state of the union - ogletree deakins · 2019-11-30 · we entered 2019, much as we did 2018,...

2019 LABOR LAW SOLUTIONS

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 2-1

STATE OF THE UNION

2020 INSIGHTS

C. Thomas Davis – Ogletree Deakins (Nashville)



We entered 2019, much as we did 2018, optimistic that the new Trump NLRB would

begin in earnest to dismantle the dramatic pro-union reform carried out by the Obama NLRB, but

concerned about aggressive union organizing and bargaining under the union-friendly rules until

those changes could take place. As we look back on 2019, it seems what we got was both of

those possible options.

From the NLRB, the first half of 2019 was more of the “wait-and-see” that we

experienced in 2018. Starting in late summer, however, we began to see case-after-case decided

by the Trump NLRB, each of which erased a problematic decision from the Obama NLRB.

While there are still some rules to be moderated, these decisions collectively took a major step

towards restoring the balance that existed for most of the 80-plus year history of the National

Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Over the course of our two-day Labor Law Solutions seminar

(LLS), we will explain these new cases and the new rules they create and provide suggestions on

how your organization should conduct itself to take advantage of those new rules, but with an

understanding that the pendulum could swing again (lest we forget 2020 is a presidential election

year). Thus, a response based on the true business needs of the organization will be the most

appropriate course of action. We will also identify those areas where change is still needed and

where the old rules still control. For each, we will predict whether change is likely (for example,

some aspects of the ambush election regulations may never change) and, if it is, when and how

that change might happen.

Against that backdrop of positive change on the legal front, 2019 was also one of the

more active and aggressive in terms of union organizing and really collective bargaining.

Nothing exemplifies this in a more compelling way than the clear return of the strike as a tool for

labor in collective bargaining. 2018 and 2019 saw more large labor strikes – defined as affecting

more than 1,000 employees – than in any year over the last 30 years. From strikes by teachers in

11 states/cities to the 40-day strike by the United Auto Workers (UAW) at General Motors

(GM), the strike as a bargaining tool appears to be back with a vengeance. Perhaps more

critically, this seems to indicate a high level of anger and emotion around what many perceive as

a growing disparity between “the haves and the have nots.” We are also entering a presidential

election year where the potential for dramatic change at least exists. Given that possibility, we

must be mindful of the potential for labor law reform if Democrats take control of the White

House and Congress. Likewise, a Democratic president could find as many as three NLRB slots

to be filled in January 2021. We will discuss each of those possibilities during the LLS program.

In 2019, we also experienced significant activity on the margins of the labor movement.

First, we saw a continued expansion of the Fight for $15 movement, which some suggest is the

model for how the labor movement will survive, if it is to survive. Specifically, a willingness for

unions to spend time and resources on organizing “for” a population that will likely never be

represented by a union or pay dues to a union. Likewise, the potential for traditional union

organizing among the next generation of workers – Millennials but more importantly Generation

Z (those born after 1997) – is as bright as it has ever been.



The following is a high level overview of the labor-management environment in which

we are operating. More importantly, the following discusses the reform options that could be on

the table if the political environment shifts in 2020.1

1. Overview of the NLRB

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is currently made up of three individuals

appointed by President Trump. John Ring is the Chairman and his term expires on December 16,

2022. 2019 is his first full year as the Chairman. He is joined by two additional Trump

appointees – Marvin Kaplan, whose term expires on August 27, 2020, and William “Bill”

Emanuel, whose term expires on August 27, 2021. Those three republicans serve with Obama

appointee, Lauren McFerran, whose term expires on December 16, 2019. There is a fifth seat,

formerly held by Mark Pearce, which is currently vacant.

As we approach December 16, and move into 2020, it will be interesting to see how

issues around filling these vacancies play out in an election year. Once McFerran’s term expires,

the NLRB will still have three members, albeit three Republican members, and will be fully

authorized to continue operations. In some respects, not having an opposition voice could be a

positive since a dissenter can certainly delay, if not stop, the reform effort by the majority. At the

same time, however, there has been a longstanding practice at the NLRB not to make major

changes to precedent without at least four Board members insuring input from the opposition.

Join us during the “Beltway Buzz: Labor Update” session on Friday to hear insights and

predictions about how this will play out.

With this majority in place, we began in the summer to see cases decided that reversed

many of the pro-union decisions issued by the Obama NLRB. While these cases will be

discussed in significant detail during other sessions of LLS, some of the most important ones

include:

Limiting Union Access

Kroger Limited Partnership I Mid-Atlantic

368 NLRB No. 64 (2019)

Bexar County Performing Arts Center Foundation

368 NLRB No. 46 (2019)

Micro-Bargaining Units

PCC Structurals, Inc.

365 NLRB 160 (2017)

1 As we always point out, we do our best to avoid partisan politics and we recognize there are many relevant issues

beyond labor-management that impact the selection of a candidate to support. For labor law issues, however, politics

does matter. Thus, we always try to point out the potential shifts that could occur when party control changes.



The Boeing Company

368 NLRB No. 67 (2019)

Drafting Policies

The Boeing Company

365 NLRB No. 154 (2017)

LA Specialty Produce Company

368 NLRB No. 93 (2019)

Duty to Bargain – Unilateral Change

MV Transportation, Inc.

368 NLRB No. 66 (2019)

Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp.

367 NLRB No. 122 (2019)

PG Publishing Co., Inc.

368 NLRB No. 41 (2019)

Raytheon Network Centric Systems

365 NLRB No. 161 (2017)

Independent Contractor

Velox Express, Inc.

368 NLRB No. 61 (2019)

SuperShuttle DFW, Inc.

367 NLRB No. 75 (2019)

In addition to those case decisions, the Trump NLRB has also requested comments on the

proposal to modify the representation election regulations promulgated by the Obama NLRB.

While those comments were collected in 2018, the Board has made very little progress on

finalizing any changes. With the exception of two changes of fairly narrow impact (e.g., blocking

charges and recognition bar), the so-called ambush or quickie election regulations remain intact

from 2014. That means the expedited timelines are still in place, the obligation to provide the

union with sensitive personal contact information on voters is still a requirement, and elections

still take place in a period that typically takes less than 30 days in non-contested cases. Thus,

unions are still able to execute organizing campaigns under the far more favorable rules

established by the Obama NLRB.



2. Ambush Election Data

What has been the impact on representation elections under the ambush rules? As a

general proposition, there have been fewer elections being held (although there was a clear

uptick during the first year under the rule), but unions are winning at a higher percentage. The

following shows summary statistics of union elections held a few years before the ambush rules,

and then since those rules became effective on April 14, 2015.

FY Petitions Elections Union Wins %

2010 2,380 1,571 1,036 66%

2014 2,053 1,407 952 68%

2015 2,198 1,574 1,120 71%

2016 2,029 1,396 1,014 73%

2017 1,854 1,366 940 69%

2018 1,597 1,120 790 71%

The trends in 2019 are even more interesting. At the time of writing, we had half-year

numbers available. During the first half of 2019, the NLRB conducted 578 representation

elections, 249 in the first quarter and 329 during the second. That indicates a downward trend

over the first half of 2018, when there were 621 elections (43 more). Interestingly, however,

unions won 445 of the 578 elections held in the first half of 2019, for a win rate of 77%. That is

compared with a win rate of 68.9% in the same period of 2018 (428 wins out of 621 elections).

Some other interesting statistics from the first half of 2019 include the following:

The union win rate in right-to-work states was 66.2% compared to 81% in states

without a right-to-work law (151 vs. 416);

The laborers union (LIUNA) was 7 for 7 for a perfect 100% win rate;

The Machinist Union was very active holding 66 elections and winning 89.4% of

those elections;

The SEIU was also active winning 50 of 56 elections held for an 89.3% win rate;

As is typical, the Teamsters were the most active union with 117 elections held but

won only 77 for a 65.8% win rate;

Unions had significant success in the retail segment winning 71.4% of the elections

held, up dramatically from 43.8% in 2018;

Unions were much less successful in the manufacturing space where only 52 elections

were held with a 55.8% union win rate;

Continuing a trend, unions were much more successful in small voting units. In the

first half of 2019, they won 78.2% of elections with fewer than 50 voters and 80.3%

with 50-99 voters;

That can be compared with a win rate of just 66.7% in units larger than 500 (where

there were only 6 such elections);

Unions won 78.1% of the elections in 5 west coast states;



However, in Ohio – long the backbone of the labor movement – unions only won

45.5% of the 10 elections held.

3. Union Membership Trends

Despite these higher win rates for unions in representation elections, the combination of

fewer elections in smaller voting units has resulted in a continued decline in union membership.

In 2018, overall union membership fell from 10.7% in 2017 to 10.5% in 2018. In the private

sector, union membership fell to 6.4%. Contrast that with the public sector where union

membership fell to 33.9%, but is still 5 times higher than the private sector.

Men continue to be more likely to be union members at 11.9% compared to women, but

the gap has narrowed dramatically. For example, in 1983, union membership among men was at

24.7% compared to 14.6% for women. In 2018, women were 9.9% unionized with men only a

few points ahead at 11.1%. Blacks continue to be more likely to be union members than white,

Asian, or Hispanic workers (12.6% v. 10.6% v. 8.9% v. 9.3%). Hawaii and New York are the

most unionized states (23.1% and 22.3% respectfully). North Carolina and South Carolina are

the least unionized (2.7% each).

4. Are Unions Just Being Patient?

It is at least worth considering, however, whether representation case petition filings are

being negatively impacted by unions “being patient.” Stated another way, are unions holding

petitions (or using alternative organizing tactics) to avoid negative decisions from the Trump

NLRB and in hopes that the White House will change in 2020 leading to a more favorable

environment at the NLRB thereafter.

There is no doubt that is the case in higher education. As we have discussed, union

organizing among adjunct faculty and graduate students at private institutions has been one of

the most active sectors. Likewise, at least for the graduate student activity, unions have had a

high degree of success in what are some very large bargaining units. That is all due to two

decisions from the Obama NLRB: Columbia University, 364 NLRB No. 90 (2016) holding that

student assistants are employees subject to the NLRA, and to a slightly lesser degree Pacific

Lutheran University, 361 NLRB No. 157 (2014), making it more difficult to exclude faculty

from coverage under the Act based either on the religious nature of an institution or faculty

participation in shared governance.

These case decisions are extremely important to the labor movement because they assist

their organizing in this extremely important sector. Because the labor movement believes the

current NLRB majority would reverse, or significantly modify, these important decisions, unions

are holding petitions or have withdrawn petitions (even where the union has won an election) in

order to avoid review by the Trump NLRB.

In the graduate student space, there have been no petitions filed since the Trump Board

was in place. Instead, the unions involved are seeking to represent graduate students informally

on campus either by asking for voluntary recognition or by just advising the students. Make no

mistake, however, these unions are maintaining their connection and will be ready to revive their



organizing when the environment at the NLRB is more sympathetic. The same is true with some

adjunct faculty organizing where the issue of managerial status of adjunct faculty is at issue.2

Even after winning a couple of elections, unions have withdrawn their petitions in order to avoid

having the NLRB review and potentially reverse/revise the Obama Board’s Pacific Lutheran

University decision in a fashion more favorable to management.

This union patience could be affecting other segments as well and could explain the

downturn in petitions being filed. At the same time, we know some unions are choosing not to

file unfair labor practice charges (ULP) on certain issues to avoid reversal by the Trump NLRB.

One study reports that ULP charge filings are off by 11% since the Trump Board was in place.

For example, in fiscal year 2017, there were only 9,900 ULP charges filed and that rate fell again

in 2018 to 9,600. The number of ULP charges filed per year has not fallen below 10,000 since at

least 2011.

So are unions sitting and waiting for the next NLRB? If so, what are they doing instead?

5. The Strike is Back!

One explanation for fewer election petitions is that employees are more satisfied at work

or less interested in unions. As we are about to see in the following discussions, neither of those

appear to be valid explanations. And that employees are less satisfied at work and with the wages

and benefits they are being provided is demonstrated by what is likely the most important labor

related story over the last two years – the return of the strike as a tool in collective bargaining.

After years of steady decline, in 2018 and really in 2019, we saw a significant increase in

the number of large strikes conducted by unions. Defined as a strike that affects at least 1,000

workers, there were 20 major strikes in 2018, affecting 485,200 private sector employees. That

does not include, however, strikes by public sector employees (primarily public school teachers),

which were also extremely significant in 2018. While the number of strikes in 2018 is down 33%

from 1981 when 728,900 workers were involved in work stoppages, 2018 had the highest

number of major strikes since 1986 (over 30 years).

The trend continued in 2019, with the most prominent strike being called by the UAW

against GM. This strike involved nearly 50,000 workers and lasted for 40 days. It cost the

striking workers hundreds of millions of dollars and GM conservatively $2 billion.

As the GM settlement was announced, thousands of teachers in Chicago started a strike,

which lasted 11 days.

The following are a few of the major strikes that occurred in 2018 and 2019:

Teachers in Arizona – 81,000 employees for 6 days – 486,000 lost workdays, 2,000

schools closed – settled for 20% increase over 3 years

2 Many college faculty are arguably managerial employees excluded from coverage under the NLRA because of

their role in helping to run the institution through a system called shared governance.



Oklahoma teachers – 45,000 employees for 9 days – 405,000 lost workdays

West Virginia – 35,000 employees – 318,000 lost workdays – 5% raise and no

increase on health insurance

Marriott – 6,000 employees in 4 states lasting 2 months – 215,900 lost workdays

LA teachers

Denver teachers

University of California Health

University of Chicago RNs

RNs at hospitals in California, Arizona, Florida and Illinois – 1-day strike involving

National Nurses United and Tenet

GM – 50,000 employees for 40 days

In addition to these strikes, it is reported that mental health workers at Kaiser recently to

postponed a planned five-day strike after the company’s CEO died. In addition, a grocery strike

in Southern California, which would have affected approximately 47,000 workers, was averted

when workers approved a new contract.

So rather than being satisfied with their employer, these strike activities indicate a

significant level of dissatisfaction and anger among U.S. workers even in good economic times.

Most commentators attribute it to a growing dissatisfaction with the success of corporate

America and their senior leaders contrasted with the wage stagnation being experienced by the

working class. Make no mistake – that dissatisfaction is not reserved for unionized workers.

6. Fight for $15

Perhaps the first recent job action that may have spurred the strike activity we are seeing

in the labor movement is the tremendous success of the Fight for $15 effort. While this did not

begin as a union effort, unions have certainly become involved.

On November 29, 2012, approximately 200 New York City fast food workers walked off

their job in protest over wages and working conditions giving birth to the “Fight for $15”

movement. That transitioned to an effort led by the SEIU, which involved strikes,

demonstrations, and walkouts in nearly 300 cities. The goal – raise the wage for the lowest paid

workers at $15.

The theme of increasing pay for the lowest paid has resonated around the country and has

translated into tangible change for workers. The following states or cities have adopted a $15

minimum wage to be phased in over time:



California;

Illinois;

New York;

Massachusetts;

Maryland;

D.C.;

New Jersey;

Los Angeles;

San Jose;

San Francisco; and

Seattle.

In addition, many employees are voluntarily adopting minimum wages above the federal

minimum of $7.25 and a number have adopted the $15 amount.

7. Sectoral Bargaining

Some have suggested that the Fight for $15 movement offers the key to the survival of

the labor movement. The willingness of unions to fight for employees when doing so may never

lead to the union’s representation of those employees or the collection of dues. Indeed, the fast

food workers at the core of this movement are notoriously difficult for unions to organize.

Likewise, this movement did not change wages at just one employer; it changed wages for all

workers, which raises the issue of “sectoral bargaining.” This is the focus for labor law reform

for Mary Kay Henry, the President of the SEIU.

Henry believes this is the key to saving unions from extinction. Bargaining not employer-

by-employer, but “bargaining by industry.” Indeed, this practice involves not even the entire

industry but rather the largest employers in an industry. According to Henry, this “is the standard

practice in almost every developed country in the world. Under this system, workers from

multiple companies (and their unions) would bargain with the largest employers in the industry

to negotiate wages and benefits for the entire industry. Because all employers in the industry

have to provide the same wages and benefits, union or not, there is arguably less reason to

oppose unionization (at least according to Henry). This was Fight for $15. Organizers in New

York achieved the $15 minimum wage by forming a wage board with authority to mandate

wages across an industry.

Henry wants this form of labor law reform and finds it more valuable than card check

organizing and repealing the right-to-work law option under the NLRA, which has been the

focus of past labor law efforts. In addition, however, Henry would like to amend the NLRA to

allow states to pass laws more protective of union organizing than the federal standard. By doing

so, this would avoid federal preemption of state laws that are inconsistent with the NLRA.

Is any labor law reform possible? Obviously, that would require Democratic control of

the White House and both houses of Congress. Even then, this is a real long shot and something

President Obama failed to deliver. Nonetheless, both Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg have

agreed to support the concept of sectoral bargaining.



8. Labor and Millennials

One of the most significant emerging trends in the labor movement’s effort to grow and

survive involves finding a way to organize young workers, i.e., the Millennials and Generation

Z. Labor’s opportunity with the Baby Boomers is gone and Generation X is slowly aging out of

the workforce. There are now 83 million Millennials in the workplace – 1 in 3 workers.

Millennials now constitute the largest generation in the workforce today and by 2025, they will

make up 75% of the working population. Organize them and there is a future for the labor

movement. Squander this opportunity and labor may well die.

The good news for organized labor is that 68% of workers between the ages of 18 and 29,

(i.e., the young Millennials) have a positive view about unions. Much more importantly, they

have an overall view of the world and desires for the workplace that tend to align with that of the

labor movement. For example, they want “radical transparency” at work; they want to know the

direction of the organization and why decisions are being made as they are. They want high

levels of flexibility and they cherish work-life balance. They insist upon fair pay. They want to

participate in decision-making and they feel the need to be protected, although some would say

coddled. They tend to be egalitarian. Each of these arguably represents a pillar principle of the

labor movement and is an area the labor movement would say they have fought years to establish

and protect. From 2012 to 2017, the number of union members under 35 grew by 452,000, more

than the total growth in union membership over that period (451,000). Indeed, 76% of recent

growth in union membership has been among workers under age 35. Yet, young workers are the

least unionized segment of the workforce at less than 5%.

The likely problem – while these young workers have a favorable view of unions, they do

not really know much about unions at all. In that regard, they do not associate their goals for life

and work with the labor movement. Importantly, they are not tainted with the negative history of

the labor movement and have avoided much of the history of extreme corruption and violent

conflict often involving prolonged strikes and plant closings. They simply have little knowledge

about unions at all. Thus, the challenge is how does the labor movement educate the young

worker about the “union advantage” and make them start to think of unionization as a source for

workplace solutions? There are certainly some ongoing efforts to do so.

Other signs indicate significant potential for that growth. A recent survey concluded that

48% of non-union workers would join a union if given the opportunity. That equates to 58

million American workers. If the labor movement could organize just one-fourth of that number,

union membership would double.

The key driver for this employee sentiment – Voice Gap. That is the gap between the

amount of influence workers expect to have at work and their real-life experience. While this is

no surprise, 50% of workers report having less influence over pay, benefits, promotions, and job

security than they would expect.

Why do unions sell voice? Because employees don’t believe they have one. “One of the

strongest predictions of who might join a union is the size of the gap between the amount of

influence employees expect to have and their real-life experiences.” We need to make sure our

employees have a voice.



9. “Beaten Down, Worked Up”

The last thing I want to mention is a book by Steven Greenhouse, “Beaten Down,

Worked Up: The Past, Present, and Future of the American Labor Movement.” Greenhouse was

for years the New York Times journalist assigned to the labor beat. He is unapologetically pro-

union and recounts in the introduction to this book that one of the first things he did as a cub

reporter was to attempt to organize a union. In response, the newspaper implemented a 20% raise

and the organizing effort died off. It forever imprinted on Greenhouse, however, “what a union –

or the threat of a union – could accomplish.”

While the book is largely filled with anecdotal stories of individuals positively impacted

by the labor movement, it provides a nice glimpse into the issues that drive union organizing. In

addition, while I strongly disagree with some of the basic assumptions Greenhouse makes to

reach many of his conclusions (in particular exaggerated conclusions about how corporations

respond unlawfully to union organizing), the book provides an interesting perspective. He also is

fairly objective about labor leaders and certainly recognizes some of the problems with the labor

movement.

While most of the book presents a historic perspective, the book ends with some

suggestions for reform. Among those suggestions are the following:

Campaign Finance Reform – for Greenhouse, nothing changes unless there is change

to how politicians get elected;

Labor Law as Civil Right – Greenhouse would make labor law violations similar to

Title VII violations subject to federal court lawsuits;

Increased Penalties – for labor law violations like firing union supporters. He

suggests $100,000 and would make corporate executives personally liable;

Prohibit Captive Audience Meetings – or give unions equal access and the right to

trespass in order to organize;

Card Check – he supports card check but at the 60% support level to address possible

coercion or mistake;

Baseball Style First Contract Interest Arbitration – to get to a first contract and in

order to avoid decertification. The arbitrator would pick between each last, best, and

final offer;

State-Wide Sectoral Bargaining – like Fight for $15;

A VW Style Employee Engagement Policy;

Tax Exempt Status – for private corporations that allow workers to elect one-third of

the corporate board of directors; and



NY City Style Dues Collection.

An interesting read.

10. Conclusion

While the impact of the Trump NLRB has been a positive, the level of dissatisfaction and

anger among the working class should be a concern to most employers. November 2020 will be

an interesting date for organized labor.

1

PRESENTED BY

C. Thomas Davis (Nashville)

State of the Union: 2020 Insights

December 4–6, 2019 – Hilton Nashville DowntownLabor Law Solutions: Practical Solutions for Today’s Workplace

The Trump NLRB

Marvin Kaplan

John Ring(Chairman)

William Emanuel

Lauren McFerran

2


NLRB Election Statistics


Representation Elections –

First Half 2019

• More union wins in far fewer elections

• Representation elections held– Q1 = 249

– Q2 = 329

– Total of 578, down 43 from 621 in 2018

• But unions won 445 of 578 (or 77%)

• Compared with 68.9% in 2018 (428 of 621)

3


Elections – First Half 2019

• RTW vs Non-RTW = 66.2% vs. 81% (151 vs. 416)

• LIUNA = won 100% of 7 elections

• IAM = 66 elections for a 89.4% win

• SEIU = won 50 of 56 elections for a 89.3% win rate

• Teamsters = most active (117) but only won 77 for a win rate of 65.8%



• Retail = 71.4% union win rate vs. 43.8% in 2018

• Manufacturing = 52 elections, 55.8% union win

• Small units = unions won 78.2% of elections in units less than 50 (418 elections) and 80.3% in those with 50-99 voters

4


• Large units (500+) = only 6 elections held with 66.7% union win

• West Coast elections = 78.1%

• Ohio = 10 elections but only 45.5% union win rate



Union Membership Trends

• Overall percent = 10.5% down from 10.7% in 2018

• Private sector = 6.4%

• Public sector = 33.9%

• Men vs. women = 11.9% vs. 9.9%

• Hawaii and New York most union = 23%

• NC and SC least union = 2.7%

5


Unions and Higher Education


The Strike Is Back!

6


Alt-Labor and Fight for $15


Sectoral Bargaining – Huh?

7


Millennials and Gen Z

• 62% of adult Americans approve of unions (compared to 48% in 2009)

• 68% of those are 18-29 years old

– Has not been above 60% since 2003 (68% in 1967)

• Between 2012 and 2017 – number of union members under 35 rose by 452,000

– Union growth that same period = 451,000


Millennials and Gen Z

• 76% of the recent growth in union membership = workers under age 35

• Young workers do not have negative image of unions – don’t know much at all

• Understand economic vulnerability of their parents and want to avoid it

8


• More “word of mouth” and informal (happy hour)

• Out of traditional mold

• Flexible

• Focused on local issues, not traditional

Labor’s Approach to Younger Workers


American Workers Want a Union

• 48% of nonunion workers…would join a union if given the opportunity (compared to 32% in 1995)– Equates to 58 million workers

• The key driver

– Voice Gap

– The gap between influence workers expect to have at work…and real life experiences

9


• 50% of workers feel they have less influence over pay, benefits, promotions, and job security…than they would expect

• “Voice Gap”

American Workers Want a Union


Collective Action Not Union Action

10



11


Beaten Down, Worked Up

• By Steven Greenhouse

• Campaign finance reform first step

• Labor rights as civil rights – federal court suits not administrative ULPs

• Stronger penalties for labor law violations

– Even personal liability for executives



• Prohibit “captive audience meetings” or provide union equal time

• Allow trespass access for organizers (parking lots/cafeterias)

• Card check but based on 60% showing

• Baseball style first contract interest arbitration (pick from last, best and final)

12



• State-wide sectoral bargaining

• VW style employee engagement

• German style works council

• Tax exempt if allow workers to elect one-third of Board of Directors

• NYC style mandatory dues collection for non-union worker organizations



• Labor union reform

– More agile, innovative and growth focused

• Spend 30% of budget on organizing

• Bonus for growth/pay cut for retraction

• Conditional term limits for union leaders

• “Hire an appealing public spokesperson”

13


The Campaign Workers Guild

PRESENTED BY

C. Thomas Davis (Nashville)

State of the Union: 2020 Insights

C. �omas Davis

Shareholder || Nashville

A�er graduating from law school in ��, Tom Davis began his legal

career at Ogletree Deakins and is currently the practice group leader of

the firm’s Traditional Labor Practice Group. Mr. Davis represents

employers in all aspects of employment law ma�ers with a primary

focus on the area of traditional labor law. He assists clients in

maintaining union-free work environments through the

implementation of cu�ing-edge, positive employee relations programs

and creative leadership education. Mr. Davis is a recognized expert in

the use of interactive training techniques which help management

understand, in practical terms, how to e�ectively deal with union issues

in the work place. He also helps employers respond to union organizing

e�orts and handles unfair labor practice litigation before the National

Labor Relations Board. Mr. Davis also helps unionized employers

develop and maintain constructive relationships with the union

representing their employees. �is involves collective bargaining and

grievance management. While Mr. Davis has experience in many

industrial se�ings, a great deal of his time is spent dealing with these

issues for clients engaged in the health care industry, the automotive

assembly and auto parts supply industry and in

warehousing/distribution. In addition, Mr. Davis advises clients on

compliance with various aspects of the federal laws, including the Fair

Labor Standards Act and state restrictive covenant laws.

https://ogletree.com/locations/nashville

tel:+16156872232

mailto:[email protected]

https://ogletree.com/wp/wp-admin/admin-post.php?action=get_vcard&pid=3828&name=c-thomas-davis

https://ogletree.com/

state of the union - ogletree deakins · 2019-11-30 · we entered 2019, much as we did 2018,...

Documents