iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Labor Regulators To Propose New Rules Quickening Union Elections

Union Elections

First Posted: 06/21/11 09:10 AM ET Updated: 08/21/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- In a move that will surely provoke Republicans and business interests, the National Labor Relations Board announced Tuesday morning that it will propose significant new rules for the union election process, streamlining procedures and possibly making it easier for American workers to unionize.

The rules proposed by the NLRB will undergo a public-comment period, but if adopted, the amendments will define the amount of time parties can litigate before and after an election, allow for the electronic filing of election documents, defer litigation on voter eligibility until after an election and consolidate all post-election appeals into a single appeal.

Overall, the new rules could make it harder for employers to stall elections and easier for unions to organize new members. Right now, elections typically take place within two months of organizers having gathered a sufficient number of signatures from workers -- a generous amount of time, organizers argue, that employers can use to pressure workers not to unionize. The NLRB’s new rules would certainly shorten that period, though it’s hard to say by how much.

“One of the most important duties of the NLRB is conducting secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want to be represented by a labor union,” said NLRB Chairman Wilma B. Liebman in a statement. “Resolving representation questions quickly, fairly, and accurately has been an overriding goal of American labor law for more than 75 years.”

Union officials were quick to praise the NLRB and its proposed rules. Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, the largest union federation in the country, said in a statement that the changes would help fix a “broken, bureaucratic maze” that allows employers to stall the election process.

“Although we are still reviewing the proposed new changes,” Trumka said, “they appear to represent a common sense approach to clean up an outdated system and help ensure that working women and men can make their own choice about whether to form a union.”

The rule changes will likely infuriate business groups and Republicans who view the labor board under Obama as being overly friendly to unions and workers. The labor board currently has a Democratic majority, and its general counsel, Lafe Solomon, has been far more aggressive in enforcing labor law than Republicans were accustomed to in the Bush years.

Republicans and business interests have reacted strongly to a complaint Solomon brought against the Boeing Company, which alleged that it broke labor law by establishing a production line for its 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina. The complaint said Boeing’s move amounted to retaliation against its workers in Washington state for having gone on strike in the past. Just last week House oversight chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Cal.) called a special field hearing in South Carolina and asked Solomon to appear and justify his complaint.

Republican lawmakers can be expected to heighten their attacks on the NLRB in the wake of the proposed rule changes. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has already claimed that the board has “an agenda that is not healthy for this country.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce could not immediately provide comment on the NLRB’s proposed rule changes.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 857
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)
11:46 AM on 06/25/2011
There is only one reason the union and the left leaning NLRB would allow an election to be held within ten days. Facts. Facts. Facts. Unions know that if any sane, intelligent person weighs the pros and cons of organizing, they will lose that vote. If unions are so relevant and beneficial, they should allow the company as much time as they would need to state their case. The fact is that once a non union shop votes to become one, the process to de-unionize is complex and near impossible. I myself work in a union shop where we are at a crossroads. After 16 years as a dues paying member, I got out. I wwrote an email to the whole committee stating my reasons. I didn't shield behind anything or anyone. I believe in my reasons. Instead of approaching me and asking what would it better, they chose to ignore me and shun me. Ironically, it only stood to solidify my decision. Unions breed mediocrity. Thery want to work the least and demand the most. Non union employees number less than 20 when I got out. Since, the number has risen to above 15% out of over 900 employees. The word is getting out, unions have run their course. Time to move on and become accountable.

On my blog webite (www.brainonbrett.com), I've written a few articles dealing with the union problem. Feel free to check them out!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnBryansFontaine
Liberal Democrat
10:46 PM on 06/22/2011
NLRB Pushes New Rules to Facilitate Unionization
by Michael R. Corjulo

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/even-in-light-of-recent-controversy-nlrb-pushing-rules-to-facilitate-unionization.php
jokerdanny
my other bio is a macro
04:54 PM on 06/22/2011
there was no great middle class until unions were formed; decent wages, improved working conditions, and a 40 hour week all came from folks standing up and willing to be beat in the head and even shot by police; conservatives often criticize those who want to leave the battlefield too soon by saying we owe more to those who have already died, but why don't conservatives apply that same logic to those who fought and died for unions? american companies would gladly pay you the same lousy wages they are paying the chinese if they could get away with it; or do you really think they just like paying americans more?
11:03 AM on 06/22/2011
How can you simultaneously criticize paying union dues while talking about how overpaid and lazy union workers are? The fact is most people are jealous of the benefits they receive. Personally I think we should just have strict across the board labor laws and if your business is too weak to survive the law, then sucks for you.
photo
intolleft
ObamaTAX...getting you shovel ready
10:47 AM on 06/22/2011
"Overall, the new rules could make it harder for employers to stall elections and easier for unions to organize new members."

IOW, the feds don't want the employees, especially those no familiar with unions, to be as uninformed as possible about unions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnBryansFontaine
Liberal Democrat
01:38 PM on 06/22/2011
No the Feds don't want situations like Target, in which the company hired Jackson Lewis to teach them how to intimidate employees. Obviously, it worked.

“Hard lesson: Unions will find retail no easy target
by Jim Spencer

"...The retail giant hired Jackson Lewis, one of the country's fiercest "union avoidance" law firms, to help keep Target's 1,755-stor­­e chain union-free­­.

Using blunt language on the motives and effectiven­­ess of the organizing union, the company seized on the uncertaint­­y about pay and hours -- the very issues that sparked the union effort -- to raise doubts in workers' minds. You may be unhappy with working conditions­­, Target told employees at its Valley Stream, N.Y., store, but it could be a lot worse if you accept the overtures of the United Food & Commercial Workers Internatio­­nal Union (UFCW).

The store itself might not even survive, the company suggested.

Target emphasized such messages in mandatory meetings and fliers distribute­­d to workers in the weeks leading up to Friday's vote..."

http://www.startribune.com/business/124217983.html?page=1&c=y
photo
intolleft
ObamaTAX...getting you shovel ready
02:15 PM on 06/22/2011
Judging by the history of your comments, an employer simply saying "good morning" ot an employee would constitute harassment in your eyes.

Simply saying it is, doesn't make it so. And if the unions thought that where there benefits where so great, they would need to rush anything. The merits of the arguments would be all they need.
photo
graffitijoe
snowballs chance n SoCal
07:32 AM on 06/22/2011
"...easier to unionize" - if they wanted to, which most US workers don't. When you unionize you are volunteering to paya new tax to a new level of bureaucracy at your workplace.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnBryansFontaine
Liberal Democrat
01:39 PM on 06/22/2011
Let's see how many want to Unionize when their companies have far less power to intimidate them.
02:17 AM on 06/22/2011
unions are worthless. they claim to support the worker but they really just support themselves.

And I don't care what anyone says, being forced to pay union dues, even though you opt out of actually being in the union, isn't right.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnBryansFontaine
Liberal Democrat
06:34 AM on 06/22/2011
So you're saying that management should have absolute power to treat and pay employees anyway and anything they want. That employees have no right to a representative, nor to be able to bargain collectively.
SeriesSeven
Progressivism is a disease.
10:30 AM on 06/22/2011
They have a right to a representative. It's called themselves. There is nothing preventing anyone from negoatiating their own wages. There is nothing requiring a worker to agree to wage and benefit packages that they don't agree with. As in any transaction, you must have an agreeable buyer and seller. Both accept the terms and conditions of the sale. In the case of labor, the worker has agreed to sell their efforts to the employer for an agreed upon reimbursement. It's simple, and requires no intermediary.
photo
intolleft
ObamaTAX...getting you shovel ready
10:50 AM on 06/22/2011
When its the businesses money, they can pay whatever they want to whoever is willing to work for it. If you don't like it, you have two options. Make yourself more valuable to the company or, go get another job.
11:27 PM on 06/21/2011
Unions fight for better pay and better working conditions for their members. They fight for equality and safe work environments. Why shouldn't the employee share in the profit he helps the employer make. All you bloggers on here union bashing should know that the unions are the reason you make as much as you make in the private and public sector. "A fair days pay for a fair days works", that's the unions motto.
SeriesSeven
Progressivism is a disease.
10:33 AM on 06/22/2011
Union motto is "A fair day's pay for sitting on your butt doing nothing while providing iron clad termination protection, kickbacks to the union bosses, cover for organized crime, and illegal campaign contributions to your liberal benefactors in an incestuous relationship with the Democratic Party".
photo
intolleft
ObamaTAX...getting you shovel ready
10:51 AM on 06/22/2011
They do share in the profit....its called a paycheck.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:16 PM on 06/21/2011
At least the NLRB has some cojones. The politicians are paid contractors of the large USA corporations and protect their employers at the expense of the working American. The Supreme Court is now making rulings that institutionalize corporate thievery. Thankfully some part of the government is not totally bought off by the corporations.

I understand if corporations don't have the money to pay living wages. But corporate America collectively is holding over a trillion dollars of cash while paying their executives tens of millions of dollars annually. Yet they won't pay their employees a living wage.
11:14 PM on 06/21/2011
Unions have already ruined major industries, I guess they will destroy some more.
11:21 PM on 06/21/2011
Major industries ruined major industries by putting absurd profit before the employee. You get employees that work hard and are dedicated to the company and then you treat them like crap. Greedy, selfish, uncaring employers are what created the unions always remember that
photo
whyowhyoholic
Jesus told me you're all doing it wrong...
12:45 AM on 06/22/2011
What industries?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Maranda MassieGuthrie
my bio is empty!
10:37 PM on 06/21/2011
this is the best news i have heard all day..and a step in the right direction to help our workers and economy, and income imbalance..now this coupled with removing the tax cuts and loop holes for the rich should do wonders!! It's time workers rights see the light of day again!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnBryansFontaine
Liberal Democrat
05:53 PM on 06/21/2011
Rules would speed up union elections

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/21/ap/politics/main20073079.shtml
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnBryansFontaine
Liberal Democrat
photo
didyouseethat
UI's should get a clue
05:33 PM on 06/21/2011
Public Sector Unions flies directly in the face of their goals. They claim that they are necessary to protect public sector unions from the government? By their logic, the government is evil and the union is necessary to protect the rights of the workers. Yet, they lobby for bigger evil government. I just love Liberal Logic.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
edejan
03:08 AM on 06/22/2011
Doesn't sound like you like ANY kind of logic .
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:03 PM on 06/22/2011
Are facts actually that confusing for you?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Longtimeliberal
05:31 PM on 06/21/2011
Good, I guess there is something that can be done administarily.