Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Stands Up To The NLRB

WFI

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                   CONTACT: Ryan Williams
June 29, 2015                                                                                              202-677-7060

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Stands Up To The NLRB
WFI Applauds The Efforts By The Senate To Fight Against Big Labor’s Anti-Worker Agenda

Washington, D.C. (June 29, 2015) – The Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI) issued the following statement in response to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee’s actions to cut the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) budget:

“We applaud the recent efforts by the House and Senate for using the power of the purse to defund pro-union NLRB labor regulations in an effort to protect the rights of American workers and businesses” said Heather Greenaway, spokesperson for the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI).   “The ambush election rule unfairly penalizes employers and employees and would have widespread implications for small and large businesses alike.  Employers would be blindsided by these quickie elections and employees would have no time to understand the unintended consequences of joining a union, meanwhile, union organizers, who are trained in this regard, may have spent months canvassing before even filing their election petition.”

The Workforce Fairness Institute is an organization committed to educating voters, employers, employees and citizens about issues affecting the workplace.  To learn more, please visit: http://www.workforcefairness.com.

To schedule an interview with a Workforce Fairness Institute representative, please contact Ryan Williams at (202) 677-7060.

 

###

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Stands Up To The NLRB

The House Stood Up To The NLRB, The Senate Should Too

Hector Barreto
June 22, 2015

Fox News Latino

Using the power of the purse, Congress has taken yet another positive step to push back on the anti-business policies of the union-backed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The House Appropriations Subcommittee this week took a stand against NLRB’s newly-enacted ambush election rule, which took effect on April 14, by slashing funding for the rule’s implementation. The subcommittee also took steps to ensure that the rights of workers to make informed, non-coerced decisions in union elections remain intact and that the overall privacy of employees is protected.

The ambush election rule was enacted by the NRLB in order to coerce employees to unionize in a short window of time, springing elections on unsuspecting employers in a little over a week. Previously, the window was, on average, 38 days between when a petition was filed to the election. Under the new ruling, however, the window is as few as 11 days.

NLRB data from past elections show that, from 2004-2014, unions won 86% of elections that took place under 21 days, compared to the only 60% that took place over a longer timeframe (36 to 42 days). The shorter the election window, the greater likelihood of unionization. It’s no wonder the union-driven NLRB wants to speed the process up; since union membership has been steadily sliding into decline.

The first month’s numbers are in, and as the business community warned, elections to unionize workplaces have sprung up at an alarming rate. From April 14 to May 14, there was a 32 percent increase in the number of petitions filed. This trend will likely continue, with the shortened rule encouraging unions to file petitions even when they think their chances of success are small. Employers have less time to hire outside labor counsel or educate their workers on the unintended consequences of unionization, and employees get confused when faced with coercion and misinformation from highly organized union campaigns.

Additionally, the NLRB’s new policy violates workers’ basic right to privacy. The rule gives blanket access to union bosses of everything from an employee’s personal contact information, home address, and job classification, to shift schedules and work locations. Union heads can now camp out on your doorstep, bullying you into the collective.

Fortunately, pro-business members of Congress have been working to stop these unilateral mandates from an unelected board. The House and Senate passed widely-supported, bipartisan legislation in March that would have rolled back the NLRB’s reach and prevented the ambush election rule from taking effect. Unfortunately, the legislation was quickly vetoed by President Obama.

This week’s actions to defund the NLRB’s new mandate represent the second attempt that Congress has made in support of workers’ rights (and they say they can’t get anything done!). Hopefully, Congress will be able to wield the power of the purse to sway the Administration to repeal the NLRB’s misguided policies that serve not to protect the worker, but to pad union rolls.

The efforts by the House Appropriations Subcommittee to defund the NLRB should be applauded, and the Senate should follow suit.  It’s time to stop an unelected board of union bosses and bureaucrats from deciding the fate of millions of small business owners and workers across the country.

 

Hector Barreto is the former administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The House Stood Up To The NLRB, The Senate Should Too

House Appropriations Subcommittee Takes A Stand Against The NLRB

WFI

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                             CONTACT: Ashley Pratte
June 17, 2015                                                                             202-677-7060

 

House Appropriations Subcommittee Takes A Stand Against The NLRB
WFI Applauds The Efforts By The House To Protect Businesses And Workers

Washington, D.C. (June 17, 2015) – The Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI) issued the following statement in response to the House Appropriations Subcommittee’s actions to cut the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) budget:

“While the NLRB was created with the intention of protecting American workers from unfair labor practices and arbitrating disputes in workplace union elections, it has since turned into an organization run by union bosses pushing Big Labor policies. The ambush election ruling is nothing but an attempt to increase union membership rolls,” said Heather Greenaway, spokesperson for the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI).   “Workers have little time to understand the unintended consequences of joining a union, meanwhile, union organizers, who are trained in this regard, may have spent months canvassing before even filing their election petition. The NLRB’s own data shows that the shorter the election time, the great likelihood a workplace will unionize.   We applaud the efforts by the House to slash funding for the NLRB in an effort to protect the privacy and rights of American workers and businesses; we hope the Senate will include similar provisions.”

The Workforce Fairness Institute is an organization committed to educating voters, employers, employees and citizens about issues affecting the workplace.  To learn more, please visit: http://www.workforcefairness.com.

To schedule an interview with a Workforce Fairness Institute representative, please contact Ashley Pratte at (202) 677-7060. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on House Appropriations Subcommittee Takes A Stand Against The NLRB

The Harmful Effects of the Ambush Election Ruling

Heather Greenaway
June 16, 2015
The Daily Caller 

Big Labor is at it again. Predictably, and as many warned, since the enactment of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) “ambush election” ruling, elections to unionize workplaces have sprung up at an alarming rate. The new election rule took effect on April 14 – and in the first month, from April 14 to May 14, there was a 32 percent increase in the number of election petitions filed.

While the NLRB was created with the intention of protecting American workers and arbitrating disputes between employees and management, it has since turned into an organization run by union bosses pushing Big Labor policies. The ambush election ruling is par for the course for the Obama administration, which stops at nothing to increase union membership rolls.

The rule shortens the amount of time employers have to prepare for a union election. Historically, employers have had an average of 38 days, or a little over a month, to hire outside counsel, discuss ramifications of unionization with their workforce, and overall combat unionization efforts. Under the newly enacted ambush election rule, however, they now have as few as 11 days, or a little over a week, in which to prepare.

Workers have little time to understand the unintended consequences of joining a union, meanwhile, union organizers, who are trained in this regard, may have spent months canvassing before even filing their election petition. The NLRB’s own data show that the shorter the election time, the great likelihood a workplace will unionize.

In a rare moment of bipartisanship, Congress recognized the NLRB’s overreach and passed legislation in March that would have thwarted the decrease in union election times. Obama, however, used his veto pen for only the fourth time in his presidency, striking the legislation down. This issue was that important to him, proving the Obama administration is anti-business, as usual.

His veto wasn’t the first time Obama has interfered on behalf of Big Labor. In 2012, during a brief break in the Senate’s pro forma meeting schedule, President Obama unilaterally filled three vacancies to the NLRB, calling them “recess appointments.” These unconstitutional appointments were later unanimously rebuked by the U.S. Supreme Court, as the president’s appointee power rests on the advice and consent of the Senate. The Supreme Court then invalidated a year and a half’s worth of NLRB decisions – over 100 – during that prior year and a half.

The ambush election rule is going to have a sizable impact on small businesses and workers’ rights. The trend will continue – we will see a surge in election petitions as confusion swirls among business owners. Steve Bernstein, a top labor attorney for the labor and employment law firm Fisher & Phillips LLP, was recently interviewed by the Washington Free Beacon on the potential effects. He explained how these rules will entice unions to file petitions, even when they think their chances of winning are low.

Before the new ruling, Bernstein states, unions “were unlikely to file [petitions for elections] without at least 60 or 70 percent interest, but now they may be more comfortable filing minority petitions,” banking on the increased speed of elections to help them blindside employers and employees. Employers are right to be concerned. In the first month alone, the median time for filling petitions for elections decreased 40 percent, from an average of 38 days to 23.

If employers are constantly on guard against the threat of an ambush election potentially restructuring their company, how can they focus on running a business, innovating, and creating jobs? We need to be focused on growing our economy, not putting up yet another obstacle for business owners and workers’ rights.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Harmful Effects of the Ambush Election Ruling

The Obama Administration Stops At Nothing To Reward Union Bosses

Hector Barreto
May 14, 2015
Washington Examiner

Big Labor and the Obama administration scored a big victory on May 5. It happened when Senate Republicans failed to secure a two-thirds majority to override the president’s veto of legislation that would have reversed the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) “ambush” election rule.

The “ambush” election rule took effect on April 14, and with this ruling, union bosses — desperate to save their declining membership — now have valuable new tools to coerce and intimidate workers into joining their ranks.

The new rule will significantly shorten the window of time in which an election to unionize can be held — from an average of 38 days now to as few as 11 days after a petition has been filed. Shorter election times mean a much greater likelihood of unionization. Data from the NLRB show that from 2004 to 2014, unions won 60 percent of elections that took place between 36 and 42 days, but 86 percent of elections that took place under 21 days.

American small businesses, which often lack the infrastructure and support staff to ensure compliance with new and complex changes, will be acutely affected by the ruling. Employees now have much less time to educate themselves about unionization, while employers will be forced to submit a formal statement of position within seven days and will not be able to amend their statement before a representation hearing.

The new rules also eliminate an employer’s automatic right to a post-election review. Instead, employers are left to trust that the results are accurate and fair.

Union organizers can now approach any employee for their vote in unionizing the workplace without verifying that they are even eligible to vote. Incredibly, eligibility won’t be decided until after an election takes place.

These new NLRB policies also represent a serious violation of worker privacy. Union bosses now have blanket access to employees’ personal information, including phone numbers and email address, job classifications, shift schedules, work locations and home addresses. Employers can no longer protect personal employee information, and there’s no reason to think labor organizers will be shy about using it. In some instances, labor organizers have been known to camp out in front of workers’ homes to attempt to bully them into joining the union.

On the brink of irrelevance, labor unions bankrolled President Obama’s election and re-election campaigns, and now the administration is doing everything in its power to pay back its labor benefactors.

American employers can’t afford the aggressive, underhanded tactics made possible by the “ambush” elections ruling and other anti-competitive rules and regulations.

At a time of unprecedented global competition, and during an increasingly challenging and unpredictable economic environment, one would hope that the Obama administration would focus on supporting innovation and responsible risk-taking, while also standing by the basic rights of workers and business owners. Unfortunately, however, in trying to reward union bosses, this administration appears determined to pursue the exact opposite.

Hector Barreto is the former administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Obama Administration Stops At Nothing To Reward Union Bosses

The Obama Administration’s Anti-Worker, Anti-Business Agenda

The Hill
By Heather Greenaway
At a time of economic uncertainty, the Obama administration continues to endorse and even promote anti-business practices. In April, a new rule by the National Labor Relations (NLRB) board came online that would significantly tighten the amount of time required to hold union elections.

The “ambush” election ruling comes on the heels of a decision to allow “micro-unions” giving small groups of workers the ability to form collective bargaining units, upending decades of labor law in a giveaway to union bosses. Both of these renderings take away workers’ rights and drive up costs for businesses.

After receiving over $1 billion in campaign donations from Big Labor in 2008 and 2012, President Obama has consistently supported policies that aid union bosses, while undercutting job creators and workers. With union membership steadily declining in recent years, Big Labor is desperate to do anything to boost its membership rolls.

The “ambush” election ruling reduces the time required for union elections from an average of 38 days to as few as 11 days. Between 2004 and 2014, elections that took place within 36 to 42 days favored labor 60 percent of the time compared to 86 percent for elections held in under 21 days. It’s not hard to understand why union bosses have been pushing for the rule change.

To make matters worse, businesses are now required to give union organizers an unprecedented amount of information about their workers, including shift times, work locations and personal contact information such as home addresses and cell phone numbers. Labor bosses have already proven they are willing to go to great lengths to coerce workers to support union formation, including harassing employees at their homes. Now, with this additional information, union organizers will be able to harass employees on the job in front of their co-workers and at their homes in front of their families, while at the same time calling and emailing them. The rule is not fair to individuals who just want to make a living; instead, it makes serves as an undue burden.

Workers are not the only ones who are hurt by the “ambush” election ruling. Small businesses, that often do not have in-house lawyers to deal with complex labor issues, will have little or no time to get sufficient legal advice to ensure they are complying with the new rules. Additionally, the employers’ automatic right to a post-election NLRB review is abolished, replaced by discretionary reviews. This clearly benefits union bosses who will have a less oversight of their suspect practices.

The micro-union decision reached by Obama’s Labor Board also benefits union bosses by allowing them to organize small segments of a business and gain a foothold in a firm. Micro-unions will make businesses less efficient and negatively impact worker cohesion, which will have a disproportionate impact on the retail industry.

Micro-unions sow discontent within companies as groups of workers compete with each other for favorable contract terms and benefits resulting in increased acrimony and red tape. This will make the management of small businesses increasingly difficult due to increased costs forcing some employers to either close their doors or increase prices on goods they sell or produce.

“Ambush” elections and micro-unions subvert the rights of workers by tipping the scales in favor of desperate union bosses. The Congress should continue to fight Obama’s Labor Board by seeking to pass legislation undoing their giveaways to union bosses or eliminating the funding which enables them to undertake these harmful policies.

Our government should stand up for the rights of everyone, including employees and employers. Capitulating to union bosses at the expense of workers’ rights is not the role of a government agency funded by our taxpayer dollars.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Obama Administration’s Anti-Worker, Anti-Business Agenda

WFI Responds To Senate Failure To Override Obama “Ambush” Election Veto

WFI

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                 CONTACT: Ashley Pratte
May 6, 2015                                                                 202-677-7060
Washington, D.C. (May 6, 2015) – The Workforce Fairness Institute today issued the following statement in response to the failure of the U.S. Senate to override President Obama’s veto of legislation undoing the “ambush” election rule put in place by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB):

“Workers and business owners appreciate the hard work and effort on the part of elected officials to stop new the ‘ambush’ election rule enacted by President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board. This new policy is a giveaway to Obama’s political patrons, and allows union bosses to hold organizing elections in as few as 11 days while gaining access to workers’ private contact information,” said Heather Greenaway, spokesperson for the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI). “It is now abundantly clear that Congress must use its power of the purse and not allow such a disastrous rule to be funded with taxpayer dollars. It is time to send a message to the government bureaucrats doing Big Labor’s bidding: the American people will not allow tax dollars to be used to threaten their livelihoods and pay off special interests.”

BACKGROUND:

U.S. Senate Fails To Undo Obama Veto On “Ambush” Elections. “The Senate on Tuesday sustained President Barack Obama’s veto of a bill that would have scrapped a new government rule on union elections. It marked the second time that Congress has failed to override an Obama veto since Republicans took control of the House and Senate in January … Critics say the new rules give unions a chance to ambush employers with demands for votes on representation. Opponents say it could shorten the typical time between a union’s petition for recognition from more than a month to less than two weeks.” (Andrew Taylor, “Senate Sustains Obama Veto Of Bill Gutting Union Rules,” The Associated Press, 5/5/15)

The Workforce Fairness Institute is an organization committed to educating voters, employers, employees and citizens about issues affecting the workplace. To learn more, please visit: http://www.workforcefairness.com.

To schedule an interview with a Workforce Fairness Institute representative, please contact Ashley Pratte at (202) 677-7060.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on WFI Responds To Senate Failure To Override Obama “Ambush” Election Veto

Obama’s crusade for Big Labor continues

The Washington Examiner
By Heather Greenaway
Over the past several decades, organized labor has been experiencing a crisis as membership rolls continue to decline to record lows. In 2014, the Labor Department reported that union membership fell again to 11.1 percent of workers, down from 11.3 percent the previous year. Today, it stands barely over six percent in the private sector, while government workers largely contributing to the ranks of union members

The fall in the unionization rate can be assigned to various factors, including a leeriness among workers to join collective bargaining units, give away some of their hard-earned dollars and become exposed to the underhanded tactics employed by union bosses. The unwillingness of workers to join labor unions was on display just this month as the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) was forced to cancel a unionizing vote at Boeing’s South Carolina production facility due to a lack of support.

This cancellation, which garnered national attention, was the culmination of several tense days in which IAM organizers used intimidation tactics against Boeing workers, including showing up at employees’ homes.

With labor organizers becoming more and more desperate similar events are expected to become even more commonplace. And the federal National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is doing everything possible to pave the way for the harassment and bullying of even more workers.

On April 14, the NLRB’s “ambush” election ruling went into effect, giving union bosses unprecedented tools to pressure and coerce employees. The new rule will require business owners to hand over their employees’ phone numbers and email addresses, in addition to all of the previous information already required for disclosure, as soon as a union election petition has been filed.

The new rule also drastically shortens the window in which an election can be held — to as few as 11 days, down from an average of 38. This is a significant change. According to the NLRB’s own data from 2004 to 2014, union organizers were victorious 60 percent of the time when an election took place within 36 and 42 days. That percentage jumped to 86 percent when an election was held in under 21 days.

The “ambush” rule is par for the course for the Obama administration, which has worked hard to save unions from irrelevance. NLRB rulings in case after case have consistently provided union bosses new opportunities to go after employees and employers in an effort to bolster their declining membership. When Congress advanced a bipartisan bill earlier this year to reverse the “ambush” election decision, President Obama — on whose behalf union bosses had promised to spend $1 billion in the 2012 election — vetoed the bill. It was one of only four vetoes he has cast in more than six years on the job.

While pro-union decisions by the Obama Labor Board are certainly detrimental to major job creators such as Boeing, they are even more destructive to small business owners who don’t have the luxury of in-house lawyers to administer to shortened election timelines or the resources to educate employees about the pros and cons of forming a union. Today, these employers continue to fight hard to recover from the Great Recession in what is supposedly the sixth year of an economic recovery.

With the Obama administration unwilling to stand up for workers and small businesses, Congress must carry the fight by sending more legislation to upend these rules. Our representatives in Washington should consider drastically altering the NLRB’s budget, in order to disable it from doing any more harm.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Obama’s crusade for Big Labor continues