Court strikes down NLRB election rules

A federal district court has struck down the NLRB's new election rules finding the NLRB lacked a quorum when they were promulgated. Apparently the fact that Member Hayes did not vote meant, in this case, he did not participate so the other two members who voted for the rule did not constitute a quorum.

Secondary boycotts are effective

Business advocates who would do away with the National Labor Relations Board should think about what happens if effective collective actions by unions, like secondary boycotts, were no longer prohibited. After all, other advocacy groups find secondary pressure extremely effective.

Labor irrelevant?

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka declared labor would distance itself from Democrats unsupportive of labor's agenda. This pronouncement was treated as news by some, but it isn't really a new position. Just ask former Arkansas senator Blanche Lincoln. But Meyerson's WaPO opinion piece places the move in proper context, and the context is a bleak one for labor.

Repeal the NLRA

Here is a young author that enthusiastically embraces repeal of the National Labor Relations Act and embracing strikes and boycotts to empower the masses.

Dead EFCA

American Spectator has a pretty good "obituary" for EFCA.

On Wisconsin and more

Here's another interesting post (pro-labor) about the Wisconsin protests. Randy Shaw's take is less positive, and starkly critical of the current administration fumbling the mandate of 2008. While another pro-labor site Labornotes reports on public sector labor unrest in Indiana and Ohio. And the Newspaper Guild notes a broadening nationwide awakening, and a funny graphic.

EFCA or taxes?

Many years ago as a young management labor attorney I subscribed to Mother Jones. That raised a few eyebrows at my first employer/law firm, but I found it very helpful to understand leftist and in particular pro-labor viewpoints found in the magazine. After all much of my work involved representing employers undergoing union organizing efforts. More than a few times the information derived from Mother Jones was helpful in providing advice to employers. Kevin Drum has an interesting piece in the online edition. He poses the question of what choice would employers make if forced to choose between passage of EFCA or a return to Clinton era tax rates on high income. He not only answers the question, he also provides compelling reasons for the choice. There is also a fascinating chart showing the distribution of wealth since 1979.

Mediation and binding arbitration

H.R. 129, recently introduced would require employers to submit collective bargaining contract disputes to binding mediation and arbitration. This bill addresses one of the most controversial (after card check recognition) aspects of EFCA. It has no chance of passing.

Nullification!

Four states have passed laws requiring secret ballot elections by workers on unionization. This insurance policy was taken out by republican and business interests last November, even though EFCA was already dead. Now the NLRB has threatened to sue the states unless they agree the laws are unconstitutional and preempted. A few years back, I would have bet this was a slam dunk issue for the NLRB, but the scope of Garmon preemption may not seem as broad for the current Supreme Court. We have already entered a time when serious talk of nullification of federal laws by state officials would raise John C. Calhoun from eternal rest and spin Andrew Jackson a few times in his grave. Can serious talk of narrowing preemption when it serves to undercut federal authority be far off?

Different rules

Pro-labor poster Mike Elk gets it partly right in this post. The NLRB is willing to make incremental, mostly symbolic changes in the rules to aid unions in their organizing attempts. He correctly notes the absence of significant remedies for egregious violations. However he gets it plain wrong (like so many others) when he says shortening of time between a petition for an election and the conducting of the election is a cure for employer intimidation. It isn't.   A meaningful, civil, non-threatening dialogue is not only appropriate prior to an important vote, but necessary for an informed electorate. Card check recognition and instant elections hinder an informed vote. If the problem is employer intimidation, punish the employer's misconduct, don't stifle the discourse or impose a different sort of coercion by eliminating secret ballot elections.

NLRB proposes notification of rights rule

The NLRB has announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, for a new rule which would require employers to notify employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. From the presser:

Private-sector employers (including labor organizations) whose workplaces fall under the NLRA would be required to post the employee rights notice where other workplace notices are typically posted. If an employer communicates with employees primarily by email or other electronic means, the notice would be posted electronically as well. The notice would be available from the agency’s regional offices and could also be downloaded from the NLRB website.

The 60 day comment period is open. replies are accepted electronically to www.regulations.gov, or by mail or hand-delivery to Lester Heltzer, Executive Secretary, NLRB, 1099 14th Street NW, Washington DC 20570. A fact sheet is here.

Secret Ballot Protection Act

Is this the new issue? Maybe, but it has less chance of becoming law in the next two years than the horrific Employee Free Choice Act ever had. This Red State poster wants to ramp up and bludgeon "teh unions" now that votes can be forced by anti-labor forces in the House. What a waste of time. Such legislation will not get through the Senate, much less past a Presidential veto. Realistic reform might take hold if rational discussions were undertaken by both sides. Yes, the penalties for flagrant violations of the NLRA should be enhanced, even where real remedies might chill an employer a bit in its efforts to remain non-union. But in return, big labor must be willing to back off card check and permit fair secret ballot elections to determine if an un-coerced majority of workers want a union or not. No union should be imposed on a workforce without majority support established by a secret ballot determination of the majority's will.

Revitalization roadmap

A former union organizer (20 years) has penned a piece on revitalizing unions for The Nation. Key point, unions need to organize people, not necessarily in unions, but around ideas and causes that really matter to, well, people.

Back to basics - organize!

Thats what Randy Shaw says at BeyondChron. The solution to stopping labors decline in membership is not political, it is based on investment in organizing. Randy's right, hard work and organizing are required. Quick political fixes are not happening.

Secondary pressure and the decline of labor

Joe Burns' post at Labor Notes does a good job of explaining secondary pressure as a union solidarity issue. He attributes labor's decline, in part, as a result of the banning of secondary pressure.

You couldn't be more wrong

Sometimes you have to laugh at the stretch used to make political hay. This piece from the Cato Institute makes the argument that Samuel Gompers, the iconic labor leader, who opposed government intervention on behalf of workers in the early years, would today also oppose government intervention. This often used tactic effectively persuades some readers because the source of the alleged assertions is not challengeable by the target audience. The problem is Gompers lived in a different time. He died in 1924, prior to the Great Depression and prior to the passage of the National Labor Relations Act. He lived in an era where many actions of state and federal police powers actively discouraged labor's economic self help agenda. More after the jump

State anti-EFCA measures

Four states (Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah) passed provisions requiring secret ballot elections to determine a union's majority status. First, it is extraordinarily unlikely the NLRB will abandon secret ballot elections, so any petition would be processed under the current, long-standing secret ballot election procedures used by the NLRB. As for voluntary recognition situations, under which employers and unions may by-pass the election process, the effect is less certain, but absent a major rethinking of federal preemption, I do not see how states can permissibly regulate the process of determining majority status by card check or other non-election evidence that a majority of the employees support unionization.

Dead EFCA beaten again

Dead horse beaten for lively political purposes.dead horse, EFCA, labor reform, political posturing

Dead horse again

EFCA is a dead horse that keeps getting beaten. If anymore proof is necessary look at what these candidates in close senate races are saying. Truly labor has itself to blame here for insisting on card check as the cornerstone of labor law reform. All that insistence did is create a sound bite for the opposition. "We oppose getting rid of secret ballot elections." By its own insistence labor allowed itself to be portrayed as undemocratic and even unAmerican. There is zero chance EFCA will get passed in a lame duck session.

Acting General Counsel bares teeth

The NLRB's Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon has announced his intention to consider seeking 10(j) injunctions when employees are fired during organizing campaigns. Section 10(j), authorizes the NLRB to seek preliminary injunctions from federal courts to protect victims of unfair labor practices pending litigation.