- Sending a letter to your employees informing them of a pending EEOC investigation might itself violate discrimination laws [Jon Hyman] More: Jerome Woehrle;
- As its fiscal year 2017 closes, a “return to frantic filing” at the EEOC [Matthew J. Gagnon, Christopher J. DeGroff, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Seyfarth Shaw]
- Once occupational licensure is in place, it’s hard to pry off established interests that grow up around it [Steve Bates, Society for Human Resource Management, and thanks for quotes]
- Nassau’s labor unions say it’s “impossible” to summarize their contracts with county, as financial control board would like [Robert Brodsky, Newsday]
- “Michigan’s pension reforms are kind of a big deal” [Eric Boehm, Reason] “State Police Pay 43 Officers Over $300k Each To Not Retire” [Evan Carter, Michigan Capitol Confidential]
- “Organized Labor Wants to Push Out Local Restaurants and Raise Prices at Portland International Airport” [Nigel Jaquiss, Willamette Week]
Filed under: EEOC, labor unions, Long Island, Michigan, occupational licensure, Oregon, public employment, retaliation
7 Comments
Re: “Nassau’s labor unions”
I wouldn’t take this too seriously…Newsday is, and always has been a faithful Democratic party paper (going back at least to the 1960’s when I first read it), and they are trying to unseat the Republican officeholders in Nassau. There is less here than meets the eye.
You’re missing a story — the owner of Gothamist and DNAinfo, TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts, shut down both sites because their employees joined a union. See, for example, http://fortune.com/2017/11/02/joe-ricketts-shuts-down-dnainfo-gothamist/ (the first link that showed up in my search).
Its possible both are true. If the publications aren’t turning a profit, or are barely breaking even with no likelihood of susbtantial future ROI, employees joing a union to collectively bargain for higher wages, increased benefits and/or greater control over their own hours scheduled is the death knell for the business. Better to end it now than to keep throwing good money at a bad investment.
An online publication can cut costs in raw materials, increase significantly its purchase price (particularly when most of its content is simply amalgamated from other sources), and competes with every sort of online business for click-ad revenue. The only place increased labor costs (likely the single largest cost of that business model) can come from is the (non) existent profits the business isn’t making.
“An online publication can cut costs in raw materials, increase significantly its purchase price”
I seem to me that there is a “not” missing in the above quote.
yes, the ‘t turning “can” into “can not” seems to have been clipped – and of course, no edit function. My apologies for the resultant lack of clarity. I missed it when I skimmed the post before submitting.
From the article on PDX.
“At issue are two different visions of PDX: Port officials believe the airport’s mission is to serve passengers and promote the region for tourism and economic development. Labor representatives say the publicly owned facility should focus more on the pay and welfare of airport workers.”
Shock. A union want to screw the customer to line their own pockets. Sounds like public employees.
Off-topic, but aren’t the recent sexual harassment revelations important in the Janus case? Should women (or anyone for that matter) be forced to give money, as a condition of government employment, to an organization that seemed to tolerate harassment?
And isn’t it a travesty that a condition of state employment is that you have to subsidize sexual harassment liability?