Be sure to include in your daily reading the latest attack by the National Labor Relations Board on employers — including an attempt to massively overhaul the way in which the government oversees secret ballot elections. HTA spokesman writes over at The Daily Caller:
I’ve been warning anyone who would listen that the NLRB was out to do what the Employee Free Choice Act could not: force more employees into unions. The board’s proposed rule changes would speed up union votes so that voters have less time to learn about the consequence of unionization, hand out personal information so that union activists can find workers at their homes, and institute electronic voting so that labor bosses don’t have to worry about those pesky “private ballot” protections anymore.
And over at the New York Post, there’s a recap of some of the worst ideas the NLRB is pursuing:
* The board is pushing to give unions the right to enter a workplace even if their intent is to harass customers and employees. The NLRB says companies shouldn’t be allowed to treat union officials any differently than they do charitable organizations they let on their premises, such as the Girl Scouts or the Red Cross.
* It wants to force employers to post pro-organizing notices in about 6 million workplaces, most of which aren’t unionized, under the guise of informing workers about the National Labor Relations Act. But the posters wouldn’t inform these workers about aspects of the law the unions don’t like — such as the right to vote out a union or withhold union dues spent on politics.
* The board is moving ahead with lawsuits against Arizona and South Dakota over provisions in their state constitutions — enacted through ballot initiatives last fall — that require secret ballots for union-organizing votes. Labor unions, in an effort to expand their ranks, have been pushing hard for the opposite — a “card check” system that would let them know who has and hasn’t voted to organize. The NLRB’s lawsuit conveniently fits into this effort.
* The NLRB is also pushing to let unions cherry-pick groups of workers within a company to organize, without giving those who oppose the union the opportunity to vote, changing an established definition of a “bargaining unit” that has been in place for more than 50 years. The result would be a costly, chaotic mess for businesses trying to juggle multiple unions and different sets of work rules, benefits and wage rates.