EPI: Court of Appeals Hands Victory to U.S. Workers

[ProSense]

Court of Appeals Hands Victory to U.S. Workers

by Ross Eisenbrey

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled yesterday that the Department of Labor’s H-2B visa wage methodology regulation is valid, handing a defeat to a coalition of employers who want to keep wages low for employees in forestry, seafood, hospitality, landscaping and other physically demanding jobs. In Louisiana Forestry Association v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, the court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the Department of Homeland Security the authority to rely on the Labor Department’s decisions about whether U.S. workers are available for jobs that employers want to offer to foreign workers, and whether U.S. workers will be adversely affected if foreign workers are admitted to the U.S. to do particular jobs.

The Labor Department issued a regulation in 2011 that sets out the most important element for making that determination: setting a prevailing wage rate for each occupation and requiring businesses to advertise jobs to workers in the United States at that rate before hiring foreign workers. The court held that the regulation is valid and rejected the businesses’ argument that the Department of Labor cannot set wages at a level high enough to attract U.S. workers.

I am not making this up. The Louisiana Forestry Association, the Crawfish Processors Alliance, and the American Hotel and Lodging Association actually argued that the required wages should not be set high enough to attract U.S. workers and that the Labor Department is not allowed to protect U.S. workers’ rights to a decent wage. Fortunately, the three-judge panel unanimously rejected this cynical argument and found that setting wages below the local prevailing wage does “adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed United States workers”:

We likewise reject Appellants’ argument that the DOL improperly established wage rates in order to attract U.S. workers—a factor Appellants claim the DOL was prohibited from considering in promulgating the 2011 Wage Rule. According to Appellants, in the NPRM and notice accompanying the final rule, the DOL “discussed the effect of higher wage rates on employers’ ability to attract U.S. workers,” a “factor that Congress and the (DHS) precluded from consideration…” We cannot agree. The INA and DHS regulatory provisions governing the DOL’s issuance of labor certifications require the DOL to consider, in issuing a temporary labor certification, whether H-2B alien workers’ employment “will adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed United States workers,” 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(6)(iii), a requirement that derives from the DHS’s charge from Congress to consider whether H-2B workers will have an “adverse effect” on U.S. workers.

- more -

http://www.epi.org/blog/court-appeals-hands-victory-workers/

[ProSense]

1. Add this:

(Originally posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002296514)

EPI applauds new Labor Department immigration rules that protect U.S. and foreign workers

By Ross Eisenbrey and Daniel Costa

Today the U.S. Department of Labor released a set of comprehensive regulations that will govern foreign labor certification in the H-2B guest worker program. We strongly support the new regulations and commend Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, the Department of Labor and the Obama Administration for acting to protect the interests of unemployed U.S. workers and H-2B guest workers. The rules are an important measure that will help fix a program in which instances of abuse, fraud and exploitation have been common, as revealed by government reports and investigations, as well as media coverage.

“The updated H-2B program will help put unemployed U.S. workers back to work by requiring employers to do more to recruit them before the department approves requests for foreign workers. The rules will also protect foreign H-2B workers from exploitation in the recruitment process by banning foreign labor recruiters from charging certain fees and requiring employers to pay visa and travel costs.

<...>

“In May of last year, we submitted detailed public comments to the Labor Department in support of the new rules. Hundreds of other organizations and individuals submitted public comments, and the department has carefully and meticulously reviewed them. The department’s lengthy analysis, released today in conjunction with the rule, does an excellent job of considering and addressing the concerns of employers and worker advocates. The final rule strikes a fair and appropriate balance between the concerns of all stakeholders involved in the H-2B program.”

The following are some of the most important elements of the H-2B rules:

• Employers will be required to provide U.S. workers in similar positions at least the same wages and benefits provided to H-2B workers, including transportation costs.
  
  
• An online H-2B job registry for U.S. jobseekers will be created.
  
  
• U.S. and foreign workers will be protected from retaliation for engaging in concerted activity.
  
  
• Employers will be required to guarantee workers a total number of work hours equal to at least three-fourths of the workdays in each 12-week period.
  
  
• Employers will be required to keep records documenting their recruitment of U.S. workers and to accept referrals of unemployed workers from state workforce agencies.

http://www.epi.org/publication/epi-applauds-labor-department-immigration/

[ProSense]

2. Kick for

crickets.

[malaise]

3. They'd reintroduce slavery if they could

I hate these greedy scumbags

[ProSense]

4. Their argument is preposterous. n/y

[freshwest]

6. They've advocated for it. 'Just joking' they say, like Rushbo. I've argued with Libertarians

who took their operations abroad for cheap labor with no regulations and to escape taxes while they live here and draw their social security or other benefits from past work for the governmment.

They say when American working conditions are like China, they'll bring the jobs back to the USA. In the meantime, they laugh their asses off at every plant closure and high unemployment number, hoping the country goes belly up to get their utopia.

Some sick fucks vote GOP.

[malaise]

7. They don't even realize that they are arguing against democracy and the American dream

They want America to be like China - how ambitious

[ProSense]

9. They

"They don't even realize that they are arguing against democracy and the American dream"

...don't care. I just posted this:

NLRB gives boost to speedier union elections
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024453233

Employers and the Chamber of Commerce are against it because it "would make it more difficult for them to make their case against unionization."

[sheshe2]

5. Kicked and Recommending!

[El_Johns]

8. KR

[ProSense]

10. Posting this here

for more exposure. (Sank like a rock: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024453233)

NLRB gives boost to speedier union elections

By Michael A. Fletcher

The National Labor Relations Board on Wednesday resurrected a proposal to implement new rules aimed at speeding up unionization elections, a move applauded by organized labor groups that have seen a steady decline in membership.

The labor board’s proposed amendments are identical to ones that the politically divided board was on the verge of enacting in late 2011...The latest version of the proposed rule change was approved by the NLRB’s three Democratic members, while the two Republican appointees dissented.

<...>

At present, workers must hold an NLRB-sanctioned election after filing a petition to organize a union. For years, union leaders have voiced concern that it takes too long after an organizing petition is filed to hold an election to determine whether workers want to create a union. The votes were often pushed back for weeks to manually distribute information and to appeal rulings by regional NLRB officials. The delays, union leaders complained, gave employers too much time to campaign to disrupt organizing efforts.

“When workers petition for an NLRB election, they should receive a timely opportunity to vote,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement. “But the current NLRB election process is riddled with delay and provides too many opportunities for employers to manipulate and drag out the process through costly and unnecessary litigation and deny workers a vote.”

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nlrb-gives-boost-to-speedier-union-elections/2014/02/05/a0d0e35a-8ebe-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html

The National Labor Relations Board Proposes Amendments to Improve Representation Case Procedures

The National Labor Relations Board announced today that it is issuing proposed amendments to its rules and regulations governing representation-case procedures. In substance, the proposed amendments are identical to the representation procedure changes first proposed in June of 2011. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will appear in the Federal Register tomorrow. The proposals are intended to enable the Board to more effectively administer the National Labor Relations Act. Specifically, the NPRM presents a number of changes to the Board’s representation case procedures aimed at modernizing processes, enhancing transparency and eliminating unnecessary litigation and delay. Issuance of the proposed rule was approved by Board Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce and Members Kent Y. Hirozawa and Nancy Schiffer. Board Members Philip A. Miscimarra and Harry I. Johnson III dissented.

In announcing the proposals, Pearce said: “The Board is unanimous in its support for effective representation case procedures. I am pleased that all Members share a commitment to constructive dialogue, and we all agree that important issues are involved in this proposed rulemaking. With a Senate-confirmed five-member Board, I feel it is important for the Board to fully consider public comment on these proposed amendments, along with the comments we previously received in 2011. These amendments would modernize the representation case process and fulfill the promise of the National Labor Relations Act.”

“I believe that the NPRM first proposed in June of 2011 continues to best frame the issues and raises the appropriate concerns for public comment,” Pearce said. He stressed that the Board is reviewing the proposed changes with an open mind: “No final decisions have been made. We will review all of the comments filed in response to the original proposals, so the public will not have to duplicate its prior efforts in order to have those earlier comments considered. Re-issuing the 2011 proposals is the most efficient and effective rulemaking process at this time.”

“Unnecessary delay and inefficiencies hurt both employees and employers. These proposals are intended to improve the process for all parties, in all cases, whether non-union employees are seeking a union to represent them or unionized employees are seeking to decertify a union,” Pearce said. “We look forward to further exchanges of ideas to improve the processes in a way that will benefit workers, employers and all of the American people.”

The reforms the Board will propose would:

• allow for electronic filing and transmission of election petitions and other documents;
  
• ensure that employees, employers and unions receive and exchange timely information they need to understand and participate in the representation case process;
  
• streamline pre- and post-election procedures to facilitate agreement and eliminate unnecessary litigation;
  
• include telephone numbers and email addresses in voter lists to enable parties to the election to be able to communicate with voters using modern technology; and
  
• consolidate all election-related appeals to the Board into a single post-election appeals process.

The previous NPRM was published on June 22, 2011. After considering the input provided in response, the Board had announced on December 22, 2011 that it was going to implement a final rule adopting some of those proposed amendments and defer the remainder for further consideration. That final rule was invalidated by a District Court ruling that it had been adopted without a validly constituted quorum. The Board’s appeal of that ruling was dismissed, pursuant to a joint stipulation, on December 9, 2013.

The public is invited to comment on the proposed changes. The deadline for comments is April 7, 2014. Reply comments to the initial comments may be filed by April 14, 2014. Details on how to submit comments are set forth in the NPRM. In addition, the Board will hold a public hearing during the week of April 7, at which members of the public may address the proposed amendments and make other suggestions for improving the Board’s representation case procedures.

http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/national-labor-relations-board-proposes-amendments-improve-representation

Teamsters Support Proposed Change That Would Speed Up Union Elections

<...>

The rule, if approved, would eliminate existing hurdles that can delay union-organizing votes with meritless and unnecessary litigation. The changes would streamline pre- and post-election procedures to help facilitate agreement and consolidate all election-related appeals into a post-election appeals process. Taken together, they would help stop companies from abusing the legal process to stall election votes, as many do now.

“Workers for too long have been forced to endure unnecessary delays when they have tried to start a union,” Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa said. “We urge the NLRB to move forward with these changes so hard-working Americans can organize and better provide for their families.”

http://teamster.org/news/2014/02/teamsters-support-proposed-change-would-speed-union-elections