Unions Can Now Have Access To Your Personal Info

As of April 14, the Obama-slanted National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) put new rules into effect that are designed to favor the labor unions and disadvantage employers.

Under these new rules, employers will have an extremely short time to argue their cases against unionization because voting must occur within 14 to 21 days after being notified that a vote must be taken. Prior to this, the average time was 38 days with some contested voting lasting up to 56 days. Thus, a large company with multiple locations and multiple shifts (such as Walmart) will be logistically disadvantaged in arguing its case against unionization.  And, that's intentional.  The whole purpose of this "quickie election rule" is to insure that employees don't get all the facts before they decide.

But, it doesn't just stop there.  Under the new rules, if your company is targeted by a union, you must turn over the names, addresses, telephone numbers, company and private email addresses, company locations and work hours of all employees.  Previously, it was only required for unions to have access to names and addresses of a company's employees.  So now, while businesses will have less time to argue their case, unions will have months to barrage potential members with information by mail, email, telephone calls, or in person meetings at your home, or anywhere outside your work location.  At the same time, employers are restricted from countering the union campaigning prior to the period after the union notifies the employer of a vote.  A fact that many legal eagles find unconstitutional because it restricts an employer's freedom of speech.

The biggest problem with the above ruling is that it is a complete invasion of privacy.  In the wake of the NSA scandal where private emails and conversations were being listened into by the federal government, a lot of people are not going to tolerate this.  Unions contacting people in multiple ways might find out that this will backfire when it comes to votes.  I know that I would consider it harassment if I already had no interest in being a member of a union and they kept contacting me.

Also, unions are big "get-out-the-vote" volunteers for the Democrat party.  In the past, having a list of just names and addresses was too labor intensive.  They were better off going door-to-door, neighborhood by neighborhood.  Now, they have all the contact information they need  for campaigning.  I also doubt that there are any protections that prevent the unions from handing over that extremely valuable information to their favored political party.

Lastly, the NLRB rules (similar to other attempts by Obama to legislate by mandate) may not stand up to a legal review.  Several business groups have already filed federal lawsuits to block these new rules.

References:

NLRB To Force Companies To Turn Over Employee Telephone Numbers & E-Mail Addresses To Unions?: http://laborunionreport.com/2012/01/26/nlrb-chair-wants-to-force-companies-to-turn-over-employee-telephone-numbers-e-mail-addresses/

NLRB Allows Employees to Use Employer Email Systems for Organizing Purposes, and Issues New Speedy Union Election Rule:  https://www.ropesgray.com/news-and-insights/Insights/2015/January/NLRB-Allows-Employees-to-Use-Employer-Email-Systems-for-Organizing-Purposes.aspx

 NLRB “Quickie Election” Rule Accelerates the Union Organizing Process: http://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2015/03/articles/collective-bargaining/nlrb-quickie-election-rule-accelerates-the-union-organizing-process/http://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2015/03/articles/collective-bargaining/nlrb-quickie-election-rule-accelerates-the-union-organizing-process/

Business Groups File Lawsuit to Block NLRB’s Union-Organizing Rule: https://www.google.com/search?q=Business+Groups+File+Lawsuit+to+Block+NLRB%E2%80%99s+Union-Organizing+Rule&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Obama's Lawless NLRB Hits McDonald's With Pro-Union Rulling

In another effort to increase unionization, the primarily Obama appointed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has struck a labor negotiations blow to any McDonald's restaurant franchises. In its recent ruling, the NLRB claimed that as a franchiser, McDonald's is actually a "joint employer"; meaning that they are responsible for the wages and working conditions of all those operations in the U.S.  Therefore, they are being forced to collectively bargain with all labor; rather than have a small group of employees collectively bargain with an independent franchisee.

The problem with this ruling is simply: one of reason.  The NLRB claims that its decision is based on 43 cases that have had poor labor relations "merit" since 2010; roughly 10 cases per year.  McDonald's combined corporate and franchise owned employment is almost one-half million workers in the U.S.   So, 43 cases out of 500,000 employees is an infinitesimal percent of those yet-to-be-litigated labor violations (0.086%).  Further, the vast majority of those cases dealt with the 90% of restaurants that are independently owned. 

As McDonald's has noted,  their corporation makes no decision as to who is hired, fired, or paid in any of its franchises.  While they have a say as to what the buildings, equipment, and operations must entail, they has no input beyond that.  Pricing for products is independently determined by each of its franchisees. Each sets its own pay scales (assuming they are within federal and state laws) and also files and pays taxes independently.  It is the independent payment and collection of taxes and the private issuance of paychecks which undermines the NLRB claim that McDonald's is, somehow, a "joint employer". 

This is just another case where the left thinks they can break the dam and create mass unionization by going after the biggest.  In the past, the NLRB went after Boeing for moving manufacturing of the 787 to a non-unionized plant in South Carolina.  It's the reason that there have been so many attempts at trying to unionize the nation's largest retail employer Wal-Mart.  And, now, with the McDonald's decision, Obama, the NLRB, and the unions think they can end up unionizing all fast food operations in the country if they could only force it on the big guy, McDonald's.

As with most of what the President has done, this too will be found lawless when its constitutionality  is invalidated by the courts.  This is the same reason the Boeing decision was withdrawn in 2011 and it will be the reason that this decision, too, will ultimately be dropped or negated in law.

References:

NLRB goes after McDonald’s and franchise systems everywhere: http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/07/nlrb-goes-after-mcdonalds-and-franchise-systems-everywhere/

McDonald's Ruling Sets Ominous Tone for Franchisers: http://online.wsj.com/articles/nlrb-decision-could-make-mcdonalds-liable-for-labor-practices-of-franchisees-1406660591

NLRB withdraws Boeing complaint: http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/198399-labor-board-withdraws-boeing-complaint

George F. Will: Illegitimate NLRB ignores the rule of law: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-illegitimate-nlrb-ignores-the-rule-of-law/2013/05/22/4be5db9a-c248-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html

Obama Is Losing In The Courts Like Never Before

Normally, the lawyers for the Executive Branch have done pretty well when the actions of the Presidents, cabinets and, agencies are challenged in the courts and, ultimately, in the Supreme Court; winning 70% of their challenges.

But, as reported last year, Obama's not-so-tour-de-force team of lawyers has lost two-thirds of their high court challenges.  In fact, the latest loss --  Obama's deemed-unconstitutional recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board -- was the 12th such loss in just 2-1/2 years where there was a unanimous decision against him.  Even two members of the high court who were appointed by the President -- Sonya Sotomeyer and Elena Kagan -- have voted against him in those unanimous losses because there was obvious Administration overreach.

I think, to many, this shows that Obama is running the government in an imperial fashion and without regard to the Constitution of the United States; a document that he, under oath, pledged to uphold.  Sadly, not every executive order from this President will be challenged but, many should be.

Once again, the sheer number of court challenges and subsequent losses speaks volumes to the lawlessness of his go-it-alone use of executive orders.  If the Congress -- on both sides of the aisles -- aren't willing to stop him then, the power of government will, forevermore, be shifted to the President and away from Congress.  While the Democrats might approve of the Obama's actions today, there will come a time when there is a sitting GOP president who, based on precedent, could do the same thing; and, this is a very dangerous path to be on.  Even the noted liberal law professor, Jonathan Turley, has expressed his concerns over Obama's overreach of power.

While some might balk at Speaker of the House John Boenher's lawsuit being filed against Obama's use of executive actions, it is the first real action being taken to reel-in this overreach of power for those executive actions that haven't yet made it to the courts or that never will.  Also, the very announcement of the lawsuit gives many Americans a heads-up on what is going on in the White House.  To me, this is a better alternative than bringing politically-damaging impeachment proceedings against the President,  even though, some of what he's done is truly impeachable.  Given Obama's track record in the courts, Boehner's lawsuit has a good probability of winning.

References:

Obama administration has lost two-thirds of Supreme Court cases: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/26/obama-administration-lost-two-thirds-of-cases-duri/?page=all

Obama Suffers 12th Unanimous Defeat at Supreme Court: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381302/obama-suffers-12th-unanimous-defeat-supreme-court-joel-gehrke

George F. Will: Stopping a lawless president: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-stopping-a-lawless-president/2014/06/20/377c4d6e-f7e5-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

Cutting Through The Fog:  Why Obama's Executive Orders Are Lawless: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-obamas-executive-orders-are-lawless.html

Turley: Obama's "Become The Very Danger The Constitution Was Designed To Avoid": http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/12/04/turley_obamas_become_the_very_danger_the_constitution_was_designed_to_avoid.html

Boehner plans to file suit against Obama over alleged abuse of executive power: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/25/boehner-plans-to-file-suit-against-obama-over-alleged-abuse-executive-power/

Boehner to Seek Bill to Sue Obama Over Executive Actions: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/politics/boehner-to-seek-bill-to-sue-obama-over-executive-actions.html?_r=0

Card Check: The Silencing Of Management

I think by now, a lot of Americans have heard about the proposed change by the labor unions and the Democrats to eliminate secret balloting when a company's employees decide to unionize. This change in the collective bargaining laws is called the "Employee Free Choice Act" or EFCA. It is also more commonly known as "Card Check". (See Wikipedia's Coverage of this topic)

No matter what you call it, those who object to it are usually against it because it abandons the democratic process of voting in secret. It is this process of secret balloting that has, for decades now, prevented either management or any union personnel from adversely influencing the outcome of the vote through some form of intimidation.

But from my perspective, EFCA is even more undemocratic than any simple elimination of a secret ballot. That's because EFCA will completely silence management's voice in the process of a company becoming unionized.

Here's why...

In today's process of unionizing, if at least 30 percent of the workers want to unionize, then the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is advised of that fact, and that agency will organize an election that is, by law, to be held within 90 days of that notice. In the process of preparing for that election, both management and the Union are given the opportunity to conduct employee meetings to discuss the pros and cons of unionizing. Following that, an election is held. Also, under the current law, if more than 50% of the employees have "card checked" their desire to unionize, the employer has the right to either have a secret ballot election or, simply, declare the company as being unionized without any election. But, please take note: Management is still involved in the process; even if the majority want to unionize. Furthermore, until the NLRB is involved in the process of establishing an election, it is illegal for company management is dissuade any employees from unionizing.

Because it is illegal for management to "talk down" unionization until just prior to an election, with EFCA, the employees only hear the Union's viewpoint, truthful or not, at the time they are confronted by a Union representative. If they agree with that Union rep, they will check off their intention on a card and sign it. And, as soon as 51 percent of that company's employees sign cards saying that they want to unionize, the company is immediately unionized. Management's voice is completely shut out of the process. There is no further discussion; and, there will be no further management input into the process. Most importantly, there will be no secret ballot election.

To me, the exclusion of management's voice is the real reason behind the "Employee Free Choice Act." That's because, for years, the Unions have consistently failed at the ballot box. Over the last 3 or 4 decades, the union arguments to unionize have been less effective than management's arguments against unionization. For that reason, in vote after vote, management has been successful in defeating the unions.

So, rather than come up with a better argument for unionization, the unions, with the help of their paid-for and elected officials, the Democrats, have decided to silence management through the passage of the "Employee Free Choice Act." That's the true reason behind the EFCA/Card Check; and, that is why the unions believe that EFCA will allow them to grow and grow without being impeded by management.

In arguing against EFCA, I would ask the unions this simple question: What is "so" wrong with the current system? But, it seems like that question isn't being asked. If it was, we might get to the heart of why the current collective bargaining laws needed to be changed; and, the real reason for that change would be exposed to the light of day.

Silencing the opposition is a long held tactic by those who are against democracy. The end game of EFCA is no different than Hugo Chavez's shutting down of opposition radio and television stations and newspapers in Venezuela in order to win elections. It is no different than the Democrats trying to silence conservative talk radio through the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." "Free Choice" and "Fairness" are just attempts by the Democrats to create labels which, in actuality, are the antithesis of what they are really trying to do.

As usual, this is just my "Cutting Through The Fog" opinion. But, I think I'm very right, and not just being on the right, on this one!

Image by ol slambert's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing remix/adapt/modify permission (Click to View Other Works). Specifically modified by Cranky George for this blog entry