Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
16. More
Sat Feb 8, 2014, 09:40 AM
Feb 2014

"And once Obama (and other third wayers) has paid those 30 pieces of silver to the wolves on Wall Street and in the corporate suites, we know that the outcome for working people, unions and progressives will be anything but really good."

...ignoring reality.

Court of Appeals Hands Victory to U.S. Workers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024450902

NLRB gives boost to speedier union elections

By Michael A. Fletcher

The National Labor Relations Board on Wednesday resurrected a proposal to implement new rules aimed at speeding up unionization elections, a move applauded by organized labor groups that have seen a steady decline in membership.

The labor board’s proposed amendments are identical to ones that the politically divided board was on the verge of enacting in late 2011...The latest version of the proposed rule change was approved by the NLRB’s three Democratic members, while the two Republican appointees dissented.

<...>

At present, workers must hold an NLRB-sanctioned election after filing a petition to organize a union. For years, union leaders have voiced concern that it takes too long after an organizing petition is filed to hold an election to determine whether workers want to create a union. The votes were often pushed back for weeks to manually distribute information and to appeal rulings by regional NLRB officials. The delays, union leaders complained, gave employers too much time to campaign to disrupt organizing efforts.

“When workers petition for an NLRB election, they should receive a timely opportunity to vote,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement. “But the current NLRB election process is riddled with delay and provides too many opportunities for employers to manipulate and drag out the process through costly and unnecessary litigation and deny workers a vote.”

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nlrb-gives-boost-to-speedier-union-elections/2014/02/05/a0d0e35a-8ebe-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html


The National Labor Relations Board Proposes Amendments to Improve Representation Case Procedures

The National Labor Relations Board announced today that it is issuing proposed amendments to its rules and regulations governing representation-case procedures. In substance, the proposed amendments are identical to the representation procedure changes first proposed in June of 2011. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will appear in the Federal Register tomorrow. The proposals are intended to enable the Board to more effectively administer the National Labor Relations Act. Specifically, the NPRM presents a number of changes to the Board’s representation case procedures aimed at modernizing processes, enhancing transparency and eliminating unnecessary litigation and delay. Issuance of the proposed rule was approved by Board Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce and Members Kent Y. Hirozawa and Nancy Schiffer. Board Members Philip A. Miscimarra and Harry I. Johnson III dissented.

In announcing the proposals, Pearce said: “The Board is unanimous in its support for effective representation case procedures. I am pleased that all Members share a commitment to constructive dialogue, and we all agree that important issues are involved in this proposed rulemaking. With a Senate-confirmed five-member Board, I feel it is important for the Board to fully consider public comment on these proposed amendments, along with the comments we previously received in 2011. These amendments would modernize the representation case process and fulfill the promise of the National Labor Relations Act.”

“I believe that the NPRM first proposed in June of 2011 continues to best frame the issues and raises the appropriate concerns for public comment,” Pearce said. He stressed that the Board is reviewing the proposed changes with an open mind: “No final decisions have been made. We will review all of the comments filed in response to the original proposals, so the public will not have to duplicate its prior efforts in order to have those earlier comments considered. Re-issuing the 2011 proposals is the most efficient and effective rulemaking process at this time.”

“Unnecessary delay and inefficiencies hurt both employees and employers. These proposals are intended to improve the process for all parties, in all cases, whether non-union employees are seeking a union to represent them or unionized employees are seeking to decertify a union,” Pearce said. “We look forward to further exchanges of ideas to improve the processes in a way that will benefit workers, employers and all of the American people.”

The reforms the Board will propose would:

  • allow for electronic filing and transmission of election petitions and other documents;
  • ensure that employees, employers and unions receive and exchange timely information they need to understand and participate in the representation case process;
  • streamline pre- and post-election procedures to facilitate agreement and eliminate unnecessary litigation;
  • include telephone numbers and email addresses in voter lists to enable parties to the election to be able to communicate with voters using modern technology; and
  • consolidate all election-related appeals to the Board into a single post-election appeals process.
The previous NPRM was published on June 22, 2011. After considering the input provided in response, the Board had announced on December 22, 2011 that it was going to implement a final rule adopting some of those proposed amendments and defer the remainder for further consideration. That final rule was invalidated by a District Court ruling that it had been adopted without a validly constituted quorum. The Board’s appeal of that ruling was dismissed, pursuant to a joint stipulation, on December 9, 2013.

The public is invited to comment on the proposed changes. The deadline for comments is April 7, 2014. Reply comments to the initial comments may be filed by April 14, 2014. Details on how to submit comments are set forth in the NPRM. In addition, the Board will hold a public hearing during the week of April 7, at which members of the public may address the proposed amendments and make other suggestions for improving the Board’s representation case procedures.

http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/national-labor-relations-board-proposes-amendments-improve-representation


Teamsters Support Proposed Change That Would Speed Up Union Elections

<...>

The rule, if approved, would eliminate existing hurdles that can delay union-organizing votes with meritless and unnecessary litigation. The changes would streamline pre- and post-election procedures to help facilitate agreement and consolidate all election-related appeals into a post-election appeals process. Taken together, they would help stop companies from abusing the legal process to stall election votes, as many do now.

“Workers for too long have been forced to endure unnecessary delays when they have tried to start a union,” Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa said. “We urge the NLRB to move forward with these changes so hard-working Americans can organize and better provide for their families.”

http://teamster.org/news/2014/02/teamsters-support-proposed-change-would-speed-union-elections


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Even more ProSense Feb 2014 #1
Absolutely! Thanks for saying it, Cali! markpkessinger Feb 2014 #2
it's embarrassingly obvious. so thinly veiled. cali Feb 2014 #5
K&R! I'm glad it is so obvious. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #47
It's obvious. Because it's clear that policies and issues are never what they talk about. sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #82
Thank you, Sabrina. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #88
I agree. However, they may be changing minds, inadvertently. The more we see of them sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #89
Excellent point. One I should have considered......nt Enthusiast Feb 2014 #90
What's more, you can't even get them to state any policy position. All they do is link to barages of grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #105
Yes, that is so true. Their purpose seems to be to prevent any kind of discussion regarding sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #115
I will not cede this ground. Funny how they will not engage when you ask their position. My guess is grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #118
You have also missed the point of those posts. Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #95
K&R. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #3
+1000 Agony Feb 2014 #12
you nail it, JD. cali Feb 2014 #13
Seriously, ProSense Feb 2014 #15
This will make very little difference in the lives of working people and families. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #29
Unfrigginbelievable ProSense Feb 2014 #30
When Obama came into office, he faced an economic crisis due to the excessive JDPriestly Feb 2014 #73
Wrong, ProSense Feb 2014 #74
The underlying purpose and theory was the same. The amount changed. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #76
We still need to make the too-big-too-fail banks smaller and spread the risk in the banking JDPriestly Feb 2014 #83
The bank bailout, by comparison, was 16 to 20 TRILLION!!!! Look, are you for or against breaking up grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #109
Was anyone ever arrested and charged for the corruption in the mortgage business? We were sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #117
Your post needs more blue links. progressoid Feb 2014 #77
Do you know why people hate "blue links"? ProSense Feb 2014 #79
I thought it was the obfuscation and diversion. progressoid Feb 2014 #84
Nope, people who have backup for their points don't hate "blue links" nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #100
Probably because they usually Union Scribe Feb 2014 #86
This. +1 Ed Suspicious Feb 2014 #104
Straw man. No one claimed that Obama hates Warren, geesh. People post blue links because they grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #110
Because obfuscation sucks AgingAmerican Feb 2014 #113
Running a little thin on the ROFL smilies, too. reusrename Feb 2014 #87
More ProSense Feb 2014 #16
Exceptions to the rule and related only to labor issues. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #22
WTH? ProSense Feb 2014 #25
And yet, as Elizabeth Warren has pointed out, the Justice Department as refused to bring JDPriestly Feb 2014 #34
That's fine ProSense Feb 2014 #41
Worshipers is accurate. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #44
Wait ProSense Feb 2014 #48
But I also support Obama's agenda on economic inequality. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #54
President Obama ProSense Feb 2014 #59
Nail on head +1000 Armstead Feb 2014 #23
Hit nerve? pocoloco Feb 2014 #32
Well said. zeemike Feb 2014 #40
Honestly, why can't we have people like you running the country? Enthusiast Feb 2014 #50
Your analysis is spot on in this thread. closeupready Feb 2014 #69
That gets you a <3 grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #106
....^ 840high Feb 2014 #112
Every post is a worthy read. Kurovski Feb 2014 #114
K&R bobduca Feb 2014 #116
du rec. xchrom Feb 2014 #4
Bush league psych-out stuff TransitJohn Feb 2014 #6
lol perfect. cali Feb 2014 #9
Odd how the contented are determined to try and spread discontent Fumesucker Feb 2014 #7
And furthermore, that's all they have, appeals to emotion and suggestive innuendoes. nt bemildred Feb 2014 #8
it's that it's so obvious. they should work harder at it. cali Feb 2014 #10
Well, I feel sorry for them really. bemildred Feb 2014 #11
They're scared of a populist movement. The corporatists would hate to see the People have a voice. Scuba Feb 2014 #14
+1 daleanime Feb 2014 #18
Bingo! Enthusiast Feb 2014 #56
Maybe one day we'll have a President of which the David Sirota types approve. TheMathieu Feb 2014 #17
You just sorta reinforced the OP Armstead Feb 2014 #26
Or one who doesn't ignore and disapprove of the very people who elected him/her. sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #93
Funny how you consistently attack liberals and liberalism Scootaloo Feb 2014 #103
That road goes both ways.. lanes fully operational Peacetrain Feb 2014 #19
That's what a lot of the "carping" is about Armstead Feb 2014 #27
As I said above, we shall see whether the carping is just way out there or whether those who JDPriestly Feb 2014 #37
Why do you think there is so much continual "carping" from the right? Enthusiast Feb 2014 #60
. jsr Feb 2014 #20
It is "try to" treestar Feb 2014 #21
lol. what nonsense. who needs to use warren or bernie. it's in response to the coporate cali Feb 2014 #24
Oh gosh you've found us out...Busted! Armstead Feb 2014 #28
Compromise is only bad when President Obama does it. JoePhilly Feb 2014 #31
You distort the meaning of compromise Armstead Feb 2014 #33
Why use a hypothetical when you should have no problem finding JoePhilly Feb 2014 #35
The ACA is an example of wrong direction rather than compromise Armstead Feb 2014 #42
The PO was never going to pass. And its easy to prove. JoePhilly Feb 2014 #57
I haven't got time to go into the intricacies of that all over again but... Armstead Feb 2014 #62
Lieberman votes NO on your proposal. JoePhilly Feb 2014 #64
If one senator has the power to overcome the will of the Prez and majority of Denms in Congress.. Armstead Feb 2014 #67
+1 warrant46 Feb 2014 #61
Precisely. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #65
Well that is a good example of what is called compromise. zeemike Feb 2014 #49
And DADT itself was a 'compromise' made in 1993. So ten years later, as a compromise Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #72
So you would have prefered the alternative to DADT? Egnever Feb 2014 #107
Indeed. joshcryer Feb 2014 #81
It was Woodrow Wilson who crushed the Socialist Party. Laelth Feb 2014 #36
You characterize raising situations where these folks agreed with Obama as "tarnishing" them stevenleser Feb 2014 #38
The message that a certain category of peope are stupid and naive is what is bothersome Armstead Feb 2014 #51
That is not the subject of the OP which is what I am addressing. The OP characterizes stevenleser Feb 2014 #53
I don't always agree with the ways cali expresses things, but Armstead Feb 2014 #58
If there are no superheroes then there are no supervillains either Fumesucker Feb 2014 #92
Well said Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #96
well, that's not the only por sense of reality and history they show stupidicus Feb 2014 #39
Good points Armstead Feb 2014 #52
Well said. eom Agony Feb 2014 #68
It's a two-way street. Quotes and votes matter. Nobody is perfect. We can live with that. pampango Feb 2014 #43
I will never, ever fucking understand Bobbie Jo Feb 2014 #45
Good Point supercats Feb 2014 #46
This is true, but the converse is just as prevalent and just as lame. Donald Ian Rankin Feb 2014 #55
It is hardly the case that I am the only one here sadoldgirl Feb 2014 #63
ooh, Kerry voted for the IWR, who cares right? ucrdem Feb 2014 #66
uh, discernment. voting for that was a big deal. bernie voted against it cali Feb 2014 #70
I'm not talking about Bernie. nt ucrdem Feb 2014 #71
It smacks of desperation. Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #75
Totally! Rex Feb 2014 #85
what's laughable is Whisp Feb 2014 #78
"But Obama is very throw awayable and disposable, APPARENTLY." djean111 Feb 2014 #80
You're is a sad commentary on how you view the world. Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #97
How he is, as a person, is non-political. djean111 Feb 2014 #98
Unrec brooklynite Feb 2014 #91
You've missed the point. Obama isn't as "corporatist" Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #94
They are being brought up to depress the vote Fumesucker Feb 2014 #99
They're called Right-lighters. n/t Scootaloo Feb 2014 #101
Republican Democrats, I've heard as well. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #111
Glad this got kicked again. woo me with science Feb 2014 #102
K & R L0oniX Feb 2014 #108
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»the consistent effort by ...»Reply #16