NLRB races to finalize disastrous snap election rule

posted at 1:55 pm on November 21, 2011 by Tina Korbe

This summer, I wrote about the National Labor Relations Board’s proposal to shorten union election periods to limit the amount of time businesses have to make a case against unionization to their employees. As I wrote at the time, the attempt to institute snap elections is among the most aggressive moves made by the Democratic members of the NLRB. And so it continues to be …

To finalize the proposed rule, the NLRB has to act quickly. The ordinarily five-member Board is down to just three members — two Democrats and one Republican. Democratic member Craig Becker’s term expires at the end of this year — and, without a quorum, the NLRB could not issue new rules (oh, the horror!). The president won’t be able to appoint new members, either, because Congress has him in a procedural stranglehold.

According to precedent, the Board isn’t even really supposed to issue a rule without at least three votes in favor — but the Democratic NLRB-ers appear prepared to ignore that precedent in this instance, as the lone GOP member of the Board, Brian Hayes, will assuredly vote against the finalized rule.

The two NLRB Democrats have scheduled for Nov. 30 a vote on a modified version of the proposed rule. But here’s the catch: They have blatantly excluded Hayes from the revision process. After the NLRB issued its notice of proposed rulemaking in June, commenters submitted more than 65,000 responses to the rule — but the Democratic members of the NLRB haven’t informed Hayes of how they plan to address those responses in the final rule.

Nor have they informed him of what portions of the proposed rule they plan to include, exclude or modify in the final version. They did offer him a compromise take-it-or-leave-it proposal last Tuesday, with a deadline of last Friday to approve or disapprove.

Again, precedent dictates that, if two members approve of a final draft of a proposed rule, they circulate that draft and give any potentially dissenting member at least 90 days to act on the circulated draft before they formally issue the rule. No such draft has been circulated and the vote to issue the rule is scheduled for just nine days from now.

Understandably, Hayes is angry at his exclusion from the board’s actions to revise the rule — and, last Friday, sent a letter to lawmakers to express his frustration.

House Republicans want to do what they can to circumvent the NLRB’s rule: The House plans to vote soon on a measure that would override any changes to union election rules. But, while it will likely pass the House, it surely won’t pass the Senate.

A quick reminder of what’s at stake if the new rule passes: Businesses will have about half the time they presently have to address the potential pitfalls of unionization. Former NLRB Peter Schaumber explained it well this summer: ”Imagine a political election in which only one party were given the opportunity to tell voters its side of the story, and could set an election date only days away, all without prior notice to the other side.”

Longer election periods don’t deprive union representatives of the chance to make their case to workers: They just ensure that management also has a chance to make a case. As I wrote in June, “The NLRB betrays its insecurity. The desirability of unions must be very in doubt to prompt the board to issue these rules — for, surely, if it is in workers’ best interest to join a union, workers will discern that even after they hear their employer’s side of the story.”

No excuse exists for this rule and especially not for the shady way it’s about to be passed. As this RedState piece points out, at this point, it appears the only way to prevent the rule’s passage would be for Hayes to resign.


Related Posts:

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

Change we can believe in!

rockmom on November 21, 2011 at 2:01 PM

A nice, in your face indicator of the government that liberals really want. They look at Europe and see the self-possessed hacks who govern the EU and think “Wow. Hey. Wouldn’t it be cool to just drape whatever we want over people’s heads and there is nothing they can do about it?”

Bishop on November 21, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Why not resign. We could add Hayes to the ever growing list of unemployed due to Obamaism.

Kissmygrits on November 21, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Since the NLRB sees fit to ignore the law, businesses are free to ignore their rulings.

Vashta.Nerada on November 21, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Why don’t we borrow a page from the Wisconsin fleabaggers?

If two is not a quorum – then why not have Hayes take a vacation to Hawaii for a spell?

HondaV65 on November 21, 2011 at 2:04 PM

I do detest union thugs from the bottom of my heart! I wonder if Hayes will indeed resign? If it would not get the union thugs what they want, I hope Hayes does resign.
L

letget on November 21, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Let’s say Hayes resigns.

How would that stop the Dems? Some sort of “emergency”, like the NBA, would demand that it function as “best as we can with only the two members” or something. And who could stop them?

Vanceone on November 21, 2011 at 2:07 PM

The Republican member should definitely resign immediately.

forest on November 21, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Nor have they informed him of what portions of the proposed rule they plan to include, exclude or modify in the final version. They did offer him a compromise take-it-or-leave-it proposal last Tuesday, with a deadline of last Friday to approve or disapprove.

So they have to pass it so we can find out what’s in it?

This is not the rule of law.

rbj on November 21, 2011 at 2:07 PM

The democrats continue their holiday tradition of cramming crappy policies down our throats.

LASue on November 21, 2011 at 2:09 PM

This is what happens when we support the blatant misuse of presidential power when it benefits use.

csdeven on November 21, 2011 at 2:09 PM

This is what fascism looks like.

Rebar on November 21, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Hayes should resign. It might ensure his future appointment if he did. Otherwise he’s as much a part of the problem as the Dems.

cartooner on November 21, 2011 at 2:13 PM

It’s obvious the GOP doesn’t know how to play hardball. Resign, already!

SouthernGent on November 21, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Wonder if bho will get his little gold eo pen out and see to it the nirb gets what they want? Could he do that? Silly question, bho doesn’t care if it it legal or not he just does it!
L

letget on November 21, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Tina, I just wrote this article highlighting which senators voted to confirm Craig Becker, one of the driving forces behind these rules.

LFRGary on November 21, 2011 at 2:14 PM

According to precedent, the Board isn’t even really supposed to issue a rule without at least three votes in favor — but the Democratic NLRB-ers appear prepared to ignore that precedent in this instance

Democrats only concern themselves with precedent when it favors them.

GarandFan on November 21, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Hayes should resign his position. It is 2 to 1 against him anyway. If he’s gone then there isn’t a quorum.

tomlw on November 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM

This is what DOTUSocracy looks like!!!

The DOTUS strikes again…..pun intended.

PappyD61 on November 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Why not just tell the NLRB to shove their purposed rule straight up their as%es…?

Seven Percent Solution on November 21, 2011 at 2:19 PM

According to precedent, the Board isn’t even really supposed to issue a rule without at least three votes in favor — but the Democratic NLRB-ers appear prepared to ignore that precedent in this instance, as the lone GOP member of the Board, Brian Hayes, will assuredly vote against the finalized rule.

Would not this fact be a route for legal action against these rules?

Nathan_OH on November 21, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Vashta.Nerada on November 21, 2011 at 2:04 PM

this

cmsinaz on November 21, 2011 at 2:21 PM

The Left has got a lot of nerve. Nothing else but nerve.

Cindy Munford on November 21, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Meanwhile, the MSM is busily distracting the casual observers with everything BUT those things which deserve attention.

Fast and Furious? Zzzzzz.

Solyndra? Zzzzzz.

NLRB trying to stop Boeing from doing what it needs to do to compete? Zzzzzz.

NLRB trying to jam down a ridiculous set of rules that ensures an unfair advantage for unions over the people who actually put folks to work? Zzzzzz.

Lightsquared getting a sweetheart deal, and then getting waivers that endanger our national security? Zzzzzz.

E N O U G H !!!

Let’s “drum up” some sympathy for the poor OWS lame-azz bastahds “protesters” instead. Yeah, just what our nation needs from the supposed defenders of First Amendment Truth and Freedom.

The media is directly and indirectly participating in the destruction of our Republic. It cannot be credibly denied anymore.

hillbillyjim on November 21, 2011 at 2:25 PM

According to precedent, the Board isn’t even really supposed to issue a rule without at least three votes in favor — but the Democratic NLRB-ers appear prepared to ignore that precedent in this instance

Precedent, shmecedent. We don’t need no steenking badges.

iurockhead on November 21, 2011 at 2:26 PM

A nice, in your face indicator of the government that liberals really want. They look at Europe and see the self-possessed hacks who govern the EU and think “Wow. Hey. Wouldn’t it be cool to just drape whatever we want over people’s heads and there is nothing they can do about it?”

Bishop on November 21, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Seems that some Europeans don’t want to be like Europe anymore. Spain just voted out the socialist government, led by Zaptero, and voted in the conservative who ran on lowering taxes. Z and company ran their economy into the ground for 8 years, but the sleepers have awoken. Hopefully that will spread.

iurockhead on November 21, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Such fair-minded Democrats, we are so lucky to have a government filled with them and their whiny, dictatorial policies. Their behavior makes a mockery of freedom, liberty and self-determination.
.
I’m sick of thugs and everyone who advises conservatives “to get along in a bipartisan fashion.” BULL HOCKEY.
.
Let me also give a shout-out to a craven and prejudiced media who enable authoritarian liberals by not publicizing these unjust acts and incessantly and perversely criticizing conservatives and conservative action groups like TEA Party participants. Good going, Democrats! You have really outlived your benefit to the republic, if you ever had one. I’m looking at you, Michael Moore, you obese, lying Occupooper!

ExpressoBold on November 21, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Haynes should resign.

In reprise of Pelosi and Reid’s strategy to prevent Bush from making recess appointments, Boehner is keeping the House technically in session. No court is going to allow a NRLB rule passed without a quorum, it is too big a stretch even for Democrats.

Adjoran on November 21, 2011 at 2:44 PM

If Mr. Hayes cannot produce a medical leave of absence for a few weeks that would put an end to this nonsense within the rules, then perhaps his resignation would do so.

drwilliams on November 21, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Rules, vut rules? Vee make da rules, comrade! You vill obey!!!

Steve Z on November 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Hayes should very publicly resign.

Ward Cleaver on November 21, 2011 at 3:06 PM

“Since the NLRB sees fit to ignore the law, businesses are free to ignore their rulings.”

This. Go about your business and pretend they don’t exist. Or does the NLRB already have its own licensed-to-kill SWAT team, like those guys who protect us from rogue Amish dairy farmers?

GalosGann on November 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM

It is time to put a stop to the Obama Administration picking and choosing what rules and laws they will follow. NLRB is out of control, they are dictating without any oversight. Congress should pull all of their funding including salaries for the rest of Obama’s term.

old war horse on November 21, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Let’s say Hayes resigns.

How would that stop the Dems? Some sort of “emergency”, like the NBA, would demand that it function as “best as we can with only the two members” or something. And who could stop them?

Vanceone on November 21, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Indeed, they’ve already shown they have no respect for the rules, why do we assume they’d give a darn about the quorum rules?

Even if we pry these bastages out next November, I’m not sure the rule of law will ever recover. It’s very hard to get the toothpaste back into the tube.

jnelchef on November 21, 2011 at 4:11 PM

As this RedState piece points out, at this point, it appears the only way to prevent the rule’s passage would be for Hayes to resign.

What happens if Hayes calls in sick? Are they unable to pass a rule if they don’t have a quorum?

tom on November 21, 2011 at 4:18 PM

If Congress ever passes a budget again, they should leave the NLRB out of it, specifically.

MTinMN on November 21, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Let’s say Hayes resigns.

How would that stop the Dems? Some sort of “emergency”, like the NBA, would demand that it function as “best as we can with only the two members” or something. And who could stop them?

Vanceone on November 21, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Who can stop them now.

It might be a moot point for the sheep to resign from voting with the two wolves on what is for dinner; but it still seems more rational than continuing the vote and pretending the vote meant anything.

gekkobear on November 21, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Why don’t we borrow a page from the Wisconsin fleabaggers?

If two is not a quorum – then why not have Hayes take a vacation to Hawaii for a spell?

HondaV65 on November 21, 2011 at 2:04 PM

+1000

Easily the best solution.

unclesmrgol on November 21, 2011 at 5:41 PM

NLRB sucks, no doubt. Period. Now about the direction of HA (IMHO); quotes like

This summer, I wrote…

are turning this into the Ed and Tina show more than HA. I’ve been here a looong time and liked Ed’s CQ back in the day, but after finishing my HA reading when it was Bryan Preston, Allah, Michelle and the occasional Hot Air rant. When Ed becomes the headline of his own stories and Tina becomes the opening lines in her own stories, it’s becoming a little too self centered. With that said, I will continue to read because there is still a lot of great stuff here. But the self-aggrandizement is wearing a little thin. Well, I hope this critique is not a ban hammer worthy offense so I’ll quit while I’m ahead. Just stick to the stories, don’t become them (sorry, the proverbial camel’s back and all). Thanks for the forum…

Big John on November 21, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Spain just voted out the socialist government, led by Zaptero, and voted in the conservative who ran on lowering taxes. Z and company ran their economy into the ground for 8 years, but the sleepers have awoken. Hopefully that will spread.
iurockhead on November 21, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Aznar was doing ok in 2004 until the Madrid bombings 3 days before that election, then Zapatero got in. so one could argue that Spain’s recent spate of leftiness is an aberration and now Spain is returning to form.

YehuditTX on November 21, 2011 at 11:04 PM

W

hen Ed becomes the headline of his own stories and Tina becomes the opening lines in her own stories, it’s becoming a little too self centered. With that said, I will continue to read because there is still a lot of great stuff here. But the self-aggrandizement is wearing a little thin.

This.

YehuditTX on November 21, 2011 at 11:05 PM