With workers more and more confronting common legal issues worldwide, often involving multiple jurisdictions, it is increasingly critical to the effective representation of workers and unions to unite legal practitioners and scholars to exchange information and ideas from around the world.
Unions & Worker Organizations
April 9, 2021
Blowout in Bessemer: A Postmortem on the Amazon Campaign
April 12, 2021
“We Need to Give the Workers a Fair Shot”: Jane McAlevey on What Went Wrong in Amazon Union Vote
January 24, 2020
Worker Rights Lawyers Launch New Global Network—International Lawyers Assisting Workers (ILAW)
June 10, 2020
Jane McAlevey’s Vision for the Future of American Labor
May 31, 2018
A Three-Part Series: The Union Effect in California
Research & Publications
Although the short-term effect of today’s decision is to throw 17 million public sector workers into uncertainty, it is also possible that Janus v. AFSCME will serve as a turning point for both a reinvigorated politics of labor and a revitalized conversation about the importance of the public sector to our social compact. Both our economy and our democracy depend on what happens next.
Perhaps the most important effect of a strong labor movement is the countervailing force it poses to the corporate sector in the political and public policy arenas. This effect is clearly visible in California. With the support and backing of labor, California has passed ambitious laws promoting the rights of workers—union and nonunion alike—as well as policies advancing the common good broadly.
A new study from UC Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education shows that California’s unions have had a strong impact on working families, regardless of union status, through their engagement in public policy. The third brief in a series, the findings were released as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to issue a ruling in Janus v. AFSCME that threatens to weaken public sector unions.
In this report, we present data for the state of California on the union advantage in wages and employer-sponsored health and retirement benefits for women, workers of color, and immigrants.
Tools & Resources
In this segment, Brooke and Jane discuss how the coverage raised expectations, how Amazon dashed those hopes, and what mistakes the union may have made along the way.
Jane McAlevey argues that the danger signs were there for all to see. She does an excellent job cataloguing the company’s many attacks on the organizing effort, some putting up anti-union signs everywhere, intimidating organizers and mounting an effective counter-campaign. The company, one of the richest in the world, practiced the art of union busting with aplomb.
The reason Amazon workers lost in Alabama is simple: Employers in the US are allowed to engage in brazen anti-union tactics throughout union elections. The PRO Act would change all of that, finally freeing workers from employer intimidation.
Though a majority of Americans say they are in favor of unions, creating new ones is not easy. Key to the movement’s future is a sweeping piece of pro-union legislation, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, which passed the House and faces uncertain prospects in the Senate. Ken Jacobs on Forum.