On January 23, 2013, the BLS released its annual report on the rate of unionization. Overall, the rate of unionization feel from 11.8% to 11.3%. Public sector workers had a 35.8 percent membership rate while the rate on unionization in the private sector dropped to 6.6%.
Significantly, however, union members continue to earn more than there non-union counterparts. As the report states:
In 2012, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings of $943, while those who were not union members had median weekly earnings of $742.
In addition to coverage by a collective bargaining agreement, this earnings difference reflects a variety of influences, including variations in the distribution sof union members and nonunion employees by occupation, industry, firm size, or geographic region.
via Adjunct Law Prof Blog: Breaking News. Unionization Rates Continue to Decline.
Filed under labor, union, wage
The National Hockey League, as well as all of its teams, sued the NHL players’ union. The NHL’s federal complaint alleges that the union is engaging in an impermissible bargaining tactic by allegedly threatening to file an antitrust lawsuit.
The NHL’s complaint further states,
In recent days, many union members have publicly asserted that they intend to decertify the union, or vote in favor of the union’s renouncing or ‘disclaiming interest’ in its role as the exclusive bargaining representative of NHL players, an impermissible bargaining tactic defendants mistakenly believe would enable them to commence an antitrust lawsuit challenging the legality of the NHL’s ongoing lockout of NHL players and thereby to pressure the NHL to accede to the union’s preferred outcome in collective bargaining.
Last night [Thursday, Dec. 13], the NHLPA Executive Committee authorized that a vote be taken over the next four days on whether to authorize the union’s leadership to disclaim interest in its role as the exclusive bargaining representative of NHL players so that the NHL players could commence antitrust litigation against the NHL in order to secure a more favorable collective bargaining agreement.
The union’s improper threats of antitrust litigation are having a direct, immediate and harmful effect upon the ability of the parties to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement.
The NHL therefore seeks a declaration that the NHL’s ongoing lockout, which is lawful as a matter of federal labor law, does not violate the antitrust laws, and as such, can neither be enjoined nor result in any legally cognizable or compensable damages to defendants.
NHL’s complaint further alleges “that the Norris-LaGuardia Act deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction to enjoin or restrain the ongoing lockout without regard to any purported disclaimer by the NHLPA;” that the lockout is legal under the Clayton Antitrust Act, “and thus does not result in any legally cognizable or compensable damages to NHL players;” and five other claims, all similar to the second one.
via Courthouse News Service.
Minnesota Lawyer Blog reports on an arbitration award denying the grievance of public defenders. In summary, public defenders filed a grievance alleging a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) violation when public defenders were assigned too many cases.
The grievants asked for the arbitrator to order the board of public defense to adopt a maximum caseload standard of 400. Evidence presented by the grievants shows that defenders in the Third District have an average of between 660 and 745 cases in the last five years. They say this excessive caseload violates their union contract because it brings rise to ethical concerns over whether the attorneys can provide adequate representation to their clients and creates a risk that the attorneys will violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Arbitrator Befort found that there was no violation since the CBA did not mention a caseload cap. Further, Arbitrator Befort found that there had been no discipline of attorneys relating to having too many cases.
Befort concluded that the issue was best decided by the state legislature that allocates funding for public defense, and not a union contract dispute.
“[T]his is not a problem that has been caused by the failure of the State Board of Public Defense to fulfill its obligations under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Ultimately, the problem at hand is political in nature and requires resolution at a different forum,” he wrote.
A copy of the decision is here.
via PDs lose at arbitration – MinnLawyer Blog.