Board to Hear Challenge to Bus Strike: Ben Chapman of the New York Daily News reports that the National Labor Relations Board will hear the New York bus companies’ challenge to a labor strike by New York City school bus drivers today. After the Board hears from both sides, it will rule on the legality of the strike, which began last week and has affected over 150,000 children.
The Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1181 called the strike last Wednesday in protest over a lack of job protections for its drivers.
New York Times Weighs in on "Social Net Speech": Steven Greenhouse of the New York Times has written an interesting analysis concerning several recent National Labor Relations Board decisions regarding protected online speech. Greenhouse examines numerous Board decisions and concludes that, per the Board, workers are now able to freely discuss working conditions online without threat of retribution.
“Many view social media as the new water cooler,” said Mark G. Pearce, the board’s chairman, noting that federal law has long protected the right of employees to discuss work-related matters. “All we’re doing is applying traditional rules to a new technology.”
Other commentators, however, argue that the Board’s new policies regarding social media are difficult to apply.
“The board is using new legal theories to expand its power in the workplace,” said Randel K. Johnson, senior vice president for labor policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce. “It’s causing concern and confusion.”
This area of law will continue to evolve as new cases are decided. We will certainly keep you posted.
SEIU-Affiliated Security Guards to March in Protest of ULPs: WTNH Connecticut reports that private security guards represented by 32 BJ, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), are planning a march through downtown Hartford to protest alleged union surveillance by SOS Security, a company based in New Jersey. The guards filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board last month, complaining that the company engaged in illegal surveillance after an employee was threatened for supposedly engaging in union-organizing activities.