLITICORESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY - PDF | Supreme CourtJudge gives Trump administration deadline to justify Mahmoud Khalil's deportation | The GuardianEx-Facebook employee to tell Congress the company undermined U.S. national security | NBC NewsUnderground Railroad and Harriet Tubman webpage restored by National Park Service | The Washington PostGood Trouble:Today, you can sign a petition to save the NEH - national endowment for the humanities. Millions of dollars in previously awarded federal grants intended for arts and cultural groups across the country are being canceled by the Trump administration. To sign the petition, text SIGN PRFKKF to 50409Find Upcoming Actions - 50501 MovementFederal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Check out other MSW Media podcastsShows - MSW MediaCleanup On Aisle 45 podSubscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on SubstackThe BreakdownFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaAllison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWroteDana GoldbergBlueSky|@dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, Twitter|@DGComedyShare your Good News or Good Trouble:dailybeanspod.com/goodFrom The Good NewsFederal TRIO ProgramsThe Complicit Corruption of the Conservative Supreme Court with Allison GillGo See Dana! - Appearances -Dana GoldbergReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

In a stunning and breaking news, this morning in a 7-4 decision the full en banc panel of the US Court of Appeals for DC — with 3 Trump appointees dissenting — has ruled against the Trump Administration and reinstated the two Democrats fired by Trump from independent boards formed by Congress, Gwen Wilcox to her position on the National Labor Relations Board, and Cathy Harris to her position, finding that he violated 90 years of Supreme Court precedent. Michael Popok explains the en band process, and the fast track to the Supreme Court this case is now on, as we enter yet another Constitutional crisis of Trump's making. Head to https://manukora.com/legalaf to receive $25 off your starter kit today! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week: Judge Ho dismissed the bribery and fraud charges against Mayor Eric Adams. Some courts have decided whether Trump's January 6th pardons can apply to non-storming the Capitol charges and crimes.Glenn Wilcox and Cathy Harris get a ruling on whether they will be reinstated to the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, respectively.Plus, we have some Rudy news.  Allison Gillhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com/@muellershewrote.bsky.social on BlueskyHarry DunnHarry Dunn | Substack@libradunn1.bsky.social on BlueskyWant to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early?Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45podTell us about yourself and what you like about the show - http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short

Tuesday, April 8th, 2025Today, stocks take another dive as the Trump regime plays fast and loose with tariffs; the en banc panel for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox to their jobs at the NLRB and MSRP; the North Carolina Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a lower court ruling requiring 65,000 people to cure their ballots; NIH researchers have made a cancer breakthrough but layoffs are delaying it; a second unvaccinated child has died of measles and RFK Jr uses it as an opportunity for a photo op; the Trump administration is planning on spending $45M on immigrant detention; Trump is planning a giant North Korean style military parade on his birthday; and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals REFUSED to pause an order forcing the Trump admin to return Maryland father Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. before midnight tonight; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, Helix Sleep20% Off Sitewide when you go to HelixSleep.com/dailybeans.Thank You, IQBAR20% off all IQBAR products. Text dailybeans to 64000. Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details. Guest: Bobby Kogan@bbkogan - BlueSkyBobby Kogan - Center for American ProgressStories:Supreme Court delays midnight deadline for Trump administration to fix mistaken deportation of Maryland man | ABC NewsStock Market Volatility Hits 5-Year High As Wall Street Grapples With ‘Manmade' Tariff Problem | ForbesBessent flew to Florida to lobby Trump on tariff message - POLITICON.C. Supreme Court halts decision requiring verification of 65,000 votes in tight judicial race | NBC NewsNIH scientists have a cancer breakthrough. Layoffs are delaying it. | The Washington PostAppeals court halts Trump independent agency firings, spurring Supreme Court battle | The HillRFK Jr. visits Texas after second child dies of measles amid outbreak | The Washington PostTrump Administration Aims to Spend $45 Billion to Expand Immigrant Detention - The New York TimesTrump planning military parade through DC for 79th birthday | The HillGood Trouble:The Heritage Foundation DOGE Survey Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Check out other MSW Media podcastsShows - MSW MediaCleanup On Aisle 45 podSubscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on SubstackThe BreakdownFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaAllison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWroteDana GoldbergBlueSky|@dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, Twitter|@DGComedyShare your Good News or Good Trouble:dailybeanspod.com/goodFrom The Good News50501 South Dakota hosts ‘Hands Off' protests around the state | Dakota News NowBlue.Wing.Things to do in Case of COUP | YouTubeReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Monday, March 31st, 2025Today, we're just hours away from the Wisconsin Supreme Court election which will decide the balance of the highest court in the state; law firm Skadden Arps gives $100M in free legal services; the plaintiffs in the Alien Enemies Act case have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction as Judge Boasberg extends his temporary restraining orders; the Trump administration is looking to gut funding to combat child labor abroad; Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul is shot down by the courts after suing to stop Elon from buying votes; RFK Jr is gutting the vaccine promotion and HIV prevention office at HHS after forcing out the FDA's top vaccine scientist; Amy Berman, Judge Jackson if you're nasty, has blocked the dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Pete Hegseth hired his brother and then brought his wife to sensitive Pentagon meetings; an appeals court says that Trump CAN fire members of the NLRB and MSPB and plaintiffs Wilcox and Harris are going to seek an en banc reversal; DOGE plans to rebuild the Social Security Administration's code base; thousands turn out for the Tesla Takedown protests over the weekend; a piece on how to think like a dissident; and Allison delivers your Good News.*A previous version of this episode included an interview with Swing Left's Executive director Yasmin Radjy. That interview was meant to run on Thursday. For more about Swing Left and their upcoming 3 to Win campaign check out SwingLeft.org on April 3rd. Thank You, HomeChefGet 18 Free Meals, plus Free Shipping on your first box, and Free Dessert for Life, at HomeChef.com/DAILYBEANS.  Must be an active subscriber to receive free dessert.Stories:The ACLU Has Filed for a Preliminary Injunction in the Alien Enemies Act Case | MuellerSheWroteFederal judge halts Trump administration's policy of deportation to third countries | Miami HeraldFederal judge blocks mass firings of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau workers | CBS NewsJudge blocks Trump executive order targeting law firm tied to Mueller probe | CNN PoliticsTrump administration moves to cut programs that fight child labor abroad | The Washington PostAppeals court clears way for Trump to fire members of labor and workforce protection boards | CBS NewsThe top FDA vaccine official is forced out, cites RFK Jr.'s 'misinformation and lies' | NPRRFK Jr. to gut vaccine promotion and HIV prevention office, sources say | CBS NewsDOGE Plans to Rebuild SSA Code Base in Months, Risking Benefits and System Collapse | WIREDHegseth's younger brother is serving in a key role as liaison and senior adviser inside the Pentagon | AP NewsHow to Think (and Act) Like a Dissident Movement | The BulwarkGood Trouble: The American Psychological Association just suspended their diversity standards under pressure from the Trump admin. Fuck that shit. I wrote a letter to the APA telling them that I am suspending my membership until they reverse this capitulation to fascism and dumb anti-science bull shit.  Good trouble for everyone: write or call the American Psychological Association and tell them that diversity is crucial to mental health.Mailing address:American Psychological Association750 First Street, NEWashington, DC 20002-4242Telephone: (800) 374-2721 or (202) 336-5500Trump and Musk are attempting an illegal power grab is a crisis we must stop. HandsOff2025.comFederal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. From The Good NewsSocial Security Fairness Act: Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO) update | sea.govDancing Well: The Soldier ProjectFrom Seattle to Miami, anti-Musk protesters gather at hundreds of Tesla locations | NPRVocational Rehabilitation Program - Texas Workforce CommissionReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok head the top rated Legal AF podcast, and tonight discuss: 3 straight losses for the Trump Administration, as federal judges block their efforts as violations of the First Amendment and Due Process Rights to blacklist major law firms that once opposed Trump; an update on the fast moving Alien Enemies Act case, in which a federal judge has blocked, affirmed on appeal, Trump's use of phony war powers to kidnap and deport people and send them without Due Process to deathtrap El Salvadorian prison; a rare win for Trump, as a 3 judge panel of the DC Circuit Appeals court is allowing him for now to put out of business the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Services Board meant to protect workers against illegal practices, a Biden-era gun control law finds support a the US Supreme Court in a new "ghost gun" ruling, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Support Our Sponsors: Cook Unity: Cook Unity: Go to https://cookunity.com/LEGALAF or enter code LEGALAF before checkout for 50% OFF your first week! Fatty 15: Get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription Starter Kit by going to https://fatty15.com/LEGALAF and using code LEGALAF at checkout. Delete Me: Get 20% OFF your DeleteMe plan by texting LEGAL to 64000 Laundry Sauce: For 20% off your order head to https://LaundrySauce.com/LEGALAF20 and use code LEGALAF20 Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The 1946 Oakland General Strike was part of a massive wave of strikes that took place in the U.S. in 1945 and 1946. Over two days in Oakland, California, and the surrounding area, thousands of strikers shut the city down. Research: “Oakland General Strike (1946) (Part 2).” From Golden Lands, Working Hands. Part Seven: We Called It a Work Holiday. Written by Fred Glass. CFT. Via YouTube. 7/23/2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-yFDzKzLfE “Oakland General Strike (1946).” From Golden Lands, Working Hands. Part Seven: We Called It a Work Holiday. Written by Fred Glass. CFT. Via YouTube. 7/22/2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfUmIeCTJTA “World War II Homefront Era: 1940s: Post War Workers Protest Salary Cuts & Layoffs.” Picture This: California Perspectives on American History. Oakland Museum of California. https://picturethis.museumca.org/pictures/oakland-general-strike Barbash, Jack. “Chapter 6: Unions and Rights in the Space Age.” U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/chapter6 Borden, Timothy G. "Strike Wave: United States." St. James Encyclopedia of Labor History Worldwide, edited by Neil Schlager, vol. 2, St. James Press, 2004, pp. 273-277. Gale In Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3408900275/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=033d396d. Accessed 25 Feb. 2025. Boyden, Richard. “The Oakland general strike.” Libcom.org. 11/4/2012. https://libcom.org/article/oakland-general-strike-richard-boyden Glass, Fred. “"We Called it a 'Work Holiday:" The 1946 Oakland General Strike.” From “Mission to Microchip: A History of the California Labor Movement.” June 2016. Glass, Fred. “Latham Square renovation commemorates the 1946 Oakland General Strike.” California Federatoin of Labor Unions. 8/3/2016. https://calaborfed.org/california-history/latham_square_renovation_commemorates_the_1946_oakland_general_strike/ Miller, Gregory M. "Taft-Hartley Act." St. James Encyclopedia of Labor History Worldwide, edited by Neil Schlager, vol. 2, St. James Press, 2004, pp. 292-295. Gale In Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3408900280/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=014855b4. Accessed 25 Feb. 2025. National Labor Relations Board. “1947 Taft-Hartley Passage and NLRB Structural Changes.” https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/who-we-are/our-history/1947-taft-hartley-passage-and-nlrb-structural-changes National Labor Relations Board. “1947 Taft-Hartley Substantive Provisions.” https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/who-we-are/our-history/1947-taft-hartley-substantive-provisions New American Movement and Oakland Study Group. “The Oakland general strike of 1946.” California Revealed. Pacifica Radio Archives. https://californiarevealed.org/do/a5f71c35-85c9-4f8e-83f4-77e49cc287cc Rosalsky, Greg. “Price Controls, Black Markets, And Skimpflation: The WWII Battle Against Inflation.” Planet Money. 2/8/2022. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/02/08/1078035048/price-controls-black-markets-and-skimpflation-the-wwii-battle-against-inflation The National World War II Museum. “The Smith–Connally Act and Labor Battles on the Home Front.” 6/22/2023. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/smith-connally-act-and-labor-battles-home-front The Oakland Standard. “Notes on the 1946 General Strike.” https://vimeo.com/43192608 Tomlin, Justin. “The 1946 Oakland General Strike.” Socialist Alternative. 2/10/2022. https://www.socialistalternative.org/2022/02/10/the-1946-oakland-general-strike/ Weir, Stan. “Oakland 1946 General Strike.” FoundSF. https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Oakland_1946_General_Strike See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Monday, March 10th, 2025Today, a multi-state lawsuit seeks to reverse the purge of federal workers; Trump walks back his idiotic tariffs, but probably not after he dumped all of his stock in Canadian aluminum; Republicans joined Democrats in Montana to defeat anti-trans legislation; the Trump administration has said it will not comply with a court order to produce agency heads to testify; a federal judge rules that firing a member of the NLRB was illegal; another federal judge orders the Trump administration to pay our foreign aid bills; Trump is considering revoking the legal status of Ukrainians in the United States; the newly minted Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has filed his response to the Eric Adams case and repeats that the Department of Justice is asking to dismiss the bribery charges without prejudice; Trump's DEI purge at the Pentagon included a photo of the Enola Gay; the DHS announced that it's ending the TSA collective bargaining agreement; trans women are being transferred to men's prisons despite multiple court orders; trump has ordered swaths of U.S. forests cut down for timber; the USDA has eliminated two food safety advisory committees; and Allison delivers your Good News.Guest: David EnrichDavidenrich.bsky.social, twitter.com/davidenrichMurder the Truth – HarperCollinsDavid Enrich - The New York TimesThank You HomeChefGet 18 Free Meals, plus Free Shipping on your first box, and Free Dessert for Life, at HomeChef.com/DAILYBEANS.  Must be an active subscriber to receive free dessert.Thank You LumenHead to http://lumen.me/dailybeans for 20% off your purchase.Stories:Trump admin 'will not produce' agency head for court-ordered testimony, plaintiffs say | Law And CrimeTrump weighs revoking legal status of Ukrainians as US steps up deportations | ReutersJudge orders Trump administration to pay some foreign-aid bills by Monday - JOSH GERSTEIN | POLITICOTrans women transferred to men's prisons despite rulings against Trump's order | US news | The GuardianTrump orders swathes of US forests to be cut down for timber | Donald Trump | The Guardian‘Stop these crazy bills': Republicans join Democrats to defeat anti-trans legislation in Montana | ReutersUSDA eliminates two food safety advisory committees | ReutersMultistate lawsuit seeks to reverse Trump administration purge of federal workersWar heroes and military firsts are among 26,000 images flagged for removal in Pentagon's DEI purge | AP NewsHomeland Security ends TSA collective bargaining agreement, in effort to dismantle union protections | AP NewsJudge finds Trump's firing of member of National Labor Relations Board was illegal | CBS News From The Good NewsFull Meeting between President Trump, VP Vance and Ukrainian President Zelensky in Oval OfficeReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts