BREAKING: Obama-NLRB Rushing to Issue Ambush Elections Rules on Nov. 30


Lone Republican NLRB Member Brian Hayes shut out of process…

It seems that Friday afternoons are always the time to drop job-killing news on America’s job creators. In this case, the union appointees  within Barack Obama’s National Labor Relations Board have issued a press release stating they will be issuing their final rule on ambush elections on November 30th.

In mid-June, the union-controlled NLRB issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making on the procedures governing NLRB-conducted elections. Despite the fact that unions already win more than 60% of all secret-ballot elections and the median time frame between a union petition for and election and the election itself is 38 days, the proposed rule change would like shorten that time drastically, creating an “ambush” union campaign on targeted employers and employees.

When the NLRB’s union appointees issued the notice, it was met with a tremendous outcry from America’s employers, as well as the sole GOP member at the NLRB.

The board’s lone Republican, Brian Hayes, issued a vigorous dissent, saying the proposal would result in the type of “quickie elections” union leaders have long sought. Hayes claimed elections could be held in as little as 10 to 21 days from the filing of a petition, giving employers less of a chance to make their case.

Make no mistake, the principal purpose for this radical manipulation of our election process is to minimize or, rather, to effectively eviscerate an employer’s legitimate opportunity to express its views about collective bargaining,” Hayes wrote.

On Friday afternoon, with controversial SEIU lawyer Craig Becker’s recess appointment to the NLRB ending at the end of the year (rendering the NLRB unable to issue the rule change), the NLRB issues a press release stating that it would be issuing its decision on November 30th.

The National Labor Relations Board has scheduled a Nov. 30 vote on whether to adopt a small number of the amendments to its election procedures that the Board proposed earlier this year.


The Board received more than 65,000 written comments on the proposal and heard testimony from 66 speakers at a two-day hearing in July. In response to those comments, and in light of the possibility that the Board will lose a quorum at the end of the current congressional session, Board Chairman Mark Pearce will propose issuing a final rule limited to several provisions designed to reduce unnecessary litigation.

The meeting of the Board’s three members, to be held at NLRB headquarters in Washington, will be open to the public, although the public may not participate. Members will discuss and vote on a resolution to accept the Chairman’s proposals, proceed to draft a final rule limited to those proposals, and defer the remainder of the proposed rule for further consideration.

Separately, in a letter dated Friday as well, Brian Hayes, the aforementioned lone Republican at the NLRB, Brian Hayes, sent a letter to Congressman John Kline [R] explaining how he has been advised that he would not be able to draft or even review the new rule until after its issuance.

According to Hayes’ letter to Kline:

“…these actions would contravene long-standing Board tradition and the Board’s own internal operating rules. These rules and traditions have been established to protect the legitimacy of the Board. They cannot, in my view, simply be cast aside in pursuit of a singular policy agenda without doing irreparable harm to the Board’s legitimacy.”

It appears that, unless NLRB member Hayes resigns before the NLRB issues its decision to ambush America’s job creators, the union appointees at the Obama-NLRB are ready, willing and able to break tradition and its own operating rules in order to shove their union bosses’ agenda down America’s throat.


“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776


  1. I think this revision proposal is totally unfit and unjust. Why is the Union reps so scared of the time frame now in existent for the employers to voice and point out to the employees why its NOT to their benefit to vote for union labor? Are they scared and wanting the employees to vote an uneducated vote in hopes of expanding Union operations?? I totally dislike modern day unions. In older days, they had their places. With corruption being influenced into everything now days, I feel that Unions and their wages are why the workign class people can’t afford to buy new vehicles or much of anything else. If you (for one minute) think the Unions will stand behind you if something happens to your job, think again. I’ve got a brother that lost his (Union) job in March 2011 (because of an un-noticed plant closing), and couldn’t even get his Union rep to return his phone calls. I’ve personally dealt with Union filtration and an employee vote (pro/con) for union force, its NOT a pretty issue to deal with and costly to your employer to defend theirselves.

    • These proposed revisions for “ambush elections” by shortening the time frame allowances truely reflects the character of Union affiliations and what you can expect in return. They just want a reason to take monies from private employers that SHOULD be turned into benefits for the employees. Remember, the more monies the Unions take from the employers, the less that will be considered for the employees or the future stability of the private employers to be capable of keeping employees on the payroll.

  2. This is a power ploy unethical in the extreme. Nobody with more than two working brain cells fails to recognize that there is a working relationship between the Democratic Party and all the major unions. Influence bought & paid for by member’s dues- whether they believe in it or not. I was held hostage as a union member against my will (closed shop). I was stonewalled when I requested that no part of my dues be used for political purposes. They reported only a tiny amount being used for that, just a few cents merely- and would not provide me figures! But much- a huge amount went to “education”. With no accounting available to members for where those “education” funds went! But political campaigns keep receiving far more money from unions than union books indicate. They(specifically the CSEA, though there is zero doubt they all do it) are cooking the books big time! Outright lies & massive fraud! It is not now and hasn’t in 50 years been about the good of the rank & file. Given the chance they will succeed in screwing up our economy so bad that few will be able to work and the government will to some degree collapse. Which won’t bother the union boss fat cats as they jet to their next junket. This administration is trying to buy enough influence to put Obama’s name into the history books as a positive legacy- with union help. Corruption begets corruption- birds of a feather…. Hopefully he’ll be able to read all about it as he retires to Leavenworth after his impeachment! Anyway, the story ends with massive pensions for some but many of the rest of us laid off. I hope some others laid off pick up enough math skills in their spare time to recognize their union’s contribution to their becoming unemployed!

    • B.C. I agree 110%.
      I believe it is even larger…
      international trade changes =
      shipping manufacturing overseas =
      only service industry left in U.S. =
      only union shops as places for employment
      It’s just a matter of time.
      All infrastructure, health and safety…everything gone to the unions.

      It isn’t that people are gulible or stupid, they are like you, trapped. Even when they don’t believe in the system, they will stay in the system in order to put food on the table and literally survive. Staying off the streets and alive will be the name of the game. As for me, I’ll do everything I can to be in a non-union environment for integrities sake.
      Don’t give up hope, we can still change history as we are here-spreading the news and empowering the workers against corrupt politicians and gangster union thugs.

  3. Why aren’t you talking about how corporations tie up union elections for 5- 8 years in court all the while failing to recognize the union when employees vote in favor of a union? Why aren’t you complaining of how employers have closed door, one on one meetings with employees where they threaten to close their plant or fire them if they vote in favor of a union? These are issues that happen everyday during organizing campaigns corporations willfully violate employees rights and threaten and coerce them to vote against unionization and you have the gall to try to put your spin on this issue blaming the union? PATHETIC!One last thing, would you please
    quit using Thomas Paine quotes about “Truth” as you and your site are a disgrace to his good name.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here