If you missed the hearings held this morning by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and weren’t able to follow our live-Tweet stream of the proceedings, you can watch the archived webcast here.
That is why today’s discussion about the National Labor Relations Board is so important. The NLRB was created more than 75 years ago to perform two functions: first, to determine by free democratic choice whether workers desire union representation and if so, by which union; and second, to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices by employers and unions.
The board serves as a quasi-judicial body. Its five members are chosen by the president, and the majority of members share the president’s views on labor policy. As a result, the board has generated a lot of debate over the years. However, that debate has recently been elevated to new heights since the board abandoned its traditional sense of fairness and neutrality and instead embraced a far-more activist approach.
Numerous actions by the board suggest it’s eager to tilt the playing field in favor of powerful special interests against the interests of rank-and-file workers.
As one can see from the witness statements and our live-Tweet transcript of the question and answer portion, there was much discussion at today’s hearing about:
- The Acting General Counsel’s initiatives promoting extraordinary remedies and pursuit of 10(j) preliminary injunctions;
- The Board’s proposed rule-making to require all employers to post workplace notices;
- The pre-emption dispute between the AGC and four states regarding their state constitution secret ballot amendments;
- How passage of the Secret Ballot Protection Act would resolve that pre-emption dispute;
- The Board’s recent trend of soliciting amicus briefs; and
- various other recent decisions of the Board.
We will continue to follow and report on these trends and developments as they unfold.