Right-to-work law repealed in Michigan

Michigan Repeals Right-To-Work Law | Reason - Stephen Delie:

March 24, 2023 - "Michigan on Friday became the first state to repeal a right-to-work law in over 60 years. That's unfortunate not just for the workers who have lost their choice about whether to associate with a union, but also for the state economy. Michigan will be a less prosperous state without right-to-work, and its workers will be less free....

"At its core, right-to-work is about choice. For private sector workers, the National Labor Relations Act establishes rules for what happens when union membership is mandatory. Once a union is recognized, it speaks for all employees within the bargaining unit. An employer must bargain with that union, and only with that union, to set the terms and conditions that will govern the workplace. Employees who do not wish to associate with the union have no choice but to accept its representation and terms of the contract it negotiates. They cannot negotiate for themselves.

"Right-to-work restores some voice to dissenting workers by allowing them to keep their jobs without being forced to pay a union 'agency fees.' Agency fees are a portion of dues, which workers must pay to a union.... Typically, these fees are 70 percent to 80 percent of the dues payment. In states without right-to-work protections, workers who do not want the union to speak for them can be forced to pay these fees. Right-to-work gives these workers a voice by allowing them to at least not have to pay for their legally mandated silence when it comes to their compensation and working conditions....

"The economic impacts of right-to-works have been positive both in Michigan and across the country.... A 2002 study by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy (where I am director of labor policy) found gross state product, statewide employment, manufacturing employment, construction employment, and per-capita disposable income all grew faster in right-to-work states from 1970–2002, compared to states without right-to-work. That same study showed lower average annual unemployment, poverty rates, income inequality, and labor costs in right-to-work states. A 2007 Mackinac Center study reached similar findings, as did a later review. These findings have remained more or less consistent in the years since.

"Right-to-work states also are more likely to create job opportunities. From 2020 to 2021, 867,104 people moved to a right-to-work state away from a state that wasn't. One reason for this might be that job opportunities are more prevalent in right-to-work states. Companies looking for new locations often consider right-to-work as one key factor.... In October 2022, the unemployment rate in right-to-work states was 3.4 percent, compared to 3.9 percent in states without the law. Since the pandemic, right-to-work states have added 1.6 million jobs, while other states have lost 809,000 jobs....

"A 2021 Harvard study found that the share of manufacturing employment in the economy was 28 percent higher in right-to-work states, compared to neighboring states without right-to-work. The study also showed that average wages and labor compensation weren't negatively affected by the passage of the law. A similar study conducted by the Mackinac Center in 2022 shows similar results.

"Michigan's economic conditions in the 10 years before right-to-work and the 10 years that followed offer an excellent case study on the positive impact of right-to-work. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the 10 years before right-to-work, Michigan's unemployment rate averaged 8.5 percent. In the following decade, it was 6 percent. Michigan's labor force lost 350,657 people from 2002–12, but it gained 90,648 people from 2012–2020. Inflation-adjusted income growth went from 0.06 percent to 21.9 percent. In nearly every measurable way, Michigan has been better off....

"The 60,000 private sector workers in Michigan who have opted out of union membership are not the only ones who will be hurt by the repeal of right-to-work. Union members are also likely to find they are worse off.... In a right-to-work state, a union's financial stability requires it to please its members. If the union fails to deliver services that justify the price of dues, workers may opt out, denying the union revenue. This incentive is gone once right-to-work is repealed. A union is guaranteed that nonmembers will pay agency fees that are the vast majority of union dues. 

"Repealing right-to-work gives unions a guaranteed income stream, which removes the incentive for them to provide the best services possible to the employees they represent. Repealing right-to-work, then, harms both those who would voluntarily pay the union and those who would not."

Read more: https://reason.com/2023/03/24/michigan-repeals-right-to-work-law/

Canadian gov't unions fight Covid-vax mandate

Three public sector unions challenge 'punitive' federal vaccine mandate for bureaucrats | National Post - Christopher Nardi:

May 19, 2022  "The three biggest federal public sector unions are challenging the Liberals’ vaccine mandate for bureaucrats in court, arguing suspending unvaccinated workers without pay instead of letting them return to work[ing] from home is 'punitive' and 'unjustified.'

“'We continue to support vaccination. But given … the loosening of the COVID restrictions and the shifting landscape, we’re of the opinion that employer’s policy right now is unreasonable. These members can work from home,' Jennifer Carr, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), said in an interview. 'Effectively, we think it is punitive and an abuse of management authority'....

"PIPSC and the Canadian Association of Professional Employees (CAPE), which represent nearly 60,000 and 21,000 public servants respectively, have filed policy grievances against the federal government’s vaccine mandate for bureaucrats. Their challenges are in addition to the first grievances filed in late March by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), the biggest federal government union. 

"At issue: the Trudeau government’s federal COVID-19 vaccine policy put in place on Oct. 6, 2021, which forced all bureaucrats to either get vaccinated with two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine or be suspended without pay (except those who obtained exemptions to the policy). The unions say that working from home has become readily available for so many public servants that it’s time to let the unvaccinated employees who can work outside the office effectively do so.

""As of March 29, 1,828 employees were on unpaid leave due to the vaccination policy, according to numbers shared by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) with unions in April.

"'As the pandemic has evolved and the science has developed, we believe continuing to put unvaccinated employees on leave without pay is a harsh administrative measure that can be considered disciplinary and without just cause,' PSAC said when it announced its grievances. They’re also frustrated that the government has yet to complete a review of the policy once since it was implemented, despite its own requirements.

"A copy of TBS’ vaccine policy online says the government’s chief human resources officer is responsible for reviewing both the need of the policy and its contents 'at a minimum every 6 months” and reporting those results to the minister. Since the policy kicked in on Oct. 6, 2021, that means the first review was due by April 6. But union heads say that date came and went without a peep from TBS, and the latest update meeting between them and government officials on Tuesday didn’t provide any new insight into when the review will be made public.... TBS spokesperson Alain Belle-Isle said in a statement that the review is currently underway “in line with the requirement” and the results will be presented 'in due course.' 'There is no obligation to update the policy every 6 months,” he said.... 

"But now, the unions are asking the federal labour relations tribunal via their policy grievances to force the government to allow unvaccinated employees currently suspended without pay to be accommodated by allowing them to work from home. They’re also asking that the government be compelled to reimburse all the bureaucrats still affected by the vaccine mandate for lost wages since April 6 (the date they say the policy needed to be reviewed)."

Read more: https://nationalpost.com/news/three-biggest-federal-public-sector-unions-challenge-liberal-governments-punitive-vaccine-mandate-for-bureaucrats

Canadian employment lawyer Lior Samfiru on vaccine mandates, Aug.t 25, 2021. Samfiru Tumarkin LLP.

Canadian lawyers foresee wave of terminations

Canada faces wave of terminations as workplace vaccine mandates take effect: lawyer | CTV News - Brett Bundale, Canadian Press:

October 7, 2021 - " Canada is facing a potential wave of terminations tied to mandatory workplace vaccine policies as a growing number of employers require workers to be fully inoculated against COVID-19 - or risk losing their jobs, legal experts say.... As employer deadlines to be fully vaccinated approach, unvaccinated workers could soon be placed on unpaid leave or terminated altogether, lawyers say....

"'We've been contacted by thousands of people from across Canada who all have these ultimatums in front of them saying they have to be vaccinated by a certain date or risk losing their jobs,' employment lawyer Lior Samfiru, a partner with Samfiru Tumarkin LLP, said in an interview. 'We're going to see the biggest wave of terminations we've seen since the pandemic started,' he said, noting that his firm has been contacted by workers in a range of industries including health care, education, banks, construction and restaurants....

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unveiled Canada's new mandatory vaccine policy on Wednesday [October 6]. It requires the core public service, air travel and rail employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by the end of October. The federal vaccine mandate mirrors provincial policies, such as in Nova Scotia where all school and health-care workers are required to have two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by the end of November.

"Private companies have also developed corporate vaccine mandates, with looming deadlines for staff to be fully vaccinated. The situation has left legal experts grappling with the tension between protecting the rights of individual workers and ensuring employers meet their health and safety obligations toward staff, clients and the public. There's also the question of what reasonable accommodations or exemptions should be available to workers and whether unvaccinated employees who are ultimately terminated are owed compensation.

"'There's an overriding obligation on the employer to make sure the workplace is safe,” said Ron Pizzo, a labour and employment lawyer with Pink Larkin in Halifax.... Pizzo said his firm is getting quite a few calls from people who do not want to vaccinate and want to fight employer vaccination requirements. Still, he said he's not expecting mass resignations that will leave companies without enough workers given the relatively high vaccination rate among the general population. Slightly more than 80 per cent of all Canadians aged 12 and older are fully vaccinated....

"Wayne MacKay, professor emeritus at the Dalhousie Schulich School of Law, said employers have to balance the individual rights of workers, such as by offering reasonable accommodations, with maintaining a safe work environment. But he said a recent review of cases involving the balance between individual rights and public health have sided with the latter.... 'Most restrictions that governments are doing have been found to be reasonable given threat of COVID-19.' While these cases didn't deal specifically with vaccine mandates, he said the same reasoning would likely apply....

"As for whether workers who are terminated for refusing to vaccinate are entitled to compensation, he said it depends on the work environment, how valid the need for the policy is and whether the worker was unionized or not.

"Samfiru suggested terminated workers who are not paid sufficient compensation could claim wrongful dismissal. 'The employer is imposing a new rule, one that was not part of the original employment agreement,' he said. 'That becomes a termination without cause and severance has to be paid. Beyond that, there could be a human rights claim as well.'"

Read more: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/canada-faces-wave-of-terminations-as-workplace-vaccine-mandates-take-effect-lawyer-1.5614688

Child labor rising during pandemic, warns UNICEF

Child labour rises to 160 million – first increase in two decades | UNICEF (press release):

June 9, 2021 – "The number of children in child labour has risen to 160 million worldwide – an increase of 8.4 million children in the last four years – with millions more at risk due to the impacts of COVID-19, according to a new report by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and UNICEF. Child Labour: Global estimates 2020, trends and the road forward – released ahead of World Day Against Child Labour on 12th June – warns that progress to end child labour has stalled for the first time in 20 years, reversing the previous downward trend that saw child labour fall by 94 million between 2000 and 2016. 

"The report points to a significant rise in the number of children aged 5 to 11 years in child labour, who now account for just over half of the total global figure. The number of children aged 5 to 17 years in hazardous work – defined as work that is likely to harm their health, safety or morals – has risen by 6.5 million to 79 million since 2016....

"In sub-Saharan Africa, population growth, recurrent crises, extreme poverty, and inadequate social protection measures have led to an additional 16.6 million children in child labour over the past four years. Even in regions where there has been some headway since 2016, such as Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean, COVID-19 is endangering that progress. The report warns that globally, 9 million additional children are at risk of being pushed into child labour by the end of 2022 as a result of the pandemic. A simulation model shows this number could rise to 46 million.... 

"Additional economic shocks and school closures caused by COVID-19 mean that children already in child labour may be working longer hours or under worsening conditions, while many more may be forced into the worst forms of child labour due to job and income losses among vulnerable families. 

'We are losing ground in the fight against child labour, and the last year has not made that fight any easier,' said UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore. 'Now, well into a second year of global lockdowns, school closures, economic disruptions, and shrinking national budgets, families are forced to make heart-breaking choices. We urge governments and international development banks to prioritize investments in programmes that can get children out of the workforce and back into school, and in social protection programmes that can help families avoid making this choice in the first place.'"

 Other key findings in the report include:                

• The agriculture sector accounts for 70 per cent of children in child labour (112 million) followed by 20 per cent in services (31.4 million) and 10 per cent in industry (16.5 million).   
• Nearly 28 per cent of children aged 5 to 11 years and 35 per cent of children aged 12 to 14 years in child labour are out of school.  Child labour is more prevalent among boys than girls at every age. When household chores performed for at least 21 hours per week are taken into account, the gender gap in child labour narrows.   
• The prevalence of child labour in rural areas (14 per cent) is close to three times higher than in urban areas (5 per cent). 
• Children in child labour are at risk of physical and mental harm." 

Read more: https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/child-labour-rises-160-million-first-increase-two-decades

100 million were pushed into poverty, says ILO

UN Labor Agency Finds Pandemic Pushed Over 100 Million Workers Into Poverty | Common Dreams - Jessica Corbett: 

June 2, 2021 - "Over a year after projecting that the coronavirus pandemic could have a 'catastrophic' impact on the global economy and workforce, the United Nations labor agency on Wednesday revealed that the public health crisis pushed more than 100 million workers worldwide into poverty. 

"The new report (pdf), entitled World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2021 (WESO Trends), also warns of the 'real risk that — absent comprehensive and concerted policy efforts — the Covid-19 crisis will leave behind a legacy of widened inequality and reduced overall progress in the world of work across multiple dimensions.'

"Worryingly, the International Labor Organization (ILO) report shows that 'the recovery process is likely to be both incomplete and uneven,' said Guy Ryder, the agency's director-general, in a video about the findings. 'Incomplete because the damage done will not be fully repaired by the end of 2022, we will still have a major jobs shortfall,' Ryder explained. 'Uneven because it's the rich countries, the high-income countries, which are the best placed — because they have vaccines, because they have the fiscal means to do so — to recover more quickly."

"The ILO found that relative to 2019, an additional 108 million workers worldwide are now moderately or extremely poor — meaning their families must survive on less than $3.20 per person each day. The report says that 'five years of progress towards the eradication of working poverty have been undone.' [emphasis added - gd]

"The pandemic has 'highlighted the vulnerable situation of migrant workers' and undermined recent progress on gender equality, the report adds. According to Agence France-Presse, Ryder told reporters that the ongoing crisis has also negatively affected efforts to end child [labour] and forced labor.

"'Looking ahead, the projected employment growth will be insufficient to close the gaps opened up by the crisis,' WESO Trends warns. 'To make matters worse, many of the newly created jobs are expected to be of low productivity and poor quality.'

"The U.N. agency projects that the pandemic-induced 'jobs gap' will hit 75 million this year and fall to 23 million next year. The gap in working hours — which accounts for the jobs gap and hours reductions — is expected to be the equivalent of 100 million full-time jobs in 2021 and 26 million full-time jobs in 2022.....

"'Worldwide, employment in the accommodation and food services sector is estimated to have been the worst affected by the crisis,' says the report. The wholesale and retail trade sector was also heavily hit, as was manufacturing and construction, which 'incurred a significant decline in employment as a result of the crisis, bearing the brunt of the impact in the industry sector.'

"'Recovery from Covid-19 is not just a health issue. The serious damage to economies and societies needs to be overcome too,' Ryder emphasized in a statement. 'Without a deliberate effort to accelerate the creation of decent jobs, and support the most vulnerable members of society and the recovery of the hardest-hit economic sectors, the lingering effects of the pandemic could be with us for years in the form of lost human and economic potential and higher poverty and inequality.'

"'We need a comprehensive and coordinated strategy, based on human-centered policies, and backed by action and funding," he added. 'There can be no real recovery without a recovery of decent jobs.'"

Read more: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/06/02/un-labor-agency-finds-pandemic-pushed-over-100-million-workers-poverty 

Licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

OFL: Lockdown powers threaten workers' rights

Ford’s Conservatives continue attacks on workers’ rights with extension of Reopening Ontario Act | Ontario Federation of Labour (press release):

May 31, 2021 - "This afternoon, Ford’s Conservative government extended the Reopening Ontario Act until December 1, 2021. The Act gives Ford’s Conservative government special powers and reduces public oversight of emergency orders, undermining democracy and workers’ rights.

“'Since last summer, workers have raised alarm bells about the Reopening Ontario Act identifying it as a power grab by Ford’s Conservatives to skirt their democratic responsibilities and undermine workers’ rights,' said Patty Coates, Ontario Federation of Labour President. 'This ... continuation of measures that threaten job security, override collective agreements and allow employers to bypass fair processes in the workplace, deny vacation, and contract out jobs is unacceptable.'

"The move to pass the seven-month extension of the Act is an undemocratic and unnecessary measure that ignores the legislative processes that are already in place to extend emergency orders. 'As workers identified last summer after the passing of Bill 195, public accountability is of critical importance,' said Coates. This is more true now than ever, after an audit recently uncovered that Ontario failed to track $4.4 billion in pandemic relief spending that led to even further delays in pandemic pay for front-line workers....

“'Ford’s Conservatives have demonstrated over and over again that they do not respect workers or the rights they are entitled to,' said Coates, 'these attacks disproportionately impact workers who have been on the front-lines of this pandemic. Despite being called superheroes, these workers have been held to wages below the rate of inflation and without the protections they deserve.'

"The Ontario Federation of Labour represents 54 unions and one million workers in Ontario. For information, visit www.OFL.ca and follow @OFLabour on Facebook and Twitter."

Read more: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/05/31/2239076/0/en/OFL-Ford-s-Conservatives-continue-attacks-on-workers-rights-with-extension-of-Reopening-Ontario-Act.html

Democrats' PRO Act could take down Uber

The Democrats Just Reintroduced a Labor Law that Would Destroy Uber — And It Could Actually Pass This Time | Foundation for Economic Education - Brad Polumbo: 

February 8, 2021 - "With control of Congress and the White House, Democrats are making labor policy one of their first priorities. Ironically enough, that’s actually bad news for independent contractors and gig economy workers across the country.

"The legislation at the core of their agenda is the PRO [Protecting the Right to Organize] Act, which Democrats ... re-introduced with sponsors including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer. Among many other things, the bill would severely restrict the legal definition of independent contractors..... It’s modeled after a similar but highly controversial California bill, AB 5, that likewise forced the reclassification of independent contractors. 

"President Biden supported AB 5 at the time, and is on the record supporting the PRO Act, too. And now that Democrats control Congress, it could pass the House and find support from the White House. The only question would be whether it could make it through the closely-divided Senate.... 

"The PRO Act ... would make illegal any independent contractor arrangement where the worker provides services within 'the usual course of the business of the employer,' meaning jobs like Uber drivers, Doordash drivers, Instacart grocery deliverers, and more could not exist as we know them. There are roughly 10.6 million independent contractors in the US, accounting for 6.9 percent of all employment. Some of these workers might not be affected by the law and some others may get hired on as full-time as a result. But there’s little doubt that millions more would find themselves unemployed.

"For example, Uber alone employs more than 1 million drivers in the US. It’s nearly certain they would all lose their jobs under the PRO Act, because Uber already runs a loss, not a profit, and adding an independent contractor as a full staff member counts roughly $3,625 per driver. Basic math tells you that most of these workers would end up being let go; Uber could even go under. After all, the California legislation nearly forced Uber and Lyft to shut down operations in the Golden State altogether until a last-minute ballot referendum modified the law. 

"Uber is just one company and one example. But freelance workers such as journalists, photographers, florists, musicians and more all lost work in California under legislation similar to the PRO Act. 

"The authors of AB 5 and the PRO Act likely earnestly believed they were going to help workers.... But the ugly results of their policy naivete will leave many like them unemployed instead.... The Democrats’ latest labor proposal is a case study in unintended consequences, which inevitably plague big-government interventions into a vast and diverse economy.

"'Economic policies need to be analyzed in terms of the incentives they create, rather than the hopes that inspired them,' ... free-market economist Thomas Sowell once wrote. 'The programs that are being labeled for the poor, for the needy, almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors hope them to have'.... 

"Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer clearly haven’t thought this through. If the PRO Act becomes law, it won’t help independent workers—it will eliminate their jobs or strip them of the flexibility that attracted them to the gig economy in the first place."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/the-democrats-just-reintroduced-a-labor-law-that-would-destroy-uber-and-it-could-actually-pass-this-time/

SCOTUS strikes down compulsory union fees for government employees

The Case of Janus v. AFSCME - Rich Peters, MPG editor, Placer Sentinel:

June 27, 2018 - "This week the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Janus v. AFSCME that government workers can no longer be forced to contribute to labor unions that represent them in collective bargaining, dealing a heavy financial blow to public sector unions.

"This revokes a 41-year-old decision that required employees to pay union fees to the state unions that represented them whether or not the workers chose to join.

"Mark Janus ... a child-support specialist for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services ... challenged the $45 per month that is deducted from his paycheck [and] goes to the local branch of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

"Janus argued that any form of required payment to cover the cost of collective bargaining violates the First Amendment because it finances speech by the union intended to influence the government.

"The unions argued that their alleged fair share fees pay for collective bargaining and other work the union does on behalf of all employees, not just its members. More than half the states already have right-to-work laws in place that ban mandatory fees, but most members of public-employee unions heavily populate the states that do not, including New York, California and Illinois.

"The court’s final ruling states: 'Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.' (p. 48)

The unions believe that the outcome could affect more than five million government workers across roughly two dozen states and the District of Columbia.... A 2015 national report showed that the average union president makes $170,000 annually in states with compulsory dues but only $132,000 in states with voluntary dues – a $38,000 difference."

Read more: http://www.placersentinel.com/articles/2018/0627-Mark-Janus-v-AFSCME-Unions-Case-US-Supreme-Court/index.php?ID=4982
'via Blog this'

SCOTUS OK's arbitration opt-out from NLRA

Neil Gorsuch and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Clash Over Federal Labor Law and the 'Specter' of Lochner v. New York - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Damon Root:

May 21, 2018 - "'Should employees and employers be allowed to agree that any disputes between them will resolve through one-on-one arbitration? Or should employees always be permitted to bring their claims in class or collective actions, no matter what they agreed with their employers?'

"That's how Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch summarized the dispute at the heart of today's 5-4 ruling in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis. Writing for a sharply divided Court, Gorsuch held that employees and employers have the legal right to make employment contracts that include one-on-one arbitration ... joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito....

"Under the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 (FAA), arbitration agreements made between employers and employees 'shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable' by the courts. Under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA), employees have the right to form and join labor unions and 'to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.' In other words, if a labor contract that includes an individual arbitration agreement is valid under the FAA, does it become invalid when the NLRA is factored in?

"Justice Gorsuch thought not. 'In the Federal Arbitration Act, Congress has instructed federal courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms — including terms providing for individualized proceedings,' he wrote. 'Nor can we agree with the employees' suggestion that the [NLRB] offers a conflicting command. It is this Court's duty to interpret Congress's statutes as a harmonious whole rather than at war with one another.'

"Writing in dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, offered a very different view. 'Enacted later in time, the NLRA should qualify as "an implied repeal" of the FAA, to the extent of any genuine conflict'....

"Ginsburg then accused Gorsuch of seeking to resurrect the Supreme Court's pre-New Deal 'Lochner-era contractual "liberty" decisions.' Lochner refers to Lochner v. New York, the 1905 Supreme Court ruling which invalidated a state economic regulation on the grounds that it served no legitimate public health or safety purpose.....

"In his majority opinion, Gorsuch responded directly to this critique. According to Ginsburg's dissent, he observed, 'today's decision ushers us back to the Lochner era when this Court regularly overrode legislative judgments.' Yet as Gorsuch retorted, 'instead of overriding Congress's policy judgments, today's decision seeks to honor them. This much the dissent surely knows.'"

Read more: https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/21/neil-gorsuch-and-ruth-bader-ginsburg-cla
'via Blog this'