Some time ago I wrote on Facebook about an offer.
In plain terms, I have many years as a court reporter, union training, a lot of experience as a union member, and was a former shop steward. I understand intimately the benefits of unionization and the possibilities as can be applied to court reporting. In brief, with force of law, we could put in place a contract in most agencies that would:
1. Stop scheduling games.
2. Regulate digital, steno, voice usage.
3. Keep the work-from-home model we currently enjoy.
4. Provide a process the agency must follow before it stops using you instead of the ghosting model we have today.
5. Provide a process for the right to refuse work.
6. Ensure agencies don’t abuse new or uninformed reporters on rates
7. Provide for rate raises as appropriate to keep up with or even surpass inflation. To put this into perspective, in New York City, had regulars kept up with inflation, they would be $6 to $7 per page.
8. Provide a process for working with other agencies when the work at the unionized agency is slow. Moonlighting terms and conditions.
9. Create a pay model that rewards harder jobs with more money. Realtime, medical, etc.
10. Create terms and a structure for paid time off, sick time, and leave without pay.
— I’m not going to get too deep into it. But the bottom line is you can largely work the way you do now plus have all the added protections that being an independent contractor takes away from you. There are a lot of employee protections that would benefit court reporters: Paid parental leave in some states, FMLA, workers compensation, discrimination protections, disability accommodations, health and dental insurance, etc. The employer would also pay some of income tax you pay today.
It is important to note this is not a proposal for a larger trade union, like the Screen Actors Guild or the construction unions. We simply do not have the cohesion to do such a thing, and when it was tried in New York City under the Federation of Shorthand, the agencies killed it. This is a proposal to unionize individual offices one by one, which binds the employer in a way that the trade unions cannot. Simply put, with a trade union, employers can just refuse to use unionized talent unless there’s a contract in place saying otherwise. In a union that’s formed in the way I am proposing, the employer is forced by law to engage in good faith negotiations with the union regarding employee compensation and working conditions. On top of all that, if the employer claims an inability to pay, the union gets to see the employer’s financial information.
Based on prior research and after consulting with an attorney on this issue, there are two ways for reporters to unionize. They both start with the claim that the court reporters at an agency — any agency — are misclassified employees. This is a claim that, from my memory, forced a settlement many years ago when one court reporter actually did sue her agency. It is a claim that would hold up for many freelancers, maybe the majority depending upon the state.
Yes, I’m talking about the Alice Halbert case.
In brief, under the law, what the parties call the relationship holds no weight. A fact finder would examine things like who controls the client, who has the marketing and branding, the degree of control the agency has over the court reporter, the alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss, the alleged employee’s investment in equipment, whether the service rendered requires a special skill, the degree of permanency in the working relationship, and whether the service rendered is an integral part of the employer’s business.
In a couple of words, “it’s complicated.” But there’s a real legal argument to be had that many court reporters are in actuality under the law misclassified employees. This is why the Court Reporter Rates Discussion Group on Facebook has not come under any legal scrutiny related to the antitrust laws.
That’s two pieces of the puzzle, what the union contract can do for you and what the legal argument is for unionization. Now how to get there? Well, there is the expensive lawsuit route. That’s a thing. But it would require a large group of court reporters to stick their necks out and face blacklisting and discrimination that nobody could stop, possibly for years. So that’s out.
The other option is an NLRB vote for a union and potentially a hearing on the misclassification. This, from the research I have done, would still be difficult, but is the faster route. It essentially means 30% of the reporters at an office have to sign union authorization cards, probably push the misclassification argument to NLRB, and then an election would be triggered where 50% plus one vote of the court reporters would have to vote yes on a union.
And then the basic idea is once you have a bunch of smaller unions they can pool resources to form or join a larger union which could then snowball into more unions and fewer out-of-pocket expenses for the working reporter.
Now, one might say, Christopher, this still requires us sticking our necks out to find 30% to 51% of the people who work in an office to say yes, and during that, the agency might find out and cut us out of their work pool.
Not wrong. That’s where this proposal comes in. Part 2 will release when I am ready to crowdfund the design of a website that will help us get around this problem. This will likely be December 2026. Design and cost discussions have already begun.
Open for questions, suggestions, and comments below.
P.S.
With love and respect for all the union leaders and members who were there for me during my darkest days.
A lawyer was consulted prior to the drafting of this page with regard to the content herein, but this is informational and not legal advice. I am not a lawyer.