ReportWire

Tag: Collective bargaining

  • Senate bill seeks to restore federal workers collective bargaining rights – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Maryland U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen is leading a push to restore collective bargaining rights for federal workers as well as workplace protections.

    For all the latest developments in Congress, follow WTOP Capitol Hill correspondent Mitchell Miller at Today on the Hill.

    Maryland U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen is leading a new push to restore collective bargaining rights for federal workers as well as workplace protections, which the majority of federal employees lost due to executive orders by President Donald Trump.

    Van Hollen spoke at a rally of union federal workers Wednesday in Upper Senate Park, urging them to make their voices heard on the Protect America’s Workforce Act, or PAWA, which includes U.S. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia as one of its co-sponsors.

    “Are you going to make sure that your fellow federal employees from every state in this country call up their U.S. Senators and tell them to vote for the PAWA?” Van Hollen said. “Because that’s what it’s going to require.”

    Van Hollen hopes to build on the bipartisan support the legislation received in the House, which passed it last year.

    Federal workers trying to recover from major job losses

    Last year was a rough one for many federal workers, as hundreds of thousands of federal jobs were phased out by the Trump administration through executive orders and the Department of Government Efficiency, a team tasked with slashing government spending.

    Federal unemployment figures released this month indicate that 72,000 jobs were lost last year in Maryland, Virginia and D.C.

    The president’s executive order on collective bargaining placed the majority of federal workers under the category of national security, which allowed him to make the change.

    Van Hollen questioned the basis for the change, calling it a “sham.”

    He noted that those who work on matters involving the Chesapeake Bay for the Environmental Protection Agency don’t seem to fall under national security.

    The Democratic lawmaker ended his remarks with optimism that the legislation could move forward this year.

    “You’re the cavalry. So let’s get this passed,” he said to cheers.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2026 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Mitchell Miller

    Source link

  • Loyola Marymount abruptly rescinds recognition of faculty union after months of negotiation

    [ad_1]

    After 10 months of negotiations, Loyola Marymount University abruptly announced it would no longer recognize its faculty union.

    The news, delivered in an email to students and employees on Friday, sent shock waves through the union, which represents nearly 400 part-time and full-time educators who do not hold tenure-track positions.

    Paul S. Viviano, chairman of the university’s board of trustees, said in the email that the university was ending its engagement with the union by invoking its “constitutionally protected religious exemption” from the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, which governs collective bargaining for private employers.

    “I was floored,” said Maureen Gonzales, 35, who has worked part-time as a dance instructor on campus since 2016 and serves as an elected member of the union’s bargaining team. “It’s outrageous.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that religious colleges are not under the purview of federal labor laws and need not recognize unions. Many religious colleges have chosen to do so voluntarily anyway.

    But in recent years, several educational institutions — now including Loyola Marymount — have claimed the religious exemption suddenly and without warning, effectively using it to shut down established faculty unions that they had previously recognized.

    Loyola Marymount’s announcement has sparked protest and drawn allegations of union-busting from faculty members as well as leaders of Service Employees International Union Local 721, the labor group that represents them. Unionized employees have accused the university of aligning with Trump administration efforts “to stomp out the labor movement,” and plan to file an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB.

    “Let’s be clear: This action is illegal,” said David Green, president and executive director of SEIU 721. “[F]aculty members will fight this with everything we have. LMU messed with the wrong union.”

    Administrators are defending the move, arguing that getting rid of the union will help support the university’s financial health, and thus “protect [its] Catholic mission.”

    Kat Weaver, the university’s interim executive vice president and provost, said that after months of bargaining and modeling the union’s proposals, the board of trustees found that the changes would force an 18% tuition increase, 300 layoffs and cuts to student programs, and determined “the responsible path was to invoke the religious exemption.”

    The university’s move is “firmly grounded in law and the U.S. Constitution,” Weaver said in a statement to The Times. “This right cannot be waived and may be exercised at any point.”

    Faculty members voted overwhelmingly last summer to join SEIU, citing issues of low pay and precarious job status. Many work on short, semester-long contracts across three colleges at the university: the Bellarmine College of Liberal Arts, the College of Communication and Fine Arts and the School of Film and Television.

    They teach subjects such as animation, communications, dance, English, music, philosophy, photography, political science and screenwriting, among others.

    On Tuesday, scores of staff members and union organizers rallied outside the entrance to the university’s campus in Westchester, which sits on a bluff overlooking the Pacific. Armed with signs reading, “LMU: Back to the table now,” and, “Union busting is not a Jesuit value,” they marched back and forth across Loyola Boulevard.

    Bryan Wisch, a 33-year-old rhetorical arts instructor and alumnus of the university, said 75% of faculty in the union work part time on semester-long contracts for “poverty wages.” Those who work full time typically have slightly longer contracts that last one to three years, he said.

    Wisch said he’s “one of the lucky ones” who works full time. Still, he said his annual pay of $68,000 isn’t sufficient to live in costly Los Angeles, and he’s taken on a second job to make ends meet.

    Wisch said the university has disingenuously characterized the union as an outside party, even though the bargaining committee is made up of 15 employees elected from the three colleges.

    The university said it is still committed to working with non-tenure-track faculty to improve conditions, but wanted to remove the “third-party intermediaries of SEIU and NLRB.” The university said it has already implemented salary and merit wage increases for non-tenure-track faculty that amount to an average 7.8% pay raise, retroactive to August.

    “We are expanding full-time positions, strengthening contracts and promotion pathways,” Weaver said. “Respecting workers and workers’ rights and choosing a different governance path are not contradictions.”

    Many Catholic universities teach social justice doctrines of the Catholic Church, which have a long history of support for organized labor. Pope Leo XIII in 1891 used the platform of the papacy to offer a spirited defense of unions and the rights of workers in his seminal encyclical, “Rerum Novarum.”

    But while some Catholic universities embrace unions in line with such doctrines, others still object, said William A. Herbert, executive director of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions at Hunter College, City University of New York.

    Typically, universities raise objections at the beginning of the union process, Herbert said. He called it “peculiar” that Loyola Marymount made an about-face after negotiating for months.

    “It raises questions as to the actual motivations. Is it a sincere belief unionization will interfere with the religious education of the school? Or is it to avoid having to engage in collective bargaining?” Herbert said. “It does not sound to me that they’re concerns of religious liberty.”

    Joshua D. Nadreau, an attorney and regional managing partner at the law firm Fisher Phillips, said the motivation may not ultimately have weight, since the labor board, even with a Democratic majority, has sided with universities on this issue in recent years.

    “I don’t foresee a real avenue for actual relief here,” Nadreau said “Courts are incredibly reluctant to weigh in on the authenticity of religious practices.”

    Some 600 Catholic institutions across the U.S., including universities, hospitals and other medical facilities, are unionized, according to a 2024 report by the Catholic Labor Network.

    A 1979 Supreme Court decision regarding the Catholic Bishop of Chicago ruled that the NLRB should not seek to regulate religious institutions, arguing that problems with religious freedom protections enshrined in the First Amendment can arise when a government office tries to determine if certain activities are religious or not.

    In the decades since, rulings by federal courts and the NLRB have focused on creating a standard to deem whether a school is a religious institution, and whether the labor board can assert itself when it comes to employees who are not involved with its religious mission.

    Recent rulings have further curtailed the NLRB’s reach. A U.S. Court of Appeals in 2020 blocked the board from requiring that Duquesne University, a Catholic institution in Pittsburgh, recognize an adjunct faculty union because it could lead to an “intrusive inquiry” that could infringe on the institution’s religious protections.

    In 2021, St. Leo University in Florida moved to nix its 44-year-old faculty union. The union contested the withdrawal of recognition, arguing the university changed the terms and conditions of employment without the union’s consent in violation of federal labor law.

    But in 2024, the NLRB sided with St. Leo, saying it could not exercise oversight at the religious institution.

    [ad_2]

    Suhauna Hussain

    Source link

  • DC police to get 13% pay raise – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Mayor Muriel Bowser and Council Chairman Phil Mendelson announced a new collective bargaining agreement with the D.C. Fraternal Order of Police Union.

    D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announces a collective bargaining agreement with the union that represents the city’s police force.
    (WTOP/Linh Bui)

    WTOP/Linh Bui

    bowser speaks at news conference alongisde phil mendelson and other leadership
    The agreement includes a 13% pay raise for D.C. police officers.
    (WTOP/Linh Bui)

    WTOP/Linh Bui

    D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announces a collective bargaining agreement with the union that represents the city's police force.
    bowser speaks at news conference alongisde phil mendelson and other leadership

    Mayor Muriel Bowser and Council Chairman Phil Mendelson announced a new collective bargaining agreement with the D.C. Fraternal Order of Police Union.

    It includes a 13% pay raise for officers, sergeants, lieutenants and above in the D.C. police department. That raise is effective starting Oct. 1.

    “They have a challenging job in normal circumstances. They’ve had an even more challenging job in the last weeks,” Bowser said. “They’ve played an important role in driving down crime, not just in the last two weeks, but especially in the last two years. And we are so grateful for their work.”

    Mayor Bowser shared new initiatives to recruit and retain officers: expanding the take-home vehicle policy by adding 100 vehicles, supporting the removal of the mandatory retirement age, and partnering with the University of the District of Columbia to offer college credit for academy training.

    “We’re going to make sure that Washington, D.C., is the best big city to be a police officer,” Bowser said. “And this is work that we’re committed to doing together.”

    The D.C. police department has shrank over the past decade and is currently at 3,188 sworn officers. The goal is to increase that to 4,000. This year, the department hired 135 new recruits and welcomed 124 cadets.

    The pay increases include cost-of-living adjustments and break down to 4.5% in fiscal year 2024, followed by 4.25% in fiscal years 2025 and 2026. In total, it will cost about $200 million over four years.

    Mendelson said he will move emergency legislation at the council’s September meeting.

    “I fully expect that the council will be approving this contract on the 17th so that it can be implemented as quickly as possible,” he said.

    Chairman of the D.C. police union Gregg Pemberton applauded Bowser and Mendelson; he said the labor agreement is a “start.”

    “There’s a lot more that needs to be done to fix the police department,” he said.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Linh Bui

    Source link

  • Nurse’s union blasts changes by new hospital owners

    Nurse’s union blasts changes by new hospital owners

    [ad_1]

    Unionized nurses at Holy Family Hospital’s campuses in Haverhill and Methuen are accusing the new owners of violating the terms of their contracts by making “unilateral” changes to their health care coverage and other benefits.

    Lawrence General Hospital formally took over ownership of the hospitals last week as part of the sale of bankrupt Steward Health Care System’s Massachusetts hospitals in a $28 million deal signed off on by a federal judge in Texas.

    The sale was heralded by Gov. Maura Healey, health care leaders and local elected officials as a way to preserve jobs, improve working conditions and prevent the closure of the hospitals.

    But the Massachusetts Nurses Association alleges that Lawrence General is violating the terms of the court-approved sale and collective bargaining agreements for registered nurses who work at Holy Family’s two campuses.

    In an emergency motion, filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court on Wednesday, the union alleges that LGH unilaterally imposed changes to the nurses’ health plans that will increase premiums, out-of-pocket costs and deductibles, and removed credits for uninsured members.

    The hospital also required nurses at Holy Family to switch to a different, more costly type of retirement plan, and reduced coverage through its life insurance plans, according to the union, which estimates the changes will cost nurses thousands of dollars in lost wages.

    “Unless immediately addressed, Lawrence’s improper actions will cause significant economic injury to MNA and its members by reducing benefits while imposing significantly higher costs, including increased deductibles and copays,” lawyers for the union wrote in the 91-page complaint.

    The complaint asks the bankruptcy judge to declare the hospital in violation of the terms of the sale and require it to honor existing collective bargaining agreements with unionized nurses.

    “We remain an active and engaged participant in discussions with the Massachusetts Nurses Association, just as we have from the outset,” a spokesperson from Lawrence General Hospital said in a statement. “The court filings will not impact or interrupt our ability to deliver high-quality, compassionate, and culturally competent care. We continue to work together with the MNA and all of our staff to meet the health care needs of our patients, their families, and the communities we serve.”

    In the court filing, the union said shortly after the sale of Holy Family hospitals was announced in September nurses entered into negotiations with Lawrence General for new employment terms.

    But the union said hospital officials rejected several offers and then “threatened” to impose the changes on nurses if they didn’t agree to the new terms. After the sale of the hospitals closed on Oct. 1, Lawrence General imposed the new employment terms by “fiat,” according to the complaint.

    “Lawrence’s actions cannot be excused as inadvertent mistakes or transitional hiccups,” the union’s lawyers wrote. “Rather, they are its most recent attempt to impose significant economic changes on MNA-represented nurses.”

    The Dallas-based Steward operated about 30 hospitals nationwide before it filed for bankruptcy protection earlier this year to pay down $9 billion in debt to its creditors.

    In September, a federal judge approved plans to transfer ownership of several of Steward’s Massachusetts hospitals, including Holy Family, Morton Hospital in Taunton and St. Anne’s Hospital in Fall River. Morton and St. Anne’s were purchased by Lifespan, a Rhode Island-based company, a deal valued at more than $175 million.

    The state took over a fifth Steward hospital — St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Brighton — by eminent domain until Boston Medical Center takes it over as its new owner.

    Steward closed its hospitals in Dorchester and Ayer at the end of August after failing to reach adequate terms with prospective buyers.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Question 3: Should ride-hailing drivers be allowed to unionize?

    Question 3: Should ride-hailing drivers be allowed to unionize?

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Voters in November will get a chance to resolve a fight over unionizing Uber and Lyft workers with a proposal that calls for reshaping the employment status of ride-hailing drivers who work now as independent contractors.

    Question 3, which appears on the Nov. 5 ballot, would authorize ride-hailing drivers to form unions to collectively bargain with so-called transportation network companies for better wages, benefits, and improved terms and conditions of work.

    A yes vote would create an exemption to the state’s collective bargaining laws and set up a system allowing drivers unionize. A no vote would keep the status quo, where ride-hailing drivers are considered independent contractors with a limited wage and benefit guarantees.

    Backers of the measure say while pay and benefits for the job have increased under a settlement in June with the Attorney General’s Office – including a guaranteed $32.50 minimum wage and other new driver benefits, such as earned sick pay – they want the security of unionization.

    “We help our neighbors get to work and school and bring them home to their families, and we deserve the pay and treatment on the job that will let us support our families and keep a roof over our heads,” Betania Gonell, an Uber and Lyft driver from North Andover, said at a rally at the Statehouse last month.

    “We want a union to help us negotiate for better pay, working conditions and job protections, just like nurses, bus drivers and millions of other workers in Massachusetts.”

    Over the past year, supporters of the measure collected tens of thousands of signatures to put the question before voters in November and survived a legal challenge seeking to strike it from the ballot.

    Among those backing the changes are the Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ and International Association of Machinists, which formed a coalition with progressive and social justice groups earlier this year to push for its approval.

    The outcome of the ballot question could have far-reaching impacts. Massachusetts has seen the number of ride-hailing trips rise from 39.7 million in 2021 to 60.6 million in 2022 – a more than 52% increase, according to state data. There are more than 200,000 approved ride-hailing drivers in the state, but it is not clear if all of them are now working.

    Like most states, Massachusetts has wrestled for years with the issue of how to classify ride hailing drivers. Uber, Lyft and other companies have long argued that their drivers prefer the flexibility of working as independent contractors, not employees. They have cited surveys of drivers saying they prefer contractual work.

    In June, Uber and Lyft dropped plans for a separate ballot question to classify their drivers’ employment status after reaching a deal with the state Attorney General’s Office to boost wages and benefits. The companies also agreed to pay $175 million to the state to resolve the AG’s allegations that they violated the state’s wage and hour laws.

    The agreement requires the companies to pay drivers a minimum wage of $32.50 per hour. Drivers also receive expanded benefits, including paid sick leave and a stipend to buy into the Massachusetts paid family and medical leave program.

    The settlement stems from a lawsuit originally filed in July 2020 by then-Attorney General Maura Healey, who is now the state’s governor.

    But drivers who support Question 3 argue that the proposal would provide more job security and the ability to bargain collectively for better pay and benefits in the future.

    While there is no organized opposition to Question 3, critics argue the move could lead to higher prices for Uber and Lyft rides if the companies pass along the added labor costs to consumers.

    That includes the state’s Republican Party, which says approval of the referendum “threatens the flexibility and affordability” that make ride-hailing services so popular for drivers and those who use the services.

    “It would also set an unfairly low threshold for unionization votes, potentially violating federal labor laws,” MassGOP Chairwoman Amy Carnevale said in a recent statement. “With Massachusetts already being one of the most expensive states to live and do business in, adding more red tape and higher costs is the wrong approach.”

    The conservative Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which also opposes Question 3, argues that its approval would not improve the situation for most ride-haling drivers because they will “have no control over leadership of the union and will pay significant dues without real representation.”

    Recent polls have shown a slim majority of voters support approval of Question 3, one of five questions before voters in the November elections.

    A report by Tufts University’s Center for State Policy Analysis found that Question 3, if approved, will likely face significant legal challenges, but it could give workers new power to bargain for better wages and benefits.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Elon Musk’s Battle with Swedish Unions Is Now Impacting Tesla’s Charging Stations

    Elon Musk’s Battle with Swedish Unions Is Now Impacting Tesla’s Charging Stations

    [ad_1]

    For the past several months, Tesla has been locked in a battle of wills with the labor unions of Sweden. The company’s refusal to ratify a collective bargaining agreement with a small number of workers associated with the Swedish union IF Metall has led to boycotts by other regional unions, turning what should have been a quickly resolved dispute into an ongoing disaster for the electric car company.

    This week, yet another humiliation was visited upon the firm: An additional labor union has decided to take action against the car manufacturer, and this time the end result could be the stifling of Tesla charging stations throughout the country. The Swedish Union for Service and Communications Employees, or Seko, published a statement Wednesday, announcing it would be initiating a “sympathy” action against Tesla over its anti-union policies:

    “IF Metall’s fight is also our fight. By refusing to comply with the rules of the game here in Sweden, Tesla is trying to gain a competitive advantage by giving the workers worse wages and conditions than they would have with a collective agreement. It is of course completely unacceptable. The fight that IF Metall is now taking is important for the entire Swedish collective agreement model. That is why we have chosen to issue another sympathy notice and increase the pressure on Tesla.”

    The impact here could be bad for Tesla, as Seko, which does important electrical work throughout the country, has promised to halt all “planning, preparation, new connections, network expansion, service, maintenance and repairs regarding all of the car brand Tesla’s charging stations in Sweden.” Elektrek has noted that the move could stop the launch of all new Tesla Superchargers within the country.

    Over the past several months, unions throughout Sweden and other parts of Europe have banded together to protect Scandinavia’s labor model from Tesla’s attempted disruption. So-called “sympathy” actions or strikes are a method by which unions not directly connected to a particular conflict can express their support and put pressure on an offending company. As a result, Tesla’s headquarters in Sweden have been subjected to a number of actions. Dock workers, electricians, postal workers, and even garbage collectors have all abandoned the company’s offices, causing serious issues for the company.

    Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, has made it clear that he doesn’t like unions—which doesn’t make him particularly unique, as far as the billionaire-class goes. That said, Musk’s anti-union stance is particularly pronounced, even among his peers. He has repeatedly expressed his disdain for collective bargaining and, during one particularly inspired bout of rhetorical bullshit, said of organized labor: “I just don’t like anything which creates kind of a lords and peasants sort of thing”—which is an amazing statement coming from a guy whose cumulative wealth rivals that of any feudal lord in history.

    [ad_2]

    Lucas Ropek

    Source link

  • Blizzard Testers Win Case, Can Now Vote On Forming A Union [Update: Activision Responds]

    Blizzard Testers Win Case, Can Now Vote On Forming A Union [Update: Activision Responds]

    [ad_1]

    Image for article titled Blizzard Testers Win Case, Can Now Vote On Forming A Union [Update: Activision Responds]

    Image: Blizzard

    Back in July, a group of 21 quality assurance workers at Activision’s Albany studio—formerly known as Vicarious Visions—announced their intentions to unionise. Today, the National Labor Relations Board have confirmed that their vote can go ahead.

    The ruling came about because—and stop me if you’ve heard this one before—publishers Activision Blizzard initially opposed the move, saying that a larger group of 88 developers should be included in the vote, a textbook piece of union-busting that has also been tried at other Activision studios going through the process of unionisation.

    In this case it hasn’t worked; the NLRB’s ruling today clears the path for the workers to vote on forming a union, disagreeing (in a detailed breakdown explaining each of the studio’s departments, how their work differs and how underpaid testers are) with Activision’s claims that “we believe every employee in Albany who works on Diablo should have a direct say in this decision”.

    The ruling concludes:

    Based on the above, I conclude that the employees in the petitioned-for unit share a community of interest. I have also considered the similarities that exist among the developers and compared this to the testers. Developers are organized in separate departments, but departments that ultimately report to the head of the Diablo franchise. Developers have a diverse set of skills, training, and duties, but use these skills in a complementary manner in a production process that includes significant amount of contact and a high degree of functional integration. Compensation varies, but many terms and conditions of employment do have overlap among the developers.

    Comparing the developers’ community of interest to that of the testers I find that the distinct interests of the testers outweigh the similarities that exist with the developers. As noted, the testers participate in the same game development process that includes significant contact and functional integration. However, testers are separately organized in their own department and their supervisory hierarchy is entirely separate from the Diablo franchise. Testers also have a specific set of skills and duties different from the developers. Finally, testers are paid significantly less than developers. Moreover, the evidence of interchange between testers and developers is extremely limited. For these reasons I find any shared interests between the testers and developers do not outweigh the separate interests that make the petitioned-for unit an appropriate unit.

    The ruling instantly clears the path for an election, which will begin soon; ballots will be sent out on October 27, with votes being counted on November 18.

    A current employee at the studio, though not one of the testers involved in the vote, told the Washington Post “It’s about time. Our QA testers are some of the most talented and skilled people working in our company and they are critically undervalued by corporate. I think that all games workers need a union, but QA is in especially dire need.”

    Update 10:00pm ET: Lulu Cheng Meservey, Activision Blizzard’s Executive Vice President, Corporate Affairs and Chief Communications Officer, has responded to the finding on internal communications, writing:

    Hey all, quick heads up on something important. It’s a long one but wanna be thorough so thanks for bearing with me. This afternoon the NLRB (national labor relations board) determined that -20 QA (quality assurance) testers working on Diablo in Albany will be eligible to form a union and if the union wins the vote will be included in the bargaining unit.

    Where the company stands on that: fully respects the NLRB process, and fully supports the employees’ right to choose how they want to be represented. Also has the view that people who work closely together should be able to make decisions like that collectively – ie, we disagree that a handful of employees should get to decide for everyone else on the future of the entire Albany-based Diablo team. We think a direct dialogue between company and employees is the most productive route.

    Examples: through direct dialogue we’ve already converted contingent QA staff to full time, increased pay, increased benefits, opened up access to the bonus program, and offered more opportunities for professional advancement (which would also result in more pay).

    We feel collective bargaining is comparatively slow- once agreement is in place takes over a year on average according to a Bloomberg analysis. During the long contract negotiation companies from giving any pay/bonus/benefit increases without a special arrangement with the union, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that non-union employees generally get larger pay raises than union-represented groups. That’s consistent with what we saw with Raven, where there have only been three bargaining sessions since the union was certified there almost 6 months ago, due partly to the union cancelling pre-planned bargaining sessions for a month.

    I’m sharing all of that because having a streamlined process is a reason why the company prefers direct discussions – but ultimately it’s up to employees and everyone should get to vote their own preference in a fair election.

    What happens next with this is that ballots will be mailed to eligible Albany-based employees on Oct. 27, need to be returned by Nov. 17, and will get counted by the NLRB on Nov. 18.

    More to come as the process continues but wanted to share asap. Thanks so much for reading everyone.

    [ad_2]

    Luke Plunkett

    Source link