• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama vetoes Republican bid to block union election rules

SlevinKelevra

Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
6,639
Reaction score
1,487
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Obama vetoes Republican bid to block union election rules | Reuters

(Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday vetoed a measure by Republicans in Congress that would have blocked a government labor agency's rules designed to speed up the time it takes to unionize workers.

The rules would shorten the period between a union filing a petition to represent workers and an election, from the current median of 38 days to as little as 14 days. Employers would be required to share workers' names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses with unions.

The National Labor Relations Board adopted the rules last year and they are set to take effect April 14.


Was wondering when the next time the veto pen would get dipped in the ink.
 
The only part of these "rules" that I have a problem with is:

Employers would be required to share workers' names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses with unions.

I wouldn't want my employer disclosing this personal (personnel?) information to anyone.
 
"Employers would be required to share workers' names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses with unions."

Seems like a violation of privacy laws.

I had no idea about this issue, but it seems some are not happy about it.

On December 15, 2014, the Federal Register published the Board's final rule governing the filing and processing of petitions relating to the representation of employees for purposes of collective bargaining. The rule will dramatically shorten the time between the filing of a certification petition and the conduct of an NLRB secret ballot election. It is set to become effective April 14, 2015, although the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations have filed suit in federal court in the District of Columbia asking the court to vacate the rule.

/snip

Two Board members, Philip A. Miscimarra and Harry I. Johnson, III, dissented from the Board’s final rule, citing, among other problems, its destructive effect on employers’ and employees’ ability to communicate among themselves regarding the prospect of a union in the workplace. “The Final Rule has become the Mount Everest of regulations: Massive in scale and unforgiving in its effect," the dissenters wrote. "The Rule's primary purpose and effect remain . . . : Initial union representation elections must occur as soon as possible." As a result, the dissenters asserted that "[t]he Rule improperly shortens the time needed for employees to understand relevant issues, compelling them to 'vote now, understand later.'"

The NLRB rule, also known as the “quickie election” rule or the "ambush election" rule, eliminates pre-election evidentiary hearings and requests for review and defers decision on virtually all issues relating to appropriateness of units and voter eligibility now decided at the pre-election stage. The new rule also expands the personal information relating to employees which employers are required to disclose to unions in voter eligibility lists known as “Excelsior lists.” Specifically, the Board will require that both telephone numbers, including mobile phone numbers, and email addresses, if available, be included along with employees’ names and addresses. In addition, the NLRB will require that the employer disclose the employee’s work location, shift, and classification.

Final NLRB "Ambush Election" Rule Will Boost Union Organizing | The National Law Review

That is from the National Law review...a little right, but the quotes from the dissenters and the law suit are interesting.
 
The only part of these "rules" that I have a problem with is:



I wouldn't want my employer disclosing this personal (personnel?) information to anyone.

Including your cell phone. I bet being on the Do Not Call list doesn't help.
 
[liberal propagandist mode]President of No[/liberal propogandist mode]

About what I expected from him for his final two years given his stance immediately following the election.
 
[liberal propagandist mode]President of No[/liberal propogandist mode]

About what I expected from him for his final two years given his stance immediately following the election.

Doing what his constituents elected him to do? Yeah. Me too.
 
Not sure if the board has a full quorum being a five member board. Supreme Court ruled in Jan. 2013 appointments were made illegally. Haven't heard of any new appointments made.
 
Not sure if the board has a full quorum being a five member board. Supreme Court ruled in Jan. 2013 appointments were made illegally. Haven't heard of any new appointments made.

I believe they had a new 5-member appointment set in the summer of 2013.
 
Republicans hate unions, because unions advocate for the worker. And republicans place capital above labor.
 
I believe they had a new 5-member appointment set in the summer of 2013.

Thanks Sam.

Seems Mark is the only one not replaced.

Mark Gaston Pearce was named Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board by President Obama on August 27, 2011. On August 23, 2013 he was sworn in for a second term that expires on August 27, 2018.

Kent Y. Hirozawa was nominated by President Obama on July 16, 2013 for a term that expires on August 27, 2016.

Philip A. Miscimarra nominated by President Obama on April 9, 2013, was sworn in as a Member of the National Labor Relations Board on August 7, 2013 for a term that expires on December 16, 2017.

Harry I. Johnson, III nominated by President Obama in 2013 was sworn in on August 12, 2013 for a term that expires on August 27, 2015.

Lauren McFerran was sworn in on December 17, 2014 for a five year term ending on December 16, 2019. Ms. McFerran was confirmed by the Senate on December 8, 2014.
 
Doing what his constituents elected him to do? Yeah. Me too.

Yep. I disagree with it. I think it's bad for the country. And I don't think it's the smart move politically.

But I don't blame him for doing it, nor do I think he's betraying the country, nor do I think he's think we need to somehow change the way government works to combat him. He's doing what he feels is best and is most in line with the wishes of those elected him; while I may disagree with them, I don't fault politicians for that.

It's the same thing I've argued when for 6+ years many liberals have been on this forum blaming, blasting, and accusing republicans of every possible negative thing you can think of for doing the same thing; what their constituents elected them to do.
 
"Employers would be required to share workers' names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses with unions."

Seems like a violation of privacy laws.

Since when did the emperor give a damn about a law?
 
Republicans hate unions, because unions advocate for the worker. And republicans place capital above labor.

I have no problem with private unions because the representation is balanced.......unions represent the workers vs. management/BofB representing the company share-holders. Public unions on the other hand are corrupt, especially in liberal states.......the unions represent the workers vs. the elected officials leave the tax-payers to get screwed, as they give the unions everything they want quid pro quo for campaign donations and support. As sleazy as it gets.
 
and thank goodness he vetoed it. the prevailing attitude in the US seems to be that we don't need unions anymore or that having them around is harmful. nothing could be further from the truth. protecting the freedom of labor to organize and to bargain collectively ensures that the gains made in the american workplace won't be erased. there's a reason we have the rules in place that we do and people seem to either have forgotten why or are simply unaware. if you look at history, unions are an extremely important part of the free market and just the threat of employees organizing is something that prevents a ton of exploitation.
 
Gotta grease that path for people to become minions as quickly as possible, before they come to their senses.
 
and thank goodness he vetoed it. the prevailing attitude in the US seems to be that we don't need unions anymore or that having them around is harmful. nothing could be further from the truth. protecting the freedom of labor to organize and to bargain collectively ensures that the gains made in the american workplace won't be erased. there's a reason we have the rules in place that we do and people seem to either have forgotten why or are simply unaware. if you look at history, unions are an extremely important part of the free market and just the threat of employees organizing is something that prevents a ton of exploitation.

Yeah, Detroit has benefitted tremendously.
 
Quotes of the Day

Ronald Reagan said:
"They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost. They remind us that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. You and I must protect and preserve freedom here or it will not be passed on to our children and it would disappear everywhere in the world. Today the workers in Poland are showing a new generation how high is the price of freedom but also how much it is worth that price."

Ronald Reagan said:
Collective bargaining in the years since has played a major role in America’s economic miracle. Unions represent some of the freest institutions in this land. There are few finer examples of participatory democracy to be found anywhere. Too often, discussion about the labor movement concentrates on disputes, corruption, and strikes. But while these things are headlines, there are thousands of good agreements reached and put into practice every year without a hitch.”

It's been a long time since similar views were held.
 
Yeah, Detroit has benefitted tremendously.

yeah, it has - just like the rest of the country - when you consider working conditions before the existence of unions. this is what I mean when I say you should look at history to understand the value of unions.
 
Back
Top Bottom