March, 02 2018, 03:45pm EDT
McDonald's Workers to NLRB: Let the Judge Decide
Days after the NLRB reverses critical employment decision, cooks, cashiers protest, demanding halt to settlement talks in groundbreaking workers’ rights case.
WASHINGTON
McDonald's cooks and cashiers protested Friday at National Labor Relations Board offices in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, demanding the federal government cease settlement talks with the company in a groundbreaking case that seeks to hold the burger giant responsible for illegal retaliation against workers who joined together to call for $15 and union rights.
The protests in cities where many of the original charges against McDonald's for illegally firing, harassing and intimidating workers were filed comes days after the Board vacated its decision in the Hy-Brand case because one of its members had a significant conflict of interest. NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb had cited the Hy-Brand decision earlier this year as a reason for entering into talks with McDonald's to settle the case.
"The federal government filed suit against McDonald's for one reason: because the company broke the law and attacked hard-working cooks and cashiers who are forced to rely on public assistance and are joining together just to be able to survive," said Adriana Alvarez, a cashier at a Chicago-area McDonald's. "The only thing that's changed is the fact that a Trump-appointee is now in charge and wants to settle the case under pressure from the world's second largest employer."
By seeking a settlement with the company after 150 days of trial and hundreds of hours of testimony--and with just two days of trial remaining-- Mr. Robb is bowing to pressure from McDonald's and could be giving the company a get-out-of-jail free card for threatening, intimidating, harassing and even firing workers who stood up and demanded $15 an hour and union rights, workers argued.
Instead of walking away from a case NLRB lawyers have spent several years prosecuting, workers Friday urged the general counsel to allow the judge to rule on the issues at stake. The protests follow a letter sent to Mr. Robb by fast-food workers' attorneys earlier this week calling on him to suspend the settlement talks.
"Given the invalidation of Hy-Brand, and the resulting reaffirmation of Browning-Ferris as the authoritative Board precedent governing joint-employer determinations, the General Counsel should put further settlement discussions on hold at this time and promptly move to resume and finish the ULP trial," the letter states. "There can be no justification, we submit, for rushing to conclude a 'fire-sale' settlement."
The Labor Board's Hy-Brand reversal puts the Obama-era Browning-Ferris standard back into effect, making it easier for workers to hold big companies like McDonald's jointly responsible for workplace violations along with their franchisees. The workers case was initially brought under a pre- Browning-Ferris standard, and workers believed they had a strong case even after Hy-Brand became the law. Now that Browning-Ferris is once again the standard, the case should be evaluated under the new standard, the workers' attorneys argued in their letter to Mr. Robb.
In July 2014, the Labor Board's General Counsel issued a directive that McDonald's is a joint employer with its franchisees - a finding that the New York Times described as "a potentially disabling blow to the low-wage, anti-union business model of McDonald's and other fast-food giants." He issued 19 consolidated complaints against McDonald's and its franchisees alleging widespread violations of workers' rights to organize for better pay and working conditions.
Fast food workers are coming together all over the country to fight for $15 an hour and the right to form a union without retaliation. We work for corporations that are making tremendous profits, but do not pay employees enough to support our families and to cover basic needs like food, health care, rent and transportation.
LATEST NEWS
Over 150 Religious Orgs Endorse Salvadoran Mining Ban Reversed by Bukele
A joint letter expresses "steadfast support for the people of El Salvador and their religious institutions and leaders who are struggling to maintain their country’s historic ban on metal mining... so all Salvadorans can enjoy their God-given right to clean water."
Dec 01, 2025
More than 150 faith-based organizations from 25 countries launched an open letter on Monday supporting an El Salvadoran ban on metals mining that was overturned by right-wing President Nayib Bukele in 2024.
The original ban was passed by the country’s legislature in 2017 following years of study and the advocacy of El Salvador’s religious communities. The letter signatories, which include 153 global and regional groups from a wide range of traditions, stood with faith groups in El Salvador in calling both for no new mining and for an end to the political persecution of land and water defenders.
"We, the undersigned, from a diversity of church structures (representing local, regional, and national expressions of churches and related agencies), express our steadfast support for the people of El Salvador and their religious institutions and leaders who are struggling to maintain their country’s historic ban on metal mining—in place from 2017 to 2024—so all Salvadorans can enjoy their God-given right to clean water," the letter begins. "We stand in solidarity with civic and religious leaders who are being persecuted and imprisoned for working against injustices, including the devastation that metals mining would cause their communities."
The faith leaders also released a video reading sections of the letter aloud.
“This letter is a hope-filled expression of solidarity and humanism."
“Through this declaration, faith communities from around the world have affirmed their solidarity with faith leaders in El Salvador as they carry out their duty to protect water as a sacred inherited trust, a human right meant to be shared by all,” Rev. Dr. Japhet Ndhlovu, executive minister for the Church in the Mission Unit of The United Church of Canada, said in a statement.
El Salvadorans already struggle to gain access to clean and plentiful water. The water of 90% of Salvadorans is contaminated, half of all Salvadorans have "intermittent access to water,” and one-half of those with water access report it is poor quality, said Gordon Whitman, managing director for international organizing at letter-signatory Faith in Action, at a Monday press briefing anouncing the letter.
"Restarting mining would be catastrophic," Whitman said.
The mining ban was already hard won.
A 2012 study commissioned by the government affirmed that mining would endanger the nation’s rivers and watersheds with cyanide, arsenic, and other toxins and found widespread public opposition to mining. Before the ban was passed in March of 2017, the archbishop of San Salvador mobilized support for it by leading a march to deliver a draft of the ban to the National Assembly. After it passed unanimously, he called it a "miracle," according to John Cavanagh, a senior adviser at the Institute for Policy Studies.
The law made El Salvador "the first nation on Earth to ban mining to save its rivers," Cavanagh said at the press briefing.
“The Salvadoran precautionary approach banning metal mining is essential to protect drinking water and aquatic ecosystems, given the irreparable damage that has been done by irresponsible mining around the world,” Willamette University professor emeritus Susan Lea Smith of the Ecumenical Water Network of the World Council of Churches said in a statement. “El Salvador had made a difficult but wise choice in banning metal mining. Clean water is a gift from God, and so, for the sake of clean water and the rest of Creation, we work together for the common good."
"It is a sin to render water undrinkable.”
However, in December 2024, Bukele's government passed a new law that allows mining once again without environmental oversight or community consultation.
“It’s a law that has become one of the main threats for the Salvadorans' right to clean water," Pedro Cabezas of International Allies Against Mining in El Salvador said in the press conference.
Cabezas also said the new law was a "symptom of what El Salvador has been going through over the last five years” as Bukele concentrates all power within the executive and his own party.
While the Salvadoran public and civil society groups remain opposed to mining—a December 2024 poll found that 3 in 5 are against the practice in the country—the Bukele government has ramped up its criminalization of dissent.
In this context, the Catholic, protestant, and evangelical churches in El Salvador are among the remaining institutions "with space to speak out" against mining, Christie Neufeldt of the United Church of Canada explained at the briefing.
For example, in March, Mons. José Luis Escobar Alas, the archbishop of San Salvador, presented an anti-mining petition signed by 150,000 people.
International faith groups wanted to stand in solidarity with their Salvadoran counterparts.
“This letter is a hope-filled expression of solidarity and humanism in the face of forces that would degrade” the Earth, human rights, and democracy, Neufeldt said.
Salvadoran faith groups "remind us that access to water is a fundamental human right and that clean water is not a commodity, but a shared inheritance entrusted to all people by God. And they remind us that ending the mining ban is fueling egregious rights violations against those organizing to protect their water and land from destruction," the letter says.
Whitman spoke about the importance of water to several religious traditions.
“All of our faith traditions teach that water is a sacred gift of God,” Whitman said, adding, "It is a sin to render water undrinkable.”
In the press briefing, speakers acknowledged the link between rising authoritarianism and environmental deregulation, in El Salvador and beyond.
Cavanagh noted that, as the energy transition increases demand for rare earth minerals and global instability makes gold more attractive, "oligarchs linked to extractivism" have begun "pumping money into elections” to boost candidates who will allow them to exploit resources.
“It’s not at all surprising that the opposition to mining comes from the people, and so it’s absolutely natural that the oligarchs, that the transnational corporations are going to want to crack down on public dissent," Smith said, adding there was an "intimate connection between authoritarianism and any extractive industry, including mining."
In the end, however, the letter signatories expressed faith for a greener, freer future.
"We pray for the Salvadoran people and their government, that they protect the sacred gift of creation, uphold human rights, and ensure every family clean water—now and for generations to come," they concluded.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Indiana House Unveils New Map Rigged for GOP After Months of Trump Threats
Democratic State Sen. Fady Qaddoura, who immediately filed legislation to ban mid-decade redistricting, called the new map an illegal "racial gerrymander."
Dec 01, 2025
After months of escalating attacks against Indiana's Republican lawmakers by President Donald Trump, the state House GOP has revealed a new map for the 2026 midterms designed to hand every US House seat in the state to Republicans.
Republicans won 58% of the vote across Indiana's US House elections in 2024, granting them an already overrepresentative seven of the state's nine congressional seats. The new map, published Monday, would eliminate the remaining two seats in the state held by Democrats.
As Bolts magazine editor and founder Daniel Nichanian explained on social media, under the new map, "Indianapolis would be cracked into GOP seats, and Gary would be drowned in red." In other words, the new map would transparently dilute the power of Indiana's two largest concentrations of nonwhite voters.
The redrawing of Indiana's map comes amid a wider push spearheaded by Trump for Republican states to pursue unprecedented mid-decade gerrymandering in hopes of clinging to a governing trifecta against what is expected to be a wave year for Democrats in 2026.
A similar effort has been undertaken in Texas to potentially add five more seats to the GOP ranks, which is currently under appeal at the US Supreme Court. Trump has likewise pressured Republican lawmakers in Missouri, Utah, and North Carolina to draw maps that would net the GOP even more seats. This power grab has been met with redistricting efforts by some blue states, most notably California, which passed a new map last month, likely adding five more seats to the Democratic column.
Indiana's new map could be put to a vote in the state House as soon as December 8, where it would then be kicked up to the Senate. That is where Trump has run into some resistance, and he hasn't taken it well.
In mid-November, a group of 19 Republican state senators joined a united Democratic caucus to vote down the new map—one of the no votes, state Sen. Kyle Walker (R-33), said he'd "spent the past several months listening closely to [his] constituents on mid-decade redistricting" and found "93% opposed."
After the map was voted down, Trump lit into some of the holdouts in a rant on Truth Social. He said he was "disappointed" in the senators who voted against the map, adding that "any Republican that votes against this important redistricting, potentially having an impact on America itself, should be PRIMARIED," before calling to "get them out of office ASAP" if they failed.
Trump identified two specific lawmakers—Senate Pro Tem Rod Bray (R-37) and Sen. Greg Goode (R-38)—as the "RINO Senators" most responsible for the vote failing.
Within hours of the post, Goode was targeted by a "swatting" attack, in which an anonymous person placed a fraudulent emergency report in hopes of provoking a SWAT team or other large law enforcement response at the target's residence.
Four other Republicans, all of whom had voiced opposition to the map, were also swatted. Another received a bomb threat at his business. And on Monday, another opponent of the map, Sen. Jean Leising (R-42), said she'd received a pipe bomb threat over the weekend, which she blamed on "DC political pundits” in favor of redistricting.
As NBC News reported Monday, at least 10 Indiana Republican lawmakers have received violent threats since Trump's rant—most of whom have been opponents of redistricting.
Indiana Gov. Mike Braun (R) also received threats after catching heat in Trump's rant. But he joined Trump's attacks on the Republican caucus, specifically Bray, who he said "was forced to partner with DEMOCRATS to block an effort by the growing number of America First Senators who wanted to have a vote on passing fair maps.”
Fearful of the wrath of Trump and Braun, Indiana's House reconvened last week. And after saying that the Senate would not reconvene in December, Bray said it would do so on December 8 to "make a final decision… on any redistricting proposal sent from the House.”
Within an hour of Monday's announcement of the GOP map, Democrats, led by state Sen. Fady Qaddoura (D-30), said they planned to introduce legislation to ban mid-decade gerrymandering.
"Voters should choose their leaders, not the other way around," said Qaddoura, who added that the map was "racially gerrymandered."
If the map does pass the Senate, this may present an obstacle. Texas' map is under review by the US Supreme Court after a GOP-majority lower court ruled that the legislature had redrawn districts "based on their racial makeup,” which is illegal under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
But its passage in the state Senate is far from certain. Despite continued pressure from the White House, Politico reports that Bray remains opposed. Meanwhile, Walker has accused the White House of violating the Hatch Act when it invited him to meet with Trump to discuss redistricting.
Trump also lost another ally this weekend in Sen. Mike Bohacek (R-8), who announced that he'd be voting no on redistricting after Trump referred to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) as "retarded" in an unhinged Thanksgiving Day social media rant.
"I have been an unapologetic advocate for people with intellectual disabilities since the birth of my second daughter," Bohacek said, noting that his daughter has Down syndrome. "This is not the first time our president has used these insulting and derogatory references, and his choices of words have consequences. I will be voting NO on redistricting, perhaps he can use the next 10 months to convince voters that his policies and behavior deserve a congressional majority."
The GOP map remains largely unpopular among Hoosiers. The most recent survey, conducted by the Virginia-based firm Bellwether Research, found that among its sample of 800 voters, "51% didn’t want redistricting now—with 45% 'strongly' opposed. About 39% supported the prospect, but just 23% 'strongly' backed it," as Indiana Public Media reported.
As the map was introduced on Monday, hundreds of Hoosiers gathered inside the State Capitol to voice their disapproval.
"At a time when Hoosiers are facing high costs for childcare, groceries, utilities, housing, and health care, the last thing needed is politicians manipulating maps instead of solving real issues," Qaddoura said. "Hoosiers deserve fair elections, stable districts, and a government that reflects them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Are Being Held to Ransom': Trump-Starmer Deal Would Force NHS to Pay More for Medicines
One British lawmaker condemned the agreement as "a Trump shakedown of the NHS."
Dec 01, 2025
The government of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced swift backlash on Monday after the Trump administration announced a deal under which the United Kingdom's prized National Health Service would pay higher prices for new medicines in exchange for tariff exemptions.
The agreement in principle, outlined in a statement by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, was seen by UK lawmakers and advocacy groups as a gross capitulation to US President Donald Trump and the pharmaceutical industry that would harm the NHS and British patients for years to come.
"Giving in to Big Pharma’s demands to hike the price of medicines spells disaster for our NHS, and for the lives of ordinary people," said Global Justice Now, a UK-based group. "We are being held to ransom. Our government must stand up to Big Pharma and for our NHS by reversing course."
Under the three-year deal, the NHS would boost the net price it pays for new pharmaceutical drugs, many of which emerge from the US, by 25%—a change that's expected to cost British taxpayers roughly £3 billion. In return, Trump has agreed not to impose tariffs on UK pharmaceuticals.
Helen Morgan, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Shropshire, denounced the new agreement as "a Trump shakedown of the NHS." As evidence, she pointed to US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s celebration of the bilateral deal.
"It cannot go ahead," said Morgan. "RFK Jr. has put it in black and white: Trump demanded these pay rises to put Americans first, and our government rolled over. Patients stuck on crammed hospital corridors, or unable to get an ambulance, won’t forget it."
"The British people didn’t vote for this," Morgan added. "The government must put this agreement to a vote in parliament.”
Andrew Hill, a visiting health economics researcher at the University of Liverpool, similarly criticized the deal.
“The UK hasn’t benefited from this at all, but we’re having to pay all this extra money," said Hill. "More money spent on drugs means less money spent on ambulances, doctors, nurses, simple health interventions."
In addition to facing the threat of Trump tariffs, the UK government was under pressure from the powerful pharmaceutical industry to jack up NHS drug spending. The Guardian reported in September that "big pharmaceutical companies have ditched or paused nearly £2 billion in planned UK investments so far this year" as the firms "accused the government of not spending enough on new medicines."
Survey data released just ahead of Monday's deal announcement shows that 64% of the British public is opposed to the NHS paying higher prices for medicines.
"This is a betrayal of NHS patients," said Diarmaid McDonald, executive director of the advocacy group Just Treatment. "Big Pharma have got what they want. Donald Trump has got what he wants. In the face of their coordinated threats, the government has folded and thousands of patients will pay for this with their lives, as precious funds get stripped from other parts of the health service to line the pockets of rich pharmaceutical execs."
"MPs need to urgently hold the government to account," McDonald added, "and demand they publish the evidence showing the impact of this catastrophic move.”
"This outrageous giveaway to Big Pharma does nothing to lower prices in the United States. It only hurts UK patients."
Asked at a Monday press briefing if the deal would actually benefit US patients and consumers, as the Trump administration has claimed, or if the alleged revenue generated by the agreement would just be "sucked up" by the drug companies, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt did not have an immediate answer.
"I'm going to be honest with you, Ed," Leavitt told the reporter: "I'll get you an answer to that question after the briefing."
Peter Maybarduk, Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines director, argued in a statement that the agreement wouldn't help Americans or Britons.
" Drug prices are far too high everywhere, including in the UK, backed by patent monopolies and contributing to rationing and preventable suffering," said Maybarduk. "This outrageous giveaway to Big Pharma does nothing to lower prices in the United States. It only hurts UK patients while distracting from the serious action needed at home to hold Pharma accountable and make medicine affordable and available for all.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular