We hold that the NLRB was correct in deciding that an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), when an employer terminates an employee for refusing to agree to an unlawful confidentiality agreement. An employer may not require even one individual employee to agree to abide by unlawful restrictions as a condition of employment. That the employees have not yet organized in order to protest the unlawful nature of the restriction at issue does not make it any less unlawful. . . . We see no reason to judge the effect of an unlawful requirement on an employee’s termination based solely on whether the employee acted in concert or alone.
If you’re looking for something to help put you to sleep tonight, you can watch all two and a half hours on YouTube of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections hearing on H.R. 3441, Save Local Business Act (related to joint employer). In an interesting move, Canada (tired of competing with non-union U.S. workers) is attempting to negotiate the denial of right-to-work laws as a part of a new NAFTA deal. Canada likely knows there is absolutely no chance the U.S. would agree to this, but is apparently “staking out an extreme negotiating position in order to signal that it’s treating these talks seriously and is prepared to ask for major concessions,” according to Jordan Weissmann of Slate. If there is one place on the planet in which you wouldn’t want to have to start or run a business, it is probably California. The combination of ultra-liberal political leaders and aggressive (and deviously creative) unions does its best to keep employers on the ropes. To start with, California lawmakers inserted a provision in an environmental cap-and-trade deal intended to allow unions to grab Tesla motors by the family jewels. Tesla buyers currently receive a $2500 state rebate for purchasing zero-emission vehicles. The new bill would allow this rebate only from companies certified by the state labor secretary “as fair and responsible in the treatment of their workers.” In other words, unionized. All other car manufacturers would be impacted by the law, but Tesla is the only auto maker with a manufacturing footprint in California (after Toyota and GM fled the state), and is currently fighting a campaign against the UAW. Steve Greenhut, writing for The American Spectator, sums up nicely:
So, yes, California remains a capital for innovation, but only until all the union work rules crush that one bright spot in the economy. Meanwhile, the rest of the state is becoming something of an innovation-free zone, given lawmakers’ ongoing efforts to saddle businesses with bone-crushing regulations and tax rates. If [Governor] Brown really believes in innovation, he ought to worry less about federal funding and more about the way his union allies mess with the Golden State’s economy.
In another attack on business innovation, legislators are considering new rules to force new meal delivery services like Blue Apron to turn over all of their employees personal contact information. If unions are able to entrench themselves into these new business models, and force them to conform to old-style work rules, it will be much harder for these new business models to survive. Interestingly, although Blue Apron was named as the impetus for the legislation, as currently written, the law would not apply to them! Another bill pending in the California legislature has a similar effect. Currently, the state’s Department of Social Services maintains a registry of all home care workers, to allow consumers to locate home care aides (only name and registration status are released to the public). The pending bill would turn over full contact information from this database to labor unions. The California State Supreme Court has gotten into the act as well. In a ruling allowing “citizen initiatives” to put tax increase measures on the ballot, certain local governments (cities, counties, school districts, water districts, transportation districts and many others) only need point the public employee unions in the right direction. While ostensibly promoted to fix roads, educate children or clean the air, the real motivation is to inflate government workers’ pay and fund their overly generous underfunded pension plans.