LaGuardia: the pro-union mayor: Today’s City Hall contenders must follow Fiorello’s labor agenda
In New York’s mayoral election, plenty of candidates claim to be the anti-Trump. But, when it comes to protecting workers’ rights and reducing economic inequality, the better question is who will be the neo-LaGuardia. The “Little Flower” served as the city’s mayor from 1934 to 1945. A Republican, Fiorello LaGuardia was an aggressive advocate for egalitarian and anti-corruption New Deal policies, particularly in support of working New Yorkers at a time when the ambitions of the federal government remained limited.
An example: In 1934, newly elected Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia watched a citywide hotel strike drag on for a second month, and determined to find an amicable settlement for the workers. The industry, represented by the Hotel Association, sparked the strike by firing union activists who refused to join a company union.
The federal government’s untested mediators saw their job as getting the strikers back to work; nothing more, nothing less. The hotel bosses doubted the feds even had that authority, and steadfastly refused to negotiate with their workers’ chosen representatives.
The mayor responded by siccing the city’s health inspectors on the picketed hotels, producing 600 summonses in 48 hours, embarrassing the bosses and humiliating the scabs (who were forced to line up and drop their pants for mandatory hernia exams). The strike ended the following week.
Give Mayor Adams a No Confidence Vote
New York has a fugitive from justice occupying Gracie Mansion, and no clear plan for eviction. The City Council must pass a non-binding resolution declaring Eric Adams unfit to lead and unwelcome to remain as mayor, adding to yesterday’s call for him to resign from Speaker Adrienne Adams. Only then will those who still retain power over him have the ethical high ground and democratic consent to remove him.
Adams was already unfit to lead after he was indicted under federal bribery and campaign finances charges. But with no impeachment provisions in the City Charter, it looked like his fate would be determined by a jury of his peers and, separately, a million or so New York voters. Ever since Adams cut his quid pro quo deal with the Trump administration to hold his indictment in abeyance while he cooperates with the president’s unpopular mass deportation drive, the city has been in a democratic crisis.
The one person with the legal authority to remove Adams is Gov. Hochul. While Hochul catches all kinds of political heat for her long, drawn-out hesitation, she’s not wrong to be concerned about the precedent she would set by removing a democratically elected mayor from office.
“Democratically elected” is doing some heavy lifting in these abstract concerns. We should not forget that among Adams’ alleged crimes, he stole tax money earmarked for fairer elections by making large foreign donations look like qualified, small donations from actual New York voters. The result, one could argue, was a stolen election in 2021. But, as urgently as Adams needs to become an ex-mayor, removing him from office will set a precedent fraught with the potential for abuse.
Why has nobody in the Council thought to take up a “vote of no confidence” in the mayor? Universities are no stranger to unaccountable executives and occasional unethical behavior from our leaders. And while we have a degree of representative governance, usually in the form of a faculty or academic senate, our powers are often as toothless as the City Council’s is in this case.
What we owe gig workers
Labor advocates and allies in Albany are feuding over a draft bill that aims to grant some union rights to precarious workers who toil at irregular hours and less regular wages for app-based “gig” employers like Uber and Lyft. This family feud is all the more frustrating because there’s a perfectly reasonable New Deal-era state law still on the books for when workers slip through the cracks of a patchwork of worker protections and fissured workplaces.
The current bill purports to do the same by creating a system of “sectoral bargaining” for gig workers, while severely restricting the number issues they can bargain over, outlawing their ability to strike and robbing them of their unemployment insurance by replacing their statutory protections as workers with an opportunity to collude as a guild of “entrepreneurs.”
Everywhere from the House-passed PRO Act, which would amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to make the process for forming a union fairer and available to misclassified freelancers, to the California legislature’s attempts to plug the holes in the current NLRA by properly classifying gig workers as statutory employees with rights, the app bosses try to codify a third class of worker lacking both the agency to set their own price and hours of labor like a traditional independent contractor and the ability to form democratic unions of their own choosing to bargain — and, potentially, strike — over the working conditions that the app bosses dictate.
What’s crazy is that, unlike the newly passed California law that Uber circumvented through a massively expensive — and deceptive — ballot initiative, New York has had, this whole time, a functioning state agency that will protect the right to organize and certify a union for any private-sector workers that federal labor law leaves behind. Because the Supreme Court had a track record of overturning any protective legislation for workers when New York Sen. Robert Wagner drafted the NLRA, he decided to justify the law’s constitutionality in Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. In 1935, that was defined far more narrowly than today.
For example, a hotel standing entirely within a state’s borders did not count. Therefore, New York passed a so-called “baby Wagner Act” that created a similar regulatory framework for private-sector workers left out of the New Deal. Most of the first 20,000 workers that the Hotel Trades Council won the right to bargain on behalf of in the 1930s and 40s were organized through elections — and card check certifications — conducted by the NY State Labor Relations Board. Stuck with the bizarre constitutional framework of arguing that human rights are rooted in protest activity’s impact on the economy, the civil rights movement expanded NLRB jurisdiction to retail, hospitality and service industries. By the mid-1960s, unions stopped turning to the state Labor Relations Board and in 2010 its responsibilities were assumed by the Public Employment Relations Board. Most people that know of PERB think of it as the state agency that punishes public sector teachers and subway workers for going on strike, but it actually can be an engine for private-sector worker organizing.
Legislative progressives, or a governor willing to exercise some leadership, could settle the gig worker controversy by directing PERB to aggressively protect and encourage the right to organize for all private-sector workers under their jurisdiction. And as the Biden administration wrests control of the NLRB from Trump’s anti-union appointees, we could have two labor boards competing for who offers workers a better deal.
This was the dynamic when I directed the American Federation of Teachers’ charter school organizing division during the Obama years. In blue states like New York and Illinois, we got public-sector labor laws that gave the workers a right to organize through card check. When the NLRB staked a claim to the jurisdiction, the federal agency touted its more robust right to strike. It was a compelling argument.
We live in a time when billion-dollar companies will spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours to resist their workers’ attempts to win a couple more bucks an hour. As a campaign director, I struggled with the impulse to strike a deal when a powerful boss signaled a desire to negotiate. And Uber like so many of the gig economy digital platforms — hemorrhaging investors’ dollars, struggling to maintain a workforce with pitiful wages, breaking all kinds of laws — are under enormous pressure to make peace with anyone who will take a settlement. With deep respect and solidarity to the organizers and legislators who are working with Uber on this deeply flawed bill, a better deal is possible if you start from the position that the actually existing labor laws should apply to these digital scofflaws.
[This article originally appeared in the New York Daily News.]
Usher in a new day for labor: The courts can’t be counted on to protect workers anymore; Congress needs to pass new laws
As the Supreme Court prepares to decide whether the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay and transgender people from workplace discrimination, it seems, at least to me, unlikely that a bench dominated by five very conservative men will protect gay employees.
This should be a wake-up call: We cannot count on the courts to protect our rights in the workplace. We need a Congress that will actually pass laws, and high on the list of legislative priorities should be a “just cause” law that would protect every employee from unfair terminations.
Common as a legal standard of employment across much of the industrialized world, and here routinely negotiated into union contracts, “just cause” is the principle that no employee can be fired without a legitimate, serious, work-performance reason.
Such a legal standard would empower workers to speak out about pay disparities, to combat sexual harassment and to complain about unsafe working conditions. It would give workers the power to say no to requests that fall outside the bounds of their duties or propriety.
In short, it would finally correct what has become a deeply imbalanced employer-employee relationship.
Lawyers for the Trump administration insisted at Tuesday’s high court arguments that it’s the responsibility of Congress, not the courts, to update the law to protect LGBT workers. They may be wicked but they are not wrong. The failure of Congress to do much in the way of legislating employee protections in the last quarter-century has created a vacuum that the courts have filled with a political agenda that is hostile to government regulations and worker rights.
Take 2018’s Epic Systems decision, in which the high court ruled that employers can force employees to submit accusations of unfair or discriminatory treatment to private arbitration, foreclosing class action lawsuits. To accomplish this, they radically reinterpreted the 1925 Arbitration Act.
A Congress that actually passes laws could simply overturn EPIC Systems, and make whatever narrow new standard the court defines in the current LGBT discrimination case moot. Of course, that will require a new president and a Democratic majority in the Senate that removes the filibuster as a convenient excuse for inaction. Progressive activists who will work their tails off for a Democratic majority in 2020 should demand no less than a Congress that takes swift action to give us all better job protections.
It’s encouraging that almost all of the Democratic candidates for president have produced detailed platforms for worker power, union representation and employee protections. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, of course, has a plan to protect gay and transgender workers. She also has a plan to protect workers from discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. And another to protect disabled workers. And another to protect employees who wear dreadlocks.
The fact that she proposes to amend the law in at least nine places to protect a ridiculously long list of categories of workers who continue to face discrimination belie the need for a universal right like just cause.
No worker is going to be told that the reason they are being fired is because they are gay. An employer will always invent a performance-based justification. Even if gay workers were protected by the Civil Rights Act, that law — like all current protections against unfair terminations — puts the onus on the employee to prove the ulterior motive.
A just-cause law would flip that burden onto the employer, where it belongs.
Mayor de Blasio was the first of three presidential candidates in the crowded field to have campaigned on a just-cause law; of them, only Bernie Sanders now remains. Still, it is electrifying to see one of the frontrunners for the nomination supporting a bold reform to end the everyday tyranny of the non-union workplace and to bring us in line with the kind of rights that hundreds of millions of workers the world over take for granted.
This is the future of Democratic labor policy. At least, it ought to be.
[This op-ed originally appeared in the New York Daily News.]