formal comments to the Board's proposed rule. - SEIU
formal comments to the Board's proposed rule. - SEIU
formal comments to the Board's proposed rule. - SEIU
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
These <strong>proposed</strong> regula<strong>to</strong>ry reforms are quite timely because American workers are currently in<br />
<strong>the</strong> midst of <strong>the</strong> worst economic crisis since <strong>the</strong> Great Depression. While corporate profits are soaring,<br />
<strong>the</strong> middle class is disappearing as wages are stagnant, pensions are non-existent, and more and more<br />
workers do not have access <strong>to</strong> health insurance, let alone paid sick days. As <strong>the</strong> 2007 House of<br />
Representatives report on “Streng<strong>the</strong>ning America’s Middle Class” found, <strong>the</strong> decline of unionization<br />
and <strong>the</strong> associated decline in wages and rise in economic insecurity have had devastating effects on <strong>the</strong><br />
size and security of <strong>the</strong> American middle class.<br />
was <strong>the</strong> private sec<strong>to</strong>r solution <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> Great Depression. Promoting <strong>the</strong> rights of workers <strong>to</strong> unionize<br />
3 The Wagner Act recognized that collective bargaining<br />
would reduce <strong>the</strong> bargaining and wage inequality that “tends <strong>to</strong> aggravate recurrent business<br />
depressions, by depressing wage rates and <strong>the</strong> purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by<br />
preventing <strong>the</strong> stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between<br />
4 American workers in our depressed economy need unions now more than ever.<br />
industries.”<br />
For <strong>the</strong>se reasons, <strong>SEIU</strong> believes <strong>the</strong> NLRB’s <strong>proposed</strong> <strong>rule</strong>s are modest, yet important steps in<br />
modernizing <strong>the</strong> NLRB election process and hopes that <strong>the</strong>y will open up <strong>the</strong> opportunity for more<br />
workers <strong>to</strong> make free, informed, and timely choices about forming unions. To be sure, <strong>the</strong>re are many<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r aspects of <strong>the</strong> NLRB election process that need reform, but <strong>the</strong> <strong>proposed</strong> <strong>rule</strong>s are important first<br />
steps in addressing those aspects of <strong>the</strong> system that are amenable <strong>to</strong> regula<strong>to</strong>ry reform.<br />
In our <strong>comments</strong>, we will discuss: (I) why <strong>the</strong>re is an urgent need for reforming <strong>the</strong> broken<br />
NLRB election system; (II) why <strong>the</strong> <strong>proposed</strong> <strong>rule</strong>s are an important step in fixing in reforming this<br />
system; (III) why <strong>the</strong> <strong>proposed</strong> timelines are reasonable and preserve <strong>the</strong> employer’s ability <strong>to</strong><br />
campaign against <strong>the</strong> union; (IV) why modernization of <strong>the</strong> Excelsior list requirements is a critical<br />
component of reform; (IV) why <strong>the</strong> NLRB should not modify <strong>the</strong> current blocking charge doctrine, as<br />
<strong>proposed</strong>; and (VI) why electronic signatures should not be adopted in <strong>the</strong> <strong>rule</strong>making process.<br />
I. The Current NLRB Election System is Broken<br />
The current NLRB election system gives employers <strong>to</strong>o many opportunities <strong>to</strong> hijack <strong>the</strong> election<br />
process, greatly delaying <strong>the</strong> election date and extending <strong>the</strong> time for <strong>the</strong> employer <strong>to</strong> commit ULPs and<br />
intimidate workers. In more than 95% of union elections, employers engage in anti-union campaigns,<br />
which typically include:<br />
5<br />
forced attendance at captive audience meetings, with an average of 10-12 such meetings<br />
per campaign;<br />
6<br />
“Streng<strong>the</strong>ning America’s Middle Class,” H. Rep. No. 110-23, text accompanying notes 25-43 (2007); see also “Union<br />
Decline Accounts for Much of <strong>the</strong> Rise in Wage Inequality,” American Sociological Review (August 2011).<br />
29 U.S.C. §151.<br />
Bronfenbrenner, No Holds Barred, supra note 2 at 10, tbl. 3.<br />
6 Gordon Lafer, American Rights at Work, Nei<strong>the</strong>r Free nor Fair: The Subversion of Democracy Under National Labor<br />
Relations Board Elections 42 tbl. 2 (2007) [hereinafter Lafer, Nei<strong>the</strong>r Free nor Fair].