We’re halfway through 2023, and so far it’s lived up to experts’ predictions of being one of the most active years for labor strikes in recent memory. Below is a round-up of some of this year’s most significant strikes and strike authorizations. LAUSD Teachers’ Strike In late March, workers for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the nation’s second largest public school system, embarked on a three-day strike hoping to secure pay increases as the cost of living in Southern California rapidly outpaced their wages. The worker’s efforts were ultimately successful. In April, LAUSD ratified a contract negotiated with the teachers’ union, UTLA, that raises teachers’ pay by 21% over the course of three years, bringing the average LAUSD teacher salary to $106,000 by 2025. The agreement also included salary increases for LAUSD’s nurses, mental health workers, and special education teachers, along with promises to reduce class sizes. More than 94% of the 27,171 ballots cast by UTLA members were in favor of the new contract. Hollywood Writers’ Strike On May 2, the membership of the Writers’ Guild of America (WGA), a union representing approximately 11,500 Hollywood writers, went on strike. Hollywood writers are fighting against numerous trends in the entertainment industry that have caused their pay and job security to decline significantly over the past decade while industry profits have ballooned, particularly for the likes of streaming companies such as Netflix, which reported a $5.6 billion operating profit for 2022. The writer’s strike is still ongoing with no end in sight. Highly anticipated TV projects such as “Stranger Things” and a “Game of Thrones” spinoff have been delayed and other major series are expected to be postponed. Beyond the changes Americans may see on their television screens, the strike also figures to have significant consequences for the economy at-large. The last writers’ strike in 2008 cost the California economy $2.1 billion as writers and countless other workers that support the entertainment industry– designers, electricians, grips, and restaurant workers – felt the crunch of the work stoppage. UNITE HERE Local 11 Strike Authorization On June 9, members of UNITE HERE Local 11, a union representing service and hospitality workers across the American Southwest, overwhelmingly voted to authorize a strike. The union could now call for 15,000 of its members across dozens of Southern California hotels to strike. Doing so would amount to the largest industry wide strike in U.S. history. The top priority for the hotel workers is securing higher wages to combat the persistent rising cost of living in Southern California. Even though Hotel profits in Los Angeles and Orange County now exceed their pre-pandemic levels, the workers that form the backbone of their operations still struggle to make ends meet. A strike may take place as early as July 4th weekend. Teukolsky Law commends workers for the gains they’ve made this year and recognizes them for the courage it takes to put themselves on the picket line.
0 Comments
As Southern California Summer travel ramps up, 15,000 hotel WORKERS vote to authorize strike6/12/2023 Last week, UNITE HERE Local 11, a union that represents service and hospitality workers across the American Southwest, asked 15,000 of its southern California members to vote on a strike authorization. Workers overwhelmingly voted to authorize the strike, with 96% of Local 11 members voting in favor. The strike authorization is a significant step towards convincing the region’s hotel operators to consider pay increases for their workers, many of which struggle to make ends meet. Local 11’s move comes less than a month before 62 of its contracts with Southern California hotels are set to expire. For months, the union and hotels have attempted to negotiate new agreements but have failed to reach a consensus on Local 11’s proposals, including pay increases for its members and other provisions meant to address employees’ healthcare, pensions, work eligibility, and issues related to understaffing. As California has emerged from the pandemic, the hospitality and tourism industries have roared back, with visitor spending expected to set new records in 2023. However, the workers that form the backbone of the two industries have largely not reaped the rewards of rebound. Rent hikes and increased living costs continue to force many hotel workers out of their homes while their employers fail to address persistently low wages. Teukolsky Law stands in solidarity with Southern California’s hotel workers and commends the work Local 11 is doing to ensure workers are fairly compensated and protected heading into the summer. Last week, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleged in a complaint that the University of Southern California (USC), the Pac-12, and the National Collegiate Athletics Associations (NCAA) are joint employers and willfully misclassify their football players, men’s basketball players, and women’s basketball players as “non-employee student athletes” to discourage them from engaging in protected activities such as unionization. The complaint calls for USC, the Pac-12, and the NCAA to reclassify those athletes as “employees” in their handbooks and rules. The employment-status of college athletes is the most pressing issue facing the world of college sports and threatens to upend the foundation of the multibillion-dollar industry. For decades, the NCAA has argued that amateurism - a model in which college athletes get 0% of the revenue generated by their sports – was necessary to maintain the value and integrity of college athletics. However, as coaching salaries have ballooned and TV deals for college sports approach nearly $10 billion, the amateurism model is increasingly seen as exploitative and has come under increasing scrutiny, leading some experts to expect the model to collapse under mounting pressure in federal courts and state legislatures. If the NCAA’s amateurism model were to collapse, whether due to the aforementioned pressures or NLRB complaints, the repercussions would be monumental, prompting questions of how to compensate over 500,000 NCAA athletes, 85% of which live below the poverty line. According to the NLRB’s complaint, a hearing on their case is scheduled for November 7, 2023, in Los Angeles. Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article outlining the issues at stake in Adoph v. Uber Technologies, a closely watched California Supreme Court case set for oral arguments on Tuesday, May 9 at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time. The question at the heart of Adolph v. Uber is whether an employee can continue litigating PAGA claims on behalf of her coworkers once the individual component of her PAGA claim has been sent to arbitration, a private, quasi-court forum that is favored by employers. If the Court rules that such plaintiffs maintain their standing, it would allow employees to continue holding employers accountable for company-wide violations of the Labor Code under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), a state law that authorizes employees to collect civil penalties for violations against themselves and their coworkers on behalf of California’s Labor Commissioner, which has struggled to keep up with a backlog of cases for the past several decades. The Bloomberg article features Ms. Teukolsky’s predictions for how the Supreme Court will likely rule: “’I would be very surprised if the California Supreme Court chose to eviscerate the PAGA statute,’ said Lauren Teukolsky, founder of Teukolsky Law in Pasadena, Calif. ‘And if they agree with Uber’s position, PAGA would be eviscerated because companies would be able to send individual PAGA claims to arbitration and have the remainder of the PAGA claims, the claims on behalf of others, dismissed,” Teukolsky said. “It is entirely contrary to the stated purpose of PAGA, which is to encourage private attorneys to augment the state’s ability to enforce the labor code.’” A decision in Adolph v. Uber is expected by August 2023. Oral arguments, which will be held remotely, are scheduled for Tuesday, May 9 at 9:00 a.m. and can be watched via the Supreme Court’s website. On April 26, 2023, Lauren Teukolsky will discuss hot topics in employment settlement agreements for a program put on by the Southern California Labor and Employment Relations Association (SoCal LERA). Ms. Teukolsky will be joined by fellow panelists Jonathan Judge, a partner at Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, and Jade M. Brewster, an associate at Jackson Lewis. The panel will be moderated by Angela J. Reddock-Wright, a mediator at Signature Resolution. The webinar’s focus will be confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions in settlements and separation agreements, a subject that has taken on increased complexity in light of the recent McLaren Macomb decision from the National Labor Relations Board. Ms. Teukolsky’s commentary on the decision was recently featured in an article by Law360. Ms. Teukolsky has also written about employment settlement agreements for Advocate Magazine. SoCal LERA is a regional chapter of the Labor and Employment Relations Association, an organization where Human Resources professions and attorneys from both sides of the aisle share ideas and learn about new developments and practices in the field. To sign up for the webinar, click here. To learn more about Ms. Teukolsky and her practice, click here. If you’re an employee and believe you’re being treated unlawfully, click here to get in touch with our office. Lauren Teukolsky’s commentary was featured this week in a Law360 article discussing the future of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in severance agreements in light of the National Labor Relations Board’s recent ruling in McLaren Macomb. In McLaren Macomb, the NLRB found that offering severance agreements to employees that include NDAs and non-disparagement clauses is unlawful because doing so dissuades them from engaging in employee activity that is protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, such as discussing their working conditions or pay. Following the NLRB’s decision, however, some attorneys have expressed skepticism that employers will tailor their severance agreements to comply with the NLRB’s ruling. Ms. Teukolsky discussed her own experience with severance agreements in California following the state’s implementation of laws to restrict the use of NDAs and non-disparagement: “’After California passed its own restrictions, what I'm seeing is employers will continue to include very broad nondisparagement provisions, and then they'll have a carveout’ stating that nothing in the agreement is intended to violate the law, Teukolsky said. ‘And when I come back and say, 'This nondisparagement is too broad,' they say, 'Well, we have a carveout.’'" The NLRB decision, along with the General Counsel’s memo about the decision, suggest that carveouts are not sufficient to overcome the chilling effect of NDAs and non-disparagement provisions. The memo states: “It is critical to remember that public statements by employees about the workplace are central to the exercise of employees’ rights under the Act.” The McLaren Macomb decision is a victory for workers that should be celebrated. Employers act at their peril if they continue to include overly-broad NDAs and non-disparagement provisions in any contract they ask an employee to sign, whether it be an employment agreement signed on hire, a severance agreement offered to a laid-off employee, or a settlement agreement to settle claims that have been filed. To read the article in its entirety, click here. If you have questions about a severance agreement you’ve received and want to get in touch with our office, click here. Lauren Teukolsky expressed support for President Biden’s nominee for Labor Secretary, Julie Su, in a recent Law360 article exploring business groups’ opposition to the President’s pick. Su was nominated to replace former Labor Department Secretary Marty Walsh, who left his post in March to take over as head of the National Hockey League (NHL) Players’ Association. Su served as Deputy Labor Secretary prior to Walsh’s departure and has worked as the acting secretary of the Labor Department since Walsh’s announcement. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Su is expected to continue the pro-union and pro-worker stance the department has taken since the start of the Biden administration, much to the distress of some business groups. Business groups have cited Su’s backing of A.B. 5, a 2020 California bill that extended employee classification status to some gig workers, as one of the primary reasons for their opposition. In the Law360 article Ms. Teukolsky argues the business groups’ blame may be misplaced: “‘The California Legislature passed A.B. 5,’ she said. ‘It's not like Julie Su single-handedly implemented the law.’” Ms. Teukolsky, who worked with Su in the late 1990s on California's A.B. 633, which installed wage protections for garment workers, also had this to say on Su’s nomination: “’I don't think there's any doubt that Julie Su is eminently qualified to be the next secretary of labor,’ Teukolsky said. ‘California has the fifth-largest economy in the world, so I think any criticism that Julie Su's policies or practices somehow undermine the strength of California's economy is absurd.’” Ms. Teukolsky was previously asked to provide her thoughts on Su in a February Law360 article on her nomination. For that article, click here. For Law360’s recent article on Su’s nomination, click here. Finally, if you’d like to get in touch with our office, click here. Lauren Teukolsky’s commentary was featured in a recent Law360 article on the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling that California’s A.B. 51 is preempted by federal law. AB 51 prohibited employers from forcing employees to give up their civil rights, such as the right to a jury trial and the right to appeal an adverse decision, as a condition of employment. The ruling, a reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s own prior decision in 2021, is a significant blow to the state’s workers. California Governor Gavin Newsom signed A.B. 51 into law in 2019, making it illegal for employers to force individuals to waive their right to bring civil rights cases in court as a condition of employment. Arbitration agreements typically stipulate that all claims made by workers—regardless of their severity—must be resolved under private arbitration, a process that overwhelmingly favors employers, disproportionately harms historically marginalized communities, and shields corporations from public scrutiny and accountability. A.B. 51 was meant to ensure that employees were not coerced into signing away their rights, and that all waivers of these significant rights were voluntary. Last year, a three judge Ninth Circuit panel voted to revisit a 2021 decision in which it partially reversed an injunction that stopped California from enforcing A.B. 51. Last month, the panel found that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted A.B. 51, nullifying the law in most situations and allowing California’s corporations to once again force workers to sign arbitration agreements waiving their civil rights. Law360’s article features analysis and advice from management-side and workers- side attorneys on how corporations and workers’ advocates should respond to the Ninth Circuit’s decision. In the article, Ms. Teukolsky advises plaintiffs’ lawyers to be extremely cautious when advising clients on arbitration agreements: "’Plaintiff-side employment attorneys need to think very carefully before they advise an employee to refuse to sign one of these arbitration agreements,’ Teukolsky said. ‘I think you need to advise them: you may lose your job over this. Is that a risk you're willing to take?’" Ms. Teukolsky speaks from experience: she filed one of the only cases under A.B. 51 after her client was fired for expressing opposition to signing away her rights. To read the article in its entirety, click here. For the Court’s opinion holding that A.B. 51 is preempted, click here. If you have concerns about an arbitration agreement your employer has recently asked you to sign, click here to get in touch with our office. Last week, Bloomberg Law cited research by Lauren Teukolsky in an article about oral arguments in Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc., a pivotal Supreme Court case that was sent back to the California Court of Appeal for further action. The appellate court’s decision could have vast repercussions for lawsuits brought under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Since SCOTUS’s Viking River decision, Ms. Teukolsky’s research shows that California courts have consistently rejected employer arguments that representative PAGA claims must be dismissed once the “individual” component of the plaintiff’s PAGA claim has been sent to arbitration. Bloomberg Law’s article states: “California trial courts dismissed representative claims after moving individual claims into arbitration in just six of 75 decisions collected and analyzed by Lauren Teukolsky of the plaintiff-side firm Teukolsky Law APC. Bloomberg Law independently reviewed those decisions.” Ms. Teukolsky’s updated numbers show an even greater trend in favor of employees. Viking River and the fate of PAGA have been on the forefront of labor and employment experts’ minds for the past several years. In addition to her commentary on the issue for news outlets such as Bloomberg Law and the Daily Journal, Ms. Teukolsky has also discussed the implications of Viking River on a panel for CELA, a statewide organization that works to protect and expand the legal rights of workers, as well as for the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, the preeminent peer-selected organization of labor and employment lawyers in the United States. To read the article on Bloomberg Law, click here. To get in touch with Teukolsky Law, click here. The California Supreme Court recently announced that oral argument in Adolph v. Uber will be scheduled for some time in the next few months. The high court is expected to decide the fate of California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which allows employees to step into the shoes of the State and bring labor enforcement actions against an employer. In Viking River, SCOTUS held that employers may not force employees to sign arbitration agreements waiving their right to bring PAGA actions. However, once the "individual" component of a PAGA claim is sent to arbitration (assuming that's what the arbitration agreement requires), SCOTUS held that the PAGA claim on behalf of coworkers must be dismissed for lack of standing. In Adolph, the California Supreme Court is expected to decide whether SCOTUS's standing ruling is a correct interpretation of California law. If trial court orders are any predictor, the California Supreme Court is likely to rule that a PAGA plaintiff does not lose standing to prosecute claims on behalf of coworkers once the "individual" PAGA claim is sent to arbitration. Lauren Teukolsky has analyzed dozens of orders issued by California trial courts on post-Viking motions to compel. As of December 2022, of the 79 orders that Teukolsky analyzed, 12 of them denied the motion to compel outright (because the arbitration agreement explicitly carved out PAGA, because the defendant had unduly delayed in seeking arbitration, and a variety of other reasons). Of the remaining 67 orders, 55 of them sent the "individual" PAGA claims to arbitration, but declined to dismiss the "non-individual" PAGA claims. Trial courts in 20 of those orders explicitly disagreed with SCOTUS on the standing question, while the remainder said they wanted to wait for the outcome of Adolph before ruling. Of the 79 orders, only 11 of them followed SCOTUS to hold that once the individual PAGA claim was sent to arbitration, the PAGA claim on behalf of others must be dismissed (the "Full Alito"). Federal courts are far more likely to follow SCOTUS: Of the 11 federal orders analyzed, 6 of them, or 55%, went Full Alito. By contrast, of the 68 state court orders analyzed, 5 of them, or 7%, went Full Alito. As of today, March 21, 2023, the numbers are even better for PAGA plaintiffs.
|
AuthorLauren Teukolsky is the founder and owner of Teukolsky Law, A Professional Corporation. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|