Despite a referendum from House Republicans, the National Labor Relations Board is moving forward with its Ambush Election rule. The NLRB finalized the rule yesterday, making cosmetic changes to the original proposed rule. Unsurprisingly, the Ambush Election rule still silences workers and burdens employers.
Here’s what DC’s labor experts are saying about the rule:
“With the unemployment above 8 percent for almost three years, the NLRB Final Election Rule is another slap in the face at out-of-work Americans. The rule, which reduces the time before elections for union representation and prevents employers from presenting the facts to their workforce, will raise the costs of employment for American firms and discourage employers from hiring.
In addition to this new rule, American employers will be subject to new penalties in 2014 for hiring more than 49 workers under the new health care law. Employers are subjected to NLRB action if they expand, as did Boeing, to a new location within the United States. Federal contractors are facing affirmative action for veterans, women, and minorities. It is becoming increasingly clear that the only cost saving move for many employers is to reduce hiring or move offshore.” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and former Chief Economist at the Department of Labor.
“What the Board has done is an intrusion on employee rights to insure free and informed choice. This is an insult to our democracy.” John Raudabaugh, former NLRB Member
The Chamber of Commerce and Coalition for a Democratic Workplace are fighting back against the Ambush Election rule and have sued the NLRB. From the Chamber’s press release:
“It is tragic that the Board would expend its resources in this manner, creating more confusion and uncertainty under our nation’s labor laws, aiding only unions and perhaps lawyers, rather than focusing on some type of initiative that would encourage job growth,” said Johnson. “Given that 95% of all elections are now conducted within two months, and unions win more than 67% of those elections, there is clearly no rational justification for this regulation. Unfortunately, this new rulemaking is just one aspect of a set of initiatives pursued by the General Counsel’s office and the Board to ease unionization. I suspect we will see more of the same.”