Worker Advocate Denounces NLRB Rule Designed to Push Workers into Compulsory Unionism
National Right to Work Foundation President criticizes Labor Board’s decision to selectively publicize workers' rights
Washington, DC (August 25, 2011) – Today, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) implemented new rules governing the notification of employee rights in the workplace.
Until these changes, employers were required to post notices of workers' rights only if a violation of labor law occurred. However, the new rules require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they've never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. Meanwhile, union officials are not required to issue information about workers' rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues.
Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation – a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide – made the following statement regarding the new rules:
"The NLRB's new rules are just the latest example of the Obama Labor Board’s biased approach to administering labor law.
"Just as the Obama administration promises to lessen the job-destroying weight of federal regulations, Obama's NLRB comes out with a new 'posting rule' to saddle every business – from ‘mom and pop' stores to IBM – with new mandatory posting requirements designed solely to grease the skids for more forced unionism."
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Comments
Its wrong to post what your rights are?
So why wouldn't a company want to post this, because then the workers will see how they actually get the shaft. What a retarded complaint, and this tool Mark Mix. He doesn't feel its right for a company to have to post workers rights. I say this guy is getting paid by someone. Make unions post whatever. People will want to work were they feel they get fair wages, not in a place were your rights are being hidden. I would like to meet this Mark guy, and let him say this BS to my face.
Wrong to post rights
How about this. Also post the illegal unionist activities and violence, not to mention how the union dues are used in such a biased fashion, if you're looking for full disclosure. Those are the "rights" non-union workers need to know.
Just a point of order: "retared" is no longer an acceptible term thanks to the leftists do-gooders. Perhpas your union thug leaders should have taught you that, huh?
Illegal?
Post whatever you want. Illegal activities and violence, if there were these things then call the police, or are you retarded too. The term seems to fit most people on this website, so I'll use it as I wish.
I guess your use to being told what you can say or do. For me I call it like I see it.
Why are you opposed to people knowing their rights?
I realize every article you write MUST contain "complusory" or "forced" - because you believe that if you lie over and over people will believe it. No one in the US is forced to unionize and no one is compelled. Unionization is a product of democratic elections in which force and compulstion are not allowed.
More importantly, employees have a right to organize and choose unions. You don't want employees to have that right or to make that choice.
And not surprisingly, the socalled NRTW groups, don't want people to know their rights. If the right exists, employees should know. The Founders didn't hide the Constitution from us. Why should the NLRA's rights be hidden?
Read what our Father have to say about people's rights to know their rights!
No one in the US is forced to unionize... Really?
Everyone knows you can join a Union. It's already part of Federal Labor Law Postings. This is an attempt by a bias NLRB to support the people that give them money.
When the Union came into our company, I was forced to join. My "choice" was join or your family will be hurt, some choice. Sure, I could have quit, but there wasn't a lot of options. So I stayed and we became union, costs went up, and the plant closed.
Now the union was able to make some money off us. Obama receives money from the Union -- that's where your dues go -- so it's time for his payback to them, screw the economy, screw capitalism. Bottom line, if you work for a union company, it will only be a matter of time until you are unemployed.
The unions are now bigger than most businesses. The heads of these orgaizations are multi-millionaires. The roles have reversed. Workers need to be protected from union thugs.
Having been through a workplace unionization...
Having been through a workplace unionization, there is *nothing* "democratic" about the process. Through a bait-and-switch ploy the anti-union workers were mislead as to when the vote was while the pro-union workers were given individual telephone calls to appraise them of the change. This was not democracy, it was a rigged election. The labor laws are so biased against the workers and for the unions that there was nothing we could do even though we had solid proof of what happened!
Being given the option of "support the union or lose your job" is, for many people, forced unionization - losing their job simply isn't an "option" they can take. A choice isn't "freely made" if you're given A or B as your options and one of the options is completely unrealistic. It's on par with a rapist telling his victim "you have a choice - get raped or murdered" and then claiming the sex was consensual.
You claim: "More importantly, employees have a right to organize and choose unions. You don't want employees to have that right or to make that choice." Of course the unions hate the NRTW groups, the NRTW groups are the ones trying to make sure employees know their options and more to the point, actually *have* options - specifically, the right to *not* be forced into a union. RTW laws are about ensuring people are free to say "no" to unions - they can still join a union if they want to, but they can't be forced to pay off a union simply to have a job.
So far as companies posting the worker rights laws, the article is talking about an incomplete set of the laws. They would probably get in trouble if they posted the laws about how workers *don't* have to unionize. That was certainly the case with the unionization I went through - the company was legally barred from challenging union assertions that turned out to be lies or even handing out basic information about non-union options. The federal and state laws made sure the only side heard was the union's.
Who's Fault.?
The time was change for a vote. The reason the people were called was they probably asked the union rep. to keep them informed, which is the union rep. job. If you were against the change you should have been more eager to stay on top of the process. Sounds like you were lazy. Next time get more involved, I don't feel sorry for people who sit back and complain when its not what they wanted. Get more involved.
Union's fault!
Wow, stereotyping anyone? You state:
"If you were against the change you should have been more eager to stay on top of the process. Sounds like you were lazy. Next time get more involved, I don't feel sorry for people who sit back and complain when its not what they wanted. Get more involved."
Guess what? I was involved! I was active in challenging the conduct of the union and union supporters, I was active in handing out materials questioning the union claims, I attended every union organizing meeting for my area (or at least the announced meetings - I'm sure there were planning meetings I knew nothing about), and I was a local organizer for the recall election after the union's bait-and-switch election (we almost kicked the union out - much lower voter turnout from anti-union people giving up). I was so active the union took the time to threaten me personally with retaliation if I didn't shut up - I didn't stop, I just took precautions for self defense if they tried standard union tactics of assault and murder.
The union announced a "confidence vote" for union members and supporters (anti-union people not welcome). It was supposed to be a chance for the pro-union people to say whether they felt the union's efforts were on the right track. At the last moment the "confidence vote" was changed to a "unionization vote" and the people the union knew would vote for the union were called the night before the vote. Those of us who were openly anti-union did not get a call - even the people who had asked the union rep to keep them informed. Note that this was not a time change as you assume, it was a complete change in *what* was being voted on.
I'll engage in a little stereotyping myself: You're obviously pro-union and, like almost all pro-union people I've met, completely blind to the extreme faults of the unions in the country. If you want lazy, look to your own ranks - 100% (literally) of the laziest workers I have known over several decades of working have been staunch union supporters. Almost none of the top workers I've known have shown even mild support for unions.
If you would like too you
If you would like too you can send me a check with the extra money you get out of having a collective bargaining agreement. Or better yet if you are so unhappy with the job why don't you just quit and get a non-union job. What's the big deal, it's not like your forced to work there and if what you say is true and your such a glorious employee you shouldn't have any trouble finding a new job. Stop being such a wimpy cry baby victim, get off your rear and go make something of yourself.
NLRB
From my very little experience with the this process. I was under the impression the NLRB holds the election. So how does this equate to the union being responsible? The NLRB doesn't work on the unions side they are a third party who holds and sets up the time of election. So who's fault was it? Unions i think not, NLRB i doubt it.
Roofer
Yup Im a lazy roofer. But i do know if i was against this union-ization I would have been at every meeting pro union or non union.
Confidence vote i would have been at, you say you were not welcome. i would have went anyways to see how much confidence they have. Just like this website points out you could have acted like you wanted to be represented just to see what they talk about in "secret meetings". then you could just as have easily withdrawn your card. That's what i would have done. Hell if it passed you wouldn't want to work there anyways, why would someone want benefits and more pay?