The NLRB Is Retarding Economic Growth….Again.
I spend a good part of each day on “insourcing”, trying to convince companies like VW, Hyundai, Kia, and many others to hire laid off skilled trades’ workers, engineers, IT professionals, etc. These types of companies want to, and do hire them. But they won’t continue to do so should their perceptions of the NLRB continue to evolve as they have been. They won’t continue to do so because they will not hire here…as in this country. This is not a political post, damn it. This is a reality. Between this, Boeing, and the rest of the other items mentioned in this post, it would appear that the NLRB should absorb the Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Division. The NLRB is going to be responsible for eliminating jobs, upon jobs, upon jobs. The least the Feds could do would be to combine the agencies. Petition for election received. Boom, WARN notice filed. Watch.
The NLRB will post a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) designed to shorten the time allowed for union certification elections. The proposed expedited election process is the most recent attempt by the board to effectively curry favor for the unions when Congress won’t. Congress won’t because they know they’ll pay a price, but the NLRB is all about tilting the playing field in favor of the unions, and since they are appointed, there are no real time consequences.
Is the current system for union elections inefficient or ineffective?
- No. Ninety-five percent of all elections are conducted less than 60 days (average of 56) from the date of the petition being filed by a union.
- No. In 2010, the average time from filing of the petition to election was 31 days.
- No. In 2009, unions won 68.5 percent of the elections.
What’s the goal of the board here? Read this quote, and you might think that these are the words of a ultra-conservative republican politician:
“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.” ~Dissenting NLRB member Brian Hayes.
Employees should and can make an informed choice regarding their personal decision to vote for or against union representation. Many union organizing campaigns are run for months in a covert fashion without the knowledge of the employer. Employees need to be able to obtain information from their employer, and the current time frame works unless as Mr. Hayes writes “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.” This will drastically limit the time employees have to receive and process the information as well as their ability to carefully contemplate the “Vote Yes” or “Vote No” decision.
I could not think of a more dangerous time for the federal government to be focusing on agitating, and proposing this rule change. Manufacturers are trying to focus on competitiveness and job growth while the NLRB is seems focused on running those trying to create jobs off to other lands. Good job.