The proximity of the New Hampshire and South Carolina Republican primaries sets up an interesting discussion over the fate of right-to-work among the states. Indeed, after New Hampshire’s Republican voters cast their ballots for their party’s nominee for the general election, its legislators were already holding hearings to determine whether or not to transform New Hampshire into a right-to-work state. On the other hand, South Carolina’s status as right-to-work was made famous by President Obama’s assault on non-unionized jobs brought to the state by Boeing Co.

Remembering the old adage, “all politics is local,” Republican candidates weighed in on this topic during two consecutive debates in New Hampshire earlier this month. Mitt Romney claimed “Right-to-work legislation makes a lot of sense for New Hampshire.” In fact, it makes more sense for New Hampshire’s legislature to implement this policy than for most other local governments. How can the “Live Free or Die” state deny its workers the basic liberty to choose which organizations they associate with and contribute money to? Why would one of the first states to ratify our national Constitution continue to impose a policy that contradicts that document’s emphasis on freedom of assembly? In a nation of citizens who value their freedoms, right-to-work should be a common sense principle rather than a rare policy only enacted by 22 of 50 states. No one is doubting a worker’s right to join a union, so why must today’s liberals doubt their right to not join one?

Next Rick Perry asserted that a right-to-work labor market would make New Hampshire a “powerful magnet” for jobs in the region. Indeed since no other Northeastern state has adopted similar legislation yet, if New Hampshire became right-to-work, that state would be the first in the region to do so. As a result, any skilled workers in the area hesitant about union membership or businesses unable to meet the demands of unreasonable union bosses would flock to New Hampshire, providing a significant boost to its economy.

Although purporting to be the party that supports workers’ rights, the Democrats have risen in unified opposition to guaranteeing American laborers one of their most fundamental freedoms: the ability to choose whether or not to join a union. For instance, the Democratic Governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, vetoed a previous right-to-work bill passed overwhelmingly by his state’s legislature.

(more…)

Newt Gingrich has had his ups and downs lately in the Republican Presidential primary. Though much of the setback has been due to his own miscues, he recently hit the nail on the proverbial head when he proclaimed that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) should be defunded. There is no doubt that Obama’s recent recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were motivated by his desire to bring Big Labor on board for the 2012 Election run as recounted in last week’s blog Will the NLRB Decide the 2012 Presidential Election. Newt was correct in stating that defunding the NLRB is the right response to an imperialistic President who intentionally circumvented the spirit of the law for personal gain and philosophical ideology.

Besides legal measures, the only current means to defeat The Cold War Within: The Fight for America’s Future is for the Republican dominated congress to utilize its budgetary power and defund the Rogue NLRB. Such action is even more imperative now, according to Phil Wilson in his latest issue of Union Bailout Update, where he expresses that the two new Democratic appointees, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, are even more radical than Craig Becker, which is unimaginable. Additionally, Mr. Wilson expressed that Board Chairman Mark Pearce is the true engine behind achieving Card Check, and that the recent appointments provide Pierce the radical majority he needs to achieve Obama’s and Big Labor’s coveted goal of an Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) style regulatory scheme, aka “EFCA Through the Backdoor,” in time to support Obama’s 2012 Presidential run.

The goal is to implement new regulations such as the “Persuader Rule,” “quickie elections,” and the Posting Rule,  as described in Phil Wilson’s 2012 Predictions that will allow Big Labor to utilize the Persuasion of Power to prosecute brutal Corporate Campaigns against employees and employers in time to raise money, register voters and put union foot soldiers on the ground for the 2012 Election. The frightening political machines behind them are recounted in my new book The Devil at Our Doorstep.

(more…)

The National Right To Work (NRTW) joined by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) took off the legal gloves and are forcing the Obama Administration to defend its unconstitutional appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).   Some say that President Barack Obama is creating a serious constitutional crisis.

This is the first legal challenge regarding these NLRB Board appointees who Obama appointed without a U.S. Senate confirmation process; but, more are expected.

From the NRTW release:

Washington, DC (January 13, 2012) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a motion in federal court challenging the legality of President Barack Obama’s recent purported recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The legal challenge is part of a larger case attacking controversial new NLRB rules that require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never violated or been accused of breaking federal law. The NLRB’s posting rules do not require union officials to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues. Currently employers can only be required to post notices if the Board has ruled that a violation of labor law occurred.

The Foundation’s case has been consolidated with other legal challenges to the biased NLRB notice posting rules brought by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW), and two small businesses. Those parties filed the joint motion today raising the issue of the NLRB’s lack of authority to implement the rule given the unprecedented recess appointments.

The new filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case comes after NLRB lawyers notified the court that President Obama’s recent recess appointees were now parties in the ongoing legal battle. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s New Process Steel decision, the NLRB needs three members to act. However three of the five current NLRB members were installed by unilateral Presidential appointment earlier this year, despite the fact that the Senate was not in a self-declared recess.

(more…)

The Department of Justice on Thursday announced, in a memo, that President Obama acted consistently under the law by appointing Richard Cordray, to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and two individuals to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The DOJ asserted that the pro forma sessions held in the Senate every third day do not constitute a body that is functioning; hence, the Senate, according to the DOJ, was in recess, and, therefore, the president’s appointments during that “recess” are legal.

Virginia Seitz, assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, said her office concluded that Congress may only stop these appointments “by remaining continuously in session and available to receive and act on nominations,” not through pro forma sessions.

But, the DOJ memo not only addressed legal issues. It also blamed Republicans for the recent use of pro forma sessions, observing that 20 Senate Republicans and 80 House Republicans asked House Speaker John Boehner to refuse to pass any resolution allowing the Senate to recess or adjourn for more than three days. The hypocrisy in the memo is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), who previously held pro forma sessions in order to block appointments by President George W. Bush, said that he supported President Obama’s decision to ignore the pro forma sessions in order to push through his appointments.

The DOJ’s memo has already quelled some potential legal challenges to the appointments, perhaps most notably from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, whose president, Thomas Donohue, went from a condemnation of the appointment of Richard Cordray, to the statement: “I’m sure the Department of Justice gave it a very fair look.”

(more…)

Apparently, “respecting the U.S. Constitution” didn’t make it onto President Obama’s 2012 New Year’s resolution list, as evidenced by his “recess” appointment of anti-business extremist Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Just an few hours later, Obama made three additional appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which has become little more than a Big Labor battering ram under this president.

Obama is terming his appointments “recess” appointments. They are nothing of the sort, because Congress is not in recess. Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days …” To prevent any recess appointment, the Republican-controlled House has refused to consent to Senate adjournment, resulting in the Senate coming into pro forma session every three days. But as Ed Meese, who served as Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, points out: these pro forma sessions aren’t gimmicks. The two-month extension of the payroll tax holiday was approved during a pro forma Senate session.

But in an unprecedented power grab, Obama has decided that he can decide when Congress is or is not in session. Meese rightly calls it a “constitutional abuse of a high order.” If this abuse stands, the U.S. Senate’s constitutional role to advise and consent in the confirmation of key executive appointees, already undermined by Obama’s many czar appointments, could become moot. (more…)

You may be aware of this week’s NLRB showdown, where two Democratic Members of the National Labor Relations Board will try on Tuesday to overhaul rules governing 6 million workplaces and about 100 million working Americans to make it easier for union bosses to organize new members. The consequences are serious: employees will get less information about what they’re signing up for and employers will have less chance to talk to their workers. The unelected bureaucrats say they’re helping employees, but really it’s just to help the big political spenders from Big Labor. But you can help stop this farce!

While the Obama administration doesn’t seem to want to listen to small business owners, other leaders in D.C. will get the message. So sign a petition to top national leaders via Halt The Assault or contact your Member of Congress to support commonsense legislation to make the playing field fair once again (Americans For Prosperity’s site can help if you wish to support the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act).

Bloggers can do even more by embedding a petition code into their site.

(more…)

Desperation is setting in at the White House and the white knight attempting to rescue Obama from himself is the NLRB, guided by a pair of Obama recess appointees Craig Becker and Mark Pierce (see National Labor Relations Board or NBLR – National Big Labor Resuscitation ). Becker and Pierce are taking steps to achieve Big Labor’s most coveted prize, card check (see Card Check through Regulation vs. Legislation).

The NLRB has scheduled a vote this Wednesday, November 30, 2011 where they Plan to Ease Way for Unions to rapidly organize employers through quickie elections. This vote is no more than “Card Check” in disguise (see the Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking here). Why is this pair in such a hurry? Member Becker’s term expires at the end of December 2011, and this is the last time the rogue NLRB is guaranteed to have a democratic majority to combat the pending legislation to reign in the NLRB and to pass regulations that favor Big Labor (see Workplace Fairness Act Set to Move to the House Floor).

Just as important, the timeline referred to above is obviously a blatant move to provide big labor with the tools to rapidly force unionize unsuspecting businesses in order to provide Obama and the Democratic party a huge campaign fund source derived from the new influx of membership dues just in time for the 2012 elections. This is obviously a simple “pay to play” maneuver that will be A Death Penalty for Employees and Employers.

This is a classic case of Political Aspirations & Payback Ahead of American Jobs, because this President and the rogue NLRB are intent on Overwhelming the System in order to achieve their labor agenda, first pronounced in the Employee Free Choice Act (see EFCA Through the Backdoor). (more…)

Lone Republican NLRB Member Brian Hayes shut out of process…

It seems that Friday afternoons are always the time to drop job-killing news on America’s job creators. In this case, the union appointees within Barack Obama’s National Labor Relations Board have issued a press release stating they will be issuing their final rule on ambush elections on November 30th.

In mid-June, the union-controlled NLRB issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making on the procedures governing NLRB-conducted elections. Despite the fact that unions already win more than 60% of all secret-ballot elections and the median time frame between a union petition for and election and the election itself is 38 days, the proposed rule change would like shorten that time drastically, creating an “ambush” union campaign on targeted employers and employees.

When the NLRB’s union appointees issued the notice, it was met with a tremendous outcry from America’s employers, as well as the sole GOP member at the NLRB.

The board’s lone Republican, Brian Hayes, issued a vigorous dissent, saying the proposal would result in the type of “quickie elections” union leaders have long sought. Hayes claimed elections could be held in as little as 10 to 21 days from the filing of a petition, giving employers less of a chance to make their case.

“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,” Hayes wrote.

On Friday afternoon, with controversial SEIU lawyer Craig Becker’s recess appointment to the NLRB ending at the end of the year (rendering the NLRB unable to issue the rule change), the NLRB issues a press release stating that it would be issuing its decision on November 30th. (more…)

Most Americans have heard of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) through its ill-conceived scheme to prevent Boeing from building a new plant in South Carolina because the Palmetto State has a right-to-work law. The board’s actions have created a huge backlash against the Obama Administration and its pro-Big Labor policies.

But how much do most Americans know about Obama’s other labor board?

Most Americans haven’t heard of President Obama’s other labor board, the National Mediation Board (NMB). This board is specifically focused on labor relations between the railroad and airline industries. And just like the NLRB, the NMB is aggressively pushing Big Labor’s agenda.

Last July, the NMB overturned nearly a century of precedent and issued a new pro-union rule regarding union elections. Instead of requiring the traditional democratic practice of a simple majority of members to unionize, now the rules only require a majority of votes cast for unionization.

If a company has 2,000 workers and only 400 people vote but 201 of them are pro-union, the entire workforce of 2,000 people are forced to unionize. Couple that with the fact that it is nearly impossible to decertify a union, and those 201 votes in effect mandate unionization for good. (more…)

As noted in a previous BigGovernment posting, the Obama NLRB has literally chosen to shred secret ballots and thus democracy in the workplace. In what clearly was a gift to Big Labor and its collusive agreements with certain employers, the NLRB took away the right for employees to have a secret ballot election immediately following a coercive union ‘card check’ drive. In addition, it retroactively took action and cancelled secret ballots that had already been cast or were set to be cast.

Barbara Ivey of the forced unionism state of Oregon and her co-workers were victims of the totalitarian NLRB actions. On August 26^th, as Big Labor Attorney and NLRB Chair Wilma Liebman’s term expired and she slinked back to her Big Labor law practice, the NLRB voted to repeal “DANA rights” in its Lamons Gasket decision.

Mrs. Ivey was invited by the Education & Workforce Committee to testify about her shock that the U.S. government took away her right to a secret ballot, especially since the NLRB had earlier said she had the right and had scheduled the vote only days after the fateful Lamons Gasket decision. She and her fellow employees never got a chance for a secret ballot to vote, and now she will be forced to pay tribute to an SEIU union boss in order to keep her job.

The video above is taken from the Education & Workforce Committee hearing where the Obama NLRB usurpation of power and destruction of individual liberty is on display. Because of this decision numerous secret ballots that have already cast in workplaces across the country will never be counted. The ballots reportedly are currently stored at NLRB, then will eventually be shredded or disposed of in another manner.

To borrow from the Wisconsin union thugs, “This is what DEMOCRACY looks like” in an Obama Administration! (more…)

During Thursday’s House Education & Workforce hearing, U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) described the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) actions as creating a hostile environment for business. Wilson claimed that the pro-Big Labor Obama NLRB created an unintended consequence for Big Labor.

Rep. Wilson said that the NLRB’s actions have turned the 28 force-unionism states into “Roach Motels” that will trap employers with the help of the NLRB, and prevent them from ever leaving or expanding outside these states’ borders.

Wilson said that the NLRB actions translate into only one option for employers if they are going to locate in the United States, and that is to build and locate in at least one of the 22 Right To Work states.

Wilson emphatically said, “In fact, you must locate in a Right to Work state.”

(more…)

The Teamsters union has been mired in the mob underworld even before Jimmy Hoffa. Jr.’s dad took over the union. During a congressional hearing, Robert F. Kennedy* said, “I told [Jimmy Hoffa, Sr.] frankly that I did not think he was tough enough to rid his union of the gangsters and hoodlums he had put in power.”

Even today, when any legitimate business interest would have been put out of business by the federal government, the Teamsters remain under federal court ordered oversight for its organized crime connections:

WHEREAS, the International Union entered into a Consent Decree with the United States on March 14, 1989 to resolve a civil lawsuit titled United States v. Teamsters, and WHEREAS, in entering into the Consent Decree, the International Union acknowledged allegations of past problems of organized crime corruption in various elements of the IBT [Teamsters]…

When Hoffa tells his army to take someone out, it is a serious matter. In one particular case, the National Labor Relations Board required the Teamsters union to post a sign to remind Hoffa’s army of what not to do. Here’s a small part of the four-page document:

WE WILL NOT threaten to kill or inflict bodily harm, make throat slashing motions, make gun pointing motions, challenge or threaten to fight or assault employees, threaten to sexually assault non-striking employees or their family members, threaten to follow non-striking employees to their homes, use racial epithets or obscene gestures at non-striking employees or otherwise threaten unspecified reprisals on any non-striking employee of Overnite or any member of his or her family or any employee of a neutral employee doing business with Overnite … (more…)

There is a labor dispute going on in the Midwest that has taken an ugly turn as the union involved has allegedly resorted to racial attacks against security personnel and replacement workers.

In Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota, American Crystal, a cooperative that accounts for 38 percent of the nation’s sugar from beets and 15 percent of overall sugar production, locked out 1300 unionized workers over a month ago as their negotiations for a new contract fell apart.

American Crystal’s last offer was a 17 percent pay increase over five years, but workers rejected it over job security provisions, health care costs and language in the contract they say will hurt workers in future years.

While lockouts are a company’s legal alternative to a union strike, they do not occur all that often. According to the National Labor Relations Board [PDF]: (more…)

In late August House Majority Leader Eric Cantor published an open memo announcing that House Republicans would seek to block ten regulations currently being considered by various federal administrative agencies. Most of these regulations involve the Environmental Protection Agency, including ozone protection, greenhouse gas regulation, coal ash and utility pollution standards. The National Labor Relations Board is also targeted for its proposed union election rules and its attempt to block Boeing from opening a new, non-union factory in right-to-work South Carolina.

Rep. Cantor has sound reasons to target these regulations. The economic impact of any one of these ten regulations on an economy already on the brink of a double-dip recession would be severe. Some, like new emission rules for utility plants are guaranteed to increase energy costs, which would have a cascade effect on all aspects of the economy. Others, like NLRB’s Boeing decision, are bald-faced pandering to the labor interests that shower so much support on Democrats in general and President Obama in particular. Put bluntly, the targeted regulations serve special interests like unions or environmentalists at the expense of the public interest.

While having the virtue of being good policy, and probably good politics, Rep. Cantor’s strategy has the vice of treating the symptoms while ignoring the underlying cause. The larger problem with these regulations is not that these agencies are abusing their rulemaking power; the problem is that these agencies possess rulemaking power in the first place. Administrative agencies are exercising authority which properly belongs to Congress.

The Constitution is unmistakably clear. Article I, Section 1 states that “All legislative Power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States….” If the power is legislative, and if the power is granted to the federal government by the Constitution, then the power must be exercised by Congress, and only by Congress. Congress is nowhere authorized to transfer the power to make laws to any entity. Only Congress is constitutionally empowered to make laws.

Moreover, Article I, Section 7 mandates that any action of the federal government, which has the force of law, must be enacted according to the specific process enumerated therein. Both houses must approve, and the bill must be sent to the president for his signature. His veto may be overridden, but only by a supermajority in each house. The very act of enacting rules on the part of the EPA or any other agency is thus a violation of this provision of the Constitution, because it deviates from this process.

(more…)

On Tuesday*, a mere four business days after the union extremists at President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board issued an edict forcing all NLRA-covered private-sector businesses to notify their employees about their rights to unionize their workplace, the government’s primary union pushers issued a series of decisions that undermine both employee’s rights and employers ability to remain or become union free.

* The decisions were made before former Teamster attorney and NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman’s term ended Saturday night, but were issued on Tuesday afternoon.

In the first case released, Lamons Gasket, Inc., the union-backed Democrats on the NLRB removed employees’ rights to petition to decertify (via secret-ballot election) a union where the employer had recognized the union based on the flawed process known as card-check.  The ruling in this case reverses the precedent established in 2007 (under the Bush NLRB) that gave employees who were unionized via an employer’s voluntary recognition of a union through card check 45 days to challenge the union’s status by getting 30% of the employees’ signatures to hold an election.

This decision is a companion case to last year’s decision by the Obama NLRB that legitimizes “sweetheart unions”—unions that trade away employees’ interests in exchange for unionizing them through card-check and voluntary recognition. While the NLRB legitimized sweetheart unions last year, until Tuesday, employees could petition to decertify the union within 45 days. Now, thanks to the union extremists at the NLRB and their union handlers, employees have lost that right. (more…)

Brian Hayes, Esq.
Member
National Labor Relations Board
1099 14th St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20570-0001

Dear Member Hayes:

Our nation stands at the precipice of disaster, its future generations are indebted due to the overindulgent spending of politicians from both political parties. Our unemployment is untenably high, our welfare roles expanded beyond reason, both with no signs of easing. Meanwhile, our nation’s job creators are burdened with an over-regulating, activist government whose sole existence at this point is to appease special constituencies. It is for these reasons, and more, that you are urged to resign your position as a member of the National Labor Relations Board.

Given last year’s Supreme Court decision in New Process Steel, you know that the National Labor Relations Board must have three members to effectuate its rulings and decisions. You may recall the reason for the New Process Steel decision stemmed from Senate Democrats’ purposeful and calculating decision not to allow President Bush’s nominees to be confirmed as members to the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the blocking of any recess appointments. (more…)

When the National Association of Manufacturers polled around 1,000 of its members in July about the National Labor Relations Board’s case to shut down Boeing’s South Carolina plant, costing up to 5,000 potential jobs, the clear majority indicated the union-backed case likely will, or has already, had a negative effect on America’s job creation.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal:

Some 60% said the government’s case already has—or could—hurt hiring. Sixty-nine percent said the case would damage job growth. And 49% said capital expenditure plans “have been or may be impacted by the NLRB’s complaint.” Around 1,000 of the association’s 11,000 members contributed to the survey.

Despite this, however, Barack Obama’s union appointees at the National Labor Relations Board are continuing their assault on America’s job creators with yet another attempt at doing union bosses’ bidding by skirting Congress to require all employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act to post union notices in the workplace to advise employees of their ability to unionize their company. (more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Brett McMahon to discuss the unchecked power of the NLRB, their attack on American small business and their attack on Boeing in South Carolina.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

HTA Fights Back Against NLRB Ambush Elections Rule
Why the Rule Change from Team Obama If Unions Already Win Most Elections?
Today’s NLRB hearing shows nominations have consequences
Beyond The Big City Blues
Halt the Assault
Brett McMahon

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Brett on Twitter

Seeing the forest through the trees and the practical through the partisanship.

This week, on Monday and Tuesday, an “open meeting” occurred at President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board over the NLRB’s proposal to move toward ambush elections. Though largely a waste of time, since the union appointees running the NLRB have little intent to listen to the practical side of labor relations and will do the unions’ bidding, there is a simple solution to resolving this entire matter that is straightforward, fair and apolitical.

Here’s the background: For the last five years, there has been a bill in Congress that unions have pushed using deceptively biased and flawed data. The hallucinogencially-named Employee Free Choice Act, if enacted, would effectively strip employees of their right to a secret-ballot election on the issue of unionization. With the process known as “card check” as a key component, the job-killing legislation passed the House of Representatives in 2007 but stalled in the Senate, yet has had employers on edge since it was first introduced.

Since card check has laid comatose following the election of Sen. Scott Brown [R-MA] in February 2010, several states have passed amendments to their state constitutions preserving the secret ballot, only to be later sued by Obama’s union appointees at the NLRB. (more…)

Republican lawmakers who have expressed concern over the power and influence of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have offered up some compelling proposals. Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), the chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, has for example, said that he considering legislation that would block President Obama’s team of unelected lawyers from revamping union election rules.

That’s a good start, but Congress as a whole must move decisively to reclaim constitutional authority that was surrendered during the “Progressive Era” of the late 19^th and early 20^th century. Matthew Spalding, a particularly astute legal scholar with the Heritage Foundation, has testified at some length on the use of czars within the Obama Administration and how this relates back to progressive ambitions. In many respects, the NLRB fits with extra-constitutional schemes the disadvantage the free market and dilute the policy making authority of elected officials.

In June, the three Democrats who sit on the Board proposed rule changes that would curtail the amount of time for private union elections. Brian Hayes, the only Republican member of the board, has been sharply critical of the proposal, but his input has been limited.

If the rule changes go into effect, they would set elections from a current median time of 37 days to as little as 10 days from the filing of an election petition. They would also set pre-election hearings for 7 days after a petition is filed; the rules would also require the employer to respond to a pre-hearing questionnaire raising any legal issues or waive its right to do so. And finally, the new rules would defer a decision on the issues raised at the hearing till after the election, putting an employer at risk if the decision is challenged.

But free market groups have made a concerted effort push back and this is cause for encouragement.

(more…)