In this case, withholding tuition remission for the entire semester simply for participating in a strike action for a small part of that semester would almost certainly count as unfair retaliation, since it goes well above and beyond withholding payroll for work missed during the strike.
I think tuition remission is part of their overall W2 compensation - as noncash compensation, similar to what would be for RSUs, Merch, etc and other fringe benefits employers provide.
Arguing otherwise would make it seem that an employer can only withhold a prorata portion of an RSU award during a strike period, but that on its face seem wrong. I think the law allows for all comp on its tracks during the strike, regardless of the period covered.
If its comp, its table stakes for doing a strike.
There's nothing preventing the university to re-establish the fringe benefits once the strike is over (but of course, the limitations on not being able to register matter now, not in 2 months).
> The wrinkle is that Temple's employees are public-sector employees, who are exempt from the NLRA --- but they're not necessarily exempt from equivalent Philadelphia law.
tptacek appears to be correct [1]. That said, there is a Pennsylvanian 1970 "Public Employe Relations Act" that could cover unfair practices including retaliation but I can't tell if it is still in force [2]. [3] appears to imply that it is still active.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34733764 [1] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em... [2] https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm... [3] https://www.dli.pa.gov/laws-regs/laws/Pages/default.aspx
Original comment: -------------------------------
> I'm honestly curious of which labor laws they are violating
Interfering with Employee Rights. [1]
Discriminating against Employees because of their union activities [2] specifically Grant a benefit to nonstrikers and/or replacements that is withheld from strikers, or impose a burden on strikers that is not placed on nonstrikers or replacements.
[1] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/in... [2] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/di...
That is not normally how a liberal democracy works. We don't punish requests for comments, we engage ...
=================================================
Dear Temple Student:
As a result of your participation in the TUGSA strike, your tuition remission has been removed for the Spring semester. You now owe the full balance listed in TUpay, which is due by Thursday, March 9.
If your balance is not paid in full by the due date, you will be assessed a $100 late payment fee and a financial hold will be placed on your student account. This hold will prevent future registration.
There is prob some room for a judge to side with students after protacted litigation, but the university is banking on them leaving and not earning the fringe benefit, (and therefore, willingly foregoing the fringe benefit making the university not liable) so it probably matters little.
Heavily implies that it's irreversible.
That's... not how tuition remissions work. The remission would have been issued before the semester starts (as tuition bills are generally do at the very beginning of the semester).
You're also putting a lot of faith in an entity that goes to considerable effort to monetarily punish people for striking [1] is going to be willing, out of the kindness of its heart, to go through that effort again to reward people for no longer striking. I do not think it wise to rely on that faith.
[1] This is basically retroactive actions in terms of finance, not to mention that this probably causes issues for grants that are supposed to be used for tuition remissions no longer being used for this.
What matters is comp. Temple can stop all comp until strike resolves.
It doesn't matter if comp is cash, or noncash.
Just like RSUs, or Bonuses, or any fringe benefits promised, doesn't matter if lump sum or awarded monthly, or the timing, those benefits simply stop.
The law allows all comp to stop. The law is not saying you are supposed to prorate, etc.
You can take health care away from employees (absent a contract) in general, but you can't do it in retaliation for striking.
It appears that you are correct [1]. There is a Pennsylvanian 1970 "Public Employe Relations Act" Article XII that could cover unfair practices including retaliation but I can't tell if it is still in force [2]. [3] appears to imply that it is still active.
[1] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em... [2] https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm... [3] https://www.dli.pa.gov/laws-regs/laws/Pages/default.aspx
That's simply not true. Many companies in the past have cancelled health insurance for workers on strike. That's the whole reason there has been a push by some legislators to change the law in this area.
https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-ca...