Labor Law Insider - Collective Bargaining: Ins and Outs, Nuts and Bolts, Part II
The Labor Law Insider - Collective Bargaining: Ins and Outs, Nuts and Bolts, Part I
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 11: Understanding Unions with Patrick Wilson, Maynard Nexsen Attorney (Part 1)
Labor Law Insider—Dartmouth Basketball Team Unionizes: The NLRB Sets a Pick for Unions
The Burr Broadcast: Dartmouth Men's Basketball Team Unionization Efforts Explained
DE Under 3: FAR Council Issued Final Rule Requiring Unionized Workforces on Large Federal Construction Projects
The Labor Law Insider - Decertification of Union Bargaining Unit: What’s Happening Today, Part II
Labor Law Insider – Decertification of Union Bargaining Unit: What’s Happening Today
The Labor Law Insider: Project Labor Agreements, Part I
#WorkforceWednesday: NLRB Updates, Quick EEO-1 Deadline - Employment Law This Week®
The Labor Law Insider: Understanding the Risk of Strikes Faced by the Healthcare Industry
Employment Law Now V-106 - BREAKING OSHA ETS NEWS: Extending the Stay and Choosing a Lottery Winner
COVID-19 Vaccine Challenges in the Workplace
When Dr. Strangelove Met Jimmy Hoffa
6 Key Takeaways | National Labor Relations Board Issues New Final Rule on Joint Employers
#WorkforceWednesday: Kickstarter Unionization, Coronavirus Guidance, Class Action Waivers - Employment Law This Week®
#BigIdeas2020: NLRB’s Actions Impact Employers in 2020 - Employment Law This Week® - Trending News
Employment Law This Week®: DOL’s Final Overtime Rule, CA Codifies “ABC Test,” Pay Data Collection Beyond 2018, NLRB’s Busy Summer
NLRB Wraps Up a Busy Summer 2019 - Employment Law This Week® - Trending News
Bill on Bankruptcy: Stockton May Win the Battle, Lose the War
Way back in 2018, we wrote about the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Janus, which held that compelling public sector employees to pay “fair share fees” to unions violates the First Amendment. As a refresher, a...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: A mere six weeks after the Supreme Court held that fair share or agency fees for public-sector unions are unconstitutional in Janus v. AFSCME, Pennsylvania introduces a bill that would require public-sector...more
This month’s key California employment law cases are from the California Supreme Court and from the California Court of Appeal. Janus v. American Fed’n of State, County, and Mun. Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448...more
As the Supreme Court ended its 2017-18 Term, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his resignation; the Court did away with "agency fees" for public employees; and in other decisions favorable to employers, the Court solidified...more
As we previously reported, in July 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided to consider the legality of “fair share” fees for public employees....more
Recently the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a matter that could severely impact the status of unions. The dispute will determine whether nonunion employees working in the public sector should have to pay partial union...more
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a case that has the potential to rock the world of unions that represent public sector employees in Rhode Island and throughout the country. The Court will decide whether state...more
On September 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it will grant certiorari in a case that will test the constitutionality of requiring mandatory payment of “fair share” union dues to be paid by...more
Public sector union officials and their allies will breathe easier as a challenge to the collection of “agency fees” from non-members was rejected by a deadlocked United States Supreme Court earlier this week. In a per curiam...more
On January 11, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Frederichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that will decide whether public-sector employees can be forced to pay union dues as a condition of...more
On August 27, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board, in Lincoln Lutheran of Racine, 362 NLRB No. 188, overturned 53 years of precedent, holding that, like most other terms and conditions of employment, an employer’s...more
On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Illinois law that required homecare providers for Medicaid recipients to pay fees to a union. In Harris v. Quinn, the Court held that compulsory union agency fees imposed on...more
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court issued its anxiously anticipated decision in Harris v. Quinn, a case brought by Illinois home health aides challenging the requirement in a collective bargaining agreement that they...more
The State of Illinois cannot require Rehabilitation Program “personal assistants” (PAs) who decide not to join a union, to pay compulsory union dues, commonly known as “agency fees,” the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Harris v....more
On Monday, the Supreme Court took a swipe at public sector compulsory unionism. In doing so, the Court took a slice out of decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence and suggested a future re-thinking of agency fees in the public...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits a public-employee union from collecting an agency fee from home-care workers who do not want to join or...more
On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Harris v. Quinn, No. 11-681, holding that the First Amendment does not permit a state to compel public employees to subsidize speech on matters of public concern by a union...more
On the last day of its 2013-2014 session, the U.S. Supreme Court held today that (1) for-profit companies are protected as "persons" under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) and (2) that the...more
Today, in a 5 to 4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to extend its previous holdings regarding “fair-share” fees (fees that an employee who refuses to join a union is required to pay in lieu of union dues) to...more
In its much anticipated decision in Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. __ (2014), the Supreme Court of the United States in a five to four ruling struck down an Illinois regulatory framework that required personal assistants (PAs) for...more