What started as the <\/i>\u201cSummer of Strikes,<\/i>\u201d as unions across different indus<\/i>tries flexed their muscles and rode a wave of revived pro-labor sentiment, has <\/i>turned into a year marked by some of the largest labor disputes in more than two <\/i>decades. In total, 2023 saw 451 labor strikes, some of which have resulted in his<\/i>toric victories and pay increases. Despite these victories, for many workers the <\/i>prospect of going on strike or even participating in any kind of worker speech is <\/i>still daunting. That might be because of how difficult it is to navigate what is or <\/i>is not protected speech in the workplace. Between employers citing tension <\/i>between compliance with the National Labor Relations Act and anti-discrimina<\/i>tion statutes and enacting overbroad workplace rules, it is hard to know what to <\/i>do. In addition, there is added complexity surrounding worker invocation of the <\/i>Black Lives Matter Movement. This Article seeks to discuss the history and devel<\/i>opment of case law on protected concerted activity, consider how to reconcile the <\/i>National Labor Relations Act with employer obligations to curtail discrimination, <\/i>and introduce workplace rules as a mode favored by employers. Furthermore, <\/i>this Article will deliberate on how recent decisions signal the National Labor <\/i>Relations Board<\/i>\u2019s impending treatment of worker speech against racism, namely <\/i>worker invocation of Black Lives Matter in the workplace.<\/i><\/p>\n