The Obama administration’s takeover of the health-insurance system stands out in many Americans’ minds as the distillation of its radicalism, but even more remarkable is its radicalization of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), part of its tireless campaign to aggrandize the cartels known as labor unions. Now the NLRB plans to rewrite the rules for union elections in a way that further strengthens the hand of the unions and undermines the freedom of employers to keep from having collective-bargaining contracts imposed on them against their will.
Advertisement
Obama’s NLRB is contemplating new union-election rules that would give employers less time to organize a countercampaign. There is absolutely no reason for doing so other than to weaken the employers’ position. Most union elections are conducted within a month or six weeks after union organizers file their petition for a vote; during the interim, employers have the chance to make their case against unionization, if they so choose. Under the fast-track votes contemplated by the new NLRB guidelines, that time would be reduced to less than three weeks, possibly as little as ten days. You’ll notice that it is only the employers who face a time limitation: The unions may spend as much time as they choose organizing their campaign before filing the petition for a vote. In some cases, employers have no idea that their workforces are being organized for unionization until that petition is filed, placing them at a distinct disadvantage. And even if they know that union organizers are approaching their workers, employers already face significant restrictions on how they respond.
As usual, employers’ property would be commandeered, and businesses would be required to share records, electronic files, contact databases, etc., with their antagonists. (Of course there is no reciprocal obligation on the unions.) In addition, employers’ right to use legal and procedural channels to resist unionization of their workforces would be reduced.
This is every bit as crucial to the unions as was the “card check” proposal, which would have abolished secret-ballot voting in union elections, allowing union organizers to intimidate dissenters. It may prove even more effective a tool for amplifying the unions’ power. On top of this, the Specialty Healthcare case, currently under review by the NLRB, could change the union-election rules by rewriting the definition of a “collective-bargaining unit.” Current rules define those bargaining units as enterprises or major divisions of enterprises; the changes being contemplated would allow any two workers who hold the same job to conduct a union-organizing vote on their own, empowering the unions to cherry-pick sympathetic workers and take over a workplace piecemeal.
Such anti-democratic initiatives are dear to the heart of America’s union bosses, whose power is declining along with union membership, as is the income they derive from forced union dues. Their numbers are declining because they have been extraordinarily successful in organizing capital-intensive industries such as steel and automobile manufacturing, and then destroying them, driving jobs and investment overseas to more investment-friendly climes. (And “investment-friendly” does not mean “low wage”; does Nagoya look poorer than Detroit to you?)
None of this should be surprising. When President Obama installed labor radical Craig Becker, formerly the top lawyer for the Service Employees International Union (a key Obama ally), at the NLRB, it was obvious that the administration intended to fundamentally reshape our labor laws — without ever holding a vote in Congress. Taken alongside such abuses as targeting Boeing for having the audacity to expand its operations in a right-to-work state, the NLRB is the very picture of a runaway agency pursing a narrow, partisan political policy rather than any legitimate public mandate. The increasing radicalization of the NLRB invites a proportional response — a national right-to-work law would be an appropriate remedy. In any case, the Republicans’ 2012 nominee and congressional candidates should remind Americans daily what the Obama administration has attempted to foist upon American employers and the means he has used.
Every new issue of power-grabbing by this administration should be met with outrage. Where are the voices against this attempted takeover of private enterprise? How can unions with only a small percentage of members vs. total voting population get such sweetheart deals? The fox is guarding the hen house!
Its going to take some major legislation to fix all of the damage Obama and his radical allies are doing to this country. A case in point is the NLRB and their attempt to re-write 75 years of labor law by regulatory fiat. The EPA is currently a runaway agency, run by radical enviromentalists, as well, and is need of similar reform. It might be necessary to abolish these rogue agencies and start over.
The never-answered question remains: If labor unions are good for workers, good for business and good for the economy - as unions claim they are - why is union membership declining?
Jenna,
Good points all, and if unions are so great, why does the NLRB and this administration have to resort to such strong-arm tactics to advance "the union label"?
These actions are just more examples of the wedge tactics Obama is using to divide and conquer the country to install his vision of socialism / communism. Congress MUST act or the people will. Enough!
It would seem that the only short-run remedy here is for the House to defund the NLRB along with the EPA. The long-run remedy is to force the Administration to obey Article 1 Sect. 1 of the Constitution: All legislation (including institution of new regulations or rewriting of existing regulations) must first go through Congress.
Democrat classical thinking: Exploit fairness by picking one side and helping that side while hurting the other. Really, you see it in the overall attitudes toward business, toward race, toward religion (helping the other side), toward criminality, toward ....
I fear for my country. It never ceases to amaze me how the United States of America will put up with this blatant disregard for freedom and liberty. Our FF's would be "rebelling" against us right now.
I should have mentioned ATF as another agency that is out of control. The Gunrunner scandal has cost the lives of several American law enforcement officers (as well as over a hundred Mexican officers) and is directly attributable to the ATF (and possibly those above it). See External Link
Some people forget there is no longer such a thing as a moderate Democrat. Today that term is reserved only for those who are not committed Stalinists.
America is at a tipping point. During my life time we've witnessed the gradual erosion of our freedom as a meddlesome legislature with the active participation of a self aggrandizing executive have usurped our liberty.
But we have a choice, and consequences of that choice are clear to us now.
If we do nothing about the size and scope of the standing goverment we condemn ourselves to the fate currently faced by the old western European powers. As an apt example, it is the labor unions leading the riots in Greece.
If we take arms against this sea of trouble we face several turbulent years as the dysfunctional status quo fights for its survival.
If the EPA, the NLRB, the FCC and other rogue agencies are not dismembered we will have no one to blame for our dismal future but ourselves.
We really need to remove this administration and all its tentacles via unelected, unaccountable agencies. This is what worries me most about ensuring Obama is a one-term president - how do we also undo all the damage he has done with these agency power grabs?
No more agencies! Defund the unnecessary ones we already have now!
I stand second to none in my condemnation of the Obama administration. But it is wrong to state that our current state of affairs is solely his doing.
the standing government, the tentacles as you term them, have been growing for much of the past decades. It was Nixon, after all, who gave us the EPA.
the gingrich republican revolution was supposed to grind these agencies to a halt. That failed us and the relentless march toward serfdom has proceeded apace the party of the president notwithstanding.
Yes, Newt Gingrich had the opportunity to start the revolution and swing the pendulum back toward individual freedom. His failure to make good use of his success in 1994, aside from a couple of worthy projects like welfare reform, is the reason why his present political ambitions are so absurd.
Who looks at the problems in the world and in this country, and what's caused them, and thinks that the answer is more unionized workers and more union power?
The Democrats and unions who benefit from their corrupt arrangement, that's who. But why the rest of us would tolerate it in the slightest is astounding to me.
If you knew nothing about Obama and his performance in office except for what he's doing with the NLRB, it would be enough to vote him out.
On clear and recent precedents, the Supreme Court ought to have declared the National Labor Relations Act unconstitutional when the test case involving it came up in 1936. But due to FDR's threat to pack the Court, Chief Justice Hughes caved in and sided with the statists who believed that the country needed unionizing with federal help.
Labor relations should have been left as a matter for the states to regulate if they felt any regulation beyond the principles of common law were required. (I think not.) I propose that Congress rectify the blunder of passing the NLRA by repealing the statute. If any state wants to replicate it, federalism permits that, although some aspects of the NLRA interfere with constitutionally-protected rights (such as freedom of speech) and such provisions should be allowed.
It is through agencies like this, in back-channels, that the bald faced liars who call themselves "democratic" attempt to control more and more of our lives.
It is thoroughly indefensible to have a government agency tasked to do the bidding for only 7% of our country's workers.
But that is how socialism works:
It seeks to elevate the interests of a distinct minority over and above the interests of everyone else, and make that state of affairs permanent by a pliant judiciary aligned with a militant "academy" of socialists.
"Democratic" my butt!
If this recess Obama appointee desires to dictate where our business can be conducted, then he should be forced to relocate his residency.
There is an easy fix to the runaway agency problem, but they won't do it because all the politicians like the cover of not having to be responsible for laws - i.e. regulations - that they really want but the people don't (it wasn't me, it was the FCC! I can't do anything about it.).
How you fix it is to pass a law that says that all regulations enacted must be affirmatively approved (i.e. they have to actually vote for it and not delegate their authority) by Congress within six months or they are null and void. Further, any Federal employee, agent or commissioner who tried to re-enact such regulations after Congress has refused to affirm such regulation would be subject to termination or criminal prosecution.
Naysayers will say Congress will bog down having to pass all those regulations, but it would work like this: every six months all the regulations passed in the previous six months would be promulgated into a single bill. Each member of either house would then have 10 days to call out any regulation. The remaining regulations (actual uncontrovesial regulations) would then pass on a voice vote. The called out items would be voted on individually (or tabled - which would be the same as a rejection without a vote) and only those regulations that can pass congressional muster would make it into law.
Eventually, the agencies - being aware of what Congress is likely to do - will stop sending controversial regulations to Congress only to get slapped down and losing the power to make such a rule in the future.
Do that and you'll put a leash on the unelected runaway agencies - and adhere to Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution as Jack points out.
NJ Jim - I would amend what you say from "all regulations enacted" to "all regulations proposed."
In effect, no regulation could be enacted until Congress passed on it (and the President signed off on it). Also, I don't mind if Congress gets bogged in the minutiae of regulation. If they're going to impose all that stuff on us, then they need to take the time to make sure that what they're imposing is consistent with the general welfare clause of the Constitution and is within the purview of the enumerated powers of Art. 1 Sect. 8 of the Constitution.
