Business Owners/Managers take note

[hortysir]

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an independent agency whose members are presidentially-appointed, has issued a number of changes to the rules governing union elections. The proposed new rules would substantially shorten the election period from the current median of 38 days to as little as 10 days. Such a short period would restrict an employer’s ability to discuss outstanding issues with its employees and deprive employees of adequate time to evaluate alternatives. Additionally, the new rules would allow for micro-bargaining units to form, permitting certain employees within a company or even teams within a business to organize. A number of the proposed changes are modeled after some of the key elements of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) – the “card check” bill that was defeated in Congress in 2007.
These attempts to give employees inadequate time to consider union petitions. They represent an attempt to circumvent the will of the people’s representatives—Congress—by enacting new laws administratively. Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) recently introduced a resolution to prevent the NLRB from implementing the rule. Employees and employers would be better served by NLRB enforcing existing regulations instead of proposing new rules outside the scope of their congressionally-chartered mandate. Workers should be protected from outside pressures to organize and opposes any attempts to impose new rules governing union petitions modeled after the failed EFCA/“card check” bill.

The new NLRB rules are slated to go into effect on May 1, and Congress must act soon to block these regulations.


Senator Mike Enzi’s (R-WY) Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval is labeled S.J. Res 36




Please contact your Senators.


Congress.org – Get informed, get involved




This came across my desk today (proprietary information removed as per my "electronic communications" agreement).
Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio have been notified of my disapproval.


:

 

[bripat9643]

One more glaring example of Obama wiping his ass on the Constitution.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an independent agency whose members are presidentially-appointed, has issued a number of changes to the rules governing union elections. The proposed new rules would substantially shorten the election period from the current median of 38 days to as little as 10 days. Such a short period would restrict an employer’s ability to discuss outstanding issues with its employees and deprive employees of adequate time to evaluate alternatives. Additionally, the new rules would allow for micro-bargaining units to form, permitting certain employees within a company or even teams within a business to organize. A number of the proposed changes are modeled after some of the key elements of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) – the “card check” bill that was defeated in Congress in 2007.
These attempts to give employees inadequate time to consider union petitions. They represent an attempt to circumvent the will of the people’s representatives—Congress—by enacting new laws administratively. Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) recently introduced a resolution to prevent the NLRB from implementing the rule. Employees and employers would be better served by NLRB enforcing existing regulations instead of proposing new rules outside the scope of their congressionally-chartered mandate. Workers should be protected from outside pressures to organize and opposes any attempts to impose new rules governing union petitions modeled after the failed EFCA/“card check” bill.

The new NLRB rules are slated to go into effect on May 1, and Congress must act soon to block these regulations.


Senator Mike Enzi’s (R-WY) Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval is labeled S.J. Res 36




Please contact your Senators.


Congress.org – Get informed, get involved




This came across my desk today (proprietary information removed as per my "electronic communications" agreement).
Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio have been notified of my disapproval.


:

 

[buckeye45_73]

Unions are awesome, look what they've dont to companies and cities like Detroit. it's a liberal paradise!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why is it "unconstitutional" for the NLRB to change their own rules?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Why is it "unconstitutional" for the NLRB to change their own rules?

because they're doing things the legislature should be doing. executive orders and regulatory agencies shouldn't be just passing crap that congress wont touch. There is a reason congress wont touch it.

 

[hortysir]

Why is it "unconstitutional" for the NLRB to change their own rules?

They represent an attempt to circumvent the will of the people’s representatives—Congress—by enacting new laws administratively.


That is ok?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's not a "new" law. It's a "new" NLRB regulation. Union elections are completely within the jurisdiction of the NLRB.

That's what they're there for.

 

[buckeye45_73]

It's not a "new" law. It's a "new" NLRB regulation. Union elections are completely within the jurisdiction of the NLRB.

That's what they're there for.

OK if true, why did they go after card check?

 

[bucs90]

Oh, I see.........

"LAW": Passed by Congress, enforced (sometimes). Punishable by a fine and/or jail.

"REGULATION: Passed by....no one, just mandated by an unelected group of buearocrats, enforced (sometimes). Punishable by a fine. IF the fine is not paid, a contempt of court charge is possible, which could lead to jail. Or a civil lien.

SO, passsing a LAW takes away some bit of freedom. Passing a "regulation" just....mandates away some freedom. I get it.

 

[Claudette]

Its a lousy idea, whoever came up with it. One has to wonder why its even in play?

 

[G.T.]

It;s so easy for people to fear and rail on what they don't understand, and what they don't even bother to check if is historical precedent.

Partisanship dumbs you WAaaaaaAAAAaaaaaY the fuck down, wake up people.

 

[SniperFire]

Employees need to be protected by the National RIght to Work Act.

National Right to Work Act | The National Right to Work Committee®

 

[DaGoose]

Why is it "unconstitutional" for the NLRB to change their own rules?

It's not. Whenever a wingnut gets his panties in a bunch over something he tries to claim it is "unconstitutional".

 

[DaGoose]

Employees need to be protected by the National RIght to Work Act.

National Right to Work Act | The National Right to Work Committee®

Pass a national RTW law and you'll kill what's left of the middle class.

 

[Inthemiddle]

They represent an attempt to circumvent the will of the people’s representatives—Congress—by enacting new laws administratively.

The NLRB has the authority to set rules for itself. The current issue about which you are griping deals with pre-election review of Regional Directors' decisions by the Board. In other words, it's an appellate procedure, and one that is rarely utilized. But current rules require a delay in elections for the sake of waiting for such proposals. The proposed rules change will simply eliminate something that is not utilized, and serves no real function other than to require a needless delay.

Your claim that this would give employees insufficient time to consider union petitions is completely unfounded. Petitions are collected at an earlier stage in the process. By the time that a Regional Director is making a decision, the petitions are done.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why is it "unconstitutional" for the NLRB to change their own rules?

because they're doing things the legislature should be doing. executive orders and regulatory agencies shouldn't be just passing crap that congress wont touch. There is a reason congress wont touch it.

It was Congress that created the NLRB board and gave them the power to make these regulations on their own.

 

[hortysir]

They represent an attempt to circumvent the will of the people’s representatives—Congress—by enacting new laws administratively.

The NLRB has the authority to set rules for itself. The current issue about which you are griping deals with pre-election review of Regional Directors' decisions by the Board. In other words, it's an appellate procedure, and one that is rarely utilized. But current rules require a delay in elections for the sake of waiting for such proposals. The proposed rules change will simply eliminate something that is not utilized, and serves no real function other than to require a needless delay.

Your claim that this would give employees insufficient time to consider union petitions is completely unfounded. Petitions are collected at an earlier stage in the process. By the time that a Regional Director is making a decision, the petitions are done.

There are a number of changes being proposed. The election time is one. Petitions is another.
Our legislative branch gave them their authority and now it's proposing to limit that authority.
If it fails or if it passes, we know that our democratic process has done what it was formed to do.

 

[Mr Natural]

Employees need to be protected by the National RIght to Work Act.

National Right to Work Act | The National Right to Work Committee®

Pass a national RTW law and you'll kill what's left of the middle class.

That would seem to be the goal.

"Prosperity Through Lower Wages!"

 

[Inthemiddle]

Our legislative branch gave them their authority and now it's proposing to limit that authority.

In other words, you were full of shit when you said that they were trying to circumvent the role of Congress. They were, in fact, operating within the bounds granted to them by a Congress that was exercising its role.

 

[hortysir]

Our legislative branch gave them their authority and now it's proposing to limit that authority.

In other words, you were full of shit when you said that they were trying to circumvent the role of Congress. They were, in fact, operating within the bounds granted to them by a Congress that was exercising its role.

And I'll take my company's team of lawyers' word on what has the potential to harm private business over the word of someone with an Erkel avatar.