« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama’s Union-Controlled NLRB Continues Busting Businesses’ Kneecaps

On Tuesday, President Obama’s union-controlled National Labor Relations Board helped to increase the President’s anti-business bonafides by issuing a rather shocking press release that has the business community all abuzz.

The NLRB, the agency that governs private-sector, union-employer relations would like all employers, large and small, under its jurisdiction to post notices for employees that inform them of their rights to unionize.

Following the 60-day public comment period (see below), if the rule is adopted, an employer’s failure to post the NLRB notice would constitute an unfair labor practice charge.

According to the press release [in PDF]:

The National Labor Relations Board has submitted to the Proposed Rulemaking, which provides for a 60-day comment period. The rule would require employers to notify employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

As the Notice states, the Board “believes that many employees protected by the NLRA are unaware of their rights under the statute. The intended effects of this action are to increase knowledge of the NLRA among employees, to better enable the exercise of rights under the statute, and to promote statutory compliance by employers and unions.” [Emphasis added.]

Now, the proposed notice posting does go a bit further in that the NLRB also wants employers who communicate primarily by e-mail or other electronic means, to post the notice electronically as well.  In other words, employers who e-mail their employees will also have to e-mail out the NLRB’s notice to those employees.

Naturally, employers are angry and upset as the NLRB’s actions are intended to encourage more employees to unionize which is something most employers know has a detrimental impact on business. As the National Association of Manufacturers’ blog, the Shopfloor, notes:

We’ve long been troubled by and have predicted the NLRB’s intention to reinterpret U.S. labor law outside of Congress’ purview in order to expand union membership. Today’s announcement is certainly evidence that the board is well under way.

Earlier this year, federal contractors were required to post notices in their workplaces as well. However, this rule did not apply to employers that do not do business with the federal government. [You can view the actual posting for federal contractors here.]

Clearly, the union-controlled NLRB has given up any attempt to maintain a neutral facade and, apparently, could care less that every action like this creates another disincentive for employers to create jobs. However, the actual ramifications on employers may be negligible for those who are engaged with their employees. Moreover, as most employees ignore the bulleting boards in their workplaces, for those employees that are truly desirous of a union, anyone with a computer and the access to a search engine can find a union ready, willing and able to take their money.

As a result, if the NLRB’s posting requirement does come to pass, while there will be some workplaces that fall victim to unionization, the NLRB’s action may ultimately be more symbolic than having a widespread effect. However, the effect on President Obama’s ongoing reputation as the most anti-business President since Hugo Chavez continues to permeate the business community as this is just another example of an administration that does all it can for its union bosses, while kicking businesses (those that actually create jobs) in the teeth.

Note: As stated above, this rule would only go into effect after a 60-day public comment period. Per the NLRB’s press release [Emphasis added]:

Public comments are invited on all aspects of the proposed rule, including the issue of the Board’s authority raised by the dissent, and should be submitted within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register, either electronically to www.regulations.gov, or by mail or hand-delivery to Lester Heltzer, Executive Secretary, NLRB, 1099 14th Street NW, Washington DC 20570.

A fact sheet and further information about the proposed rule is available here.

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

X-posted.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

COMMENTS

  • gumbeaux

    This action by the NLRB is forced slavery by pushing Unions at companies and their employees. UNIONS HAVE OUTGROWN THEIR USEFULNESS. They have no place in today’s world except to grow government and subjugate the working public.

  • Deskpilot

    but the skills necessary for the manufacture of this product requires skill sets that are normally found in the union trades.
    Maybe I’ll look in the trade schools. Part of my orientation would be a frank discussion of how paychecks are consumed by deductions, and that deductions mean less money to spend.

  • rabidcaveman

    I left Detroit because of the suffocating effect of the unions. There, you can’t learn ANYTHING without joining a union. And look what happened. 25% (REAL unemployment). This is what they do. People here in Florida have no idea what a union is, nor what they stand for. Guaranteed employment? Not.
    I watched the mayhem of the Detroit newspaper strike. The ’30s all over again.
    Parasites.

  • walter_hanson

    They want to write a rule which said this business has an union right now.
    Even a business with just yourself (though I suppose that’s an easy contract to work). Fortunately they don’t have the power to right that rule.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • edintexas

    We need Right to Work enacted in as many states as possible. As I understand them, such laws do not outlaw unions. They do outlaw the “union shop” by allowing employees to opt out of being members of the bargaining unit and paying dues and still remain an employee. Without a guarantee of mandatory dues from every employee, there is no great incentive for the unions to organize (there still would be if they really were “for the employees”, instead of viewing employees as cash cows).

    • gpclaw

      Completely agree. A worker who is content with an employment agreement between him/her and the employer should not be forced to associate with a 3rd party.

      You don’t need a law to ensure collective bargaining. If a group of non-unionized employees got together and met with their employer, not to make demands, but to establish a relationship built around asking how WE (employer and employee) can work together to make the company as successful as possible, and by doing so improve the wages of the workers AND the owner.

      Success is built around win-win relationships, not us against them.

  • http://www.ArchitecturalShots.com mdyou

    after the sucker Chamber of Commerce and business leaders meet with Obowow, they turn around and he buries the shiv in their backs.

    And our stupid Congress people continue to pad his ‘winning streak’. Pathetic.

  • gpclaw

    I think it is important for workers to be aware of ALL of their rights under the NLRA. Not only should workers understand the process to unionize, they also need to know the process to decertify the union for those employees who are unionized and no longer feel the union represents their best interests.

    If this rule goes into effect, it would be irresponsible for an employer not to include information on how to decertify clearly posted on their website, right next to the section informing employees about their right to collective bargain.

  • gpclaw

    We need to build support for employee freedom from forced unionization. The new congress should work to amend the National Labor Relations Act to allow workers to contract directly with their employer if that is their preference.

    Personally I would prefer repeal, but then I am reminded that a significant percentage of the electorate lacks the intellectual capacity to understand the fact that unions only work in their own interests, not the interest of their members. Proposing a full repeal would give the opposition just another way of painting conservatives as ‘hateful of the little guy’. I think it’s easier to paint the picture of union leaders as hateful of the rights of workers. If the NLRA were amended to no longer require forced unionization, it would be interesting to see how many workers choose to leave the union. If the percentage was large enough, it would be much easier to work for repeal at that point.

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    Obama is looking to do through the bureaucracies what he can’t accomplish via Congress which means when we elect a GOP POTUS we can undo the damage. We need to make sure the GOP can root out the socialist boll weevils that have buried themselves deep in the bureaucracies.

  • http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu Rhymes With Right

    Comment Tracking Number: 80bbd31e

    It is my position that the Board lacks the statutory or Constitutional authority to impose this regulation and should therefore withdraw the proposed rule.. However, in the event it chooses to proceed, it must include the following two provisions:

    1) Any regulation that requires employers to notify workers of their right under federal law to unionize must be comprehensive in nature. Said regulation must therefore also require employers to notify their workers of their right to refuse to join a union or any other organization as a condition of employment, of their right to quit a union if they so desire, of their right to a refund of any fees not directly related to collective bargaining that are collected from non-members by unions, and of their right to vote to decertify a union as their bargaining representative. Failure to include these aspects in the new rule constitutes government-mandated coercion of employees into joining a union regardless of the employee’s belief that said union does not operate in the interests of that employee. As the regulation states, for workers to be able to exercise these rights, they must be made aware of them.

    2) Furthermore, the rule in question here should also required to notify workers of these rights as well, and prohibit the interference of union officials, representative, and members to interfere in the exercise of the right to refuse to join a union, to opt for non-member status and the refund of non-bargaining dues, or to seek decertification of the union. This is especially important given the long history of union violence and coercion of workers who refuse to submit to the dictates of union leaders and organizers.

  • seallow

    At the conclusion of the season the Club’s doctor, Katherine Rae, and physiotherapist, Keiran Cleary, jointly issued a Medical Report analysing the injury experience of the Club’s eight teams. They particularly highlighted the members wearing ravens authentic jerseys of the Elite Development Squad, noting that during the season “the EDS squad suffered only two non contact injuries, both muscle strains, which resulted in only four games lost to injury.”

    Each year the Sydney University Football Club selects a group of players for its Elite Development Squad to prepare for the next season. For 2005 a squad of 50 was chosen which did not include any of the Club’s seven Wallabies nor any of the players on Super 12 contracts. Players committed themselves to around fourteen weeks of intensive training involving six to seven sessions per week of weights, skills and fitness work despite either being full time students or working full time.

    Two non contact injuries in over 1000 hours of playing time is an extraordinarily low figure in itself, and certainly by comparison with the Club’s other players in wholesale throwback jerseys who accumulated over 80 comparable injuries. The injury incidence for the Club as a whole seems to be broadly in line with that reported in various scientific studies including those focussed on professional players.

    More specifically, among the 36 players who completed the full EDS program there was “only one calf strain and one hamstring strain … . They had no back pain or groin pain necessitating loss of game time.” By contrast, for the Club as a whole, there were 28 instances of low back pain, 27 hamstring injuries, 27 groin injuries and 6 quadriceps strains.

    Strength and conditioning in the EDS program was structured and administered by Martin Harland, a sports scientist who had previously worked with professional rugby league, Australian football and basketball teams. His programs for rugby players place a high degree of emphasis on basic strength development and rugby-specific fitness. A distinguishing feature of his approach is a concentration on heavy lower body work through exercises such as squats, deadlifts and cleans.

    An off-season involving around 90 uninterrupted training sessions creates a near ideal opportunity for players to enhance their basic strength and fitness for rugby.Very few non-professional players would have the commitment and dedication to stick to such an exacting schedule. And very few professional players in wholesale football jerseys would have such a large block of time available. For example, Australian full-time players normally participate in at least two of the three tiers of club, provincial and international rugby and are therefore playing through most of the year.

    • gekster