Hearing to examine NLRB’s effort to rush union elections
WASHINGTON, D.C. | June 30, 2011 – U.S. House Education and the Workforce Chairman John Kline (R-MN) issued the following statement today after providing public notice for a hearing next week. The hearing will examine the National Labor Relations Board’s proposal to make sweeping changes to union election procedures.
“The Obama National Labor Relations Board continues to feed the fear and uncertainty facing America’s job creators. The latest example is the NLRB’s proposal to stifle an employer’s right to communicate with his or her workers and cripple a worker’s ability to make a fully informed decision about whether to join a union. How this blatant attempt to promote the agenda of Big Labor serves the best interest of the nation’s workforce is beyond the realm of common sense. Yesterday, the president held a press conference to defend his record. Yet when asked about the activist NLRB and whether its actions are chilling job creation, he failed to hold the NLRB accountable for its job-destroying policies. House Republicans will continue to provide the oversight and leadership the American people expect when an arm of the federal government threatens workers and job creation with partisan policies.”
On Thursday, July 7 at 10:00 a.m., the Committee on Education and the Workforce will hold a hearing on “Rushing Union Elections: Protecting the Interests of Big Labor at the Expense of Workers’ Free Choice.” The hearing will take place in room 2175 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Additional information regarding the hearing will be announced next week.
Complete BS.
Nothing in these rules cramps or limits the free speech rights of employers, which are codified in the Act in Section 8(c).
These rule changes would speed elections and stream line the process, which employers don’t like. Delaying the process allows employers more time to bombard their employees with anti-union propoganda (including in captive audience meetings which employees must attend), to illegal interrogate employees, to illegally promise improved benefits and wages, to make legal predictions or illegal threats to move, and to identify and discharge employees.
Yeah there is plenty of coercion in the union context, nearly all of it management side, and longer election periods give employers more opportunities to misinform and beat up on their employees.
It appears you’ve been reading and believing too much of Kate Brofenbrenner’s tripe.
Here’s some info to balance your soapbox:
http://www.unionfacts.com/the-unions-flawed-case/union-myths-from-union-mouths
http://www.unionfacts.com/the-unions-flawed-case/commonly-misused-statistics
Obama got away with craming his destructive Obama-care down our throats. Do you suppose the Union thugs arranged, after more than 50 private meetings with Obama, that together they can do the same with their combined powers?