ABC - Recent NLRB Activity Stifles Job Creation

Home Page >> Newsroom >> Industry News >> Volume 2011 >> Issue 1 >> Recent NLRB Activity Stifles Job Creation

RECENT NLRB ACTIVITY STIFLES JOB CREATION (07/07/2011)

By Karen Livingston and Sean Thurman, Construction Executive Magazine

For more than a year, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has moved forward with an agenda that is stifling job creation and economic growth. The NLRB’s decisions, proposed rules, invitations for briefs and enforcement policies demonstrate that the agency has abandoned its role as a neutral enforcer and arbiter of labor law in order to promote the special interests of politically powerful unions.

Recent rulemakings and decisions by the NLRB will have negative implications for workers, consumers, businesses and the economy. These actions inevitably will reduce employee access to secret ballots; trample private property rights; invite greater union intimidation of employees, consumers and small businesses; and limit the ability of U.S. businesses to quickly and flexibly adjust to the demands of a changing economy and global competition.

Proposed Regulations and Aggressive Adjudication
Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) and other construction-related organizations strongly opposed the NLRB’s December 2010 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would require employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act to post a notice informing employees of their right to organize and bargain collectively. The proposed poster fails to inform workers of their right to pay only the portion of union dues attributable to collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance adjustment (known as Beck rights). To date, the NLRB poster requirement has not been finalized.

Last month, the NLRB published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to overhaul the procedures it follows before, during and after the union representation election process. As proposed, these drastic procedural changes will have a substantial impact on employers—resulting in hasty union representation elections within 10 to 20 days of a union filing for an election, compared to the current average election time of approximately 40 days. Such so-called “snap” elections would significantly impede an employer’s ability to inform its employees about the negative implications of union representation—increasing the likelihood of union victories in the process.

Additionally, the NLRB has aggressively pursued lawsuits against four states in which voters amended their constitutions to guarantee the right to secret ballot elections. And this spring, the board took radical and unprecedented steps to mandate where and how one company—Boeing—can operate and expand its business by issuing a complaint against the aerospace manufacturer for making statements about costs related to repeated union strikes.

In response to the NLRB’s complaint against Boeing, Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) introduced legislation that would prohibit the NLRB from ordering an employer to relocate jobs. The Job Protection Act (S. 964, H.R. 1976) would encourage economic growth by guaranteeing businesses and entrepreneurs the right to decide where to conduct business in the United States. Further, the legislation would clarify that employers may communicate with employees and the public about costs related to collective bargaining agreements.

House Subcommittee Hearing
The U.S. House of Representatives also has taken note of the impact of the NLRB’s agenda on job creation. On May 26, the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions held a hearing on “Corporate Campaigns and the NLRB: The Impact of Union Pressure on Job Creation.” ABC member Chet Karnas, president and owner of Lone Sun Builders, Inc., Albuquerque, N.M., testified at the hearing.

In his testimonry, Karnas referenced a September 2010 NLRB ruling that determined bannering is protected speech under federal labor law, stating: “[i]t is unfortunate that the board has chosen to turn the clock back more than 60 years to a time when secondary boycotts threatened to paralyze the industry and stifle job growth.”

Karnas described several corporate campaigns against his company, including the use of banners. “These signs were emblazoned with inflammatory, unfounded claims about our labor policies, and designed to publicly humiliate and discredit us. These deplorable tactics are desperate attempts to unfairly gain market share by targeting merit shop construction companies and their clients, regardless of the wishes of their employees.”

Although Karnas advanced a public relations campaign to restore Lone Sun Builders’ reputation, his business has suffered greatly. “Our general contractors became reluctant to utilize our services for fear of the negative publicity and the organizers’ aggressive and vulgar presence,” he said. “In all, we estimate that we have suffered a 20 percent to 30 percent decline in sales directly due to the negative impact of the carpenters’ corporate campaign.”

At this time of economic challenges, the NLRB continues to move forward with policies that threaten the construction industry and impede job growth. With an unemployment rate exceeding 16 percent, construction workers cannot afford this burden.