Yesterday, I wrote about the NRLB’s Ambush Elections rule and how the Board is claiming it is necessary because nasty, mean employers are slowing things down for no good reason. Yet, the Board’s own data shows this not to be true – the Board has exceeded its median time goal for the past 11 years.
Further proving the rationale for the Ambush Elections rule requires some serious mental gymnastics, the Board has proudly exceeded its goal of conducting at least 85 percent of elections by voluntary agreement – for the past 11 years. The evidence, produced by the Board, speaks for itself. By continuing to pursue this misguided and unjustified rule, the NLRB is clearly not “ensuring against unjustified requirements” as stated by Administrator Sunstein’s memo referenced in my initial blog post. Through its actions, the Board is thumbing its proverbial nose at OIRA’s guidance.
All of this begs the question, what, or rather who, is really behind the Ambush Elections regulation? Generally, the answer can be found in whom it benefits most. Clearly, in this case, it’s Big Labor leadership. With fewer private-sector employees choosing to form or join a union, their livelihood is at stake. How better to shore up and solidify your position than changing the rules to make it nearly impossible to lose an election?
In the coming weeks, the Senate is likely to consider legislation to do away with the Ambush Elections rule. The NAM is supporting this effort and is encouraging our members to contact their Senators to ask them to vote in favor of the legislation.