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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: the consistent effort by conservative, corporate dems to try and tarnish progressive [View all]"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 boards 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 NLRBs 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
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 boards 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 NLRBs 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 Boards 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:
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 Boards representation case procedures.
http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/national-labor-relations-board-proposes-amendments-improve-representation
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 Boards 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 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 Boards 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
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
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
118 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
the consistent effort by conservative, corporate dems to try and tarnish progressive [View all]
cali
Feb 2014
OP
It's obvious. Because it's clear that policies and issues are never what they talk about.
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#82
I agree. However, they may be changing minds, inadvertently. The more we see of them
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#89
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
This will make very little difference in the lives of working people and families.
JDPriestly
Feb 2014
#29
When Obama came into office, he faced an economic crisis due to the excessive
JDPriestly
Feb 2014
#73
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
Straw man. No one claimed that Obama hates Warren, geesh. People post blue links because they
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#110
And yet, as Elizabeth Warren has pointed out, the Justice Department as refused to bring
JDPriestly
Feb 2014
#34
And furthermore, that's all they have, appeals to emotion and suggestive innuendoes. nt
bemildred
Feb 2014
#8
They're scared of a populist movement. The corporatists would hate to see the People have a voice.
Scuba
Feb 2014
#14
Maybe one day we'll have a President of which the David Sirota types approve.
TheMathieu
Feb 2014
#17
Or one who doesn't ignore and disapprove of the very people who elected him/her.
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#93
As I said above, we shall see whether the carping is just way out there or whether those who
JDPriestly
Feb 2014
#37
lol. what nonsense. who needs to use warren or bernie. it's in response to the coporate
cali
Feb 2014
#24
If one senator has the power to overcome the will of the Prez and majority of Denms in Congress..
Armstead
Feb 2014
#67
And DADT itself was a 'compromise' made in 1993. So ten years later, as a compromise
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2014
#72
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
It's a two-way street. Quotes and votes matter. Nobody is perfect. We can live with that.
pampango
Feb 2014
#43
This is true, but the converse is just as prevalent and just as lame.
Donald Ian Rankin
Feb 2014
#55