The Senate continues to debate S.J.RES.30, the “resolution of disapproval” by Sen. Isakson (R-GA) under the Congressional Review Act to prevent the National Mediation Board (NMB) from unilaterally changing the way labor unions can be formed under the Railway Labor Act.

Sen. Isakson (R-GA) took to the Senate floor to explain why he and so many of his colleagues have found it necessary to stop yet another attempt by an Executive Branch agency to rewrite labor law. The Senator rightfully points out in his remarks on the Senate floor that this rule change by the NMB would allow the will of the few to determine whether or not an entire workforce be represented by a labor union. He also pointed out that the Railway Labor Act doesn’t provide the same type of union decertification methods available to employees under the National Labor Relations Act, the law that covers most private sector employees. In essence, this means that should the NMB’s new rule be allowed to stand, a small group of employees that are able to participate in a NMB union election would be able to allow a labor union to be the exclusive representative of employees in perpetuity.

Many opponents of the measures claim that the NMB rule is appropriate by trying to draw parallels to other elections, such as those for U.S. Senate. Well, if the same logic is applied to the Senate that would mean that voters would elect Senators for life without a real opportunity to recall their Senator. Additionally, as Sen. Isakson notes, because the resolution needs 60 votes to invoke cloture to move forward, a Senator who doesn’t participate in the vote is essentially declaring a “no” vote much like the way NMB union elections are currently handled.

Earlier this week the National Association of Manufacturers sent a letter to the Senate in support of the resolution highlighting an important point:

The Senate should disapprove this rule by supporting S.J.RES. 30, as it would harm positive employee relations and sets a disturbing precedent for other federal labor boards like the National Labor Relations Board. More importantly, we believe the NMB is circumventing the proper role of Congress in setting our nation’s labor laws on a level playing field to protect the rights of those who wish to be represented by a labor union and those who do not.

The Senate will be voting on the resolution shortly. The Senators who support the resolution will be voting to protect the rights of employees who do not necessarily wish to have a labor union represent them before their employer. Conversely, Senators who object to the resolution will be voting to allow unelected federal officials to change the rules of union elections – a change that should only be considered by Congress.

UPDATE: (1:54pm) The Senate has answered the question that we posed earlier: “Yes, we will continue to allow the executive branch to overturn our labor laws by rewriting the rules on how a labor union is formed.” The Senate voted 43 for – 56 against the resolution earlier today. Three Democratic Senators: Lincoln (AR), Pryor (AR) and Nelson (NE) joined with 40 Republicans to support the resolution. The motion required 60 votes to move forward in the Senate. Click here for the vote breakdown.

Organized labor groups continue to seek ways to boost their membership at the expense of employees’ real choice. In September the AFL-CIO’s Transportation Trades Department (TTD) requested radical changes in the process of unionizing employees under the Railway Labor Act. Currently union representation elections allow a labor union to be certified if the majority of workers vote in support of forming a union. Seems fair, right?

Not to Big Labor.

The AFL-CIO wants to change the rules so unions could be certified through yes votes from a minority of employees. Union leaders would get to that point by counting only the employees who actually vote. An example: If there are 100 employees and only 40 vote, a majority of that 40 — 21 — could certify the union. So a minority of just 21 workers could unionize a workplace with 100 employees.

Hardly seems like the democratic process to us, and numerous previous administrations have agreed – Democrat and Republican alike.

Big Labor’s argument in response: “Just because a worker chooses not to cast a vote in a union election doesn’t mean he or she is against unionization – it just means that worker did not vote.”

Well, if that’s the case one would logically expect the AFL-CIO to also support a process making it easier to decertify if the majority of union members voting — again, quite possibly a minority of ALL employees — wanted to leave the union. Or at a minimum allow the workers who didn’t participate in the election to be exempt from obligatory union dues.

Much like the Employee Free Choice Act, the proposed changes to the National Mediation Board’s organizing procedures would create a system of unionization that’s comparable to quicksand – easy to get in, hard to get out.

Well, at least this revolutionary change followed detailed, open debate by the Mediation Board’s members, right?

Nope. Guess again.

As the Chairman of the NMB points out, two of the three members of the Board “railroaded” these proposed changes through without allowing the Chairman to have reasonable time to review and respond to the changes. Rushed through, this radical proposal was published in the Federal Register yesterday.

This is yet another example of union power grabs that are becoming all too frequent lately. Our view is an affirmative change, from a non-union to union workplace, should require an affirmative vote, an affirmative majority vote. The NAM opposes any efforts to overturn the longstanding and fair process of organizing under the National Mediation Board and will be urging the Board to protect the rights of a majority of workers to freely decide whether or not they wish to join a labor union.