Emboldening Big Labor

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


Pages: 1 2

Big Labor scored a significant victory Wednesday when the National Labor Relations Board gave preliminary approval to a rule that severely limits the ability of employers to fight unionization drives.

On a vote of 2-to-1, the NLRB, a socialist anachronism left over from the New Deal, agreed to move forward with the “microwave” rule, which would allow workers to create unions more quickly and provide employers less time to fight such moves in courts or otherwise. The rule zaps the rights of employers by slashing the period between when workers file to create a union and when they vote from 30 days to as few as 10 days.

It is worth noting that while states are rushing to endorse right-to-work laws that uphold employees’ rights, the NLRB is going in the opposite direction by favoring union bosses.

Unlike in statist Europe, unions in individualistic America have always had a hard time organizing. And so they should. That’s the American way.

But Obama’s toadies at the NLRB are hell-bent on making America more like bureaucratic, dysfunctional Europe where labor disruptions and union violence are everyday occurrences.

Left-wingers on the NLRB are helping the lawless Obama administration circumvent Congress because they know the microwave rule, which is arguably a backdoor form of “card check,” would never be approved by lawmakers.

“What the NLRB is doing is not the action of one rogue agency or a few envelope-pushing employees, so much as it is a deliberate strategy to use the federal government’s regulatory powers to achieve what Obama and his political supporters want without having to bother with going to Congress first,” writes columnist Peter Roff.

Labor bosses view the potential rule change as an opportunity to force more American workers into the union fold.

Pages: 1 2

  • Annie

    My father was in management as far back as I can remember, so we were definitely “anti-union”. Still, he wasn’t blind to abuses that poor management can inflict upon a workforce. His philosophy was “if you treat workers with dignity, fairness and respect, you’ll never have to worry about a labor union organizing your workers”. He also added that if we went into management and ever had to deal with a unionized workforce, the cheapest,most efficient way of running that business was to adhere to the provisions of the contract. My father never had a company unionize on him, either, even when joining a union was a popular thing to do. He published his own pay package on company bulletin boards and never considered cutting workers’ pay without cutting his own pay first. His style of management cultivated worker loyalty and cooperation. Contrast that with the adversarial style of management that is so popular today!

    No one has ever tried to force me to join a labor union. I did so when I went to work for a company who preferred having a bunch of thugs in management who only thought about their own bonuses rather than the long-term health and future of the business. They seem to believe that safety regulations and laws are for other companies to follow. The monetary remedies for contractual violations must be huge, but unlike other companies who deduct the cost of carelessness or negligence from an employee’s or manager’s bonus, management actually takes home a higher bonus! This cost is then past on to the consumer,which results in a reduced ability to compete in the marketplace.

    While there are bad employees who deserve to be fired, most employees really do want their employees to succeed and grow. There are established, legal ways to remove the bad ones but it involves management performing their “due diligence” and following the correct legal and contractual methods for doing so.

    Sometimes the employees who need to be removed are sitting at the supervisor’s desks.

    • Amused

      Congrats Anne ,your post is by far , an informed and fair statement . By your attitudes , it is obvious your father was a fair and honorable man , and had successfully imparted those attributes to you . Your points are accurate ,and precise . Unfortunately , such wisdom and honesty is NOT appreciated by the denizons NOR owners of this website , since it is inb their predisposed highly biased opinion that unions are either socialist , communist , leftist or thugs .These opinions come not from any experience on either side of management or labor , but by parroted memes spouted by their ideologues most of which NEVER worked a day at hard physical labor in their entire lives .And that includes David Horowitz and no doubt the author of this article .

      • Amused

        Free Speech takes a back seat to ideology …AGAIN , eh FPM .

        • Amused

          Annies post is right on the money , true and accurate and the wisdomn and fairness of her father has obviously successfully imparted down to her . LOL….it will get no votes of approval on this blog .

  • StephenD

    "Labor bosses view the potential rule change as an opportunity to force more American workers into the union fold."

    I have been in positions that required union membership. THIS is as Anti-American as you can get.

    As was pointed out in the article, it isn't at all about helping the workers but rather of “boosting the anemic ranks” to keep the money, and from it, the power, coming to the Union Bosses.

    Employee advocates set up with the consent of Employers could circumvent the unions in an unprecedented way. Having a co-worker to advocate for you during disciplinary proceedings or regarding safety or other working conditions is a lot less costly to the employer in the long run and takes the teeth out of the unions bite. Why Corporations haven’t done something like this yet is beyond my simple mind.

    • Annie

      “Employee Advocates”????? What do you think a Union Steward is?

      The difference is that a Union Steward is elected and paid by the group of employees s/he represents.

      What you want to do is make this position one that is paid for by management and existing (only) “with management’s consent”. In other words, if management doesn’t like the way the representation is going (too successful at representing workers), they will turn around and fire the Employee Advocate, too! That will create a conflict of interest and deny the employees fair representation.

      It’ll be like 2 wolves and a lamb deciding on what is for dinner.

      BTW, Weingarten vs. the State of California already allows an employee representation (by someone who is not on management’s side).

      • StephenD

        "Weingarten vs. the State of California already allows an employee representation (by someone who is not on management's side). "

        Ahhh, so the idea grows legs….

    • Amused

      That's right Steve , you do have a "simple mind " ….it's beyond you huh ? The self-imposed ignorance you anti-union shills display is stupifying .
      LOL>….."with the consent of Employers " ……who in the heck are you kidding ?

      • StephenD

        "The self-imposed ignorance you anti-union shills display is stupifying . "

        Unlike that of the pro-union shills who refuse to acknowledge the costs of the unions.

        Tell me, what % of the folks that pay into the union actually get a retirement from it? I can tell you the Carpenters Union…3%!

        100% pay in but only 3% ever get to collect from it.

        Talk about "self-imposed ignorance."

    • Maxie

      "Why Corporations haven’t done something like this yet is beyond my simple mind."

      Back in the day the NLRB was created ostensibly to act as an impartial arbitrator in settling labor vs. corporation disputes. As you might expect the NLRB quickly became weighted in favor of the unions. Corporations learned it was a waste of time and money hoping for fairness – they were playing against a stacked deck. Then/now, when struck the corporations just capitulated and passed the added costs on to the consumer – you. It's called inflation. Read about the Kohler strike (circa 1950) for some history.

  • Brujo Blanco

    I received a letter from a big time politician singing the praises of card check. She claimed it is the fairest way to vote. It protects the workers from the evil corporations. I suspect she would like this type of “voting” to be done at the polls. Freedom soviet style.

  • mrbean

    We must unionize all employees by executive order and have reeducation programs on-the-job to filter out those right wing right-to-work malcontents for the greater glory of Chairman Obama and support his hope and change policy to redistribute the wealth from the filthy rich capitalists and the evil corporations to the all unionized workers. Oooops,,, gotta barf after that one.

    • Amused

      oh mr.Bean , that WAS a barf .

  • Fred Dawes

    Its all about obama and corruption and communists

  • http://www.currencyconverterrate.com/ Rhyscurrency

    Now, I'm not entirely willing to believe that Castro's presence in 1948's Bogotá was a mere coincidence (there were in fact agitation efforts against the Panamerican Conference, an event which curiously enough Gaitán didn't exactly oppose as much as one would expect)…but I wouldn't blame him for starting the fire (whether "La Violencia" in general or the murder of Gaitán, which is a complex subject to say the least), even if he and others like him at the time fanned the flames.

  • http://visionsandprinciples.blogspot.com/ InRussetShadows

    Reducing the time between an application for a union and the actual vote from 30 days to 10 does one thing: give all the advantage in the situation to the union. This effectively gives the employer 10 days to mount an effective counter-union strategy. Needless to say, no company on earth could possibly do that. And thus, more union goons are born.

    • Annie

      There will be no need to fight a Union if you treat your workers with fairness, dignity and respect. This simple, effective tactic upholds our Judeo-Christian teachings and is in keeping with America’s best traditions of honesty, friendliness, fairness and family values.

      If you wouldn’t want your own spouse or children treated rudely or unfairly in a workplace, you shouldn’t be treating other people’s spouses or children that way.

    • Amused

      Strategy ? WHAT STRATEGY ? I've seen that "strategy " a dozen times atleast …and that is to scare the pro-union employees , by threatening layoffs , cuts in pay , lowering of benefits , threats of dismissal should the organizing attempt fail . WHO are you kidding man ? And btw the term " Goon Squads " refers to HIRED GOONS ,by the Companies to bust the heads of picketing employees . Better go study your labor history , start with the Coal Miners in Matwan .

      • coyote3

        Call it what you want to call it, it works.

    • Amused

      NONSENSE – if workers choose to organize , what "right " has the employer have to define ANY time frame ….it's not the employers choice , but that of EMPLOYEES . "Mount an effective counter-union strategy " …..don't make me laugh , that of course would be " time " working on intimidation and threats .

  • Amused

    What a JOKE Vadim .WHY should employers be able to stall a election by workers to unionize ? I'll tell you why , because employers need enough time to harrass the ewmployees that try to organize , they wouldn't have enough time to send out their shills and discourage emplyees . I 've seen it a dozen times .
    ANY group of employees have the right to organize ,and in their own chosen time frame .SINCE WHEN does the employer have the right to define that ?Unions WERE -ARE -AND ALWAYS WILL be formed for the primary purpose of equal representation in the workplace , and NO ,Vadim the NLRB is no socialist holdover from the New Deal its simply evolution of fair treatment of employees . If that's your notion , then I suggest you do your homework and look up it's function, for you have obviously displayed an ignorance of that.

  • Amused

    Vadum , youre a shill for big buisiness , nothing more . Here in America , workers have the right to organize and unionize if they so wish . Perhaps you'd like to burn the Constitution ?

  • Amused

    Since when does an employer have the right to define the time frame by which American workers can organize and vote for a union ? It is obvious you really know nothing about such matters ,other than to raise a sytraw man argument against unioniuzation , and you get away with it here on this blog where the rights of American workers are trampled by subservient attitudes toward big buisiness .

  • Amused

    And , NO , Vadum -the NLRB is not some holdover of the "socialist New Deal era " , that is an ignorant and disingenuous statement on your part . I suggest you actually do some ..lol.."journalistic " investigation as to it's function , becaus again in this area too , you express your PURPOSED IGNORANCE .

  • Amused

    The NLRB' s purpose and function are unknown to you , and that is because you would rather misrepresent it's function , for the sake of constructing a straw man argument against unions .

  • Amused

    But isn;t that the order of the day around here ?? The NLRB is the last step in disputes between employer and employee . It prevents abuse by either . But that's a level and fair playing field , something NOT to be desired by conservatives .

  • Amused

    I suggest you do what any good " er …uh …Journalist " would do , investrigate your subject . You obviously know nothing of the NLRB , nor it function .

  • Amused

    You misrepresent the FACTS Vadum . True journalists do not engage in such practices , unless they are shills for certain groups. Emplyers would love to have all the time they require to intimidate and harrass anyoiner who wishes to organize and establish collective bargaining and equal representation in the workplace .

  • Amused

    I'm amazed at the attitudes displayed here by so called "patriots "who love to quote the Constitution out of one side of their mouths , and yet would so easily deny the rights found therein for those they ideologicall oppose .

  • Amused

    ….and the reason for these numerous posts ? mechanisms set in place on this site , are designed for censorship , for everything I stated in the above posts were in fact stated in just one , but where disallowed .

  • RTW

    I have nothing against unions or the power of workers to organize a union. I also don't have a problem with a company having the authority to fire anyone or everyone that tries to form a union. I also don't think that any worker should be coerced by law to join a union in order to work in a trade or for a company. All of this can be handled through arbitration, or in the courts with lawyers. However, it seems the bigger picture that no one is talking about is the NLRB itself. The heart of the matter is – why does the NLRB even exist? Where in the Constitution does the NLRB derive it's power from and why can it decide questions like this or the outrageous decision that it made to go after Boeing?

    The NLRB needs to be abolished & the Feds need to get the heck out of negotiating labor disputes. It's none of their business.