Labor unions push White Home so as to add employee protections to Biden vaccine mandate

President Joe Biden watches as AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler speaks during an event honoring the unions in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on September 8, 2021.

Oliver Contraras | AP

Some of the largest unions in the country are urging the Biden government to expand its vaccine mandate to private companies to include additional protection for workers, including masking requirements and other safety measures to minimize the spread of Covid-19.

The AFL-CIO and about two dozen other major unions representing teachers, service workers, meat processors, auto and steel workers, spoke with the Biden government on an October 18 conference call with White House officials from the Office of Administration and Budget.

“We emphasized the importance of mitigation measures,” Rebecca Reindel, who represented the AFL-CIO on the call, told CNBC. “We really need to be one step ahead of the transmission part of the virus. It takes a while to get vaccinated – we need protection in the meantime, ”said Reindel.

Three of the largest unions, notably the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, told CNBC that they had asked the administration to expand worker protection and urged employers to stop ventilation improve and enforce the mask and social regulations distance. Reindel said companies should also be required to conduct a risk assessment in consultation with workers to determine what combination of mitigation measures are needed to best protect their employees in the workplace.

president Joe Biden ordered the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Department to draft a rule requiring private companies with 100 or more employees to ensure that they are all vaccinated or tested weekly Covid-19.

OMB and Labor Department officials have held dozens of calls and meetings with industry lobbyists over the past two weeks while OMB is reviewing the mandate, OMB records show. The vaccine and weekly testing requirements will go into effect shortly after the OMB review is complete.

The AFL-CIO has called for comprehensive measures to protect workers from Covid-19 since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020. However, OSHA, which oversees workplace safety, has not yet enacted broad-based Covid safety rules.

Instead, OSHA enacted Restrictions in summer limited to healthcare workers. Most healthcare providers have had to develop plans to mitigate the risk of Covid, ensure employees wear masks indoors that keep people 6 feet apart indoors, install barriers in workplaces when employees are less than 6 feet apart , and ensure adequate ventilation – including a number of other requirements.

The AFL-CIO and United Food and Commercial Workers sued the Biden government, arguing that the OSHA standard “does not protect employees outside the healthcare industry who are at a similarly grave risk from occupational exposure to COVID-19” . The unions specially quoted meat packaging, groceries, transportation and corrections as industries where workers need the Department of Labor to issue an enforceable safety standard for Covid.

The unions and the Ministry of Labor tabled a joint application in September pause the case until the vaccination and weekly test mandate is granted to the Biden administration. The court will ask the parties to submit a joint status report on Monday.

“The harsh reality is that current COVID safety guidelines just aren’t enough and have left millions of key workers to their own devices,” said Marc Perrone, President of United Food and Commercial Workers. said in August after OSHA issued voluntary guidelines recommending masks for vaccinated employees working in areas with high transmission. “What we need now is a clearly enforceable COVID safety standard in the workplace that will protect America’s vital workers who are still at the forefront of this deadly pandemic.”

Perrone said his union is now waiting to see if mitigation measures are included in the vaccine and testing mandate. “If we still have concerns, we will move on,” he said, referring to the trial. The group represents 1.3 million employees in the food, retail, meat packaging, food processing, cannabis, chemical and distillery sectors, including employees from Tysons Food, Kroger, Macy’s, Cargill and Pfizer. People in these industries are largely viewed as key frontline workers by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The UFCW warned in a letter to the Department of Labor in August that vaccinations – even if important – cannot remove the danger posed by Covid to workers as the highly transmissible Delta variant spreads the effectiveness of vaccines over time subsides and new mutations of the virus emerge.

The AFL-CIO, in a May report, found 1,833 Covid outbreaks, nearly 90,000 infections and 378 deaths in the meat packaging, food processing and agriculture industries from the start of the pandemic in April 2020 to April 2020. A report by the House Select subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis found infections among meat packing workers almost three times as high as previously reported.

“There will be certain people who won’t take [the vaccine] and get tested, and if you don’t have mitigation measures like masks then you’re defeating your purpose, “Perrone told CNBC.

The Service Employees International Union asked the von Biden government in September to add additional protective measures to the vaccination mandate. The union represents 2 million workers in basic services such as janitorial, health and other professions.

“Layered mitigation measures, including but not limited to masking and distancing, as well as quarantine after exposure or positive testing, are still necessary to protect against outbreaks,” wrote Leslie Frane, the union’s executive vice-president, in a letter to the union in September OSHA chief James Frederick.

The SEIU and UFCW have also called for paid vacations for workers to get vaccinated and recover from the shot, paid vacations for workers to quarantine and recover from the virus, and free Covid tests for Workers with testing facilities at the workplace. The Biden government said in September that it would also require companies with more than 100 employees to provide paid time off for vaccination and recovery.

The United Auto Workers declined to expressly comment on whether the vaccine and test mandate should include measures to contain Covid. The big three automakers have already implemented extensive security protocols against Covid. While the union is generally in favor of vaccination, it rejects it under federal or employer mandate. The union will review the vaccine and testing mandate when it is released, UAW spokesman Brian Rothenberg told CNBC.

“We’re waiting for the standards because we have over 700 contracts and we need to go through them and see how they affect our contracts,” he said.

NYC Sued Over Union-Fashion Quick Meals Employee Protections

Law360 (Jun 1, 2021, 5:12 p.m. EDT) – Restaurant associations are suing New York City for blocking two new laws that would provide non-union fast food workers with union protection from dismissal for no good cause or legitimate business reason. say that they are anticipated and unconstitutional by the Federal Labor Act.

The New York State Restaurant Association and the Restaurant Law Center, an independent organization affiliated with the national restaurant trade group, said in a lawsuit on Friday that the laws signed by Mayor Bill de Blasio in January were against the National Labor Relations Act and the US violate the Constitution.

“The laws intervene in one area in the collective bargaining process …

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You need to know what is happening to customers, competitors, practice areas and industries. Law360 offers the intelligence you need to stay an expert and beat the competition.

  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, type of lawsuit, etc.)
  • Access to attached documents such as Briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom notifications for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY THE LAW360 FREE SEVEN DAYS

Opinion: AB 5-Type Protections Wanted for True Unbiased Contractors as Gig Work Grows

The artist Roman de Salvo is building an “electric picnic” in the Timken Museum in 2019. Courtesy of the museum

Independent contractors are excluded from traditional employment benefits such as unemployment insurance, minimum wage standards, employee compensation, and protection from discrimination and harassment.

The lack of protection is particularly acute among art workers in California, where 35% are self-employed. This lack of protection includes business owners, sole traders, independent contractors, and gig workers. If independent workers had access to additional social security programs, worker protection and other employer-provided safeguards during the COVID-19 pandemic, more people with unemployment would have had a safety net and our economy could recover faster.

As the economy’s reliance on gig workers grows, California has sought to protect them by making sure they are not mistakenly excluded from the benefits and protections they should receive.

In 2019, California legislation was passed Bill 5 Eliminate the misclassification of independent contractors who should be employees. Misclassification denies the individual the protection and benefits in the workplace. A subsequent invoice, FROM 2257, clarified who should be treated as salaried employees and exempted some jobs and business relationships from AB 5, including creative professions such as visual artists.

While unemployment insurance benefits were temporarily extended to independent contractors under the CARES Act, the legislation has not since extended worker protection or solutions for real independent contractors who do not meet the definition of a “worker”. With so many workers grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become clear that we need robust safety nets that include independent contractors, gig workers and freelancers.

In a recently published report entitled “Art worker in California, “Researchers from the Urban Institute examine how independent workers can be included in benefits and safeguards provided by more traditional employer relationships. The study examines the need to protect workers by describing the experiences of art workers, a group that is three times more likely to be freelance.

Art work is usually project-based, short-term, intermittent and involves overlapping and simultaneous “gigs” at the same time. As a result, artists also face challenges shared by other independent workers who cannot plan ahead due to unpredictable incomes, limited savings, difficulty paying off student loan debts and providing health care, families and retirement.

When laws were put in place to protect workers, lawmakers had no idea how resilient the freelance workforce would be. Gig work is clearly here to stay, but the social security support and legal protections available to independent workers have not caught up with the changing workforce.

Current law assumes that freelancers are empowered to negotiate their contracts and the resources to provide their own safety net. The report focuses on a specific segment of this workforce – the arts – to analyze these assumptions and identify why accessible benefits and protections matter for artists and those investing in a more inclusive arts field. If we can do this right for artists, we can do it right for the many other gig workers who share their terms.

The Urban Institute report suggests solutions, including tightening classification laws to prevent employees from being misclassified as independent contractors – as intended by AB 5 – to extend worker protection and social security programs to freelance workers and other contractors and the collective action and efforts to scale nontraditional workers to rebalance power.

New forms of collectivization for workers are needed to gain access to affordable benefits and safeguards, gain bargaining power, provide health care and protect workers from discrimination and harassment. Either of these avenues would improve the conditions not only for art workers but also for the millions of Americans who earn a living from independent work.

Also, by providing access to labor protection and benefits for all types of workers, companies can comply with labor laws and share costs more evenly among recruiters, taxpayers, art consumers and workers themselves.

California has pioneered worker protection policies in the past, and this is the time to think beyond traditional boundaries to make our economy more resilient. This is the time for California to consider innovative new ways to extend protection and benefits to workers whose jobs never fit the traditional employer model.

Angie Kim is President and CEO of Center for Cultural Innovation. Amanda Briggs is a research fellow at the Urban Institute. You wrote this column for CalMatters, a public-interest journalism company dedicated to explaining how the California State Capitol works and why it matters.

Show annotations

Growing Cross-Border Protections to Enterprise Offers: Searching for a Overseas-Nation Cash Judgment in Arizona | Snell & Wilmer

In an increasingly interconnected global economy, overseas countries or companies may seek overseas monetary judgments in unexpected places like Arizona. To address this situation, the Arizona legislature passed its own version of the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (Act), which allows mutual enforcement of monetary judgments abroad. This act provides assurances for long supply chain contracts that contain dispute settlement clauses that support foreign choice of laws and venues. With the anticipated increase in the domestication of foreign judgments as a result of the law, companies should consider reviewing submission terms and conditions and ensure that they fully understand the consequences of breaching a contract with a foreign company.

By law, a “foreign country” is a different government than “the United States”. a state, district, commonwealth, territory or island of the United States, or any other government, in respect of the determination in that state whether a judgment of the courts of the government should be recognized, is first subject to the provision in the clause above the full faith and creditworthiness of the United States Constitution. “In general, the law“ applies to a judgment abroad that grants or refuses to reclaim a sum of money ”and is“ final, final and enforceable ”under foreign law. The law contains exceptions for circumstances that do not deserve recognition of a monetary judgment abroad, such as: B. Lack of personal responsibility.

Unlike many overseas monetary decisions laws, Arizona law includes a reciprocity requirement. In particular, the law does not apply to monetary judgments abroad from countries that have not “passed or enacted a mutual law” similar to the law. Until recently, the scope of the “mutual law” requirement was unclear.

The Arizona Supreme Court recently resolved this issue in the context of a Dutch judgment against a private company. The Court upheld the lower court’s decision, finding that Dutch case law, not the legal framework, met the reciprocity requirement as it was reasonably similar to the law. In particular, the Court rejected the company’s argument that only statutes – not case law – can be considered “mutual laws”.

As a result of this ruling, overseas countries and companies can expect a greater likelihood of success in enforcing an overseas monetary judgment in Arizona – especially if the jurisdiction in the country where the judgment was received contains established principles that recognize US monetary judgments would. On the other hand, parties wishing to exclude the enforcement of a monetary judgment abroad may have to rely on the exceptions to the law and other process-based arguments. When enforcing or defending against a foreign judgment, countries and companies (and their attorneys) should carefully review all requirements and exceptions to the law.

While the Arizona Supreme Court has clarified the Arizona parameters for the recognition of overseas monetary judgments, effective dispute resolution with overseas corporations remains an unpredictable, time-consuming, and expensive process. Given the complications involved in resolving international trade disputes, companies should incorporate arbitration or litigation clauses in their contracts. In addition, companies may want to reconsider using expensive arbitration if an assessment of the applicable laws reveals a faster, cheaper alternative.

The parties may agree to a clause allowing a dispute to be brought before the court of a specific city, state, or country to ensure an impartial decision. However, even determined litigation has limitations. For example, some courts may not have jurisdiction to resolve the dispute, or a foreign country may not recognize or enforce a judgment from an American court. In addition, judges in some jurisdictions may lack the expertise to resolve international disputes effectively and appropriately.

In some cases, arbitration clauses can therefore be a more effective method of dispute resolution. In contrast to litigation, the United States is a party to a number of treaties – the New York, Washington, and Panama Conventions – in which member states have agreed to enforce arbitral awards. Another benefit of arbitration is that the parties can choose an arbitrator with relevant expertise. Accordingly, arbitration clauses can provide more predictability, neutrality, enforceability, confidentiality, finality, and expertise in the dispute resolution process. On the other hand, the cost of the arbitrator and the lack of expediency under current models often result in a procedural clause that prescribes a banking procedure.

For these reasons, companies should evaluate dispute settlement clauses in their contracts with overseas companies and ensure that the appropriate mechanism fits the transaction. For Arizona businesses, the law and recent Supreme Court interpretation will increase the practice of foreign judgments in Arizona.