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
labor
Mamdani Backs Proposal to End Amazon's 'Exploitative' Delivery Model in New York City
If passed, the Delivery Protection Act would be the first law in the US to regulate Amazon's vast network of subcontractors that handle the company's deliveries.
Aug 11, 2026
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has thrown his support behind legislation that could become a first-in-the-nation law to regulate Amazon's network of subcontractors that deliver the $3 trillion company's packages—an "exploitative business model" that shields the e-commerce giant from accountability, as Mamdani said Monday.
The Democratic mayor endorsed the Delivery Protection Act, proposed by New York City Council Member Tiffany Cabán, which would establish new safety, training, and labor standards for "last-mile" warehouses and distribution facilities in New York City, and hold the companies that operate the facilities, such as Amazon and FedEx, liable for employing the workers who make hundreds of deliveries per day across the city.
As the mayor's office said Monday, at least 11 last-mile facilities have opened across New York City since 2020, with subcontractors running the warehouses as Amazon directs the hiring of delivery drivers, the routes they use, and requires them to use Amazon-branded vehicles and uniforms.
But while exerting control over the deliveries, Amazon pushes responsibility for the vehicles used onto the subcontractors, as delivery workers explained in a video released on social media by Mamdani on Monday.
"When injuries and worker accidents skyrocket, Amazon says they have nothing to do with it. They can't have it both ways," said the workers.
If it looks like an Amazon delivery and drives like an Amazon delivery, then it's an Amazon delivery, right? Not according to Amazon.
Big companies like Amazon have built a vast network of subcontractors who deliver their packages while shielding them from accountability.
It… pic.twitter.com/6hQVV8GoNH
— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) August 10, 2026
According to a report by the Office of the Comptroller in New York City last year, 78% of areas surrounding last-mile facilities saw an increase in injury-causing crashes after the warehouses opened.
“Corporations like Amazon build billion-dollar business models by insulating themselves from accountability through a system of exploitative subcontracting," said Mamdani in a statement. "As last-mile delivery centers have exploded across New York, so too have traffic accidents and worker injuries. The Delivery Protection Act is commonsense regulation that protects delivery workers, safeguards the communities where these facilities operate, and ensures that the corporations benefiting from workers’ labor are responsible for the consequences of their business practices."
"The people who make these companies run deserve dignity, stability, and a safe workplace," he added. "It's time to end the subcontracting model that puts profits over people and build an economy that works for working New Yorkers.”
By using subcontractors, Amazon can avoid municipal regulations regarding minimum pay and benefits. A nationwide survey by the Shift Project at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy last year found that Amazon delivery drivers are paid an average of $19 per hour, compared with $35 per hour at UPS and $25 per hour at FedEx. Pay does not rise with tenure at Amazon, as opposed to its delivery competitors, and fewer than half of Amazon drivers have access to health insurance, paid vacation, and retirement plans that are provided to nearly all UPS delivery workers.
In New York City, pay for the drivers who make Amazon's deliveries is higher, starting at about $20 per hour and averaging close to $24 per hour. But one driver in Queens, Luc Rene, told The New York Times that Amazon controls the volume of packages he delivers and has refused to allow the subcontractor he works for, DNA Logistics, to lighten the workload during extreme heat and other inclement weather.
The company could not be reached for a comment to the Times, and Amazon did not address Rene's allegations but claimed it adjusts drivers' routes due to inclement weather.
Amazon has claimed that the Delivery Protection Act—which would require last-mile facilities to obtain licenses from the city's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, ensure worker protections, and hold companies accountable for delivery quotas, schedules, and routes—would raise costs for people who use delivery services, with one Amazon-commissioned study claiming households would spend $664 more annually if the company had to comply with the law.
But Brendan Griffith, president of the New York City Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, said the workers and communities in New York City are already "paying the price" for Amazon's reliance on subcontractors.
“The Delivery Protection Act will establish stronger protections for worker safety, employment, and responsible operations while bringing long-overdue oversight to an industry where major operators have too often hidden behind subcontractors," said Griffith. "To be clear: when these companies 'raise the alarm' of fewer jobs, higher prices, or service reductions, they are describing choices that they may make, not in the best interest of consumers and workers but to protect their bottom line. We thank Mayor Mamdani for standing with the Amazon Teamsters and the labor movement in support of this legislation that puts NYC workers—who are also consumers—first, and we urge the City Council to pass it without delay.”
Mamdani's advocacy for the legislation in New York City caught the attention of at least one lawmaker across the country.
"We should pass something like this in Colorado," said state Rep. Javier Mabrey (D-1).
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No Vacation Nation': Analysis Shows US Workers Getting Shafted When It Comes to Paid Time Off
The US is still the only developed country that doesn't require any paid vacation time by law.
Aug 05, 2026
Though they may work in the land of the free, Americans are getting a lot less free time than their counterparts around the world.
The US is the only developed nation that doesn't require employers to grant workers any paid vacation time. And according to a report out Wednesday, the average American is receiving less time off than what many of their peers consider the bare minimum.
Twenty-five countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) require employers to grant at least 20 days of paid time off to their workers.
Workers in the UK are guaranteed at least 28 days of lounging each year by law, while those in Sweden, France, Denmark, and Austria get a minimum of 25 days off.
Americans, meanwhile, are receiving just 10 vacation days per year on average, according to the analysis, titled "No Vacation Nation," by John Schmitt, a fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
That is the bare minimum for countries ranking at the bottom of the OECD list, Japan and Canada, which each require full-time workers to get at least 10 days off.
And the Americans getting time off at all are the lucky ones. Around 43% of workers in the bottom quarter of earners don't get any paid vacation time, while just 38% of part-time workers do.
“Every other comparable country in the world guarantees workers a decent minimum amount of paid vacation. In the United States, we don’t require employers to give any,” Schmitt said. “As a result, almost a quarter of our workforce has nothing at all, and the average for those workers who do have paid vacation is near the bottom of the minimum required by law in the rest of the world’s rich countries.”
Vacation days are just one of many areas where American workers are guaranteed less than their counterparts in other wealthy nations. The US is also the only OECD country with no national requirement for paid maternity leave or sick leave.
Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have pushed for paid time off to be included in its "New Affordability Agenda," a package of bills focused on labor and the cost of living that they hope will pass if Democrats retake Congress this November.
They've included a bill introduced last year by Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI) which requires two weeks of paid vacation for full-time workers.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Deadly Temperatures, GOP Advances Bill to Ban Federal Heat Protections for Workers
"Congress should not respond to an escalating occupational hazard by permanently removing the Department of Labor’s authority to address it."
Jul 24, 2026
A Republican-controlled House committee passed legislation earlier this week that would prevent the US Labor Department from enacting federal standards to protect workers from extreme heat, a move that came amid sweltering heat across the country.
The Heat Workforce Standards Act, led by Rep. Mark Messmer (R-Ind.), passed the House Education and Workforce Committee on Tuesday in a 18-15 vote along party lines. If enacted, the legislation would bar the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from implementing nationwide heat protections for workers—including those proposed by the Biden administration in 2024.
The Biden Labor Department estimated that its proposed rules would protect around 36 million workers. Trump's Labor Department has done nothing to move forward with the Biden-era proposal.
The AFL-CIO, the largest labor federation in the US, has condemned the GOP bill, noting that "extreme heat is one of the deadliest workplace hazards in America."
"House lawmakers are considering legislation that would block OSHA from issuing or enforcing a federal heat safety standard," the labor group said earlier this week. "That's the wrong direction when workers' lives are on the line."
Ahead of Tuesday's vote, a coalition of labor unions and advocacy groups wrote in a letter to members of Congress that the Republican legislation "would permanently remove the federal government’s authority to address a workplace hazard that is already resulting in worker fatalities."
"The Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded 55 worker deaths from heat exposure in 2023, a number that safety researchers widely consider to be an undercount due to frequent misclassification or underreporting of heat-related illnesses and fatalities," the coalition wrote. "More broadly, heat-related deaths in the United States have more than doubled since 1999, and extreme heat now claims more lives each year than any other weather-related hazard."
"Workers have no control over extreme heat, and many are unable to refuse hazardous assignments without jeopardizing their livelihoods," the groups added. "Congress should not respond to an escalating occupational hazard by permanently removing the Department of Labor’s authority to address it."
The Groundwork Collaborative, Workshop, and Harvard Law School’s Center for Labor and a Just Economy estimated in a report published earlier this year that basic, federal workplace heat protections could save up to 1,500 lives annually. The report observed that major industry groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce, have mobilized against proposed national heat protections.
"Companies like Amazon and the United Parcel Service (UPS) that employ hundreds of thousands of workers subjected to extreme workplace temperatures make public statements about their commitments to worker safety while actively lobbying to weaken or block heat regulations," the report noted. "As extreme heat intensifies, the cost of inaction will be measured in lives lost. The question facing policymakers is no longer whether effective protections exist, but whether they have the political will to stand up to those unscrupulous employers lobbying hard to block them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
United Auto Workers Leader Shawn Fain Vows to 'Fight Back Hard' Against Trump DOJ Probe
"This is what happens when you go against corporate America and their allies," said the United Auto Workers president.
Jul 13, 2026
United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain issued a fiery statement on Sunday vowing to "fight back hard" as President Donald Trump's Justice Department launched a probe into allegations that the union leader abused his authority to seek benefits for his fiancée and her sister.
Fain rejected the claims as "false" and accused UAW vice president Rich Boyer, who is vying for the union presidency, of "trying to weaponize these bogus allegations to steal the upcoming UAW election." Fain also hit out at court-appointed federal monitor Neil Barofsky, whom the union president accused of harboring "a political grudge against me because the UAW took an anti-war stance about what was happening in Gaza."
"Rich Boyer has fed the monitor false allegations about me," said Fain. "We're going to fight back hard."
In 2023, Fain emerged as one of the most prominent union leaders in the nation during the UAW's weeks-long "Stand Up Strike" against the Big Three automakers, which yielded historic contracts for UAW members. On Sunday, Fain suggested that the union's successes under his leadership are fueling his opponents' attacks.
"This is what happens when you go against corporate America and their allies," said Fain, "and I'm not going to be intimidated or harassed out of serving our membership."
Bloomberg reported Sunday that the US Justice Department has launched a grand jury probe into allegations that Fain "sought a financial bonus for his fiancée and pushed for a worker’s compensation claim for her sister."
"He allegedly retaliated against Boyer for refusing to approve the benefits by stripping the official of his duties as chief negotiator with Stellantis NV, the maker of Jeep and Ram vehicles," Bloomberg noted. "The allegations became public last month in a report by the court-appointed monitor."
Fain on Sunday denied retaliating against Boyer. "The truth when it comes to Boyer," Fain said, "is that I didn't want him running the Stellantis Department because he wasn't doing a good job for our members."
The UAW president went on to accuse Boyer of trying to "hire family members into UAW positions" and failing to enforce the union's contract with Stellantis.
"Boyer is bad for our union and I'm not going to let him use the monitor's bogus investigation so he can try to fail upwards into a bigger title," said Fain. "Our election is in six weeks. Neil Barofsky will not run our union, no matter how hard he tries. And no company sellout like Boyer is going to dictate our elections."
Barofsky was appointed as UAW monitor in 2021—around two years before Fain was sworn in as union president—as part of a consent decree with the Justice Department in the wake of a corruption investigation.
Relations between Fain and Barofsky have reportedly been strained since late 2023, when the UAW became the largest union in the US to call for a ceasefire in Gaza as the Palestinian enclave faced a massive Israeli assault.
Shortly after the UAW's demand, according to The Detroit News, Barofsky "called Fain for a personal conversation related to the ceasefire statement and other issues around the war—a call Fain would later indicate made him uncomfortable, and that a union lawyer told Barofsky was out of line."
In February 2024, weeks after the UAW's ceasefire call, Fain and Barofsky had an "expletive-laden discussion" that Fain says "led to the monitor launching an investigation into him," The Detroit News reported last week. Fain reportedly said at one point during the February phone meeting that Barofsky accused the union leader of being antisemitic, which Fain furiously denied.
"For anybody to ever f------ say I'm antisemitic, brother, I'll fight your ass in front of this building in a heartbeat," Fain said, according to The Detroit News. "I do not f------ like that, and I don't appreciate it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Strong Working-Class Agenda With Moral Clarity': UAW Endorses Abdul El-Sayed
In what could be his most important endorsement in the tight Senate primary, Michigan's largest and most influential union said El-Sayed was "someone we can trust to have our backs."
Jun 05, 2026
Momentum behind Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the progressive hopeful for Michigan's US Senate seat, continued to build on Friday when the candidate won a major endorsement from the state's largest and most influential labor union, the United Auto Workers.
"The UAW is proud to endorse Abdul El-Sayed for US Senate," the union said in a post to social media. "UAW members in Michigan want a fighter in Washington, DC who isn’t afraid to push forward a strong working-class agenda with moral clarity."
"Having never taken a dime from corporate PACs, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed is someone we can trust to have our backs," the union continued. "From Medicare for All to banning stock buybacks, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed is ready, eager, and well-equipped to move our core issues in the US Senate."
Despite stronger establishment backing for his opponents, Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-8), recent polls show El-Sayed, Detroit's former health director, as a narrow frontrunner for the Democratic primary scheduled for early August, where the winner is expected to face the Republican former US Rep. Mike Rogers for the vacant Senate seat.
El-Sayed has won the endorsements of other unions, such as National Nurses United; progressive groups, including the Working Families Party; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.); and several like-minded Democrats, such as Michigan’s US Rep. Rashida Tlaib; Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.); and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.
But the endorsement of the storied UAW, which boasts over 350,000 active and retired members in Michigan, might be his biggest yet as he seeks to transition fully from insurgent to frontrunner.
"I am so honored and humbled," El-Sayed said on social media as he prepared to join striking UAW Local 2093 American Axle workers on the picket line in Three Rivers on Friday. "Michigan union autoworkers built the American middle class and proved that when people stand together, there’s nothing we can’t accomplish. Solidarity forever."
Dan Merica, a reporter at The Washington Post, noted that losing the UAW endorsement to El-Sayed was a particularly big blow to Stevens, "who is running as a technocrat, often referring to herself as a 'manufacturing geek' because of her work as one of President Barack Obama’s top officials on the 2009 auto rescue."
It could have major implications in a race that is not only critical for deciding the balance of power in the Senate this November, but is widely perceived as a battle for the future of the Democratic Party.
Michigan's importance is surely not lost on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). The New York Times reported on Friday that despite a public stance of neutrality, he is working behind the scenes to push party donors to support Stevens, the most conservative Democrat in the three-way race. The representative for suburban Detroit recently came under scrutiny over her backing from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the for-profit health insurance industry.
In response to what The Washington Post described as the establishment’s “concerted bid to hew to the political center,” the progressive advocacy group MoveOn said, “Once again the Democratic establishment seems to think it knows what’s best for voters [more] than voters themselves,” and congratulated El-Sayed on his endorsement.
"There’s a reason his campaign is inspiring people all over the state," said MoveOn's chief communications officer Joel Payne. "His economic populism resonates with Michiganders who are sick of lip service, dark money, and politicians who don’t seem to get their day-to-day struggles."
"Those in congressional cloakrooms and in the establishment class in DC may not like it," he continued, "but real Michiganders continue to make their support for El-Sayed’s economic populism and people-centered agenda clear.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Unions Condemn Executive Order Allowing Trump to Replace Federal Workers With 'Political Loyalists'
The head of America's largest federal workers union called it "a blatant attempt to corrupt the federal government by eliminating employees’ due process rights so they can be fired for political reasons."
Jun 05, 2026
Labor unions are warning that an executive order signed this week by President Donald Trump will allow his administration to replace thousands of career civil servants with "political loyalists."
The order, signed on Wednesday, converts around 8,000 federal workers—most of whom are at senior levels in the civil service with major influence over policy decisions—to Schedule Policy/Career (P/C) status, formerly known as Schedule F, effectively making them "at-will" employees whom the president can fire at his discretion.
While a small number, around 4,000, of the roughly 2 million federal workers are considered political appointees, most federal employees cannot be removed purely for failing to serve the agenda of the president and can usually only be fired for issues like inadequate performance or misconduct, which involves an appeal process.
But as part of the Trump administration's effort to dismantle what it's described as a "deep state" of disloyal bureaucrats, a major objective of the Heritage Foundation's right-wing manifesto Project 2025, those 8,000 employees may now be fired for "subversion of presidential directives."
According to the US Office of Personnel Management, this could be just the beginning—with as many as 50,000 employees potentially in consideration to be rescheduled.
A fact sheet released by the White House said that despite the reclassification, “these remain ‘career’ positions and the non-partisan hiring processes, competitive status, and other aspects of these roles will not change,” while “removal decisions will also be made without respect to political affiliation.”
But Trump-loyal department heads—everywhere from the Department of Justice to the Pentagon—have systematically purged employees across executive departments that are perceived as Trump's political enemies.
AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler said on Thursday that "Schedule P/C is the next phase in Trump’s anti-worker agenda to replace government workers with political loyalists who answer only to him."
"As we’ve seen from his first day in office, the president is determined to tear down the architecture of our federal government and replace it with a system of corruption to benefit powerful CEOs and billionaire union-busters," she said.
It's part of a broader attack on the federal workforce in Trump's second term. Through a combination of firings, layoffs, and forced resignations, he has reduced the number of government employees by nearly 300,000, causing chaos and understaffing at many agencies. He's also stripped more than 1 million unionized federal workers of their right to collective bargaining, though courts have blocked the implementation for some workers.
Everett Kelley, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents more than 800,000 federal workers, said Wednesday's order was "a blatant attempt to corrupt the federal government by eliminating employees’ due process rights so they can be fired for political reasons."
"The practical implications of this action are clear. Workers who once felt comfortable reporting waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement at their place of employment because they were protected from retaliation will now be afraid for their jobs if they speak out," he said. "That is a disservice to them and to the millions of Americans who rely on the federal government every day."
William Shackelford, president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, added that the order "threatens expanded political cronyism, increasing the risk that executive actions will be decided by the size of political contributions rather than the faithful execution of the law."
"That increases the risk of politically motivated enforcement of laws, threatening individual liberty; politically determined tariff exceptions and contract and grant awards, threatening greater corruption and waste of taxpayer dollars; and politically selective provision of services, threatening failure of government operations for disfavored groups or localities," he said.
The legal watchdog Democracy Forward has filed a lawsuit against Trump's rebranding of Schedule F as Schedule P/C at the start of his second term, which the group argued allowed several positions in the traditional nonpartisan civil service to be effectively recast as political appointees.
"For generations, our country has relied on a professional, nonpartisan civil service," said Skye Perryman, the group's president and CEO on Wednesday. "The people responsible for protecting our public health, safeguarding our environment, delivering our mail, managing our airports, protecting our public lands, and enforcing our laws should be allowed to do their jobs, not targeted by the same government they serve."
“When government experts can be fired without cause,” she added, “it’s not just federal workers who are harmed—it’s the people across the country who rely on these essential services every day.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Labor Unions Celebrate World Court Ruling Enshrining Right to Strike
The ICJ’s landmark advisory opinion comes as legal restrictions on the right to strike are increasing around the world.
May 31, 2026
The right to strike is under attack throughout the world, including in the United States. Labor strikes are currently forbidden or restricted in the majority of countries.
Now, in a landmark 43-page advisory opinion issued May 21, the International Court of Justice (ICJ, or World Court) has determined that the right to strike is protected under the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise.
“At a moment when workers’ organizations face sustained attacks around the world, this opinion reaffirms that the freedom to withhold one’s labor is not a privilege granted by the powerful, but a fundamental human right grounded in international law,” AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler said in a statement.
The ILO is the United Nations agency that sets global labor standards. It has 187 member states and has adopted 191 conventions since its founding in 1919. The ILO considers Convention No. 87 to be one of its 11 fundamental conventions.
In 2023, the ILO asked the ICJ to settle an internal dispute about whether Convention No. 87 gives workers the right to strike, which is not specifically addressed in the convention. Although advisory opinions of the ICJ are not legally binding, many courts accept them as authoritative legal decisions.
The ICJ ruled in its 10-4 opinion that a strike “is one of the main activities engaged in and tools used by workers and their organizations to promote their interests and improve conditions of labour, thereby ensuring the effective exercise of the freedom of association protected under Convention No. 87.”
The Court found “that protection of the right to strike is encompassed in the protection of the freedom of association provided for in Convention No. 87.”
In reaching that conclusion, the Court considered provisions in two 1996 Covenants that contain relevant rules of international law regarding the right to strike. Both refer to Convention No. 87.
Article 8, paragraph 1 (d) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) expressly protects the right to strike, if it is exercised in conformity with domestic laws.
Article 22, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides for the right to freedom of association. The ICJ noted that for more than 25 years, the Human Rights Committee — which monitors the implementation of the ICCPR — has considered the right to strike to be encompassed in the protection of freedom of association.
Due to the high degree of overlap between the states parties to the ICESCR and ICCPR, and Convention No. 87, the ICJ determined there was a common understanding among them on the right to strike. The Court thus concluded “that an interpretation taking into account the relevant rules of international law contained in the ICESCR and the ICCPR indicates that the protection of the right to strike is encompassed in the protection of the freedom of association provided by Convention No. 87.”
No Right to Organize Without the Right to Strike
“For generations, working people have understood a simple truth: The freedom to join a union means nothing if you cannot withhold your labor when bosses refuse to listen. Now, the world’s highest court has affirmed that truth,” said Jeffrey Vogt, director of the International Lawyers Assisting Workers (ILAW) Network, which issued the call for the ILO referral of this case to the ICJ.
The ICJ decision “affirms decades of judicial precedent and what workers around the world know: there is no right to organize and bargain collectively without the right to strike,” Shuler said in her statement. “When workers are barred from taking collective action on the job, they cannot defend their rights and demand the workplace conditions and contracts they are owed. The freedom to join a union becomes an empty formality.”
“This is an important day for the International Labor Organization [ILO], and for its continued relevance in the world of work. However, the significance of this opinion extends well beyond the institutional context in Geneva,” the ILAW Network wrote in a statement.
The ICJ advisory opinion came “at a moment of acute pressure on the international labour rights system,” ILAW stated. “Across the world, the right to strike is under sustained attack — through restrictive legislation, expansive judicial interpretation of essential services, the criminalisation of trade union activity, and the use of dismissals, injunctions, and damages claims to deter collective action.”
Legal restrictions on the right to strike are increasing. In 2022, strikes were outlawed or stringently restricted in 129 of the 148 countries tallied by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), one of the six organizations with consultative status at the ILO Governing Body.
The ITUC, which represents 191 million workers in 169 countries and territories, is dedicated to trade union democracy and independence. It has regional organizations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The ICJ decision “is important not only for workers and trade unions, but also for governments and responsible businesses,” ITUC stressed.
This decision “will serve as a powerful interpretive tool before national constitutional and labour courts, before regional human rights bodies, and before the ILO’s own supervisory bodies,” ILAW noted. “It strengthens the hand of every worker and union challenging strike bans, broad essential-services designations, criminal sanctions against strikers, prohibitions on solidarity and political strikes, and the dismissal and blacklisting of workers who exercise this right.”
Ruling Will Affect Tens of Millions of Workers
In October, 18 countries and five international organizations, including the ILO, presented oral testimony before the ICJ, and other nations filed written contributions. The majority of participants supported the right to strike, which is guaranteed in most European countries.
Harold Koh, who represented the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) before the ICJ, told the judges that the case would “affect the real rights of tens of millions of working people around the world.” If the Court ruled that the Convention didn’t protect the right to strike, Koh warned, “National employer groups would contest the right to strike country by country, focusing first on nations with compliant courts, weak civil societies and ineffective media.”
Jeffrey Vogt worked with the legal team of the ITUC on the briefs and oral arguments presented to the ICJ. Vogt’s co-authored book, The Right to Strike in International Law, provided a legal roadmap for the case.
Vogt told Truthout that “the written view of the US (under the Biden administration) was to support the right to strike, albeit on narrower grounds than what we had argued. When the Trump administration came in, they withdrew the Biden era brief but fortunately did not appear for oral arguments and take a contrary view.”
“The decision deals with the right to strike in the abstract — does the convention protect it — but does not go into the modalities,” Vogt added. The Court wrote that its “conclusion that the right to strike is protected by Convention No. 87 does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope, or conditions for the exercise of that right.”
“That was a conscious decision,” Vogt noted. “We did not want the court to attempt to define the scope, especially since we believe that is the proper role of the ILO supervisory system.” Vogt said that “the ICJ gave ‘great weight’ to the views of the supervisory system, which is helpful.” And although “the ILO has supported secondary strikes,” in which workers strike in solidarity with other workers at a different employer, the ICJ decision didn’t opine on that specific issue.
The Right to Strike in the US
“The right to withhold one’s labor, inherent in the right to strike, belongs to all workers, but it has been restricted,” Jeanne Mirer, a labor lawyer in private practice working with the International Commission for Labor Rights, told Truthout. “Many unions have agreed never to strike while a collective bargaining agreement is in effect.”
Most private sector workers in the US have the right to strike under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Employees, including international and undocumented workers, cannot be fired or disciplined for participating in a lawful strike.
“Those exempted from the NLRA, such as agricultural and domestic workers, are not restricted in the right to strike but have no protections against discharge if they strike and do not have the power to prevent such retaliation,” Mirer added.
Some states have their own laws granting protection to domestic workers and 14 states guarantee farmworkers collective bargaining rights.
Railroad and airline workers are not covered by the NLRA, but they come under the Railway Labor Act, which has several limitations on the right to strike.
In recent years, Congress and the courts have narrowed the definition of “protected concerted activity” under the NLRA. Union membership is dropping. Nevertheless, strike actions in the US increased by almost 50 percent in 2022, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
In 2023, the US Supreme Court weakened the legal protections for striking in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, making it easier for employers to sue unions in state courts. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing, “The right to strike is fundamental to American labor law.” She noted:
Workers are not indentured servants, bound to continue laboring until any planned work stoppage would be as painless as possible for their masters. They are employees whose collective and peaceful decision to withhold their labor is protected by the [National Labor Relations Act] even if economic injury results.
The NLRA’s protections for private sector workers don’t extend to public sector employees. “Public employees in the United States have been restricted in many ways from striking,” Mirer said.
Federal workers are legally prohibited from striking. Thirty-six states prohibit public sector workers from striking. Three other states that haven’t addressed the issue would likely outlaw public sector strikes as well. In the 12 states where strikes are not per se unlawful, various preconditions must be met before workers can engage in strikes.
The World Federation of Trade Unions, which played a decisive role in the creation of Convention No. 87 in 1948, applauded the ICJ’s decision:
[I]t is clear that the existence of a class-oriented and militant trade union movement is the essential, decisive, and irreplaceable factor to ensure that the right to strike, as well as conventions, collective bargaining, labor laws, and workers’ achievements, are not merely empty words on paper but are implemented in practice. The WFTU reiterates its call for struggle in every country, sector, and workplace to safeguard the sacred right to strike in practice.
“It is up to workers and their organizations to build on the ICJ decision to ensure the right to strike can be an effective tool to build worker power,” Mirer said.
This article was originally published at Truthout
Keep ReadingShow Less
Labor Unions Worldwide Applaud ICJ Ruling Affirming Workers' Right to Strike
One Somali labor federation said the ruling "represents a major victory for workers, trade unions, and social justice across the world."
May 22, 2026
Labor leaders around the world cheered Thursday's landmark World Court ruling affirming that the right to strike is protected under international law.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled 10-4 in an advisory opinion—meaning it's not legally binding—that “the right to strike of workers and their organizations is protected” under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention of 1948, also known as International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 87.
However, the tribunal also declared that its finding "does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope, or conditions for the exercise of that right."
The case originated with a 2023 request by the ILO Governing Body amid disagreement among the agency's three constituencies—governments, workers, and employers—over the right to strike.
"For decades, this issue has generated one of the deepest disputes within the ILO's tripartite structure... creating a deadlock over the interpretation of international labor standards," explained Kenyan labor law expert Ayaga Max Liambilah.
"Workers and trade unions argued that the right to organize becomes ineffective without the ability to strike, viewing strikes as essential tools for collective bargaining and protection of workers' interests," he said. "Employers' organizations, particularly the International Organization of Employers (IOE), maintained that Convention 87 does not expressly include a right to strike and that reading it into the convention creates obligations never explicitly negotiated by states."
International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) representative Paapa Danquah told the court during proceedings that “strike action has been our vital tool... to improve labor conditions and to defend our human dignities."
IOE secretary general Roberto Suárez Santos countered that Convention 87 does not explicitly address the right to strike. After the court's decision, he underscored that the tribunal did not rule on the "precise content, scope, or conditions for the exercise of that right.”
Unions and workers around the world welcomed the ICJ decision.
“We thank the World Court for this advisory opinion," said ITUC secretary general Luc Triangle, whose organization represents more than 200 million workers in over 160 countries. "The court has confirmed that international law supports the long-standing understanding shared not only by unions, but across large parts of the ILO system for decades."
“This is an important moment for legal certainty, for social justice, and for the credibility of the international labor standards system," he added.
Sonny Matula, president of Federation of Free Workers—a Filipino labor organization—"joyfully and warmly" welcomed the ruling.
"In the Philippines, this is not a foreign concept," he said. "Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution expressly recognizes the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law."
"The strike is labor's last voice when dialogue has failed," Matula added. "Without the right to strike, we can say that freedom of association is like a silent campaign, unheard."
Christy Hoffman, general secretary of the Union Network International (UNI) Global Union, said in a statement that “as any trade unionist will tell you, there is no right to organize without the right to strike!"
"The two are inseparable foundations of any functional and fair industrial relations system," Hoffman asserted. "Congratulations to the many advocates who argued the point so brilliantly before the ICJ, and to the ITUC for its steadfast commitment to this case."
The Federation of Somali Trade Unions (FESTU) issued a statement applauding the ICJ ruling, which it said "represents a major victory for workers, trade unions, and social justice across the world."
"It reaffirms with legal certainty that the right to strike is inseparable from freedom of association and constitutes a fundamental pillar of democratic labor relations, collective bargaining, and the protection of workers’ dignity, rights, and interests," FESTU continued.
"The court’s opinion has reinforced the legitimacy of the ILO supervisory mechanisms and restored clarity on a matter that for years had been the subject of intense international debate and institutional disagreement," the federation added. "This is a defining moment in the history of the global trade union movement and a major achievement for multilateralism, social justice, and international law."
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO—the largest US labor federation—said that "this decision affirms decades of judicial precedent and what workers around the world know: There is no right to organize and bargain collectively without the right to strike."
"When workers are barred from taking collective action on the job, they cannot defend their rights and demand the workplace conditions and contracts they are owed," she continued. "The freedom to join a union becomes an empty formality."
"At a moment when workers’ organizations face sustained attacks around the world, this opinion reaffirms that the freedom to withhold one's labor is not a privilege granted by the powerful, but a fundamental human right grounded in international law," Shuler added. "The AFL-CIO commends the International Trade Union Confederation and its legal team for their efforts in this result."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Endorses Trey Martin to 'Fight for Working People' of Oklahoma in Congress
The union leader "is running a campaign focused on raising wages for working people, expanding healthcare, protecting Social Security, and building a strong labor movement," said the progressive senator.
May 21, 2026
Amid a wave of progressive primary victories and growing support for working-class congressional candidates—from Democrat Graham Platner in Maine to Nebraska Independents Austin Ahlman and Dan Osborn—US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday threw his support behind Trey Martin in Oklahoma.
"Now more than ever, Oklahoma needs leaders willing to fight for working people and take on the powerful corporate interests that are making life harder for families across the state," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement. "Trey understands these struggles firsthand and is running a campaign focused on raising wages for working people, expanding healthcare, protecting Social Security, and building a strong labor movement. That's why I'm proud to endorse Trey Martin for Congress in Oklahoma's 5th District."
An eighth-generation Oklahoman who has served as the president of Ironworkers Local 48 for nearly a decade, Martin is facing off against fellow Democrat Jena Nelson in the June 16 primary. In addition to the policies Sanders highlighted, he is campaigning on a congressional stock trading ban, honoring tribal sovereignty, funding public schools, ending blank-check wars, and more.
Martin welcomed the support of Sanders, who twice sought the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, has traveled the country for his Fighting Oligarchy Tour over the past year, and has been using his national platform throughout this election cycle to promote progressive and working-class candidates running for federal, state, and local offices.
"Sen. Sanders has spent decades fighting for working families in Washington," said Martin. "Sen. Sanders has been one of the loudest, strongest voices in our country's most important fights—from making the most wealthy in this country pay their fair share, to standing up to corporate power, to bringing down healthcare costs. It's a true honor to have his support."
In a social media post, Martin added that "I remember sitting on the couch with my wife in 2016, hearing Bernie for the first time. It inspired me to get more involved in my local, to organize and build power for working people in Oklahoma. He was the first politician who made me truly believe someone in Washington was genuinely committed to standing up for the working class."
Martin and Nelson are competing to challenge Republican Congresswoman Stephanie Bice, who is seeking a fourth term in November—after considering a run for the Senate seat vacated by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin.
As The Frontier executive editor Dylan Goforth reported last week, "Redistricting has made the path to victory steeper in Oklahoma's 5th Congressional District since the last time a Democrat was elected to the seat in 2018."
However, Oklahoma Democratic Party Chair Erin Brewer told Goforth that "CD-5 is absolutely flippable," and "a win here not only shifts the power dynamic in our state, it would also expand the votes in Congress to hold the president in check."
Polling by CNN on the first year of President Donald Trump's second term showed a majority of Americans were dissatisfied with his mass deportations, aggression toward other countries, and gutting the federal workforce rather than cutting costs. More recent surveys have made clear that the US public is frustrated with the high prices stemming from Trump's tariffs and Iran War.
Last week, when Trump told reporters that he does not think about Americans' financial situation "even a little bit" when it comes to his illegal war on Iran, Martin responded, "That tells you everything you need to know about where his priorities are, and that's exactly why I'm running to focus this conversation on working-class issues and real relief for families, not endless wars."
Earlier this week, another working-class champion and union leader, Bob Brooks, won a Democratic primary for Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District, setting up the retired firefighter to challenge Republican Congressman Ryan Mackenzie in the midterms.
Congratulating Brooks, Sanders noted that "his win follows the recent progressive victories of ironworker and union leader Brian Poindexter in Ohio, and union organizer Analilia Mejía in New Jersey. We're making progress!"
On the other side of Pennsylvania, in the 3rd District, democratic socialist Chris Rabb also won his primary on Tuesday. After his win, Kendra Brooks and Nicolas O'Rourke, co-chairs of the state's Working Families Party, stressed that "the question in this race was not whether we would elect a Democrat, but what kind of Democrat we would choose."
"The people of Philadelphia made their choice clear: Bold, working-class leadership, and an end to the broken status quo," the pair continued. "They chose a message of real affordability that resonated with working-class voters. They chose a fighter who is not afraid to ruffle feathers and stand up for working people to fight back against Trumpism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bolivian Government Charges Labor Leader With Terrorism as Police Crack Down on Protests
The leader of the country's main labor federation said officials were responding to protesters who have marched hundreds of miles in recent days with "militarization and repression instead of listening to the people."
May 19, 2026
A leader of Bolivia's main labor federation, the Bolivian Workers' Union, said late Monday that the country's public prosecutor is "trying to silence" mass protests that have included Indigenous communities, miners, peasants, and teachers in recent days, as the government issued arrest warrants for labor and grassroots organizers.
TeleSUR reported that State Attorney General Roger Mariaca confirmed his office was charging Mario Argollo, executive secretary of the union, known in Spanish as Central Obrera Boliviana (COB), with public instigation to commit crimes and terrorism.
“They will not subdue us in the struggle we have undertaken," Argollo said in a statement. "They are trying to silence us as leaders with popular actions and criminal charges."
Drop Site News also reported that the public prosecutor issued an arrest order targeting Justino Apaza Callisaya, a leader of the Federation of Neighborhood Councils of La Paz (FEJUVE), "an influential grassroots organization tied to urban protest movements and labor mobilizations."
The office is also reportedly investigating "several individuals" following COB's declaration of a general strike on May 1.
"The accused are being investigated for extremely serious offenses including: public incitement to commit crimes, criminal association, terrorism, financing terrorism, attacks on transportation security, [and] attacks on public services," reported Drop Site.
The mass mobilization has included dozens of road blockades across the country as the union and other groups have demanded the resignation of President Rodrigo Paz, whose administration ended a fuel subsidy amid an economic crisis; higher wages; and an end to privatization, including through Law 1720, which opponents say would allow the transfer of Indigenous and peasant land to corporations.
Protesters have spent days marching from their communities to La Paz, where thousands were met by riot police armed with tear gas canisters on Monday.
Al Jazeera reported that some protesters brandished "dynamite sticks and slingshots" as they arrived in the capital city.
An unspecified number of protesters were injured Monday as the government deployed the police and the military to try to break the road blockades, Al Jazeera reported. TeleSUR said that at least four demonstrators were reportedly killed. About 90 arrests were made.
The US State Department said Sunday that it supported Paz's efforts to "restore order for the peace, security, and stability of the Bolivian people."
COB said the government was responding with "militarization and repression instead of listening to the people."
"History will remember who defended the citizenry and who turned their backs. No force should be above the people or their rights," said COB.
The arrest documents and government investigations, said Drop Site, showed that "the Bolivian government is escalating its response to the protests by describing parts of the strike movement not simply as civil unrest, but as potential terrorism and organized criminal activity."
A student leader at the Public University of El Alto told Drop Site, "No matter what the Paz government attempts to do, repress the protesters or sanction us as terrorists... we will continue to uphold the sovereignty and rights of our peoples."
A former Altiplano mayor and Aymara social leader was direct about the betrayal: "This government was clearly elected with a mandate from the social movements and from indigenous peoples — who have been stabbed in the back the minute they entered office. They have attempted to… pic.twitter.com/tS80WqG1Zi
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) May 18, 2026
An Indigenous leader told the outlet that Paz's government "was clearly elected with a mandate from the social movements and from indigenous peoples—who have been stabbed in the back the minute they entered office. They have attempted to use the state to go after the very forces that got them to power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy