Chamber objects to rushing workers’ decisions

In his recent piece describing the U.S. Chamber’s opposition to the NLRB’s ambush election rule, John Logan, a professor at San Francisco State University,characterizes such opposition by way of reference to Alice in Wonderland and Groundhog Day.  Logan’s grasp of the facts, however, could probably best be described as “Dazed and Confused.”  

Logan insinuates that the Chamber is “apoplectic” because “the NLRB dared issue a new rule intended to modernize the union certification process and eliminate the worst cases of pre-election delay.”  If Logan had bothered to read the Chamber’s comments to the proposed rule (both in 2011 and 2014) as well as our lawsuit, he’d understand that the Chamber has no objection with the aspects of the rules that purport to “modernize” the election process, such as electronic filing of election petitions.  That the Chamber is opposed to modernizing the election process is, therefore, a canard to distract from actual substantive changes in the rule. 

{mosads}Moreover, the rule does nothing to “eliminate the worst cases of pre-election delay.”  To the contrary, the rule makes sweeping changes to ALL union elections and does nothing to examine or specifically address which cases have been delayed, what were the causes of the delay, and how the delay could be addressed without imposing a one-size-fits-all approach.  For example, neither the Board’s rule, nor Logan’s commentary, address the fact that at least some election delays are the result of union blocking charges or protracted decision-making by the Board itself.  So in one sentence, Logan manages to mischaracterize the Chamber’s opposition to the ambush election rule, and the actual substance of the rule itself.  

Here is what the rule really does.  It accelerates the union election process from a current median time of 38 days to somewhere between 10-15 days.  Consequently, employers under the rule will be deprived of their statutory right to adequately explain the potential upsides and downsides of unionizing to their employees. As a result, employees will lose their right to make a fully informed choice about a critical workplace issue.  This is why, when amending the National Labor Relations Act in 1959, then Sen. John F. Kennedy, Jr. (D-Mass.) explained that at least a 30-day period before an election was a necessary “safeguard against rushing employees into an election where they are unfamiliar with the issues.” 

Adding insult to injury, the ambush election rule also compels employers to provide to unions some very personal information about their employees — home addresses, telephone numbers, shift schedules, work locations, and, where available, personal e-mail addresses. Employers will be forced to violate the privacy of their workers, and unions can then use this information to bombard potential recruits with pro-union messages. Unlike the “do-not-call” list, workers would have no right or ability to opt out of these union solicitations.  Logan conveniently fails to mention this decidedly invasive aspect of the NLRB’s rule. 

That Logan obfuscates and misrepresents both the ambush regulation and the Chamber’s position on the rulemaking sadly comes as no surprise.  Indeed, Logan’s work is nothing new to the Chamber, as we have noted on several occasions how he misrepresents employers’ rights under the NLRA.  So instead of relying on rehashed union arguments, maybe Logan should actually review the rule.  Then he may find another movie reference is appropriate: “An Inconvenient Truth.”  

Johnson is the senior vice president of Labor, Immigration, and Employee Benefits for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.