Factually! with Adam Conover - How the NLRB Defends Workers Rights with Jennifer Abruzzo

Episode Date: November 23, 2022

Workers are standing up for their rights across America, but to fight back against corporate power, they need help. This week Adam is joined by the General Counsel of the NLRB, Jennifer Abruzzo, to explain how the NLRB protects workers, and how to know YOUR rights in the workplace. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

You know, I got to confess, I have always been a sucker for Japanese treats. I love going down a little Tokyo, heading to a convenience store, and grabbing all those brightly colored, fun-packaged boxes off of the shelf. But you know what? I don't get the chance to go down there as often as I would like to. And that is why I am so thrilled that Bokksu, a Japanese snack subscription box, chose to sponsor this episode. What's gotten me so excited about Bokksu is that these aren't just your run-of-the-mill grocery store finds. Each box comes packed with 20 unique snacks that you can only find in Japan itself.

Plus, they throw in a handy guide filled with info about each snack and about Japanese culture. And let me tell you something, you are going to need that guide because this box comes with a lot of snacks. I just got this one today, direct from Bokksu, and look at all of these things. We got some sort of seaweed snack here. We've got a buttercream cookie. We've got a dolce. I don't, I'm going to have to read the guide to figure out what this one is. It looks like some sort of sponge cake. Oh my gosh. This one is, I think it's some kind of maybe fried banana chip. Let's try it out and see. Is that what it is? Nope, it's not banana. Maybe it's a cassava potato chip. I should have read the guide. Ah, here they are. Iburigako smoky chips. Potato

chips made with rice flour, providing a lighter texture and satisfying crunch. Oh my gosh, this is so much fun. You got to get one of these for themselves and get this for the month of March. Bokksu has a limited edition cherry blossom box and 12 month subscribers get a free kimono style robe and get this while you're wearing your new duds, learning fascinating things about your tasty snacks. You can also rest assured that you have helped to support small family run businesses in Japan because Bokksu works with 200 plus small makers to get their snacks delivered straight to your door.

So if all of that sounds good, if you want a big box of delicious snacks like this for yourself, use the code factually for $15 off your first order at Bokksu.com. That's code factually for $15 off your first order on Bokksu.com. I don't know the truth. I don't know the way. I don't know what to think. I don't know what to say. Yeah, but that's alright. Yeah, that's okay. I don't know anything. Hello and welcome to Factually. I'm Adam Conover. Thank you so much for joining me once again as I talk to an incredible expert about all the amazing shit, shit, shit, all the amazing shit that they know that I don't know and that you might not know. Both of our minds are going to get blown together and I swear that next week I'll be a little bit smoother on my intro. But welcome to the show nonetheless.

bit smoother on my intro, but welcome to the show nonetheless. Just want to remind everybody, if you want to support the show, head to patreon.com slash adamconover. For just five bucks a month, you get every episode ad-free. You can join our community discord. We even, on occasion, do a live community book club. Go check it out, patreon.com slash adamconover. But let's get to this week's episode right now because I am so excited about it. Here's a question for you. What do a barista, a graduate student, and a railroad conductor have in common? Well, they're no longer willing to take shit from their boss. Just recently, at over 100 Starbucks, workers there went on strike. 50,000 graduate students at the University of California's campuses did the same thing.

And a union representing thousands of railroad workers might go on strike soon as well. It's frankly amazing to see workers use their collective power, and with unionization levels at the lowest point since the government started collecting stats in 1983, there's really no place to go but up. But what we often forget today is that the basic right of workers to organize, gain recognition, and form a union required decades of struggle. Through the late 19th and early 20th centuries, workers, men and women of every ethnicity, put their livelihoods and lives on the line to organize. They were mowed down by state police at Colorado coal mines and beaten by hired thugs in Pennsylvania steel mills. And the reason this violent action was allowed

was because for decades, the state was firmly on the side of the bosses. And while the workers fought back and organized anyway, that was a problem because corporations have power and resources that workers do not. And since plutocrats can hire private armies and count on police to enforce abusive contracts at the end of a club,

you need the laws and the government to step in on the workers' side to protect their rights. And you know what? Eventually, that's just what happened. Decades of worker agitation culminated in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. This act guaranteed for the first time that workers could organize and collectively bargain. And unsurprisingly, it's the decades right after the NLRA was passed that we think of as the golden age of the American worker. This is the time in which, you know, we started to believe that working an honest day could make you an honest living, and that that was an American right. Unfortunately, a lot has

changed since. Worker pay has fallen dramatically compared to the cost of living and unionization rates have plummeted. Why is that? Well, one of the reasons is that the government stopped looking out for the rights of workers and started looking out only for the rights of corporations. Due to big money corporate lobbying, enforcement of labor rights has largely stalled. When Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in the 80s, it sent a message to private employers that they could do the same and the government wouldn't interfere in their union busting. By 2010, the number of workers walking out was 2% of what it had been in the early 1950s.

But there is some good news here, some great news. In addition to the workers of America getting off their asses and fighting for their rights, I'm sorry, they were never really sitting on their asses, but you know what I'm talking about. The Biden administration has been explicitly pro-labor in ways that would have made Obama blush and Clinton sweat. And the policies they've enacted are not just about cheering from a podium. They're about placing pro-labor people in positions of power. And you know what? We have one of those people on the show today. In fact, she is one of the

most consequential people working in labor rights in the United States government today. She is making waves, and we are absolutely thrilled and honored to have her on the show. Her name is Jennifer Abruzzo, and she is the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, which, as you'll hear in our conversation, is an incredibly interesting and important office if you care about helping American workers secure their rights. So without further ado, let us get to this interview. We are so lucky to have her. Please welcome Jennifer Abruzzo. Jennifer Abruzzo, thank you so much for being on the show.

Of course. Happy to be here. As a member of two unions, it's a real thrill to talk to somebody from, and not just somebody, but the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, extremely important federal agency. Would you please tell us, for those who don't know, general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, extremely important federal agency. Would you please tell us, for those who don't know, what the NLRB is and what it does? Sure. I'm going to step back a second to start at the 1935 during the Great Depression. But I won't. This is music to my ears. You're going to start with a history lesson? Thank you. This is wonderful for our show. But I won't bore you going through the decades since. But what I will say is that in 1935, there was a lot of industrial instability and a lot of labor unrest because workers did not have channels of communication to actually address their workplace concerns with their employer.

channels of communication to actually address their workplace concerns with their employer. And so Congress felt like it needed to level the playing field somewhat between workers and employers and to promote the procedure and process of collective bargaining and to promote workers free association to improve their wages and working conditions. And the hope was that through negotiated wages and benefits, the workers would become more active consumers and help with the failing economy during the Great Depression. So I like to give that context because we are, the NLRB is an independent, neutral federal agency that protects the rights of workers in this country. It is a pro-worker statute. And we protect the rights of workers to self-organize, to join support or assist a union,

to bargain collectively through representatives of their own free choosing, collectively through representatives of their own free choosing, to engage together for mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from engaging in all of those activities. So that's what the statute says. And the NLRB itself, the agency, is bifurcated. It's made up of a board side, and they're the adjudicators. And most recently some they've done some rulemaking and then there's five of those folks uh and then i uh as the general counsel and there's only one of me uh i handle the investigations and the prosecutions of cases and oversee um the elections where petitions may be filed. And we conduct those elections to determine whether or not workers want a labor organization

to represent them. In the investigation and prosecution of cases, I oversee 48 field offices around the country. And then there's also the headquarters offices that deal with listeners have seen my show, The G Word, you'll know I love getting at the nitty gritty of what federal agencies do and how they operate. You said a number of things there that I thought were pretty interesting, that the NLRB is a neutral body and it is attempting to adjudicate in many cases, like in the case of an election where you sort of need to weigh things very evenly and even-handedly. But it's a neutral body that is meant to support workers, which if you're a

corporate anti-union lawyer or a CEO, you might say, hold on a second, then you're not neutral because it's me versus the workers and you're taking the worker's side. And so can you pull apart that a little bit? Because I believe you that you're neutral while also supporting workers. But how exactly do you mean that? Right. So this has come up quite a bit where and oftentimes it's like, well, when a Republican administration is in place, the agency is more pro employer. And when a Democratic administration is in place, the agency is more pro union. And my answer to that is no, we are always or should be comporting with our congressional mandate and we are pro-worker.

We are neither pro-union nor pro-employer. We are pro-worker. And if workers freely choose to unionize, we protect that right. They have that right under our statute. But it's workers' free choice to choose whether they want to unionize, whether they want to engage with their employers collectively over inequities in the workplace that have, you know, race discrimination or sexual harassment or substandard wages and benefits or lack of opportunities, whatever it may be, it doesn't mean that a union has to be involved in that workplace for us to protect workers' rights, to engage together, to address workplace concerns and to improve their wages and benefits. I really like that because then you're focusing on the individual workers

who need the support rather than any particular union structure or any particular company. You're really very much focusing on the basics of these are the folks who we're trying to protect, which, you know, that's what a union should be doing as well, is focusing on the needs of the workers themselves, not the needs of the union, the organization. That's a really great distinction. But the important thing that you're bringing up here is that you are the folks who are looking out for American workers when companies are abusing their rights under labor law.

And I think that that is an area where a lot of workers often feel that nobody has their back, you know, that, well, the, you know, I work at this restaurant, I work at this company, they can tell me whatever they like. You know, you sometimes get that little ping in the back of your mind, wait, isn't this illegal for them to tell me this, for them to say this about my right to form a union or whatever, but where are the cops on the beat? There aren't any. And you really are. So let's start with the basics here. If I'm in one of those situations and something has happened in my workplace that I think is a violation of my rights and you say, I have to bring it to the NLRB, how do I do that? Can you spin a scenario for me? Yeah, sure. So

I'll give you an example that unfortunately we see way too much. And this is supervisors saying, you can't discuss your wages with one another. Perfect. I did a segment about this in my very first season of Adam Ruins Everything about how we should all be discussing our wages with each other, because if you do, they thrive on secrecy. And if nobody knows how much anybody's making, it's easier for them to screw people. But if you say, hey, I make 80 grand, then the person who's getting paid 60 is going to say, what the fuck? I'm going to go tell the boss that I deserve 80. So we should be sharing information like this as workers. But a lot of companies tell you, you cannot. They will yell at you if you do. So what do we should be sharing information like this as workers, but a lot of companies tell you you cannot they will yell at you if you do. So what what do we do? Right. So so that's a blatant violation of the statute by saying you can't discuss with one another your wages or other working conditions.

But but wages is an easy one. So so then what what happens is either either they're threatened, like, stop it. You know, like, you're not allowed to do this, so stop it. You're violating our rules. And if you continue to do it, you're going to get fired or disciplined or something. Or they just fire, you know, or take other adverse actions. So, but let's just say it's a threat. It's like a requirement that they stop talking to one another about wages or else. Then any worker at that workplace could actually file a charge with us, or anyone, for that matter,

could file a charge with us in any one of our 48 field offices around the country, wherever it's most convenient. They can do it online. They could come into our office. Where do I go? NLRB.gov or something along those lines? NLRB.gov. I'm a good guess with a URL.

That's it. And then once the charge is docketed, which happens within 24 hours or so, an investigator is assigned, and then that investigator will reach out to the charging party, the person that filed the charge, and then seek the witnesses that can attest to the fact that this happened in their workplace. So-and-so said such-and-such, you know, supervisor, Bob, told us that we couldn't discuss our wages and benefits anymore or our wages with one another on break time. And if we did, we were going to get fired because we were violating some workplace rule. And then we would take that witness testimony and through affidavits, sworn affidavits, and then we would go to the employer in this case and seek their defense, advise them as to what is being alleged,

ask to take affidavits from the supervisors that may or may not have engaged in this bad behavior. And then they sometimes will give us affidavits. Sometimes they'll just give us a position statement. But one way or another, they typically defend their position. And then ultimately, the regional director in the office will make a decision as to whether or not there's been a violation of workers' rights. And if there is, then we will try to settle the case. If the person's been fired, we get them reinstated. We get them their back pay owed and any direct and foreseeable consequential damages they might have suffered as a result of an unlawful firing. We get a posting of employees' rights, and I say

posting loosely because it's any way that an employer communicates with their employees, so it could be through intranet or text or what have you. Post it on Slack. But that's really key is advising workers about the rights under the NLRA. It's one of my, I have like three major goals that I've had since I started at this agency back in 1995. It's to educate, to protect, and to enforce. And the education piece is really key because if people don't know they have rights under the statute and they don't know about the agency, then they're not going to exercise their rights or they're not going to come to us when those rights have been violated.

And as with no independent investigatory authority, our agency, our statute does not require employers to mandatorily post a notice of rights under the NLRA so that employees know what they are. Unlike, I don't know if you've seen bulletin boards, but you'll see it says, under the OSH Act, you've got the rights to do X under Title VII, this, the Fair Labor Standards Act, you've got the rights to do X under Title VII, this, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or whatever. So there's a carve out for the NLRA where that's not mandated. And so it's crucial that we are out there educating people, workers in particular, about their rights and businesses and labor organizations about their responsibilities under the statute. That's why I'm really happy you're

doing this. I'm really happy to have you. And I assume if people go to NLRB.gov, it'll have a list of your rights under this act, I would imagine. Yes. I hope it's right on the homepage. Yes. I hope so too. There's tabs at the top, so I'm not sure exactly where, but it's easy to find. It says, know your rights. But now, let me ask, this is a lot to ask of an employee to stand up and, you know, report to the NLRB. This sort of, you know, hits our sort of schoolyard taboo of not tattling, not reporting to the teacher. And I can only imagine, because look, you could get fired and report to the NLRB, but you could still be at your job and need to report something to the NLRB if they're doing anti-union stuff that they shouldn't be doing. And so then your manager yells at you

in some illegal way. You call the NLRB. And now the manager gets a call from the NLRB saying, we need to give an affidavit about what you said to Adam. And then that's not going to make my Monday easier when I go into work. And when you said one of the penalties is if I'm fired, I could be reinstated. That sounds like a great work environment. If I've been fired and then the government said, no, I'm sorry, you got to give Adam his job back. He's back, you know, bag bagging groceries again and everyone's staring at me like we fucking fired this guy a month ago what the what he's and and jennifer abruzzo at the nlrb put him back here that this is it's a little bit difficult for workers in these positions is it not no no question i mean i think they're the true heroes they're the ones that are like putting themselves on the line but um i will tell you, though, we are getting,

I mean, there are many folks that don't want to go back, you know, for the reasons you say, they'll, you know, we'll get them back pay, we'll get them their consequential damages, some other things, sometimes a letter of reference or neutral letter of reference or something, but they don't want to go back for the reasons you say. But there are many that do, like that are, you know, really, and it's really important, frankly, that those that can do, because it sends the message back to the other workers there whose exercise of their own rights

may have been chilled because they saw what happened to so-and-so and, oh, I don't want that to happen to me, so I'm not going to support the union, or I'm not going to protest, you know, this, you know, lower wages, or the lack of training opportunities, or whatever it was that that person did that got him fired or her fired. So it's really crucial that folks get reinstated to send the message, but I completely understand that it's not often feasible. I will tell you, though, we are getting letters of apology from supervisors,

which actually does help kind of get, you know, help to get things back to a more normalcy. And when I initially advised or submitted guidance to the regions that I wanted that to be one of the remedies that they sought, I got a lot of pushback from management-side practitioners, in particular those that represent employers who was like, who said, you're never going to get this. This is crazy. And I was like, I don't understand why it's crazy. It doesn't cost your client anything. And it means a great deal to the workers whose rights have been violated by supervisor X, Y, or Z. And actually we're getting

them and it does help. Well, I want to talk more about the penalties that are actually levied against these companies. But we've got to take a really quick break. We'll be right back with more Jennifer Abruzzo. Okay, we're back with Jennifer Abruzzo. So we've been talking about what actually happens when the NLRB finds in workers favor that, you know, a company has been violating labor law. But, you know, an apology from a supervisor who's breaking the law is a is a great thing, actually sounds like a really wonderful way to sort of smooth things over in the workplace and create a better environment for everybody.

But it's not always the supervisor, right? Often it's company policy on a wide scale level in a way that comes down from the top. I mean, I know you probably can't comment about particular companies right now, but when I look at the news about what Starbucks is doing across the country at all of these different stores. You see that from the top, from the CEO, the word is going down. Hey, be an asshole to these workers in every way that you possibly can. That's me saying that that's not you. So you won't you won't have any trouble there, I hope. But so what what can the NLRB actually do to stop a major corporation that has shareholders that's, you know, on the S&P 500 from pursuing policies like these? Are the penalties that you can levy enough to actually cause the companies to not just in individual cases, but systemically follow labor law in a way that protects workers?

systemically follow labor law in a way that protects workers? I will say that one of the things, one of the tools that we have in our toolbox currently under the statute is Section 10J, which means we can seek injunctive relief and go into a district court and get corporations or businesses to cease engaging in what I consider what we call nip in the bud activity, trying to nip in the bud organizing efforts, for example, right, by making statements, by making threats, you know, coercive statements, threats, or taking adverse action. And so we go, we seek authority from the board to go into district court, we go into district court, and like most recently, to get to enjoin that corporation from engaging in that behavior. And most recently, along the lines of what I was saying a few minutes ago, we got a court order in a Starbucks case requiring Starbucks in Memphis

to reinstate seven discharged workers that were union supporters who were discharged to undermine the union support. So like, you know, when it comes to situations where we feel that if we wait for a remedy from the board in due course, which could take years, that we will try to settle, obviously. And we do, as I said, settle 95 percent of the cases. But if we can't settle and it's egregious behavior, such as nip in the bud activity, we will go into district court and get a court to enjoin that behavior. And look, my perspective on this has been that for many years, we have not had a lot of federal enforcement around issues like this.

Certainly when I talk to other union people who have been around longer than I have, they have not felt that there was robust enforcement here. But my understanding of when the government acts is that when the government even just shows that it's beginning to enforce laws, another example of this is antitrust laws, when the government says, hey, we're taking a closer look at mergers, it makes the companies behave differently. They reconsider mergers they otherwise might have done. They have to more vigorously defend them, et cetera, et etc. Even if you don't win every case, just the fact that enforcement is happening is important. And I would imagine it's similar in this case, right?

That if because you took Starbucks to court in that way, well, that is going to adjust not just their behavior, but also the behavior of, I don't know, Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf, if their employees ever unionize in a couple of years. Something, something, is that hold up for you? No, definitely. I mean, the whole, the goal is to deter violations from occurring in the first place. So we're all about that. And I will just say that, and we are vigorously enforcing the statute as we are required to do, and it doesn't really matter what corporation it

is or what strategy strategies they employ. We'll come after them and we'll get them. What I will say also to your earlier point is, you know, I issue memos. I've issued a number of memos since I came back to the agency after a short stint away during the Trump administration. And those memos are guidance memos, right? I have prosecutorial discretion to bring issues of concern to the board. So I have been in, and I'm talking about case issues of concern that deal with case precedent, which I think does not comport with our congressional mandate. So I have issued memos and filed briefs asking the board to overturn or reconsider certain Trump board precedent and some other precedent that I feel has like either narrowly construed the statute so as to limit the rights of workers in the country, whether it's limiting the definition of protected concerted activity or otherwise allowing employers to

chill the exercise of workers' rights under the statute. But they're memos, they're guidance, right? They're not the law. They're not case precedent. So they don't become the law until the board agrees with me and my position, which of course it will, because my position is extremely reasonable. And persuasive, yes.

But it isn't the law, right? Until the board decision comes out, it's not the law. But through these memos, which, by the way, both sides of the aisle have said, we love the memos. Management side will say, we love your transparency, love the memos, because you're being transparent. The management side will typically say, we don't agree with anything in the memos, but we appreciate that you're being transparent about it. But I have seen, and if you go to various management side law firm websites, you'll see where they are advising their clients about the memos and about adjusting their behaviors. about the memos and about adjusting their behaviors. So even without the board decision coming out,

you are seeing a modification of conduct, perhaps because employers see the writing on the wall or maybe they didn't know about certain things were violative. Because I will tell you that I've been doing this a long time and I'm always amazed at the number of businesses that don't think that they fall under our agency's jurisdiction because their workforce is not unionized. that, yes, workers have the right to unionize under a statute, but they also have the right to engage collectively without any union to improve their wages and working conditions. And so if you are a private sector employer, you are likely falling under our jurisdiction. Yeah, including, I don't know, the company that we're making this podcast with right now, like it really does cover everybody. Yeah, including, I don't know, the company that we're making this podcast with right now.

Like, it really does cover everybody. And I think you're right that these companies, they watch what's going on in the agencies, and those memos serve to make them go, oh, hold on a second. Things are changing over at the NLRB. We need to get ahead of this, or we at least need to be aware of it. What I want to talk about, one of your memos that made waves sufficient that I saw them, because, you know, look, I follow labor issues, but I don't read every memo coming out of your office. But you issued a memo on captive audience meetings. And these are the meetings where

these made big headlines, again, in the Amazon unionization effort, but they've existed for a long time. Oh, they're also covered in the documentary American Factory, I believe. There are these meetings where the company says, everybody must attend this meeting. It's an all-hands meeting. It's mandatory. Work is stopping. You'll be fired if you don't attend the meeting. And then they have anti-union consultants give a big propaganda session on, you know, the union's not good for you. It's just going to take your money away. The union's a company that's just trying to earn money for the fat cats at the top of the union, you don't want that, we're a big family here, look, we got pizza, you know, etc. And these have been a really strong tool in the anti-union toolbox for a while, because the union organizers,

or the workers who are trying to get a union going, they don't have that ability. They often are prohibited or their organizing is curtailed on company time. So what was your memo about these meetings? Could you tell us about it? Yeah, well, I'll start. I mean, thanks, because you set it up nicely in terms and explained it well. I will tell you that the data has reports, data has shown that in about 90 percent of cases where an election petition is filed with us, there'll be these mandatory captive audience meetings where, you know, we see them because there'll be related charges filed that allege unlawful conduct, unfair labor practices that occur during the captive audience meeting. And when I say captive audience meeting, I'm not only talking about the mandatory mass meetings that, as you said, the anti-union consultant, the persuader will have about why

we're all one big happy family and there's no need for a union in the workplace and, you know, this is how bad they are and et cetera. But it's also these one-on-one meetings, supervisor to worker, two supervisors to one worker, three supervisors to one worker, and how that worker feels cornered, you know, on work time to listen to, you know, the supervisor's anti-union rhetoric. And so those are the, you know, it's the two buckets of mandatory captive audience meetings that I think are violative of our statute, because our statute, and it's what I'm trying to address because as I said, over 90% of the cases we see unfair labor practice charges being filed with us when an election petition is filed. And there's tons of captive audience meetings that are held during one

organizing drive at one workplace. And the unfair labor practices are typically, you know, threats of closure, threats of deportation, you know, threats of losing customers or, you know, anything and everything in between. If you, you know, if you union, you won't be able to, the stranger will come in, you won't be able to talk to us on your own, you know, without going through the union, etc. And so one of the rights under the statute, as I said earlier, is the right to refrain from engaging in or, in this case, listening to anti-union rhetoric that you don't want to listen to. And there is another part of our statute which gives a right to express views, opinions, or arguments about the rights under the statute, including unionization. But that expression has to be free from a threat of reprisal or force or grant of benefit. And so in my opinion,

any economically dependent worker who is mandated to attend a captive audience meeting, to listen to their employer's anti-union rhetoric, is inherently coerced, is inherently threatened with reprisal. They are forced to listen, even though they don't want to, because if they don't go or they leave in the middle of this mandatory meeting, they could be subject to discipline discharge. So they and they have no right to refrain. Right. It's pretty much written out of the statute is when when we're dealing with captive audience meetings. So in my opinion, that mandatory those mandatory meetings, whether it's cornering people or having a mass meeting, interferes with restraints or coerces the exercise of Section 7 rights. And that is a violation of our statute. It's clear. Section 8A1 says an employer cannot interfere with restraint or

coerce workers in the exercise of their rights. But there's a way for employers to get their points across without engaging in violative conduct, and that is to make the meetings voluntary and tell the workers, you don't have to attend. This is what we're going to be talking about. You don't want to come. You don't have to come. If you don't come, nothing's going to happen to you by not coming. If you come and you don't like what's being said, you can leave and nothing's going to happen to you. For those that stay, they're not going to get a pizza party. There's going to be no granted benefit. But so there's ways to express it, but make it voluntary because that way you allow people to exercise their right to refrain. Got it.

And so you have issued, as the general counsel for the NLRB, a memo where this is your legal opinion, this is your finding. But I assume these captive audience meetings are still going on right now because, as you say, you're sort of waiting for the process to play out and the board to agree with you and this to become the settled interpretation. But this is how change happens. This is at least the first or second or third step of that process.

That's right. I mean, I will just use the example of Starbucks again. I mean, we've got, I think, over 350 petitions now filed in Starbucks, and we've got more than that in terms of unfair labor practice charges that have been filed. Wow. Okay, well, let's talk about this wave of unionization that's sweeping the country, or at least by some measures. It's a wave certainly highly publicized, and in fast food, we're seeing, if we classify Starbucks as fast food, which I do. You know, we're seeing like election after election happen in different places. Are you do you have a lot more work right now than the NLRB did five years

ago? Yes. I will tell you that our case intake this past fiscal year, the election case work increased by over 50 percent from last year. Wow. And our C case work, the unfair labor practice case work, increased by 20 percent over last fiscal year. And so we're seeing a significant case intake, which is great. You know, it's great in the sense that, I mean, I don't like to see unfair labor practice charges filed. or through established labor organizations to engage with their employers about their workplace concerns, to engage in social justice, economic justice, racial justice advocacy that obviously has a broader societal interest, but also has a nexus to their workplace concerns at their specific jobs.

And so I'm really happy to see that workers are doing more to know more about their rights, it seems to me, because we're getting more cases in, whether they be R cases or C cases. The concern or the challenge that I have is, I don't want this agency being an obstacle for workers to exercise their rights. I don't want it to be an obstacle in ensuring that we're remedying violations of their rights. I don't want us to be an obstacle in that we are not sufficiently educating workers about their rights and employers and unions about obligations under a statute. And the problem we have now is we've been flat funded at $274 million for nine consecutive years. And what that means is, and as I said earlier, the vast majority of

the work is done in the field offices around the country. And we have lost in the past two decades, 50% of our field staff. And we are purchasing power since 2014 when we got flat funded has decreased by 25% because of inflation. And so we, it is, our budget is, it's unsustainable to remain flat funded. And, you know, we're doing all we can to try to get the word out to say, you know, it helps everybody to have a fully functioning, fully funded agency. You know, if charges are filed with us and they don't have merit, we address them right away. and they don't have merit, we address them right away. And then, you know, you minimize workplace conflict, you resolve the issues. If there are meritorious violations, we settle them right away. Again, it minimizes workplace conflict. And so it's just helping everyone to have us really fully funded. But it is at the moment, because of the case intake in particular,

which we anticipate will continue to grow, our staff, both in the field and in headquarters, are just doing yeoman's work. They are doing a tremendous amount of work because they're so dedicated to the mission, but it's becoming completely unsustainable. Yeah, something I experienced when we were filming the G word is how mission driven so many of the folks who work for government agencies are. And I can imagine how true that is at the NLRB. But do you find that because of that, that budget shortfall, are you not able to,

you know, protect workers rights at the scale you should be able to? Are there cases that are not addressable or are there, you know? Yeah, well, we're, I mean, we're addressing, you know, every case that comes in, we address, we handle, we process. We're not like putting certain cases off to the side. But the problem, or as I said, I don't want to be an obstacle, but the reality is if you have less staff and the work's increasing, then that staff is going to have more cases that they're going to have to deal with, which means that there'll be delays in the processing of the cases. And those delays affect workers whose

rights have been violated. Those delays affect employers who has charges filed against them, but can't get those resolved quickly. You know, it affects our settlements. It affects everything. It affects education because we can't get out there and perform outreach the way that we'd like to because it's a collateral duty. And we don't have enough staff to actually handle the caseload that we have. So we're all focused on just processing cases. And so other collateral duties kind of fall by the wayside. And it's why I try to get out and do as much outreach as I can so that the board agents can focus on getting the cases handled efficiently, effectively, quality job. But, you know, as as

promptly as as we can. Well, I want to turn to the big picture about what's happening in the labor movement right now, but we have to take another quick break. We'll be right back with more Jennifer Abruzzo. Okay, we're back with Jennifer Abruzzo. You said earlier that, you know, you feel that a healthy National Labor Relations Board helps everybody from the workers to the companies as well. And I just want to dwell on that a little bit because my sort of

folk understanding of the important word in there to me is relations. Because when I think about labor relations, before we had an NLRA or an NLRB, was that it was one of chaos and violence. You had, you know, workers agitating for their rights as they needed to, and you had private armies or sometimes even, you know, federal troops attacking them, killing them. You know, you had blood in the streets. And, you know, so that word in their relations, though, is to me implied, hey, we need peace. We need a way to adjudicate these conflicts in a peaceful way because the conflicts are going to be there. We almost want that kind of conflict. We want workers to be fighting for their rights against the companies. We don't want them to lie down and take it, but we want their rights to be safeguarded, but we don't want anybody to have to die. We want labor peace. And if the NLRB is not able to serve that function, it seems like we would have a lot more unrest in labor and in the economy that is not good for anybody.

I mean, again, I say this as a good union member. A lot of people say, one of the unions, I'm a member of the Writers Guild of America West. Every three years, you know, the whole industry says, oh, you're going to go on strike. You guys love going on strike. We don't like going on strike. It's horrible. It, it, it deprives everybody of their income. It's disruptive. It's traumatic. Nobody likes doing it. It's bad for the industry. It's bad for the writers in the short term. And the only reason it's done is because it's disruptive it's traumatic nobody likes doing it it's bad for the industry it's bad for the writers um in the short term and the only reason it's done is because it's the only way to get what you need in the long term in some cases um but ideally you don't have to go there you don't have that disruption and chaos and and overt conflict um because your rights are protected um and i don't

know i see the nlrb's role as being that way. Am I off base or am I somewhere close to the truth? No, no, no. I mean, exactly. I mean, you summed up like we're bookending here, right? I started with providing the context, you know, why we were enacted, why the statute was enacted, why the agency came to be, which was during the Great Depression, where there were these wildcat strikes, where there was violence, where, you know, because there was that lack of opportunity to engage with their employers in a real meaningful way and improve their circumstances, you know, and, you know, we're all about creating industrial stability.

We're all about promoting productive labor management relations because as I said earlier, that just helps everyone. It diminishes the workplace conflict. It helps the workers, it helps their families, it helps their community, it helps the employers operations. And especially now during COVID,

now hopefully we're coming to the end of COVID or we've at least adjusted to, you know, our new our new world. But, you know, just health and safety issues and and getting sufficient PPE was a huge ordeal, you know, for many, at many workplaces. And, you know, and, but at the end of the day, if you, if you engage on, for example, health and safety issues and your workers feel like, okay, you know, my employer heard me, addressed my concerns, I'm all good. And, you know, and now, you know, I'm going to help them. I'm going to add even more value to their operations, you know, but there's got to be like, you know, quid pro quo here. Like, I'm happy to add value to your operations, but you need to make sure that I'm safe and healthy, not only for me, but for my families and for our community. So, yeah, I mean, I think you summed it up very nicely, but certainly that's what our agency aims to do. That's what our congressional mandate is. I can tell you on the general counsel side, certainly in the field offices and in headquarters here, we are every day trying to do everything we can for workers in this country.

And so when just returning to the subject of your budget, you said you've been flat funded for nearly a decade. Right. What is there some trend that happened in Washington that, you know, caused people to not see the important function of the NLRB? And, you know, I don't, maybe you don't want to speculate on politics, but, you know, what was going on that caused this to happen? I don't know. I could imagine, well, you know, there are many worker protection agencies out there,

like the EEOC, like Department of Labor, for example. They don't have the same issue. I'm not saying that they're fully funded or sufficiently funded either, but they're not flat funded and they typically are not. And, you know, we always seem to be the political football. You know, we're the ones that frankly get thrown under the bus at the 11th hour. And I can only speculate as to what lobbying is being done to the lawmakers because employers don't want unionization at their particular facilities. They don't want to be told how to run their operations, etc., etc. But as I said earlier, you know, it's not only about unions at workplaces. It's about listening to your workers' concerns, complaints, and addressing

them. And they have the right to do that as well. And if you listen and you address them, then you're just creating a better operation, in my opinion. Yeah. But if you don't like the rules and you don't like there being a referee who enforces the rules, well, maybe you can starve the referee out, take the whistle away, and tilt the rules of the game. And I see why that might be a winning strategy for some folks. But hopefully it's a trend that is reversing now that we're seeing such a tide of positive sentiment towards labor,

and we're seeing so many workers standing up for their rights. So I know we just have a few minutes left for the worker out there who is listening and is thinking, hold on a second, something shady was happening at my workplace. Would you just tell us one more time, you know, what are workers' rights in the workplace? And just remind us again how they can let the NLRB know when something goes down. We'll do, but I just want to say one thing going back to legislators, and that is legislators should keep in mind that their constituents are workers. Yes. And they should be promoting workers' rights in this country because those are the people that put them

in the powerful positions that they are currently in. Yeah, the CEOs don't have as many votes. The workers, all the people at your rally, those are people who are making 15 to 25 bucks an hour, and those are the folks who you should be listening to and protecting. Exactly. But just to go back, I will say,

you know, we the the the agency protects workers rights. Workers rights include their right to unionize. It also includes workers rights to engage together to improve their wages and working conditions and benefits without a union if they don't want to unionize. And the way that workers can contact us is either check out our website at NLRB.gov or go into one of our regional offices around the country. We've got 48 of them. Call one of our regional offices. There's a map on the NLRB.gov website that will provide you with information about where our offices are located,

what the contact information is. There are charge forms on the website. There are petition forms on the website. So a lot of work could be done electronically, but we are back in person and have been since the spring. I think it's really important that we have in-person engagement with workers in this country, especially those essential workers who are out there working for us, keeping us safe and healthy each and every day. I think it's incumbent upon us to be there for them in person when they need us. And so we are back and just please,

please reach out to us. And we are happy to engage in any sort of outreach that entities may want us to do or workers may want us to do for communities, advocacy groups, whatever, wherever and whenever we're needed, we're there. Jennifer, thank you so much for coming on to share all that with us. I can't thank you enough for that and for the work that you do, for looking out for the rights of American workers. Thank you so much. And yeah, we'll let you get back to it. All right. Thank you, Adam. Thanks so much for the interest. Much appreciated.

Well, thank you once again to Jennifer Abruzzo for coming on the show. And thank you to our producer, Sam Roudman, our engineer, Kyle McGraw, and everybody who supports this show at the $15 a month level on Patreon. That's A, Adrian, Akira White, Alexey Batalov, Allison Lipparato, Alan Liska, Ants Legle, Antonio LB, Ashley, Aurelio Jimenez, Benjamin Birdsall, Benjamin Frankert, Benjamin Rice, Beth Brevik, Kumu and Lego, Charles Anderson, Chase Thompson-Bowe, Chris Mullins, Chris Staley, Courtney Henderson, Daniel Holsey, David Condry, David Conover, Devin Kim, Drill Bill, Dude With Games, Eben Lowe, Ethan Jennings, Gunnar Malegis, Hilary Wolkin, Jim Myers, Jim Shelton, Julia Russell, Caitlin Dennis, Caitlin Flanagan, Kelly Casey, Kelly Lucas, Kevlar, KMP, Lacey Tyganoff, Larry Stauder, Studenmund, Lauren Sanborn, Lisa Matulis, Maggie Hardaway, Mark Long, Martin Tithonium, Marvin Weichert, Miles Gillingsrud, Mom Named Gwen, Mrs. King Coke, Going to page two here. Loading up page two.

Here we are. Neil Gampa, Nicholas Morris, Nikki Batali, Nuyagik, Ippoluk, Paul Malk, Paul Schmidt, Rachel Nieto, Richard Watkins, Robin Madison, Rosamund Sturgis, Roy Ziegler, Ryan Shelby, Samantha Schultz, Sam Ogden, Sasha Chu, Senior Bolsa, Scooper, Spencer Campbell, Susan Eannie Fisher, Vincente Lopez, and WhiskeyNerd88. If you want to join them, of course, please head to patreon.com slash adamconover. I also want to thank

Andrew WK for our theme song, The Fine Folks at Falcon Northwest, for building me this beautiful custom gaming PC. You can find me online at adamconover.net or at adamconover wherever you get

your social media. Thank you so much for listening, and we'll see you next time on Factually. I don't know anything.