« Henry Kravis' Transparent Greed | Main | Writers Walk Out »

Bush Board Launches Massive New Assault on Workers

With its term coming to an end, the Bush Administration's craven fealty to the most extreme interests of corporate America is reaching unprecedented heights in agency rule making throughout the government. It is hard to believe that any is more egregious however than the massive assault on worker rights by the Bush majority on the National Labor Relations Board last month.

In the month of September alone, on the eve of the close of the fiscal year, the Bush NLRB issued 61, mostly anti-worker, decisions -- fully 20 percent of its total output of decisions for the year.

The National Labor Relations Board was established to encourage "the practice and procedure of collective bargaining" and to protect the "exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid and protection."

We have said for years that the NLRB system is broken and has become a tool of corporate interests and not the worker interests it was supposed to serve. That is why the labor movement and its progressive allies are pushing to amend the law with the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). But the recent NLRB decisions say that the corporate Bush backers are not satisfied. They want the law completely eviscerated before Bush leaves office to make it even more difficult for a new President and Congress to address the problems of the denial of worker rights in America.

The onslaught of decisions that are a direct violation of the intent of the National Labor Relations Act that established the NLRB is particularly interesting given that more than half of the decisions were on cases that are over four years old. For an agency notorious in its use of delay as a way to deprive workers of their rights, the sudden spate of decisions suggests that the Bush Administration is in full court press mode and will use its last months in office to gut as much as it can in the area of worker, consumer, environmental, and other protections.

This President has not only run roughshod over the Constitution, he has also destroyed the administrative rules by which our progressive laws have been enforced. And he plans on finishing the job before he leaves office. Labor, consumer, environmental, and other advocates for the American Dream need to link arms together to stop him.

Greg Tarpinian is the Executive Director of Change to Win.

UPDATE: Some readers have requested specific examples of decisions from this group that illustrate why they're so bad. Here you go:

Harder to join a union, easier to get rid of a union

  • Dana Corp., 351 NLRB No. 28 (Sept. 29, 2007) – In its fervor to undermine majority sign-up - the right of a majority of workers to sign a card to express their desire to gain a voice on the job and join a union - the Board reversed 40 years of precedent and invented a new rule: even when more than 50% of the workers sign cards indicating they want a union and the employer respects that choice, a 30% minority of employees may, within 45 days of voluntary recognition, petition to decertify the union, prevent the parties from bargaining, and force employees to suffer through the NLRB’s lengthy and divisive election process. Adding insult to injury, the NLRB ruled that employers would henceforth be required to post notices making sure employees are aware of their rights to overturn the union’s representation, but the notice does not include any mention of employees’ right to form a union free from interference.
  • Wurtland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, 351 NLRB No. 50 (Sept. 29, 2007) – The Board took the opposite view about the reliability of signing a card when it comes to getting rid of a union! In this case, the NLRB ruled that signatures on a petition were sufficient to get rid of an existing union and the Board rejected its own election process, arguing that employees who want to get rid of their union should not have to endure the delay involved in a decertification election. In Dana, the NLRB said that signature cards were not true indicators of employee support.

Harder for illegally fired workers to get back pay

  • St. George Warehouse, 351 NLRB No. 42 (Sept. 30, 2007) – The NLRB reversed 45 years of precedent and shifted burdens of proof onto illegally fired workers, making it harder for those workers to recover back pay.
  • The Grosvenor Resort, 350 NLRB No. 86 (Sept. 30, 2007) - The Board announced a new rule that workers who were found to have been illegally fired but who wait more than two weeks before giving up on getting their job back and looking for a new job work will be denied back pay for that period so as not to “reward idleness.”

Easier for Employers to Fire and Intimidate Union Supporters

  • BP Amoco Chemical-Chocolate Bayou, 351 NLRB No. 39 (Sept. 29, 2007) - The Board ruled that it was perfectly permissible for an employer to target union supporters for layoffs, and then to force them to sign release forms, as a condition to receiving severance pay, that prevented them or anyone else from challenging the legality of their termination.

Comments (8)

Comments posted to CtW Connect are the sole property of the individual posting them, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Change to Win, its affiliated unions, or its leadership.

Though the amount of anti-union decisions issued at one time is a bit unusual, the Bush controlled Board has been issuing such decisions for quite some time know. I am thinking of IBM Corp. which overruled recent authority and held that an employee does not have the right to a non-union representative at a Weingarten interview and Brown University which remarkably held that graduate students were not employees under the Act. I frequently cover these decisions on my blog.
The problem with all of this is that when a reviewing court reviews these decisions they pay the Board a great deal of deference and those decisions become circuit court precedent which then makes it harder for the next Board to reverse.
While the Employee Free Choice Act is a step in the right direction, it is only a step. We need comprehensive labor reform which takes politics out of the decision making process.

Thomas Will said on November 20, 2007 at 9:37 PM:

Simple: I happen to like Bush and his Board, and think that he is a very fine president.

Bob Craig said on November 25, 2007 at 12:00 PM:

It is mindboggling to say the least on how
anyone with any decency, intelligence, character,
integrity and honesty could consider that Bush
and his Board are Ok?. For Mr Will to say he
(Bush) is a fine President, oh my GOD!. It is
the average working Man/Woman that has made
this Country Mr Will. The very wealthy have
become so off the backs of the workers such as
the Bush's and others. Apparently Mr Will is
in the Class of the elite taking advantage of
the average American.

Jethro Singer said on November 26, 2007 at 4:33 PM:

Methinks that our illegitimately elected President George W. Bush, his VP Dick Cheney
and their corporate and NEOCON brethren are
bored with the true concept of what unions,
and true democracy are all about.

annie medina said on December 6, 2007 at 1:29 PM:

thanks for this info! it made my mind clear on how unfari this board is. there is no reform available, we jsut need a new mechanism for workers to reclaim their rigths. by the way, we need a new president too.

Michelle L. said on February 22, 2008 at 12:04 PM:

GOOD NEWS! CHANGE IS HERE! GET EXCITED!

BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

BARACK OBAMA A UNITER!


BARACK OBAMA FOR A BETTER AMERICA!


VOTE BARACK OBAMA!

YES WE CAN!

SE SI PEUDA!

dean barker said on February 27, 2008 at 9:19 PM:

Vote obama goto www.mybarack obama.com !

Nonatouff said on March 12, 2009 at 12:12 PM:

Hello all.

I´m really requirering for feedback right now

In one week the chief emboss has to force me out.

Our new site bolig raadgkvning relaly are not ahving any clients

Have a clue what´s our mistake?

Post a comment

Your personal information