A pipeline intended to transport oil from Canada through the middle of the United States must first run through Washington.  That’s the unfortunate reality that is holding up construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The pipeline will create jobs–thousands of them–and add billions to the economy, yet it continues to get tangled in red tape.  Optimism that the Administration would approve the pipeline by the end of this year has turned to frustration after President Obama announced a decision would wait until 2013.

This project has waited long enough.  When TransCanada (the company building the pipeline) filed for its permit, it expected a wait of about 23 months.  Now, it’s looking at a delay that could exceed 50 months.

That’s one of the points that will be made by TransCanada at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on the pipeline today. Other witnesses include representatives from organized labor, which also backs the project. You can watch the hearing here.

And earlier this year the House passed legislation that would force the President to make a decision by November 1.  It’s too late for that obviously, but Congress continues to press on.  A bill in the Senate would require a decision in 60 days–there’s more on that legislation in a post below.

The upside of this project is enormous–jobs, energy security, billions contributed to the U.S. economy.  So why wait?

On August 27^th, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision in a case known as “Specialty Healthcare.” The specifics of the case relate to whether certain healthcare providers can exclude other similarly situated providers when forming a collective bargaining unit. The NAM has been concerned from the outset that the case would effectively eviscerate what has been known as the “community of interest doctrine.” So, why should employers care?

The reason the community of interest doctrine is important is without it, the NLRB is paving the way for what’s known as micro-unions. Micro-unions are unions with as few as two people forming a unit for collective bargaining. Imagine a restaurant where dishwashers, prep-cooks, fry-cooks, grill-cooks, wait staff, and bartenders all form their own collective bargaining units and are represented by different unions. Specialty Healthcare essentially allows such a hypothetical to materialize. How long would this restaurant be able to function and stay in business?

The public and business community were told the Specialty Healthcare decision wasn’t a big deal so we shouldn’t worry about it. Nothing to see here, they said.

On October 19^th, the NLRB ruled on its first case invoking the new precedent created by the Specialty decision. The case, First Aviation Services, involves a company of 110 employees in which a group of 34 were allowed to form their own bargaining unit despite sharing a community of interest with all but two of the other workers in the same facility. The NLRB promptly denied the employer’s attempt to appeal the ruling of the regional director. The regional director used Specialty Healthcare as its rationale for granting the employee’s request to organize a unit of 34 employees and the full Board denied the employer’s request to review the regional director’s reasoning. While the decision is only two months old, it has already provided the road map for organizers to divide and conquer. The decision is clearly going to have far-reaching implications for decades unless it is over-turned.

Manufacturers are frustrated by recent actions taken by the National Labor Relations Board that will have far reaching effects on employees, employers and job creators.  Among these, is a Final Rule issued in late August requiring employers to post a notice advising employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. 

From the outset, the NAM has questioned the Board’s authority under the National Labor Relations Act to compel all employers to do anything. On September 8, the NAM filed a lawsuit against the NLRB in U.S. District Court stating the law does not permit the Board to issue such a rule.  The rule would require all employers to post the notice on or before November 14. The NAM strongly believes the Board has overstepped its legal authority in issuing this rule and the overreach must be challenged.

The effective date of November 14 is fast approaching and there is no guarantee the court will rule on the case prior to the rule going into effect.  As a result, the NAM filed a motion for preliminary injunction with the Court yesterday.  The NAM is asking the Court to prevent the rule from taking effect until it decides on the lawsuit. 

If the NAM motion is successful, the November 14 date would be pushed to a date to be determined.  The NAM believes a preliminary injunction is the prudent decision in this circumstance to avoid the potential for confusion about whether employers need to comply and when. 

The NAM has stressed the point over and over again that the level of uncertainty in our regulatory environment is stifling job creation and economic growth. The NLRB clearly cannot see the negative effects its rulings and rulemaking have on employers and employees, but more troubling is the fact that the Board is asserting powers it doesn’t possess and circumventing Congress’ jurisdiction and oversight. (continue reading…)

Today the Pittsburgh Tribune Review ran an editorial discussing the recent actions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the lawsuit the National Association of Manufacturers has filed to stop the Board from moving forward with the posting requirement rule.

The piece backs up the recent actions of the NAM and other business groups pushing back against the NLRB interfering in the basic business decisions of companies.

Here is a brief excerpt from the Tribune Review editorial:

And with the National Federation of Independent Business, the manufacturers group has launched an ad campaign urging Congress to stem the NLRB’s meddling in where businesses choose to operate. This, in response to the board’s crusade against Boeing’s decision to build a new jetliner factory in right-to-work South Carolina.

The business groups’ timing couldn’t be more apropos. As President Obama shifts into overdrive urging businesses to hire, they’ve responded with a clarion call of their own for Mr. Obama and his NLRB enforcers: “Get off our backs!”

This morning the House Education and Workforce Committee held a hearing that focused on many of the recent actions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The hearing was titled “Culture of Union Favoritism: Recent Actions of the National Labor Relation’s Board.”

One of the witnesses was Curtis L. Mac who served as a regional director for the NLRB for five years and also served as an NLRB attorney in Cleveland. In his testimony Mr. Mack makes it clear in his testimony that he believes the recent actions by the NLRB interfere with employers’ rights to communicate with employees:

I believe theserules and decisions come at the expense of employees and emasculate Section 7 of the Act. They will interfere with employees’ rights to decide for themselves whether to join a union or refrain from joining or supporting a union. These actions will also interfere with employers’ rights to communicate with their employees regarding unionization issues. In short, the only beneficiaries of these new rules and decisions are unions.

In the conclusion of his testimony Mr. Mack states that he believes the recent decisions by the NLRB on the Specialty Healthcare case and Lemons Gasket Co case is the board’s attempt to implement the Employee Free Choice Act, which Congress rejected:

I believe that Specialty Healthcare, Lemons Gasket Co. and the proposed rules are the Board’s response to the failure of the Employee Free Choice Act. That proposal would have by passed secret ballot elections and required employers to recognize a union 14 on the basis of cards signed by employees publically. Congressappropriately refused to deny American workers their right to a secret ballot, but the Board’s proposals and decision seems to be an attempt to salvage the heart of EFCA.

Congress remains in recess until after Labor Day, but today House majority leadership sheds some light on its upcoming agenda.  A key part of that agenda: rolling back regulations that are hurting job growth.

The House plans to hold one vote a week to repeal harmful regulations.  First up is a vote on the Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act (H.R. 2587), which will prevent the National Labor Relations Board from dictating where an employer can do business. (Votes on other pieces of the NLRB’s agenda are possible later in the year.)

Also, on the docket are the various MACT rules—Boiler MACT, Utility MACT and Cement MACT.  These environmental regulations will hit manufacturers with huge compliance costs and hurt U.S. competitiveness.

The United States is already an expensive place to do business—18 percent more expensive than other industrialized nations—and new regulations will only make it more so.

Today House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) subpoenaed the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regarding the complaint against the Boeing Company.

The NLRB’s complaint against Boeing, as well as additional overreach such as the “ambush elections” rule and the Specialty Healthcare case will have a dampening impact on job creation and economic growth. In a recent internal poll of our members 69 percent of the poll’s respondents said the NLRB’s agend will hurt job creation.

Chairman Issa’s subpoena asks the NLRB to produce to the Oversight Committee documents related to the complaint against Boeing by August 12.

Chairman Issa’s statement:

“NLRB’s action in the case against Boeing has the potential to create a job-killing precedent just as U.S. manufacturers are working toward economic recovery. That a Washington, D.C.-based bureaucracy could dictate the work location and parameters for a world-leading company is unprecedented in a global economy and hobbles a leading American job creator at a time of economic vulnerability,” Issa said.

News coverage:

• Wall Street Journal, “Issa Subpoenas NLRB Documents in Boeing Case”
• Bloomberg, “Labor Board’s Boeing Documents Subpoenaed”
• Politico, “Darrell Issa keeps pressure on NLRB”
• Reuters, “Congressman subpoenas NLRB documents in Boeing case”

Sometime soon, the House is slated to vote on a bill (The Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act, H.R. 2587)that would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from forcing a business to shut down, relocate or transfer employment.

The bill will pass the House, though its prospects in the Senate are a little more murky.  The Administration has nevertheless come out and flatly stated that it opposes the measure.  The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial page has more:

In opposing the bill, the White House says “The [National Labor Relations Act] does not restrict the location of company operations, provided companies comply with the law.” But companies don’t live in this land of hypotheticals. The NLRB lawsuit is an explicit attempt to block Boeing from opening its new South Carolina factory, and either the Administration believes the NLRB is appropriately enforcing the law, or it believes the NLRB has exceeded its mandate and needs to be reined in. Now we know it’s on the side of the NLRB, which is run by Mr. Obama’s appointees.

For more on the NLRB’s agenda, be sure to visit the NAM’s labor policy page.  And it’s not too late to urge your representatives in Congress to support jobs.

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.

Tomorrow, the National Labor Relations Board will post a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) aimed at shortening the time allowed for union certification elections.  These so-called snap elections are the latest attempt by the NLRB to effectively do for the unions what Congress wouldn’t – stack the deck in their favor.

There are many troubling aspects to this proposed rule, but perhaps the most important question to ask is – what’s broken in the system they’re trying to fix?  In 2009, labor unions won 68.5 percent of representation elections.  Furthermore, 95 percent of all elections are conducted within 56 days of the filing petition submitted by the union.  In 2010, the average time from filing of the petition to election was 31 days.  Again, what is the goal of the NLRB in proposing snap-elections?

As NLRB Member Brian Hayes stated in his dissent:

“Make no mistake, the principal purpose for this radical manipulation of our election process is to minimize, or rather, to effectively eviscerate an employer’s legitimate opportunity to express its views about collective bargaining.”

In order for employees to make an informed choice in the important decision of whether or not they feel they need a labor union to represent them in negotiations with their employer, employees need to be able to obtain information from both the labor union wishing to represent them and their employer. Snap union elections drastically limit both the time employees have to receive this information and their ability to carefully contemplate their decision.

At a time when manufacturers are focused on remaining competitive and creating jobs, federal agencies should not be focused on developing regulations that disrupt employee relations.

Joe Trauger is vice president for human resources policy, National Association of Manufacturers.