House moving to stop “quickie union elections”

posted at 11:25 am on September 6, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

If you had to give a back to school assignment to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning, “What I did on my summer vacation,” they would have quite a list to pick from. Among their various transgressions is a proposal to significantly alter current union representation election procedures, giving both employers and workers virtually no time to react and prepare before a union is suddenly summoned into being. Now that Congress is returning from their break, one of the first items on the agenda of House Republicans will apparently be to put the brakes on this plan.

House Republicans paint target on NLRB’s proposed union election rules

House Republicans plan to move on legislation in the coming weeks to block a proposed rule by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that will speed up union elections.

The proposal, backed by labor but heavily criticized by business groups, was tagged as one of the 10 most harmful regulations proposed by the Obama administration in a memo sent by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to House Republicans this week.

“The hope is to move forward in the coming weeks with a proposal that will rein in the NLRB, and protect employers’ right to free speech and workers’ ability to make a fully-informed decision in a union election,” a House Republican aide told The Hill.

“Paint target on”??? Dude! New tone!

There are certainly plenty of other new, job killing regulations which need to be addressed – many from the EPA – but since we have to start someplace I suppose this is as good as any. Whether you’re talking about Boeing, or the automotive industry or the United States Post Office, trends over the last couple of decades in particular should point to a pressing need in this area. The relationship between unions, workers, employers and the government has evolved considerably from the early days of coal mining. And like anything which grows far beyond its original scope, unions have found themselves under increasing scrutiny for creating more problems than they solve.

But even beyond the specific role of unions, I hope the debate in the House of Representatives will being a long overdue discussion on the proper scope of regulatory agencies in the executive branch of the federal government. It’s not there is no proper place for such offices, but their role has also evolved significantly. Cabinet level offices in many cases are no longer “advisory” in nature so much as they act as a de facto super-legislative branch of the government, passing rules with the force of law outside the control of the people’s representatives in the process. Unfortunately, it’s going to be a complex and constitutionally tricky proposal to do anything about it.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Well, Obama’s enemy number one, but unions are pretty close to enemy number two, so anything to rein them in is a good idea.

Only problem: Reid will put this union stuff on the frontburner, and there’s nothing the Repubs can do to stop it until 2013. Unfortunately.

Vanceone on September 6, 2011 at 11:30 AM

The moves will be halted once one of Trumka’s goons “takes one of those sons of b***es out.”

Nethicus on September 6, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Good for them

cmsinaz on September 6, 2011 at 11:32 AM

reform the administrative agency law to require congress to vote yes/no on every newly promulgatged regulation before it can take effect.

It won’t create as much work for congress as some would argue, as most regulations are not very controversial and all of the non-controversial regulations could be rolled up into one omnibus bill, leaving only the truly egregious regulations to be voted on by congress. It would also allow a pocket-veto of regulations by congress – if congress simply fails to vote on some newly proposed regulation.

this would bring agency regulation back into congressional oversight (where it should be) and also make reps/senators accountable for agency regulations (right now, congress loves admin agencies b/c they can claim to not be responsible for unpopular new regulations).

It would also likely cause agencies to be more circumspect about over-reaching.

Monkeytoe on September 6, 2011 at 11:34 AM

The House can write all the legislation it wants and pass it. It will be tabled by Dingy Reid or vetoed by King Barry.

Nothing to see here, move along folks.

Knucklehead on September 6, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Someone in the house should bring up bills daily to get these union thugs stopped! I know dingy will stop them, but still send them to him. I just wonder how many in the house will vote for any bill dealing with this issue?
L

letget on September 6, 2011 at 11:35 AM

The moves will be halted once one of Trumka’s goons “takes one of those sons of b***es out.”

Nethicus on September 6, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Somehow I think calling all non-union folks mothers’ a bit@% will help their cause. I kinda hope they pick me to “take out”.

VegasRick on September 6, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Any legislation designed to counteract the NLRB is likely to be blocked by the Senate and/or vetoed by Obama.

I think the best way to defang the NLRB is to have the remaining GOP member resign and render it useless for lack of a quorum.

TheRightMan on September 6, 2011 at 11:37 AM

will NOT! – sorry

VegasRick on September 6, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Just another millstone around the neck of the dems…

right2bright on September 6, 2011 at 11:40 AM

I think the best way to defang the NLRB is to have the remaining GOP member resign and render it useless for lack of a quorum.

TheRightMan on September 6, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Or the House can defund. They must try everything to stop this crap.

VegasRick on September 6, 2011 at 11:40 AM

If the NLRB can do all of this by fiat, I’ll be looking forward to the changes after the next election. How about a national right to work? Make it so NLRB.

forest on September 6, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Seriously, Republicans are limited in what they can actually DO. They can defund, but that is unlikely: Too many ways around that, as the Dems showed with Acorn. Plus, you know that somehow money would be provided to them. Union protectionism is a hill I think the Dems will die on.

The only thing they can do is rachet up public pressure. But if Obama and Reid go to the mat, well, they still own the Senate and the Executive branch. Not much the Republicans can do.

Vanceone on September 6, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Please don’t let the WH refusal to comment on Hoffa’s comments influence your opinion of Scooter as a leader who refuses to follow his own rules. Please!

a capella on September 6, 2011 at 11:48 AM

The only thing missing is the goose steps.

RBMN on September 6, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Well I am a Libertarian in matters of Business. I don’t care how Unions make laws, but the govt should but out entirely. If a union wants to strike, that is fine. But, the company has the right to put out an open call to anyone looking for work. Then the police need to be mindful that the union may attack scabs and prevent the unions from harming anyone.

I don’t like the idea of an NLRB, but I don’t like the idea of the govt telling union workers that they cannot strike if they want to either. I have seen situations where the govt order people back to work for whatever reason.

jeffn21 on September 6, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Let me clarify… When I say Unions make laws, I am referring to their internal codes, not govt(Fed or local) laws.

jeffn21 on September 6, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Unfortunately, it’s going to be a complex and constitutionally tricky proposal to do anything about it.

No it just takes a Congress with some balls willing to accept the responsibility for doing it’s job rather than passing the buck via “the Secretary shall decide”‘ “the Secretary shall promulgate”;
“the Secretary shall determine”.

GarandFan on September 6, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Take those unions sons of ibthces down!

SouthernGent on September 6, 2011 at 11:53 AM

I was wondering what they could do about this craziness.

Cindy Munford on September 6, 2011 at 11:53 AM

I don’t like the idea of an NLRB, but I don’t like the idea of the govt telling union workers that they cannot strike if they want to either. I have seen situations where the govt order people back to work for whatever reason.

jeffn21 on September 6, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Let them strike, then replace them with folks that want to work. That’s all.

VegasRick on September 6, 2011 at 11:55 AM

And all this rule does, is provide Unions with more money for their coffers, thus, for Dems’ coffers. No Dem is going to go along with that.

I hope they show some spine, and help Republicans take this back, but I think it’s going to be an issue for our NEW President to take up.

capejasmine on September 6, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Congress has a tool. It’s called the Congressional Review Act.

marinetbryant on September 6, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Go House! Defund the entire liberal agenda.

Turn off the corrupt Democrat slush machine.

Speakup on September 6, 2011 at 1:44 PM

If the Executive branch can put in place “rules” that implement laws Congress didn’t/wouldn’t pass, and House bills would get blocked by the Senate or vetoed by the President, how does Congress ever reassert its Constitutional perogative of law making?

Under this scenario, how can Congress put a “check and balance” on the Executive branch?

SouthernRoots on September 6, 2011 at 2:04 PM

House Republicans paint target on NLRB’s proposed union election rules

They need to paint a target on every single progressive regulation.

AH_C on September 6, 2011 at 2:34 PM

I disagree that it is hard to reign regulatory agencies in…Congress still funds the rascals. If they d something, say prohibit a company from opening plants in places with more economic freedom, like SC, defund the rascals.

The only hard part is for Congress to discover its spine.

JIMV on September 6, 2011 at 3:32 PM