SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
collective bargaining
'Just Cause' Is a Worthy Cause
Activists in Ithaca, New York are mobilizing for the first city-wide ban on arbitrary firings in the US. Other cities should take note.
Nov 22, 2025
Activists in Ithaca, New York are trying something unique: They’re mobilizing support for an ordinance that would prohibit employers in that small city from firing their employees without just cause. If they succeed, they’ll have enacted the first such city-wide ban on arbitrary firings in the country.
Success in this effort will be a big deal, because in the United States, employment—unless otherwise restricted by law, collective bargaining agreement, or individual employment contract—is considered to be “at will.” This means that in the vast majority of cases, employers are entitled to fire workers at their whim, without warning or explanation.
A 2021 report from the National Employment Law Project (NELP) tells us that about half of US workers have been affected by unfair or arbitrary firings at some point in their lives, with devastating consequences for them and their families. Not surprisingly, then, a nationwide survey cited in the report found wide public support for just cause protections, including from 71% of voters in battleground states, with both Democratic and Republican majorities weighing in favorably.
Existing Restrictions on Employers' Right to Fire
Even without new federal, state, or local legislation, employers today face some limits to the at-will doctrine: federal and state laws, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that bar various sorts of discrimination in the workplace; anti-retaliation statutes, like those included in the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and many other whistleblower-protection statutes; and section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, that prohibits firing for union or other "concerted" activity. All these laws fall short of robustly protecting workers from retaliatory or discriminatory firings, however, largely because the burden is on the employee to prove the employer's illegal motivation—no simple feat—when under the general at-will rule the employer can fire the worker for no reason at all.
In addition to these limited statutory constraints on the at-will doctrine, over the past 50 or so years a number of state common law exceptions to the rule have developed. The most prevalent is the "public policy" exception, under which, in theory at least, employers can't fire workers for reasons that are contrary to public policy. Courts generally interpret the exception narrowly, applying it only to employees who exercise a clear legal right, perform a clear legal duty, or refuse to violate the law, or when the employer engaged in an “outrageous violation of a well-established public policy.”
Well-crafted state and local laws and ordinances, with accessible and effective enforcement mechanisms, have the potential to empower workers in new and game-changing ways, especially as federal protections erode before our eyes.
A second exception is the "implied contract of continuing employment" (at least theoretically available in 41 states and the District of Columbia). It's derived from employee handbooks, policies, and the like, that suggest protection from discharge except if the employee performs poorly, violates company policies, or has to be laid off because of the employer's economic necessity. Employers can generally get around this claim by expressly stating in their materials that the employee is working on an at-will basis, and that its various policies can be revised at any time, at the discretion of the employer.
Lastly, 11 states have read into the common law an "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing," imposed on employers and employees, to act fairly. While theoretically this should prohibit firings without cause altogether, in actuality courts rarely find it applies, and then only in the most abusive cases. In other words, none of these common law carve outs from at-will employment have been particularly helpful to workers.
The Ithaca Ordinance
Which brings us to Ithaca’s legislative proposal. As the core provision of its current draft version (embedded at the Ithaca Just Cause website), the ordinance would prohibit discharge of an employee who has completed their (maximum 90-day) probationary period, for any reason other than just cause or a bona fide economic reason. In considering whether the just cause standard has been satisfied, the fact finder is to consider, among other things, whether the employer trained the worker on its performance requirements and bases for discipline, and whether the employer’s policy, rule, practice, or performance standard, including its use of progressive discipline, was reasonable and applied consistently.
Also, except in cases of egregious misconduct, the employer has to specifically notify the worker of what rules they violated or requirements they fell short of, and must utilize progressive discipline prior to firing. Similar notice of reasons is required before discharging a worker on account of bona fide economic necessity. Significantly, if an employee termination is to be upheld, the burden is on the employer to satisfy these requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.
The proposed legislation also adds a "Worker Rights" section to the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, and establishes a commission that would adjudicate complaints of violation. Complaints of violation can also be filed in court.
Retaliation against workers who exercise any of the rights granted by the legislation is expressly prohibited, and use of electronic surveillance as a tool for determining employee performance is restricted. Remedies for employees vary depending on the violation, and include back pay and damages, rescission of discipline and reinstatement, penalties, severance pay, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.
Other Just Cause Efforts
The proposed ordinance echoes the recommendations laid out in these NELP and Roosevelt Institute reports. Published in 2021, both make the case for why this kind of municipal ordinance, or more potently, a comparable state law (or, as an even more radical aspiration, federal legislation, as promoted by Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders) is justified and overdue for all workers—with NELP focusing particularly on the disproportionate impact of at-will employment on people of color and immigrant workers, who face higher rates of wage theft, discrimination, and retaliation for asserting their rights than the employee population at large.
It should come as no surprise, but it's still shameful, that this country lags far behind many other nations—Australia, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and most of the European Union, to name a few—in providing just-cause protections against arbitrary and unfair firings. Which is why what the Ithaca coalition is doing is really worth noticing. But it's not the first city to take this on: Philadelphia led the (notably small) pack when, in 2019, its city council enacted a just cause termination ordinance for the city's approximately 1,000 parking lot attendants. New York City was next, enacting a comparable ordinance protecting its fast food workers in 2021. Also in New York City, a diverse coalition of unions, advocacy organizations, and high road employers are pressing for passage of a Secure Jobs Act covering all employees who work in the city. With its newly elected democratic socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani, it just might succeed.
The US territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have just cause laws. In Illinois, a Secure Jobs Act, pressed by Raise the Floor Alliance and a broad array of allies, was introduced in the state legislature in 2021, but has yet to be enacted. In what might come as a surprise, Montana is the only state in the US to have enacted just cause legislation, and it's been on the books for decades. While not nearly as progressive as the Ithaca, New York City, and Illinois models, it is unique in prohibiting, state-wide, firings without good cause.
Will Just Cause Laws Hamper Unionization Efforts?
Some may be concerned that just cause legislation could undercut unions' ability to successfully organize, since that's a key benefit they can provide in collective bargaining agreements. But there are a number of arguments that cut the other way—including that if firing without good cause is made illegal and is readily enforceable, it creates a more effective impediment to employers' efforts to get rid of pro-union activists than the weak and slow remedies the National Labor Relations Act has to offer. And, just cause for all workers would provide a floor, not a ceiling, for union negotiations for even better protections against improper firings at unionized workplaces.
Parting Thoughts
Worker rights advocates should watch Ithaca Just Cause's initiative with keen interest. It also should give food for thought—and inspiration—for those of us who live in other cities and states. It’s clear that just cause protections are popular with workers across party lines. Well-crafted state and local laws and ordinances, with accessible and effective enforcement mechanisms, have the potential to empower workers in new and game-changing ways, especially as federal protections erode before our eyes. For those of us in locales where this might be possible, maybe it's time to give it a try.
Keep ReadingShow Less
3 Simple Things a Republican Congress Could Do to Help Workers (But Probably Won’t)
If Republicans in Congress were willing to listen to the voices of their constituents, they could act immediately to help millions of workers in tangible ways.
Sep 01, 2025
When US President Donald Trump prevailed on election night, headlines touted the emergence of the GOP as the party of the working class. Just as Trump has been quick to market himself as putting “America workers first,” a small but increasing number of Republicans in Congress have also taken up the cause, championing their pro-worker credentials and even expressing tentative support for initiatives to promote unions and workers’ rights—conversations that would have been unheard of a decade ago.
This shift in messaging is hardly surprising—recent polling shows increasing support for unions and pro-worker initiatives across the political spectrum, even in polling sponsored by Republican-leaning organizations. But while President Trump has publicly touted his support for proposals like “no tax on tips” (a misleading talking point for a proposal that may hurt more workers than it helps), the White House has simultaneously launched an all-out assault on workers’ rights—effectively shuttering the National Labor Relations Board, stripping collective bargaining rights from 1 million federal workers, and proposing to scale back minimum wage, overtime, and health and safety protections for millions of workers.
It’s clear that President Trump has no real interest in helping working people. But it’s equally noteworthy that “pro-worker” congressional Republicans are doing very little to counter these attacks, and have no real agenda of their own to help workers succeed.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Workers have told elected officials—again and again—what government can do to help them. When working people are given the opportunity to vote directly on pro-worker policies through state and local ballot initiatives, strong majorities of voters—across party lines—support these policies. If Republicans in Congress were willing to listen to the voices of their constituents, they could act immediately to help millions of workers in tangible ways.
(1) A $15 minimum wage by 2026. Even someone who is working full time, year-round at the current minimum wage of $7.25 will live in poverty. While Democrats have introduced the leading proposal to raise the minimum wage to $17 per hour, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has introduced a different bill that would raise the wage to $15 by 2026—still a huge improvement that would benefit nearly 40 million American workers.
Raising the minimum wage is immensely popular, with 34 states having already increased their minimum wages above the federal level. Ten states already have minimum wages of $15 or more, and by the end of 2026 Florida and Nebraska will join this group—through ballot initiatives that passed with overwhelming public support. If the Republican senators and representatives from Florida and Nebraska would follow their constituents’ lead and join Sen. Hawley to support a raise, there would be a majority vote to pass a $15 minimum wage in both houses of Congress.
(2) Paid sick days. As of March 2023, nearly 28 million US workers did not have a guarantee of even a single day of paid sick leave. The Healthy Families Act (HFA) would let private sector workers earn up to seven paid sick days per year, benefiting 34 million workers and ensuring that they do not have to make impossible choices between their jobs and caring for themselves or a sick family member.
In the absence of federal protections, many states have taken the initiative to help workers. As of December 2024, 18 states have enacted laws that require private employers to provide paid sick leave. The three most recent state laws passed last November in Nebraska, Alaska, and Missouri by wide voter margins (though the Missouri initiative was subsequently repealed by the legislature and the governor). Even excluding the Missouri delegation, a total of 48 GOP representatives and four senators come from states that have already passed a paid sick days guarantee similar to the HFA—thus, paid sick days should easily have enough votes to win majority support in both houses of Congress.
(3) Restoring the Federal Right to Organize. As of July, 2025 almost 3 million people were employed by the federal government. Federal workers comprise a significant portion of the workforce in many states across the country. These public servants have faced mass firings and unprecedented attacks in the new Trump administration, including an executive order purporting to strip nearly 1 million federal workers of their right to form and join a union.
Whether in federal, state, or local government, both public servants and the people they serve benefit from collective bargaining. The process is a valuable tool to resolve conflicts early, reduce litigation, improve morale, and help attract and retain a qualified workforce, all of which helps the government function better. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia recognize this and provide some collective bargaining rights for their public sector workers. When politicians attempt to revoke these rights, voters can use ballot initiatives to protect them—as in 2011 when Ohio voters overwhelmingly rejected an effort to strip rights from their public servants.
The Protect America’s Workforce Act (PAWA), recently introduced in the House of Representatives, would reverse the Trump executive order and protect federal workers’ right to form and join a union. This popular legislation has 222 cosponsors, including seven Republicans. Two Senate Republicans—Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—have already voted for an unsuccessful amendment on the Budget resolution to protect collective bargaining rights for federal workers. If the two GOP senators from Ohio would follow their constituents’ lead in supporting public sector collective bargaining rights, PAWA could pass both houses of Congress and restore these important protections to more than 1 million American workers.
More than seven months into this Congress’ work, the fact that none of these commonsense proposals are even under discussion by our nation’s elected leaders sends a strong message about this Congress’ priorities. And it is manifestly clear that Republicans in Congress stand with President Trump, and not with working Americans.
These three simple proposals are overwhelmingly popular with people across the political spectrum and would collectively benefit millions of American workers. A Republican-controlled Congress that was willing to work across party lines could move these proposals to the president’s desk in a matter of days. (While the filibuster might prove a stumbling block in the Senate, there are opportunities every Congress to consider legislation under rules that provide a simple majority vote if proponents are properly motivated.) It’s time for congressional leaders to step up this Labor Day and put helping working families front and center on their agendas.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Blatant Attempt to Bust Our Unions': Trump Admin Moves to Gut Labor Protections at VA
"This administration wants to break the spirit of working people in this country, but we will not be broken," said National Nurses United.
Aug 07, 2025
Days after the Trump administration said in federal court that it would not move ahead with its plan to end collective bargaining agreements for more than 400,000 government employees until litigation on the issue concluded, the largest federal employees union on Wednesday pledged to fight back against the secretary of veterans affairs' decision to move forward with slashing labor protections.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins notified the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and several other unions that he was implementing an executive order signed by President Donald Trump, which required the termination of collective bargaining agreements for agencies whose missions are related to national security.
Labor protections, including those that ensure work disputes can be resolved by a neutral party and that union leaders can take part in contract negotiations, would be eliminated for more than 400,000 employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under the executive order.
Collins said in a letter to AFGE leaders that police officers, firefighters, and security guards would be exempt from the order ending collective bargaining rights, but that the VA "no longer recognizes AFGE as the exclusive representative of any other VA bargaining unit employee," including doctors, nurses, benefits specialists, lawyers, dentists, mental health specialists, and other employees.
A panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last Friday ruled that the administration could move forward with the executive order directing federal agencies to end collective bargaining with federal unions including the AFGE, but the three judges on the panel said they came to that conclusion in part because the White House had said it wouldn't end the labor agreements until the court case was resolved.
Trump has claimed the order is essential to protect national security, suggesting union protections have gotten in the way of maintaining "a responsive and accountable civil service."
"Protecting America's national security is a core constitutional duty, and President Trump refuses to let union obstruction interfere with his efforts to protect Americans and our national interests," reads the executive order signed in March, which quickly became the subject of a lawsuit filed by unions including the AFGE, National Nurses United (NNU), and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).
The plaintiffs have argued that the order will impact agencies whose missions are not directly related to national security, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services.
The AFGE also noted Wednesday that Collins' move is inconsistent with guidance from the Office of Personnel Management, which instructs agencies "not to terminate any [collective bargaining agreements] until the conclusion of litigation."
Everett Kelley, national president of the AFGE, said the "decision to rip up the negotiated union contract for majority of [the VA's] workforce is another clear example of retaliation against AFGE members for speaking out against the illegal, anti-worker, and anti-veteran policies of this administration."
VA employees, said Kelley, spoke out against Trump's plan to cut 83,000 jobs at the agency "and consistently educated the American people about how private, for-profit veteran healthcare is more expensive and results in worse outcomes for veterans."
Congressional Republicans have pushed for the privatization of veterans' healthcare, advocating for the Veterans' ACCESS Act, which has been framed as a bill that would "reduce wait times and empower veterans through online self-scheduling," as Rolling Stone reported recently, but would push veterans toward seeking care in the private sector. Collins has also pledged to bring more "choice" to veterans seeking healthcare.
"We don't apologize for protecting veteran healthcare and will continue to fight for our members and the veterans they care for," said Kelley.
National Nurses United (NNU), which represents about 16,000 nurses who work at 23 facilities operated by the VA and whose contracts were also terminated by Collins, said the effort "to erase our collective bargaining agreements is a blatant attempt to bust our unions and to silence the nurses and workers who are standing on the frontlines to protect our country's fundamental institutions."
"We know this administration is hellbent on silencing nurses and other VA workers to steamroll the destruction of the VA. This administration is marching toward the privatization of veteran care so they can move billions of taxpayer money out of the VA system, which is proven to provide excellent veteran-centric care, and into the coffers of private health care corporations run by billionaires," said NNU in a statement.
The union said it would continue to challenge Trump's executive order in court, calling it an "unconstitutional retaliation against the unions for engaging in activity protected by the First Amendment."
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said that "every American who cares about the fundamental freedoms of working people should be outraged by this attack on workers' ability to speak out and stand up at the VA."
"It's clear this is explicit retaliation against VA workers whose unions are standing up to the administration's illegal actions in court and in the streets," said Shuler. "The Trump administration may think they can rip up our contracts and silence anyone who pushes back against their unlawful and anti-worker actions, but we aren't going anywhere. The labor movement will continue to fight this all-out assault on workers with everything we have—and we're calling on Americans across this country to join us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular