We mentioned earlier this week that former NLRB member Peter Kirsanow testified before the NLRB on Monday to discuss the impact the “snap election” rule will have on manufacturers and economic growth and job creation.
Today, Mr. Kirsanow posted an entry on National Review’s Corner blog about the quick snap election rule. Below is an excerpt from his post:
The NLRB held hearings on the proposed rules earlier this week. I argued against issuance of the rules on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers — the nation’s largest industrial trade association — saying that although the rules would be enormously beneficial to unions, they would be profoundly harmful to employees, employers, and the economy. NAM was at the forefront of defeating the Employee Free Choice Act, or “card check.” These proposed NLRB rules promise to achieve the primary objectives of EFCA — easing union organization and vastly increasing the number of unionized workplaces — by administrative rule, without the need for tough congressional votes.
There are at least 17 readily identifiable, substantially deleterious effects of the proposed rules, but the two most damaging aspects are the reduction of the timeframe in which union elections will be conducted and the backloading of certain procedural safeguards to free and fair representation elections.
Latest posts by Jeff Ostermayer (see all)
- We Must Continue to Fight to Protect the First Amendment - June 26, 2013
- New Commerce Secretary Pritzker Confirmed By Senate - June 25, 2013
- Happy 150th Birthday to Bayer - June 21, 2013