The House reconvened for 4 minutes today. It is scheduled to be in session at noon tomorrow.
The Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1925, the bill reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. At 2 PM, the Senate will take up the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 36, the resolution of disapproval for the NLRB Ambush Elections Rule. A vote on the motion to proceed to the resolution is scheduled for 2:15 PM tomorrow. At 5 PM, the Senate will meet for 30 minutes to consideration of and vote on Brian C. Wimes to be District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri.
Tomorrow, the Senate will begin a series of votes on as many as 39 amendments to the postal reform bill, S. 1789.
On Friday, The Hill reported, “The Senate will vote [Tuesday] on overturning the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) controversial union-election rule, according to Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.). The rule, which is set to go into effect on April 30, would speed up union elections, and has attracted criticism and opposition from Republican lawmakers and business groups. Enzi, the ranking member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said the rule would hurt U.S. employers.”
In an op-ed for The Washington Times last week, Sen. Enzi explained the problems these Big Labor-backed NLRB rules would create for employees and employers. “[T]he rule will . . . force employees to make the critical decision about whether or not to form a union in as little as seven to 10 days. The goal of the NLRB’s ‘ambush election’ rule is to keep employees from getting timely information from the employer and other sources. Under the new rules, the NLRB will not even sort out which employees should be included in which bargaining unit until after the union election. This means employees will not even know with whom they will be lumped when they are casting their votes. In another, concurring twist, a separate NLRB decision will allow labor bosses to organize micro-unions, which are smaller bargaining units that may not represent all similar employees in the workplace. Essentially, labor bosses will cherry-pick the employees who are favorable to the union and force an ‘ambush election.’ In non-right-to-work states, dissenting employees may be required to pay union dues even if they are forced into the micro-union. Employees who are not in the union will have to deal with a workplace brimming with competing demands, red tape and discord.”
Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune also discussed the NLRB rule in an op-ed last week: “Time and again, the regulatory agencies under this administration have sought to issue rules that stifle growth and job creation, despite the fact that we are mired in one of the most stagnant economic periods in American history. . . . Under President Obama’s NLRB appointees, the Board has become increasingly politicized, as demonstrated by its recent ruling unfairly tilting the scales in favor of unions in labor elections. The Board’s ruling, which was issued last year, is known as the ‘ambush’ election rule because it allows union organizers to surprise employers with petitions and force an election before employers have even had the chance to provide information to their employees. On a decision as important as whether or not to form a union, workers should have the opportunity to hear from both sides free from any pressure one way or the other -- an opportunity the Board’s recent decision would take away. In fact, the only groups that appear to benefit from the NLRB’s ruling are unions seeking to increase their dues-paying membership.”
The Hill points out, “Forty-five Republican senators have backed the joint resolution, including Enzi, who is sponsoring it. His office said the joint resolution has been placed on the Senate's legislative calendar and is expected to be debated on Monday and Tuesday. The joint resolution will be brought up under the Congressional Review Act, which provides a way for Congress to overturn regulations. The measure can pass the Senate with 51 votes and cannot be filibustered.”
Americans For Limited Government addressed both the Senate Bill and the need for action in the House: "The Senate has an opportunity to rein in the NLRB's abusive power grab instituting snap elections on behalf of unions, which will shorten the amount of time businesses have to make their case to employees. This has been a top priority of big labor as union membership wanes nationwide to expedite the process in as little as seven to 10 days. The urgency for union certification elections — and the speed with which the NLRB adopted the new rule — is curious when, by the NLRB's own data, it only took about 38 days to wrap up a unionization election under the old rule. The old process has allowed employers the opportunity to present a case against unionization in a manner allowing for deliberation. While it may be more convenient — for union bosses — to dispense with this process as quickly as possible, it neither serves the interests of businesses nor employees who are given little time to weigh the pros and cons of the decision.
"While the Senate should certainly rescind this rulemaking, it should also be mindful that it underscores just how much power this agency really has to issue sweeping regulations affecting tens of thousands of places of business. "That is why it is no longer enough to treat the symptoms of the agency's overreaching quasi-judicial powers with mere stopgap measures. In the House, Rep. Austin Scott has proposed HR 2978 that will address this rogue agency in a comprehensive manner. Scott's legislation will abolish the NLRB's powers to serve as prosecutor, judge, and jury in favor of unions. If congressional Republicans are truly committed to reining in the abuses at the NLRB, they should carefully consider the Scott bill, which will eliminate the agency's power to regulate in such a far-reaching manner."
Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell emphasized this ill-considered rule as emblematic of President Obama’s failed approach to the economy, saying, “As a favor to Big Labor, the President is right now rushing a plan that would restrict an employer’s ability to educate workers about unionization efforts, as well as increase their legal bills and the already-high cost of complying with federal regulations. And get this: the Administration hasn’t even provided an analysis of these costs in moving forward with the proposal. So tomorrow, senators, led by Senator Enzi, will have an opportunity to vote on this effort to make it even harder to do business in this country. We’ll have a chance to stand up against what this President is doing to the economy. And in the process, we’ll be reminding people to focus on what this President does rather than what he says. Look: at a time when America’s corporate income tax is now the highest in the world, we should be looking for ways to make it easier for businesses to hire, not harder. At a time when unemployment is above 13 percent for young people between the ages of 20-24 in this country, we should be finding ways to make it more likely they can find work, not harder. But this is the Obama economy. This is President Obama’s approach.”
Tags: NLRB, NLRB ruleunion, ambush rule, US Senate, vote, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment