At first, pro-forced unionism President Barack Obama and his handpicked National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) chairman, Mark Pearce, sought basically to ignore a ruling this January 25 by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Union officials have a key ally in the drive to force more workers to pay union dues for the privilege of working – the National Labor Relations Board, Fred Wszolek argues: Under the Obama Administration, Big Labor has seized control of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) to drive its self-interested agenda – a truly unprecedented development in the history of the NLRB. In the past, Board law has changed when control moved from one political party to another. But never before has a Board majority conducted itself in such unprincipled partisan manner, ramming through an extremist agenda and dissembling about it. Three examples demonstrate the point: The NLRB stripped workers of their right to a secret ballot election to challenge their employer’s recognition of a union by card check despite the fact that 25 percent of the elections held resulted in ousting the union. The Board simply declared that the numbers were insufficient to warrant a delay in the commencement of collective bargaining. The Board hurriedly enacted a “quickie” or “ambush” election rule significantly reducing the time between a petition and an election. The rule will limit the ability of employers to express their views on unionization and deprive employees of their right to hear those views and make an informed choice. The NLRB cited a “delay” in holding elections as a reason for the rule even though its own Acting General Counsel reported that Board elections were being held in a “remarkably” timely fashion. The NLRB ignored the National Labor Relations Act (Act) it administers and overturned seventy years of Board precedent to allow a union to organize a minority of the employer’s workforce through tiny bargaining units made up of two or more employees (“micro-unions”). The NLRB sought to downplay the significance of this controversial decision by describing it as “a relatively modest” change” that reflects “decades of Board and judicial precedent.” But, as Board member Brian Hayes said in dissent, it was a “fundamental change” inconsistent with the Act and long-standing NLRB law that would impact “any industry over which the Board has jurisdiction.” But The Worst May Be Yet To Come The Obama Labor Board is now poised to make additional, major changes in the nation’s labor laws, but without a single Republican Board member, like Brian Hayes, having the opportunity to object and express an opposing view. This was made possible by the Obama Labor Board’s elimination of a 63-year-old institutional practice not to issue major decisions without the participation of members from both political parties.
The National Labor Relations Board has become nothing more than puppets for the union bosses who were unable to achieve their goals legislatively and have now set their sights on forcing workers into unions administratively. WFI's Fred Wszolek looks at the three-headed monster of schemes the board is proposing to foist coercive unionism on workers across the employment spectrum. The NLRB and DoL are working to enact three sweeping rule changes that would restrict the freedoms of employers, while significantly shifting workplace power into the hands of Big Labor. Workers who would be directly and negatively affected by these changes are largely unaware that Washington, D.C. has declared war against them and jobs by advancing bureaucratic regulations that will increase unemployment and restrict hard-won liberties. The NLRB is currently pushing two changes: quickie union elections and the formation of micro units. Both of these change decades-old board law and procedure that have not hurt unions, instead allowed them to win the majority of organizing elections and strengthened the collective bargaining unit that has been formed. Successful union elections are still taking place with a 67.6 percent success rate. It is reported that unions brought in $8.8 billion in dues in 2010. So why the need for these rules changes? A closer examination shows that, quite simply, the Obama Administration is bailing out Big Labor with little to no regard for implications on workers due to the fact union membership has declined. The proposed quickie election rule shortens the time for union elections from a median time of 38 days to as little as 10, depriving employees of the ability to make an informed choice on perhaps the most important issue they will face in the workplace: whether to unionize. The aim? To catch businesses off guard and leave them scrambling so that a vote happens before employees can study the facts. During an already difficult economic time, the proposal for quickie elections would place additional costs and burdens on small business owners, who lack the resources and legal expertise to navigate and fully comprehend the NLRB’s election processes.
Fred Wzolek believes that the NLRB’s assault on state Right to Work laws is morally wrong and economically bankrupt — and he is right.