Trump’s Labor Board Appointments Are Another Blow for Unions

A Senate committee approved Trump’s two nominees on Wednesday.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In 2000, Donald Trump wrote in his book The America We Deserve that ā€œwith the globalization craze in full heat, unions are about the only force reminding us to remember the American family.” During last year’s presidential campaign, he boasted that he had “tremendous support within unions” and then received a larger share of the union vote than any Republican since Ronald Reagan. 

But as president, he hasn’t always repaid the favor. On Wednesday, a Senate committee approved two Trump nominees, Marvin Kaplan and William Emanuel, to the National Labor Relations Board who have long records of fighting unions. If they are confirmed by the full Senate, Republican appointees will control the five-person board and be able to undo rulings that made it easier for workers to form unions.  

During the Obama administration, the NLRB, an independent agency tasked with protecting workersā€™ right to organize, frustrated employers by consistently siding with workers. The board redefined what counts as an employer, making it easier for workers at fast-food restaurants and other franchised businesses to form a union. It opened the door to ā€œmicro-unionsā€ by allowing nursing assistants to unionize independently of their coworkers, and it allowed graduate-student employees at private universities to unionize.

Perhaps most important, the board ruled that workers, regardless of union status, cannot be forced to sign arbitration agreements that require disputes to be resolved by individual tribunals instead of class-action lawsuits argued before an open court. Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson, for example, was prevented from suing Fox for sexual harassment because she signed such an agreement. After she got around it by suing the late Fox CEO Roger Ailes directly, more than 20 women accused Ailes of harassment. Had Carlson used the private arbitration her contract called for, those women would never have learned about Carlson’s allegation. 

Other NLRB decisions, like allowing workers to discuss union matters over company email, were more straightforward. But taken together, the rulings helped keep unions relevant in the modern workplace. Since the mid-1950s, the share of private-sector workers who belong to a union has dropped from about one out in three to one in fifteen.

Trumpā€™s NLRB nominees are expected to create further challenges for workers seeking to unionize. Emanuel is a shareholder and longtime lawyer at Littler, the worldā€™s largest management-side employment law firm. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has called it is one of the nationā€™s ā€œmost ruthlessā€ union-busters. Emanuelā€™s clients include Uber and other companies accused of violating workersā€™ rights, according to his ethics disclosure form.

Outside of his legal practice, Emanuel has decried Californiaā€™s ā€œterrible climate for job creation,ā€ citing the stateā€™s generous overtime and break requirements for employees. 

Kaplan was previously an attorney for the House education and labor committee. In that role, he drafted a bill to reverse an NLRB rule, dubbed the ā€œambush election ruleā€ by conservative critics, that allowed workers to vote on unionization as soon as 11 days after a petition was submitted. The bill, which did not pass, would have also reversed the boardā€™s recognition of micro-unions.

At Emanuel and Kaplan’s nomination hearing last week, Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Warren were particularly concerned by Emanuelā€™s record of defending the mandatory arbitration agreements that Carlson and many others have signed. Pressed by Franken, Emanuel declined to criticize arbitration agreements that prevent women who are sexually harassed from suing their employers in court.

In theory, the legality of the arbitration agreements is now in the Supreme Courtā€™s hands. But Ronald Meisburg, a former NLRB board member, has said itā€™s possible the NLRB could revisit the decision before the court decides. Emanuel told Warren he does not expect to recuse himself if the issue comes up.

The committee’s approval of both nominees along party lines on Wednesday follows other moves under Trump that are less than friendly to labor. Trump’s nominee for deputy labor secretary, Patrick Pizzella, was criticized last week for working with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff to advocate for what was compared to sweatshop labor in the Northern Mariana Islands, a US commonwealth, in the early 2000s. The goods, which were often made by Chinese and Filipino workers, had the advantage of being stamped “Made in the USA.” 

Neil Gorsuch, whom Trump appointed to the Supreme Court, has a long record of siding with employers in labor disputes. In the court’s upcoming term, Gorsuch will hear arguments in a case that will decide whether mandatory arbitration agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act. 

 

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate