Politics

Contributor: The National Labor Relations Act worked for 90 years. Suddenly, it's in the crosshairs

Published

3 days ago

March 20, 2025

Contributor: The National Labor Relations Act worked for 90 years. Suddenly, it's in the crosshairs

Joe Biden was the first president to join a union picket line and support labor’s side in a number of major disputes. His appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, the principal administrative agency handling labor-management conflict, interpreted the 90-year old National Labor Relations Act so as to enhance the rights of workers to organize. The Biden board promoted workplace democracy more effectively than any of its predecessors.

As the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished.

President Trump’s second term presages the most anti-labor labor board appointees ever (his first-term NLRB had that same distinction). And equally or more troublesome, Trump, through his arbitrary dismissal of Biden-appointed board member Gwynne Wilcox has joined a position advanced by management labor lawyers at Starbucks, Trader Joe’s and Elon Musk’s Space X, among others. Together they wish to take a wrecking ball to labor law, asserting that the 90-year-old National Labor Relations Act and the independent agency it established are unconstitutional.

On March 6, in a sweeping opinion both eloquent and scholarly, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell pushed back against the president’s unlawful firing of Wilcox. Now, as was surely the plan all along, the question of control of the NLRB can and will go to the Supreme Court. If the conservative, Trump-appointed majority agrees with the president — instead of upholding nearly a century of precedent — independent due process for labor and management will be wiped away.

Of course, politics and labor law have always had an uneasy coexistence. By virtue of the National Labor Relations Act’s system of five-year staggered appointments to the NLRB, presidents are able to influence the board’s direction during their four-year terms, but they cannot dominate it or dictate the outcome of a particular case that is before the labor board.

If, however, board members can be dismissed by a president any time he or she disagrees with their votes on the reinstatement of a dismissed worker, say, or a conclusion that labor or management has not bargained in good faith, the rule of law can easily be denied, along with well-accepted principles of independent conflict resolution.

Such a prospect is an ominous cloud over a labor movement that even during the friendly Biden era lost ground. Today unions represent only 11.1% of employees in the workforce. Does all of this mean that organized labor law is a doomed dinosaur, irrevocably headed toward irrelevance? Not necessarily.

First, as important as legal protections have been to organizing, law has proved to be a subordinate factor in union growth or decline. In the 1930s, union militancy was in place at least four years before the National Labor Relations Act became effective. The 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the act placed restrictions on unions and workers, yet unions continued to grow for nearly a decade after its enactment. Labor won considerably more of its workplace elections in the George W. Bush era than under a more pro-labor board during the Obama administration.

As important, according to U.S. Labor Department data, unions hold $42 billion in financial assets. They can use these monies to finance costly and protracted campaigns in many different businesses, hiring dedicated workers who will give their wholehearted attention to the difficult, time-consuming work of organizing. And these positions could be made more attractive by the promise of advancement to union leadership positions, now too often the province of those who process membership grievances rather than working to widen unions’ reach.

The stage has been set for just such organizing, with recent effective uses of the strike weapon. In 2023, the United Auto Workers new rolling strike strategy against the Big 3 auto companies produced substantial wage and benefit increases. In January, the International Longshoremen’s Assn. obtained more than a 60% pay increase over six years, plus an apparent ban on automation, on the basis of a short stoppage last fall at ports on the East and Gulf coasts.

Further, if Trump is even partially successful in his attempt to rid the country of immigrants, a result will be a shortage of workers, which will slant the labor market toward the sellers. The impact in construction, for instance, a sector that is already short hundreds of thousands of hires, will only improve the prospects for unions.

And lastly, if the Supreme Court uses Wilcox’s case to deem the National Labor Relations Act and an independent NLRB unconstitutional, or contrives to consign them to irrelevance, states such as New York, California, Michigan, Illinois and others can work to occupy the vacuum with more robust labor legislation.

The fight is not over.

William B. Gould IV , a professor of law emeritus at Stanford Law and chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, is the author of “Those Who Travail and Are Heavy Laden: Memoir of a Labor Lawyer.”

Politics

With New Decree, Trump Threatens Lawyers and Law Firms

Published

5 hours ago

March 22, 2025

Press Room

With New Decree, Trump Threatens Lawyers and Law Firms

President Trump broadened his campaign of retaliation against lawyers he dislikes with a new memorandum that threatens to use government power to punish any law firms that, in his view, unfairly challenge his administration.

The memorandum directs the heads of the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States” or in matters that come before federal agencies.

Mr. Trump issued the order late Friday night, after a tumultuous week for the American legal community in which one of the country’s premier firms, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, struck a deal with the White House to spare the company from a punitive decree issued by Mr. Trump the previous week.

Vanita Gupta, who as a civil rights lawyer and a former Justice Department official has both sued the government and defended it in court, said Mr. Trump’s memo “attacks the very foundations of our legal system by threatening and intimidating litigants who aim to hold our government accountable to the law and the Constitution.”

In response to criticism of the memo, a White House spokeswoman, Taylor Rogers, said: “President Trump is delivering on his promise to ensure the judicial system is no longer weaponized against the American people. President Trump’s only retribution is success and historic achievements for the American people.”

The president has long complained that Democratic-leaning lawyers and law firms have pursued what he calls “lawfare” in the form of investigations and lawsuits against him and his allies that he claims are motivated by politics. Since being sworn into office he has targeted three firms, but the new memo seems to threaten similar punishment for any lawyer or firm who raises his ire.

After Mr. Trump issued an order suspending security clearances for Paul Weiss lawyers, and sharply limiting their employees from entering government buildings or getting government jobs, the firm agreed to a series of commitments to get the president to cancel the order.

As part of the deal, the firm said it would provide $40 million in legal services to causes Mr. Trump has championed, including his task force to combat antisemitism.

Perkins Coie, another firm targeted by Mr. Trump, chose a different tack — suing him in federal court and getting a temporary restraining order against the president.

Trump’s attacks on law firms, and Paul Weiss’s decision to cut a deal rather than fight it out in court, have sent shock waves through the legal community. The sweeping nature of the president’s latest demand comes as he has also stepped up his public attacks on judges and the very notion that the courts can tell him what to do or not do.

The executive branch “should neither fear nor punish those who challenge it and should not be the arbiter of what is frivolous — there are protections in place to address that,” Ms. Gupta said. “This moment calls for courage and collective action, not capitulation, among lawyers and the legal profession.”

It also comes amid a showdown between a federal judge in Washington and the administration over the president’s invocation a week ago of the Alien Enemies Act, which he used to immediately send more than 100 Venezuelan migrants he said were gang members to a large prison complex in El Salvador.

Civil rights activists say the deportations violated the law, and that the administration’s refusal to give clear answers on its conduct flouts the very premise of the U.S. court system.

One law firm that is suing the administration over its policies said it would not back down in the face of threats from the White House.

The leaders of Keker, Van Nest & Peters, a San Francisco firm that has sued over the Trump administration over its immigration raids, called Mr. Trump’s latest memorandum “inexcusable and despicable.”

“Our liberties depend on lawyers’ willingness to represent unpopular people and causes, including in matters adverse to the federal government,” the firm said in a statement. “Our profession owes every client zealous legal representation without fear of retribution, regardless of their political affiliation or ability to pay.”

The firm also encouraged other lawyers to join a nationwide effort to submit a “friend of the court” brief in the Perkins Coie lawsuit against Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump’s Friday night memo, titled “Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court,” complains that lawyers have long engaged in unethical conduct in opposing him, or opposing deportations. The memo also suggests that the Trump administration will make disciplinary referrals against lawyers who pursue cases without merit “particularly in cases that implicate national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.”

Mr. Trump also used the announcement to attack one particular lawyer by name, Marc Elias.

Mr. Elias previously worked at Perkins Coie, and has long represented Democrats. Mr. Trump blames Mr. Elias, among others, for a dossier of unsubstantiated allegations about his links to Russia that was investigated by the F.B.I. in 2016 and 2017.

“President Trump’s goal is clear. He wants lawyers and law firms to capitulate and cower until there is no one left to oppose his administration in court,” Mr. Elias said in a written statement. He added, “There will be no negotiation with this White House about the clients we represent or the lawsuits we bring on their behalf.”

Politics

Trump suggests US could join British Commonwealth if offered by King Charles

Published

6 hours ago

March 22, 2025

Press Room

Trump suggests US could join British Commonwealth if offered by King Charles

President Trump said Friday he liked the idea of the United States joining the British Commonwealth after a report claimed King Charles III would make an offer.

“I love King Charles,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Friday morning while linking to an article citing a Daily Mail report that said the monarch would secretly offer the U.S. associate membership in the Commonwealth during Trump’s second state visit to Britain. “Sounds good to me!”

Trump also reposted the same report about the king’s “secret” offer of membership late Saturday morning.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.

PRINCE WILLIAM VIEWS TRUMP RELATIONSHIP AS KEY TO MONARCHY ‘S FUTURE: EXPERT

President Trump on Friday said he liked the idea of the United States joining the British Commonwealth after a report claimed King Charles III would make an offer. (Victoria Jones/WPA Pool/Getty Images)

The British Commonwealth, created in 1926, is made up of 56 countries, including Australia and Canada, most of which were originally British colonies. The monarch is the head of the Commonwealth, whose maintenance was a major priority of Queen Elizabeth II.

Membership is voluntary.

The U.S. was part of the British Empire before winning independence after the Revolution.

India was the first country to decide to remain within the Commonwealth after gaining independence in 1947.

President Trump toasting Prince Charles during his first state visit in 2019. (Chris Jackson/WPA Pool/Getty Images)

Trump had a friendly relationship with the late queen and always spoke highly of her.

“I got to know her very well, and, you know, I got to know her in her ’90s, OK, but she was great,” Trump told Fox News’ Mark Levin in 2023. “This is a woman … 75 years she reigned, and she never made a mistake.”

Trump has also praised Charles and the heir to the throne, Prince William, whom he met with in December in Paris, but he had fewer nice things to say about Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle.

TRUMP ACCEPTS SECOND STATE VISIT TO UK, REVEALS LETTER FROM KING CHARLES

The president is scheduled to meet with King Charles during a rare second state visit later this year. He met with the late queen and Charles during his first state visit in 2019.

The Daily Mail said Commonwealth membership was first floated during Trump’s first term, and this time around the hope is that it would ease tensions between the U.S. and Canada as the countries trade tariff threats.

Trump sitting with Queen Elizabeth and King Charles

Trump with Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles in 2019. (Daniel Leal/AFP via Getty Images)

“This is being discussed at the highest levels,” a member of the Royal Commonwealth Society told the Daily Mail. “It would be a wonderful move that would symbolize Britain’s close relationship with the U.S.

“Donald Trump loves Britain and has great respect for the royal family, so we believe he would see the benefits of this. Associate membership could, hopefully, be followed by full membership, making the Commonwealth even more important as a global organization.”

President Trump shows an invitation from King Charles III for a second state visit during a meeting with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the White House Feb. 27. (Carl Court/Getty Images)

Late last month, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer presented Trump with Charles’ invitation for a second state visit while the two politicians were meeting in the Oval Office.

“I think that just symbolizes the strength of the relationship between us. This is a very special letter. I think the last state visit was a tremendous success,” Starmer said. “His majesty the king wants to make this even better than that.”

Trump posing with King Charles, Melania and Camilla

Trump posing with first lady Melania Trump and Prince Charles and wife Camilla. (Chris Jackson/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

Trump responded, “The answer is yes. On behalf of our wonderful first lady Melania and myself, the answer is yes, and we look forward to being there and honoring the king and honoring, really, your country. Your country is a fantastic country.”

Trump described Charles as “beautiful” and a “wonderful man.”

“I’ve gotten to know him very well actually, first term and, now, a second term,” he added.

Politics

Hundreds rally against Trump, Musk in Westwood

Published

7 hours ago

March 22, 2025

Press Room

Hundreds rally against Trump, Musk in Westwood

When Jesse Ugalde, who served in the Vietnam War, entered a Department of Veterans Affairs building Friday, he noticed a difference.

“Already, people are leaving,” Ugalde, 74, who relies on the VA for his healthcare, said of VA employees. “I was told that they’re going to try to provide services, but it’s going to take longer.”

To protest President Trump’s push to slash the size of the federal government, which includes drastic staff cuts at the VA and other agencies, Ugalde took to the streets with hundreds of others in Westwood on Saturday.

It’s “not only the VA, but there’s other programs that we need desperately,” Ugalde said. “There’s no reason to do it this way … I fought for this country, and I’ll fight for it again.”

Angelenos and residents from throughout Southern California participate in a march and rally outside the Wilshire Federal Building in Westwood, in one of the largest protests in Los Angeles since Trump took office almost two months ago, on Saturday.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

The protesters marched toward the federal building on Wilshire Boulevard around noon, rallying against the government cuts and what they described as clear constitutional violations.

“We are here because we are not going to let Trump, we’re not going to let Elon Musk, his co-president, or anybody else take the United States Constitution down,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) told the crowd.

Musk’s advisory team, which he calls the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has fired thousands of government workers, frozen billions of dollars in federal spending and ordered the almost complete shutdown of multiple federal agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Department of Education.

Musk, a billionaire known for his “move fast and break things” approach at his companies, described wasteful government spending as an urgent and existential threat in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday.

“The country is going bankrupt,” he said, referring to the growing national debt. “If we don’t do something about it, the ship of America is going to sink.”

But people at the protest — organized primarily by Democracy Action Network, a pro-democracy organization founded last year — said the programs on the chopping block are far from wasteful.

Angelenos and residents from throughout Southern California participate in a rally as cars drive by.

Shaun Law-Bowman, 67, spent 15 years as a public school teacher before moving into an administrative position.

“There’s no reasoning. There’s no excuse,” she said of Trump’s plan to shut down the Department of Education. “I was a special ed administrator — those are federal funds. There’s a huge amount of kids that need special help, and all that money is going to be gone. It’s just evil.”

Earlier this month, a federal judge ruled that Trump and Musk’s dismantling of USAID was likely unconstitutional, arguing that the cuts were incompatible with the will of Congress.

Federal judges have also ruled that the administration’s firing of probationary employees did not follow the appropriate procedures for layoffs and that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management lacked the authority to order the firings.

The administration has bashed these rulings, with Vice President JD Vance posting on X that judges “aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

People participate in a peaceful march and rally while holding upside down flags and signs.

Many protesters spoke out against the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student and pro-Palestinian activist. Khalil, an Algerian citizen, is being held in immigration detention even though he is a green card holder with no criminal record.

Trump, without immediately providing evidence, accused Khalil of supporting Hamas, which the U.S. considers a “foreign terrorist organization.”

For many, the demonstration was a way to take matters into their own hands.

“For all those people that say the protests don’t matter … we wouldn’t have the civil rights we had in the ‘60s without protests,” said Elizabeth Gietema, 28. “Vietnam might have gone on longer without the protests.”