“Reform the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)!”
This is the battle cry from Americans for Limited Government
(ALG), which has launched a new petition drive aimed against
administrative activity that substitutes for legislation. Concerned
citizens can contact their elected representatives using www.reformthenlrb.com petition
advocacy tool. The campaign has been set up to provide
citizens with a voice opposing the NLRB’s efforts to push a Big
Labor agenda that could not pass Congress in a straight up and down
and vote.
“This is a call to the American people to reject the job killing
NLRB’s one-sided attack on our nation’s job creators,” ALG
President Bill Wilson said. “We need the help of everyone to
show the NLRB that the American people are tired of their
job-killing regulatory overreaches and want a change.”
In June, the three Democrats who sit on the Board proposed rule
changes that would curtail the amount of time for private union
elections. Brian Hayes, the only Republican member of the
board, has been sharply critical of the proposal, but his input has
been limited.
If the rule changes go into effect, they would set elections
from a current median time of 37 days to as little as 10 days from
the filing of an election petition. They would also set
pre-election hearings for 7 days after a petition is filed; the
rules would also require the employer to respond to a pre-hearing
questionnaire raising any legal issues or waive its right to do
so. And finally, the new rules would defer a decision on the
issues raised at the hearing till after the election, putting an
employer at risk if the decision is challenged.
“Quickie elections would short circuit employers’ ability
to give employees all the information they need to make an informed
decision about whether to unionize,” said Glenn Spencer, executive
director of the U.S. Chamber Workforce Freedom Initiative.
The NLRB’s proposal would tip the legal balance in favor of union
organizers that can recruit employees for weeks or months under the
radar before an employer even knows what’s going on.”
The Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI) has asked that the
board extend the period for public comments on the rule change from
August 21 until Nov. 19. WFI is asking for an additional 15
days for responsive comments that would begin on Nov. 21 and to
postpone the planned July 18-19 public hearings to a date at least
30 days after the proposed comments period ends.
“The Board’s deliberations were not noticed nor was there
a public Board meeting,” WFI’s Fred Wszolek said. “And the
Board never solicited input from the affected parties before the
proposed rules were announced.”
On Thursday, U.S. House Education and the Workforce
Committee held a hearing entitled “Rushing Union Elections:
Protecting the Interests of Big Labor at the Expense of Workers’
Free Choice.”
Larry Getts, an employee of the Dana Corporation offered
testimony on the Board’s “Ambush Election” proposal.
“Based on my experience with union organizers, it is clear
to me that the rule changes the National Labor Relations Board has
proposed would only further the interests of union officials while
undermining those of workers,” he told committee members.
Although he was initially inclined to support unionization
efforts at his company, Getts became disillusioned with the
approach of United Auto Workers (UAW) officials and grew skeptical
of their claims, he explained in testimony. The UAW began a
“card check” organizing drive at his plant in October 2007.
On a routine basis, Getts said he and his co-workers would
find UAW officials waiting for them in their break room, they would
be followed out to their vehicles, and in some instances they were
even followed home.
“Union organizers have an uncanny ability to harass,
misinform, mislead and manipulate in pursuit of their goals,” Getts
said. “…Of course, much of what they told us proved to be
false, but it’s fair to say we weren’t lacking information from the
union officials. What neither my co-workers, nor I knew at
the time, was that the company was under a so-called ‘neutrality
agreement.’ This meant that the only information we were
allowed to receive, the only side of the story we were told, was
that of the UAW.”
As bad as the mistreatment, harassment and intimidation
was, the situation will likely get worse if the proposed rule
changes go into effect because union officials will have access to
workers’ personal information, he pointed out. This would
include home addresses, emails and phone numbers.
After doing their own research, Getts said he and his
co-workers rejected the UAW’s unionization offer. But going
forward, it will be difficult for workers to obtain the information
needed to make an informed choice if the Board has its way.
“In reality, under these rules, the additional burden on
already busy workers will prohibit them from making an informed
decision - especially where there is an absence of information from
employers, as was the case in my experience,” he said. “These
rule changes are aimed at furthering the interests of Big Labor at
the expense of workers’ ability to make a fully informed decision
on an important matter. They are intended only to make it
easier for union officials to harass and force workers like myself
into joining their union, into paying dues and increasing the union
bosses’ power.”
