Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2024
ISSN
0025-4282
Publisher
University of Maryland School of Law
Language
en-US
Abstract
Low-wage workers face a structural problem in seeking to improve their work standards: While companies have substantial labor market power to impose work terms and conditions, workers require affirmative state support to collectively press their workplace demands. But their employers can mobilize private capital and property rights, often with judicial deference, to fend off state intrusions into the workplace. While the National Labor Relations Act aims to resolve this structural problem by protecting the rights of workers to join unions, strike, and collectively bargain, employers, backed by judicial support for managerial prerogatives and property rights, can often leverage NLRA weaknesses and limitations to its scope to prevail in labor contests
To build union density and political power for low-wage workers who cannot effectively access federal labor rights, such as home health care workers, fast-food workers, and app-based drivers, unions and worker centers seeking to organize these workers have, increasingly, turned to state and local law, instead of or in addition to the NLRA. Groundbreaking state and local economic and racial justice campaigns have expanded labor rights and enabled these workers to participate in state and local labor policymaking to raise their workplace standards. But the turn to state and local government does not avoid the structural problem. Employers reproduce structural inequality in state law, often by dominating state initiatives and legislative processes, in order to limit, nullify, or coopt state and local labor law. The NLRA does not preempt these employer counterstrategies, and federal constitutional challenges to them typically fail because federal courts often view these labor contests as ordinary politics beyond constitutional scrutiny.
Mapping the structural problem in state and local labor contests underscores the importance of state law to confront it, as shown in recent legal mobilization of state constitutions by unions and worker centers to reduce structural inequality and build countervailing power. Repositioning state labor law as a potential foundation for labor revitalization has practical and theoretical implications for the future of low-wage worker organizing. State labor constitutionalism, and legal and administrative designs that encourage direct worker participation in state sectoral standard-setting and in local labor policymaking, can protect state labor policymaking from employer cooptation and nullification. These prescriptions can contribute to the foundational NLRA purpose of reducing structural inequality by building countervailing power in the states.
Recommended Citation
Andrew Elmore,
Confronting Structural Inequality in State Labor Law
,
in
83
Maryland Law Review
1192
(2024).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/3994
