Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Thu Feb 13, 2014, 09:17 AM Feb 2014

Up in arms over union ‘persuader’ rule

Up in arms over union ‘persuader’ rule

By Kevin Bogardus and Ben Goad

Business groups are fighting to stop an Obama administration regulation that would force companies to disclose when they employ legal consultants behind the scenes during union organizing campaigns...groups are up in arms about a forthcoming “persuader” rule from the Labor Department that they say could have a chilling effect on the legal world and scare firms away from representing them.

<...>

Under current rules, employers are only required to disclose the hiring of outside firms on union elections when the consultants make direct contact with employees...that would change under a new Labor Department regulation due out as early as next month. First proposed in June 2011, the revised regulation would require employers to disclose any work by consultants on union election strategy.

Labor advocates allege that the consultants train supervisors how to push back on union organizers, and say firms in the “union avoidance” industry should be exposed to public scrutiny.

“It’s a sensible proposal to close a union-busting loophole that companies have been able to hide behind,” said Josh Goldstein, an AFL-CIO spokesman.

- more -

http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/labor/198153-union-persuader-rule-has-industry-groups-up-in-arms


2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Up in arms over union ‘persuader’ rule (Original Post) ProSense Feb 2014 OP
Yes, let's get a little sunlight on that group National Right to Work Foundation that is okaawhatever Feb 2014 #1
Adding this: ProSense Feb 2014 #2

okaawhatever

(9,457 posts)
1. Yes, let's get a little sunlight on that group National Right to Work Foundation that is
Thu Feb 13, 2014, 09:26 AM
Feb 2014

"representing" 8 workers at the VW plant in Chattanooga against the unions. (Total of 1550 voters almost 2000 total workers). Where do you suppose they get their money? They're a non-profit group to help the workers not cave into the unions. They also write articles for the local paper to bash unions, hire attorneys to bash unions, advertise to bash unions, all kinds of fun stuff.

People complain about union bosses being "outsiders". How much more outsider can you get than a tea party funded group showing up at a plant without an invitation backing a cause that helps only them. Give me a break.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
2. Adding this:
Thu Feb 13, 2014, 09:40 AM
Feb 2014
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


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Up in arms over union ‘pe...