The National Labor Relations Board is making forced unionization even easier.
According to the Daily Caller, the NLRB will change the rules so companies can vote to unionize within ten days of a filing a petition, and employers are required to present the phone numbers, email addresses, work shift times, and home addresses of employees to the union:
“If Board members wanted to truly modernize these rules, they would do two things. First, leave the timetable alone. Thirty or forty days to hold an election is not a long time. Let people think about it. Second, if you’re going to give access to unions any personal email addresses a company has, fine. But let’s protect the privacy of workers by no longer requiring companies to give to the union the home addresses of workers. It’s very hard to intimidate or coerce a worker by email. But it’s much easier to intimidate or coerce a worker when you’re standing on their doorstep,” [Fred] Wszolek [Workforce Fairness Institute spokesman] said.
But of course, intimidation and coercion are precisely what the Obama administration desires. They want more unionization, and after the Tennessee Volkswagen plant defeat, unions are trying to recover their power.
Just imagine: A petition is filed and suddenly pro-union propaganda starts flooding into your email inbox. You pick up your cell phone to find voicemail messages encouraging you to join. Then you go home and find two union organizers on your porch, disrupting your family while intimidating you to vote yes—or else. This is a clear invasion of personal space, particularly since the government mandates it.
Furthermore, ten days is a good amount of time for union supporters to put 110 percent effort into coercing workers. The current thirty-day rule provides a chance for unionizers to run out of steam and for employees to properly think and weigh the consequences of unionization. Although 52 percent of the public approve of unions, 41 percent wish they had less power than they currently wield.
When the UAW lost the Volkswagen vote, it falsely blamed the Kochs for pressuring employees to vote against unionization. The Caller also reported that the NLRB might ignore that election on the grounds that it was “tainted” by non-unionizers. Now, however, the NLRB supports union access to data that exists purely for the promotion of unions. If this isn’t blatant coercion, it’s unclear what is.
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article