A new analysis shows that unionized workers across the
United States secured historic wage increases under contracts negotiated last year, further demonstrating the power of collective bargaining. According to Bloomberg Law , 2023 union contracts "gave workers an average first-year wage increase of 6.6%"—the highest raise since at least 1988. "With signing bonuses and other lump-sum payments added to the calculations," the outlet added, "2023's average first-year wage increase was 7.3%, also a record high, according to Bloomberg Law 's latest Quarterly Union Wage Data report." The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of unions in the U.S., highlighted the findings on
Social Media Thursday, writing , "When we fight together, it pays off—literally." It's well-established that unionized workers are paid more and receive better benefits than nonunion employees. A Treasury Department study released last year estimated that unions boost their members' wages by 10-15% and "improve fringe benefits and workplace procedures such as retirement plans, workplace grievance policies, and predictable scheduling." But unionization also benefits nonunion employees—as shown by the United Auto Workers' (UAW) historic contract victories at the Big Three U.S. automakers last year. After the UAW secured record wage gains in their contracts with Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis following a six-week strike, several nonunion car manufacturers—including Toyota and
Tesla —announced pay increases for their employees in an apparent attempt to preempt organizing efforts in their factories. Overall, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), U.S. union membership grew by 191,000 workers in 2023—but the share of employees represented by a union fell slightly as strong
Job growth outpaced organizing efforts. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) noted in its analysis of the BLS figures that the share of nonunion workers who would like to have a union at their workplace is far higher than the share who actually have union representation," a testament to the effectiveness of corporate union-busting campaigns and the need for much stronger federal labor laws. Between 1979 and 2017, EPI has estimated , the median U.S. worker lost out on $3,250 in pay per year due to the decline in unionization during that period. Donald Trump's lawyers have been accused of a lot of "head-scratching" legal filings as they seek to keep the former president out of criminal trouble — and a
Washington Post columnist tore into them Thursday. Recently, in an effort to argue he should be covered by presidential immunity, Trump's lawyers cited the past words of Justice
Brett Kavanaugh in a U.S.
Supreme Court filing that highlights the dangers of presidents being subject to criminal prosecution or civil actions. But Post columnist Aaron Blake said that section of the justice's ruling explicitly said that immunity should be temporary and end after leaving office. "Even then, Kavanaugh didn’t go nearly as far as Trump now wants him and the rest of the Supreme Court to go ," Blake wrote. "If it wasn’t already clear that Trump’s claim to full presidential immunity is extraordinary, spotlighting these words from Kavanaugh — of all people — would seem to drive it home." Trump's immunity claim was rejected last month by an appeals court. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear it, but that appeal seems likely to merely delay an inevitable trial, Blake said. He added that the Kavanaugh citation marks the latest in a series of "dubious inclusions" in the former president's legal filings . ALSO READ:
racism, arrests, extreme MAGA love: Meet Lauren Boebert’s primary opponents "These examples don’t even include the sloppy, error-riddled legal filings that characterized other Trump-aligned lawyers’ hasty efforts to overturn the 2020
election," Blake wrote. "Trump has pitched his many legal setbacks as a result of a biased and weaponized legal system," the columnist added. "But when you have to reach for these kinds of arguments — including citing your own Supreme Court nominee who clearly took a position at odds with your own — it would seem to reinforce that you’re not working with much." CONTINUE READING Show less
Florida District Court Judge Aileen Cannon has been drawing the bad kind of attention since entering the judicial spotlight — and now it seems staffers are putting their own resumes first. AboveTheLaw co-founder David Lat wrote Thursday on his Substack that two of her clerks recently resigned. Clerks typically focus on writing and research for the judge. He cited a Tuesday
New York Times article that addressed the " slow pace" of Cannon's court. She "has done herself no favors by allowing a logjam of unresolved issues to build up on her docket," the report stated. "I have an idea of at least one factor behind the delays: Judge Cannon has had at least two law clerks quit on her, according to multiple sources — including individuals who serve in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where she sits," wrote Lat. He explained that a federal district court judge like Cannon typically hires two or three clerks annually, so when two quit, it significantly cuts her staff, he said. Lat also noted that it's "highly unusual" for a clerk to quit because the job only lasts a year and is so valuable to a résumé. "Over the past few days, I have sent multiple emails to the Public Information Office for the Southern District of Florida and to Judge Cannon’s chambers, requesting comment on reports that at least two of her clerks have departed before the scheduled end of their clerkships," Lat revealed. "I have received read receipts, but no responses (even though, in my experience, subjects are eager to warn me off bad information— for which I’m always grateful). Lat noted that a clerk resigning causes an " extremely unpleasant situation ." ALSO READ: Racism, arrests, extreme MAGA love: Meet Lauren Boebert’s primary opponents "Even if clerks who leave get replaced immediately — which doesn’t always happen, especially if clerks quit on short notice, or the judge is too busy to focus on hiring — successor clerks need to get up to speed, on both chambers procedures and the substance of cases. This is very time-consuming, especially in complex cases like the Trump classified-documents prosecution," he wrote. He wrote being understaffed would make Cannon's "logjam" "less surprising." In a series of updates, Lat said that he'd discovered one clerk who had been there for two years quit in 2023 after having a child. Another clerk, however, quit for a reason that remains unclear and "law school classmates have been buzzing about the news," he said. One clerk left in Oct. 2023, and another left in Dec. 2023. In another update, Lat reported Cannon has three clerks and one temporary. Read the full piece here. CONTINUE READING Show less Two law professors with a long history of presenting "indefensible" theories to support former President
Donald Trump are asking permission to argue to Judge Aileen Cannon that special counsel Jack Smith's classified documents case is unconstitutional, court records show. Seth Barrett Tillman, a constitutional law professor who teaches in
Ireland, and Josh Blackman, a professor at South
Texas College of Law Houston, filed Thursday a request for permission to submit an amicus brief they say will prove Smith's case is unconstitutional. "If Special Counsel Smith is an 'employee of the United States,' rather than an 'Officer of the United States,'" the brief argues, "then he cannot exercise the 'significant authority' of a United States Attorney." Blackman and Tillman hope to present this argument to Cannon, the Florida federal court judge overseeing the case linked to 33 boxes of documents — including 17 marked as “top secret,” 54 as “secret” and 31 as “confidential” — uncovered at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022. Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges, accused Smith of conducting a political witch hunt, and launched what legal experts say is a delay campaign that hangs on him regaining the
White House in 2025, when he could effectively kill the case . But if Blackman and Tillman had their way, the case would be long dead before Trump faced off against President
Joe Biden in November. ALSO READ: House
Republican giggles over Hitler praise — and admits he never listens to Trump The two are effectively rehashing an argument they made in 2018 when special counsel
Robert Mueller investigated Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election: that an employee does not have the power to pursue the prosecution. Mueller's investigation proceeded and ultimately concluded that while Trump was not exonerated, he could not be prosecuted under federal law . A New York Times profile of Tillman details the impact theories such as these have had on his professional reputation. "In the world of
American legal scholarship, Seth Barrett Tillman is an outsider in more ways than one," the Times writes. "An associate professor at a university in Ireland, he has put forward unusual interpretations of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution that for years have largely gone ignored — if not outright dismissed as crackpot." But the pair took center stage in January when Trump's lawyers cited their argument that the former president was not beholden to the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban because he was not serving as an officer of the U.S. Before the Supreme Court ultimately ruled states did not have the authority to enforce the 14th Amendment , Blackman and Tillman's argument was resolutely ridiculed by former conservative judge J. Michael Luttig in a lengthy thread on X . "The former president and his amici supporters have put all of their eggs in Blackman’s and Tillman’s tattered basket of constitutional interpretation in the Supreme Court of the United States," wrote Luttig. "Blackman’s and Tillman’s basket...is woven out of a palpable misinterpretation of the text of the Disqualification Clause that they do quote, witheringly compounded by their indefensible omission of the constitutional text from the Disqualification Clause that is most relevant to their (mis)interpretation of that Clause." On Thursday, Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern spotted the request to file an amicus brief in the classified documents case and shared the news with his followers on X in simpler terms. "Hopefully this means nothing to you — if so, I urge you remain blissfully ignorant," wrote Stern . "Nothing good can come of further inquiry." CONTINUE READING Show less