Posted on 07/11/2019 8:35:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
There’s been a significant policy change at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and it’s one that’s been in the works for a while. In the future, when workers grow dissatisfied with their union at their place of employment, the employer, within ninety days of the end of a contract, will be able to suspend bargaining and announce that the union will be ousted at the end of their current contract. The rights of the workers to unionize will still be recognized, but a new election will need to be held to reestablish the union or bring in a different one. (Bloomberg Law)
The National Labor Relations Board made it easier for an employer to oust a union after getting evidence that a majority of workers no longer supports that union.
The NLRB’s Republican majority modified the board’s legal framework for an employer to stop bargaining prior to the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement and announce it will eject the union when that contract ends. Under the board’s July 3 ruling, an employer that makes such an “anticipatory withdrawal” can’t be hit with an unfair labor practice charge challenging whether the union really lacked majority support when the contract ended.
On the surface, this looks like a positive step. Workers should always have the right to decide whether or not they wish to be represented by a union and if that union truly speaks for them. If a union isn’t performing up to par and the workers are unhappy with their representation they should be able to dump them.
But with that said, there’s one aspect of this rule change that leaves me scratching my head a bit. They’re saying that the employer can take this action after having been presented with evidence that the union no longer enjoys majority support among the workers. What sort of evidence? You could have a vocal, but minority group making a lot of noise against the union without it actually having lost majority support. Aside from a new election, what indisputable evidence would qualify?
I suppose you could do it with a petition if all the signatures could be verified. If you can get a majority of the workers to sign on, that would qualify as majority opposition. But in that sense, you might as well just be running another election anyway.
Don’t take this as an indication that the rule is totally flawed. I don’t believe it is. But it does need to be implemented fairly. Just as workers should have the right to reject union membership, they should also be able to join a union if a majority of them wish to do so. And employers should offer workers some sort of local collective bargaining option if they reject unionization. We should simply ensure that this rule isn’t implemented in a way that allows an employer to give a union the boot if it still has majority support among the workers.
I’ve found that with a union mentality comes an entitlement mentality.
Good riddance.
A relative of mine got a minimum wage job at a grocery store that is union, would have to pay union dues out of the paycheck. I was like why? Its minimum wage, what exactly did the union do for that?
Unions are a scam, especially for non/low skill jobs
I can understand the reason for trade unions, because of the skills and training etc
Unions benefit primarily those that don’t want to work. The sorriest employees don’t want to do the job and they don’t want anyone else to do it. Unions spend majority of their time representing the most useless employees. And that’s job security for the union leadership.
I can live with collective bargaining, but not the collective B.S.
Unions are a branch of the deep state.
Unions are a branch of the deep state.
And certainly a key constituency of the corrupt demoKKKrats.
What needs to occur is the elimination of public sector unions period!
Exactly. The taxpayer is not represented!
I would be for the requirement that there needs to be a periodic election for the union, among the workers. Maybe every year, certainly at a point where a majority of employees were not there when the union was voted in.
And it needs to be secret ballot, to avoid union thuggery.
The teachers union are the worst. I say fire them all and start all over.
bump
We should demand that these illegal immigrants be allowed in all unions (Teachers Unions,Construction, Loading Docks,etc) and especially be in charge of these unions as union bosses. Many of these “Guests” controlled similar groups in their country. Some would call those “Cartels”, but let’s just stick with the “Union” label.
Can you imagine how fast that wall would be built when threatening Union bosses?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.