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.

New election rules imminent?

The NLRB has issued a press release setting a November 30th vote on some portion of the new rules proposed for conducting NLRB elections. Is this a "ram through" of quickie elections before Member Becker's interim appointment expires? Maybe.

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.

2010 union free planning

Bloomberg has a good piece on corporate ramp up in advance of expected legislation to provide an easier path for organizing workers. As noted before, card check is dead, but quickie elections are a likely result of early action in 2010. Its a political necessity for Democrats to energize their labor base.

"The penalties are so miniscule . . ."

From the AFL-CIO blog (with video) a GRIT TV segment on union busting. Hint: they blame the consultants for scaring workers away from unionization. Basically Labor continues to engage in the delusion that all workers would join unions "but for" their employer's opposition. But at the end of the video, the point well made is the penalties for serious violations are an insufficient deterrent to employer misconduct. Assuming this aspect of the NLRA is broken,  and there is a lot of agreement among labor relations professionals on both sides on this point, it does not follow that the election process is broken.  With EFCA, unions want employees to choose unionization without providing time for any presentation of the case for remaining union free. That's what is really at stake with both card check and quickie election proposals.

Time to move on

Here's an example of an anti-EFCA piece beating the dead horse of no secret ballot elections. Assuming the 16% support for card check is an accurate figure as it appears to be, its time to move on to the objectionable aspects of compromise legislation, like quickie elections and binding arbitration of first contracts. At this point all a message like this does is make it appear the sole evil is the absence of a secret ballot election.

After card check

The American Spectator has a general update piece on EFCA. Not much new here except the "Beyond EFCA" headline. Its prescient. Card check is doomed. Quickie elections is the new thing. Can the unions get "beyond" card check? If they don't, any legislation is doomed. As we've said before, employers also need to get past any attacks on the proposed legislation taking away secret ballot votes. It wont. All the fear-mongering about taking away secret ballot votes plays into the hands of compromise involving quick elections.

Politics of card check

We have noted multiple times on this blog EFCA, with card check, is a dead issue. There will be labor reform, but removing the secret ballot election from the representation process is not going to be a part of the final law. Opponents of card check are beating a dead horse. Not only is this wasteful of resources, it makes "quickie" secret ballot elections an increasingly viable alternative. By continuing to rally against card check, opponents of labor reform make it easier for politicians seeking cover to say "I did not support card check, I stood up for secret ballot elections." Elections five or ten days after a petition is filed seem reasonable to the public. Having won the card check battle, opponents of reform should confront the real problem of an uninformed workforce voting on an issue deserving serious debate. Union allegations of worker intimidation and unlawful conduct during traditional election campaigns are correctly addressed by stiffer penalties for existing unlawful conduct, not quick elections. Labor ties employer intimidation to the length of time between petition and election. There really is no direct correlation except the duration of opportunity. Labor muddles lawful effective employer persuasion with unlawful threats. The former educates, the latter intimidates. Both can persuade employees to reject union representation, but lawful persuasion with legitimate facts and argument has a place in the debate. Labor's goal is to shut the employer out of the debate on selection of a representative. Only those who believe Labor's interests are congruent with all employees' interests can, with intellectual honesty, but still incorrectly believe shutting down employers' side of the debate is a good idea. Even mandated union access to company property and employees is less of an actual threat than elections being conducted so quickly as to preclude robust discussion of the adverse consequences of unionization.