House Subcommittee Raises Questions on New Union Election Rules (may de-fund NLRB!)

[Omaha Steve]

This is written by a conservative for a conservative institute and it shows.

http://www.economics21.org/commentary/house-subcommittee-raises-questions-new-union-election-rules-2015-03-25



On Tuesday two National Labor Relations Board officials, Chairman Mark Pearce and General Counsel Richard Griffin, appeared before the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. Members asked Pearce and Griffin about new rules for union elections set to come into effect on April 14.

The new union election rules, known as “ambush election” or “quickie election” rules, were announced by the Board in mid-December. These rules would reduce the time leading up to union representation elections, which are held to see whether employees want unions to represent them through collective bargaining. Organized labor believes that more employees will vote for the union if the election is held sooner, because employers will have less time to present the disadvantages of union membership to employees.

On March 19 the House passed legislation to negate the union election rule, similar to Senate legislation that passed on March 4. President Obama threatened to veto the legislation, and it appears that the Senate lacks the votes to overcome a veto. Hence the hearing, with the possibility of withholding funding from the Board.

Snip to the end: It is unlikely that ambush elections will stand up in court, but legal challenges take years, leaving employers and workers in a state of uncertainty. A better solution would be for Congress to withhold funds from the NLRB until the agency revises its rule. Tuesday’s hearing was a start.


Diana Furchtgott-Roth is the director of the Economics21 program at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

[upaloopa]

1. Do we have a labor version